Megan Rapinoe

So where should the increase in wage come from? Should the men's game be subsidizing the women's game to help it's growth? Christ, you can't even get the Premier League to agree to a figure to help out the lower divisions, divisions that produce players to go on and play in the Premier League so I can't see asking them for help will get them anywhere.

I believe that in equal wages for all sexes, religions, backgrounds, you name it. But at the minute, their "product", in this country at least, isn't generating the kind of money to support wages on a par with the vast majority of the men's game. That's just a fact.

This, I completely agree with, especially up to puberty age. Before then, where there is very little differences physically between boys and girls there is no excuse not to give everyone who wants to play football, or hockey, or netball, or rugby, the opportunity to play as you don't really need to segregate the teams. Once puberty kicks in though, and you really have to segregate the sexes, I can imagine it gets harder to get enough girls(for example) together to put in full training sessions of football, and the same with boys who want to play netball too. This is where the FA needs to pump in the funds to ensure there are enough coaches, pitches, and equipment to make it technically possible, and also to promote the sport to get enough interest. The BBC do seem to be doing a good job of this, as you see plenty of coverage of the woman's game now.

The reason I asked the question, is because goalkeepers seem to get beat regularly in the top corners in the games I've watched, and it really put my 8-year-old off playing. She was really into it, training every Wednesday night before COVID reared it's ugly head, but she used to say it was too easy to score for anyone with the power to get the ball into the top corner, which she didn't see in the men's game. For example, she was really impressed with the San Marino keeper's full-length diving saves during the match the other night and actually commented that she didn't see that a lot when watching the England woman's team.

 

There's only 2 inches difference between the San Marino keeper and Karen Bardsley though

 

It's not all about height though. Of course, it helps if you are 6 ft 7, but many full-length, diving, "for the cameras" saves are made because of a powerful leap(and good reading of the game). I'm not sexist or chauvinist in the slightest, but usually, a male body will be stronger than a woman's. Again, that's not an insult or my personal opinion, it's a fact. It's why the mens long jump world record is 1.43m longer than the womans. High jump, 0.36m.

But the main reason I think smaller pitches and goals would help is how the game is perceived. Rightly or wrongly, women's football will always be compared to men's in most places. But it isn't a fair comparison. I think it was Loko who mentioned that it seems pedestrian to him, and from speaking with others it's something I've heard a lot. Using slightly(key word!) smaller goals will help how the game is perceived by the casual fan by making the match look quicker and more on par with the 100mph, mega-temp Premier League they are used to.

n.b.

I think I should just say, I want the women's game to succeed as much as anyone. I'd love for my daughter have women footballers to look up to as role models the same way I did with my heroes. But at the minute it's not at the quality where she feels she can do that, and if given a choice will chose a men's game to watch over a woman's.

 

I think the pitch and goal sizes should ideally be reduced. If played on the same pitch the women's game will never, for the vast majority of spectators, be as entertaining to watch. That's not sexism, it's just a result of the fact that men are naturally physically stronger and faster.

However, it's easier said than done to say "reduce pitch sizes" because it would need entirely new facilities all across the women's game. The money hasn't been there and still isn't, so for now women's teams will have to continue playing on the same pitches.

I think women absolutely should get equal pay for the national teams and the Premier League and FA should dig deeper into their bottomless pockets to fund the women's game.

 

Of course they should. That goes without saying. We're at a point where more money should be pumped into the woman's game than the mens, as it obviously needs it more.

My question though was who was going to pay the additional wages if women's football got equal pay? The FA? Wouldn't that money be better spent improving the game at grassroots level, so at some point it can become fully self-sufficient and pay attractive wages? You can't really take any of the Sky money to put in, as it doesn't belong to the FA(barring the EFL payments, which are a pittance in comparison). It belongs to the 20 clubs that hold the shares of the league. In in ideal world, they would be forced to invest a good chunk in grassroots football of both sexes, but the way it's set up they answer to no-one.

As for your point about box-ticking, again I fully agree. Being disabled, I've been a victim of it personally. Box-ticking, discrimination and so-called positive discrimination and it crap. Maybe the way forward is for all women's teams to be fully independent like Barnsley's did. Of course, it would need some wealthy investors to start with and some clever marketing to grow it's fanbase, but it would certainly differentiate itself from the established leagues and also allow teams to cultivate fanbases without having to worry about city divides in places like Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield.

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/15-year...-demands-equal-pay-for-beating-us-womens-team

For those who are not aware, this is a satirical site (although the boys team did win the match).

 

Calling that satire is generous, it just looks like sexism to me.

 

Because the only way professional women footballers are going to be able to earn anywhere near what their male counterparts do is by getting people to watch them. That's the argument here, Rapinoe(rightly) wants her and her fellow players to earn the same as the men. At the international level, it's a relatively easy thing to fix. But at club level, where the players will be earning their bread and butter, the economics isn't there, yet. They need to start filling stadiums, which will, in turn, lead to the TV companies offering mega-money to broadcast them, and in turn they can demand wages that match the men.

While ever their matches look slow, and pedestrian(which they unfortunately do), they will be considered a cheap alternative, which is an absolute tragedy, as there is a lot of skill in the league. Personally, I'd trial the smaller pitches/goals for a pre-season tournament or something. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

It could mean that. It could also mean the frame of the goal is a little too big. It's nothing to be ashamed of. They do this in cricket(boundaries between 55 and 70 yards, as opposed to 65 to 90 yards in men's test cricket) and it's working well for them...

 

Its market driven, in particular TV money driven. If there is the market for which the TV companies are prepared to pay then the money should go to the players, like it does in the mens game. If not, then thats the way it goes - you can't expect the money that SKY pay for the premier league to pay the Chelsea woman's team, I'm sorry but thats just the way it goes.
If its about how much they get paid for representing the country, that's a different matter - I think that should be equal.

 

That's just taking the piss and distracting what is an important issue and a genuine problem. The US women's team deserves at least equal pay to the US men's team...

 

The thing about subsidising the womens game is that the subsidy should go on improving facilities, paying for coaches and things needed. I don't think it should go on paying the players artificially high wages.

 

IMHO Should only be paid expenses (& insurance) for representing your country. If representing your country is not good enough in and of itself then don't play.

 

It is about how much they get paid for representing the country.

It's a weird one because the American women's team have a much better basic wage than the men's. If Daryl dike doesn't get on the pitch he doesn't get paid, the 3rd choice keeper in the women's squad gets over 100k a year guaranteed. But if the women's team win a game their win bonus is about the same as the appearance fee for the men's team even if they lose. It's possible that both men and women could play the same number of games in a year and depending on results one or the other could walk away with more.

The problem is that the women's team allowed their union to negotiate their contracts, the men's team did theirs on their own too. The women's union asked for and accepted contracts with different benefits in it to the men's but the players disagree with what was agreed.

The solution is to rip up the contract and either give them an identical contract to the men then there can be no complaint on the basic terms of the contract.

The second problem is that Megan is asking for equal bonuses to the men from the world cup. The problem there is that FIFA give much higher prize money to the men's world cup than the women's. I think the winner of the men's world cup gets the same as ALL the teams in the women's combined. The US fa say they can't give equal world cup bonuses to the women as the men because the prize money is much lower. Megan argues that it's not her fault that FIFA discriminates and the fa should subsidise the bonus as she works for them not FIFA so if FIFA discriminates it's not her problem, it's her problem that their da does.
I can see both sides of the argument there. Why should she lose out because FIFA discriminates? Why should their fa have to pay her more than the teams prize money?

The solution on that one is for international contracts to not have set fees in them for winning things but instead be a percentage of the prize money

 

But for pro players, it's a job. Just like any job, if the company is not making money, then the job won't last long. If you make the company more money, you can then demand more wages.

We're not talking about Sunday league here, were talking about an industry that is there to generate money. As much as we all want to pretend otherwise, modern day football is more like the Hollywood movie industry than the sport I feel in love with. The TV deal is huge for the sport, but unless it draws ratings it won't be renewed and that will bankrupt the women's game. Eyes on the broadcasts is now the sports most important metric. Same with the men's game. If the viewing figures tank, the drop in money will leave some big clubs in trouble...

 

I'd say the way to approach it was for the players and American FA to get together and tell FIFA they would be boycotting any woman's World Cups until something more fair was worked out. I remember talking to a lad who played in the MLS about 5 years ago, and he was saying that the woman's team was the biggest ticket "draw" in the woman's game. It would cost FIFA a fortune in lost sponsors and TV deals if they didn't participate...

 

I was once asked to play in 7 a side tournament when I worked in Donny but declined because I found out a Women’s team would be playing and “I didn’t want to play in something that wasn’t competitive.”

I was persuaded to change my mind (good of me wasn’t it!). We drew the Women’s team in our group and I think they must have been informed about the comments I’d made - I wasn’t shy of an opinion.

we lost 8-1( it was the only game we lost) and I was ‘a little bruised’ after the experience.

Moral of the story? Don’t take the pi$$ out of Women’s football, particularly if you’re coming up against a team of Doncaster Belles!!

Respect..

 

a fair wage 1 million dollars a year, lol ,booo hoooo poor Megan ,must be something in the name