'Taking steps': RA responds to Wallaroos' social media anger over WAGs and funding gap

I understand their point I just believe they are wrong. There is no money for a women's coach which is what RA told them. RA never said their was not money for anything just that they did not have the money for the Women's game. Its not like Eddie demanded that the WAGS be flown but it is common practice for it to happen, that money was spent. Women football players are not superstars but are stars in their field. Ask 100 Oz people who the women's captain is in 6 months and few will remember that is not what happens to Superstars. A superstar beings people in to watch just them, so who exactly where people going to see.

Having happy WAGs is more important to the financial stability of RA than anything else currently. Either the WAGs are all together and they all are friends and want to stay friends or they act as individuals and tell their partner to go overseas and get all the money they can. WAGS are what are helping keep players at home

Thanks for the fact correction. In that vein can you reply also about your "god given" comment above too please.

Wallabies or any other team at the Rugby world cup do not pay for their accommodation, and I think your confusing Graham Henry for Steve Hanson.

What is the grade of accommodation in France? 4 star or 5 star? Could 4 star suffice? What is the message sent when WAGs get better treatment than Wallaroos? If there is no money in the coffers, which is clearly RA's negotiating position at the wage bargaining table, where is the money coming from when it is so visibly spent? Who is deciding what the money is being spent on? Does Graham Henry pay for his own flights and accommodation, or is RA paying for some or all of it? Who is deciding? On what criteria? Under what strategy and its associated prioritisation framework? Why aren't the Wallaroos featuring in that prioritisation framework except as an afterthought? One political theory is that every act is a political act. Every decision made, and every decision to not make a decision, is political. The Wallaroos are at the pointy end of a lot of political decisions.

>the Wallaroos seem to think this is their god given right I'm not on the various social media platforms so it's likely I missed this. Can you provide a link or reference or quote, please?

If I was a female I would quit rugby, it’s a dead-end sport now. Former Wallaroos captain Grace Hamilton now plays for Sydney Roosters, & Charlotte Caslick only returns to rugby for the Olympic rugby 7s, as far as I’m aware. In fact I don’t even know why females play the rugby codes, as apart from 7s, 9s or touch. It doesn’t seem right female bodies crashing into each other. Men yes, women no. In any case, that’s their choice, so I’m not going to all what to do. But I would encourage my daughters towards soccer, football, hockey, basketball, volleyball & netball. The Matildas have put all team sports on notice, especially those run by old men, that the days of treating them with condescending platitudes, is now gone.

In all seriousness it’s not much of a response, looks like a statement they probably made a couple of years ago ‘ we have work to do, we are aiming to do more’ with a couple of tweaks referring to RUPA. Not sure if the issue is that the Wallaroos aren’t really important or they have a poor Comms/PR team. How you can make a statement on a pretty topical issue without a quality from the CEO or other named Exec is baffling. Appreciate Phil Waugh has a lot of issues to address, arguably more important than the Wallaroos but it was a terrific opportunity as a new CEO get on the front foot to demonstrate some real leadership.

You are missing the central point, it is that the athletes feel lied to by Rugby Australia, they say there is no money to pay acoach yet they find money to pay Ryles and Hanson. They say they are broke yet find 5MILLION dollars to pay an untested League player. Lookl at the FIFA world cup, women can be superstars if given the right support and marketing, the money is there they just need to spend it.

Let's see how many turn up for the next Matildas home game and so on before we celebrate the success of a one off tournament. Don't get me wrong. I think what they did was pretty darn good and wish them all the best. It's certainly given them a platform to go forth But supporting a team is more than showing up to a world cup game. It's supporting them for the long haul.

Flying business class some extremely large men to the most important event the sport has every 4 years seems a reasonable use of resources. I am no Wallabies history expert but flying anything but economy would be a relatively new thing, the Wallaroos seem to think this is their god given right and not earnt.Flying in partners to give a teary goodbye waving handkerchiefs for a few t.v cameras a good expenditure, I'm not as sure.

And only 2 players play in Oz and only 2 others don't play in Europe where the Champions league helps keep the top players playing high level games and the lower teams a high standard to chase. Believing the Wallaroos can do what the Matilda's did is ignoring how many of the Matilda's played in the champions league or one of the top leagues in Europe. Only need look at all the clubs that had 9 or more players (14) were European except for Wuhan from China. Its being held to professional standards that make players better and also teaches them the skills needed to be a good player like kicking the ball an extra 10m or organized attack and defense. Until RA, NZR and th rest of the entire pacific region get together and provide meaningful structues then RA are never going to be able to match the top teams.

My point is that believing that RA can fix the issues is pointless. More and more Canadian and US players are moving to Europe to play Club Rugby. It is why the USA v Canada game in the Pacific 4 was held the same time as the 6Ns so as to have their players not having to choose Club v Country when signing contracts. Wales finished 3rd in this years 6N with 34/36 of their players playing in the Prem. This means that their players are getting professional contracts and are being turned into professional players. Either RA and NZ need to work with the nations around them or they need to encourage their players to go OS. Believing that a SRP Women's can be created or that playing Fiji and Samoa who themselves have no support will turn Oz into great team is a pipe dream. We only need look at teams like Canada who have dropped down the rankings as less teams have passed them by because the other teams shipped players off to European Clubs so spent less and got better return. Players giving out about not flying business class says they don't want money spent wisely just on the top players. NZR have had the big benefit of the WC and now the XV v held in NZ for two years but lets see how they end up when its overseas and they have 1-2 home test in a year.

Sorry, so your argument is that the Northern Hemisphere is doing better than us so we should just give up and send our players over there? I agree that the set-up we have isn't good enough, so fix that. Give the girls a decent professional competition to play in based in Aus, by hook or by crook. Then arrange as many internationals as possible and a good coaching team to get the best results we can. Aussies love a winner, so turn the Wallaroos into a winning side. Yes the North has more money available but I'm sick of giving RA the easy out of saying it is too expensive to invest in the Women's game. You choose how you invest your money and how much you invest. Women's rugby is an investment, it will show returns when we are successful, especially at a home world cup. We may not expect the close to 2 million tickets sold across the soccer WC, but we could certainly cash in. We should have done this years ago and be the leader in the women's game, but we didn't, so we need to do it now.

Yeah agree. The bottom line is the men’s and women’s game are not equal. Hopefully one day they will be but until that day, these issues are going to be there. It’s like saying all players in super Rugby or the wallabies should be on the same salary. It doesn’t work. Pro sport is a ruthless numbers game. You can’t say in the work force I want to be on the same salary and benefits as another employee because I work under the same title for example. Women’s rugby is great and it’s brilliant to see women’s sport becoming more professional. In some sports the men’s and women’s game is professionally much more aligned. But in a sport like rugby where the women’s game is still in its fledgling stages and not comparable in terms of the product, not even remotely, then there are going to be large disparities in salaries and conditions. RA doesn’t even have the funds currently to expand the game to get the men’s game to where it was or should be. The Australia men’s hockey team can’t expect to have the same money and perks as the Wallabies either, just because they’re also a national sports team. They’re different products. The biggest thing RA can do however is be 100% transparent with the players on funding, conditions and expectations. But right now, where do RA find additional funding? Do they pull some from the men’s game? Do they reduce spending? If so reduce it on what? I’ll suggest they could provide business class or economy class for both the men’s and women’s teams to at least make that aspect equal.

I honestly think the Matilda’s have shown what women’s sport can do. They have galvanised a nation of 29m. They are more popular than their male counterparts, and they deserve more from the overall body, in Australia. The reality is, women’s rugby, needs to create their own revenue. I watched every Wallaroos game on Stan last World Cup. RA has the worst publicity in all codes for men’s and women’s and needs to invest. I have no doubt, the Wallaroos can gain similar exposure to 2029 if the networks are willing to give more exposure. RA doesn’t have the funds

12+tests are year are either going to be pointless or will cost way to much money. Because the Pacific 4 Nations is played mainly in one country there is not alot of home games to build up support and away games cost alot of money. P4Ns is 3 games and XV is 3 games which is 6 games. 1 will be played in OZ this year. If you compare that to say Italy who had 5 6N games and will have 3-4 XV games. Its also easy to play a few test for them v Spain or SA. Outside of the 6N and the Pacific 4 the teams get worse with SA and maybe Japan going to join them. Prem and T14 are full seasons so any team playing during those leagues will not get good teams. URC is also going to be setting up a women's league which will also result in 4-6 European Cup games of the players. This means most 6N players & SA will be getting atleast 10 professional club games and another 8-10 internationals and be in a professional environment year round. Having the Oz and even NZ players playing Super W or Farah Palmer Cup played by professionals against amateur players will do little. Even having the Super Aupiki of three games over 15 days does little compared to 40+ weeks of professional training playing other professional teams. RA and NZR women depend on WR to run their international competitions because neither can afford to run it as a part owner. If Oz are to have any hope in 2025 they will need to have a professional league in 2024 and 2025 which will not happen, and even if they do the other teams are heading into year 2 of being professional not year 0.

With what money. If the Top 14 teams only spend 5% of the club revenue on women's rugby they will spend $21+m and the French Union will not have spent a single penny on it. $21m is about 1/6 of RA's income and nearly as much as they are spending on wages on SRP. Scotland and Italy earn about the same as RA yet only fund 2 professional teams. Having them given $5m to professionalize their international squad is easy when they are making profits of $20+m last year. Even Ireland and Wales who are richer than RA are just looking to professionalize players who are at home. 76 players from the Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy 6Ns squads which the unions don't have to pay for. Best possible chance is send all their players to England and France like Canada and like everyone else.

The funding of women’s rugby in Australia is significantly lower than leading nations such as New Zealand and England, whose top players are fully professional Is that overall spend or is it a %. if its overall spent then the women's team should look at each unions income. Canada spends alot less than Australia and are still better so its not all about money which is what these seem to come down to rather than things that will fix the game.

While I have an interest in the Women's game I hate these kind of things. RA have no money and the only thing making them money is the national side. Women's rugby is a big financial hole that will make the Union go bankrupt if it tries and treats men and women's that same funding (or even given women's half the money). As I wrote in https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/10/17/will-womens-rugby-be-the-white-elephant-to-break-australia-and-new-zealand/ women's rugby can't do what the 6 Nations can. French Clubs earn $30+m and English are $20m per year, if the clubs spend 10% on their women's team they can still outspend SRP teams for the men and still give $2-3m to run their women's club team. If RA spend 10% on the Women then they will not keep the women and they will also lose their men. Suaalii by himself will generate more media and sponsorship than the women's program and that is the sad truth. RA do not own an international women's tournament so WR determine how those things happen. If WR is paying travel it will be the cheapest, if RA up it to Business it is bad spending as it is a waste of money that could have been spend on the women's wages not flights.