Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[jannissary]

was kind of disappointed that yze didn’t end up with us as a coach, but i hope he does well at richmond

 

[Lore]

Maybe slice off some of the excesses of the salary cap and put it into prize money for every H&A win that they’re a part of.

Then your “professional athletes” have an incentive to compete every week, even in round 23.

Same goes for the coaches too I reckon, and the GM Footy and CEO.

 

[Lore]

Player appearances should be 50% put to auction and 50% pro bono work, with players paid a flat rate for pro bono and a cut for auction pieces.

 

[jannissary]

wrt pay increases; on 9 news last night they had someone (can’t recall who it was) basically say that it’s good because they can make a career out of it now on top of a day job, with the added bonus of it being something young girls can actually focus on trying to get to in the future, that being aflw

with that in mind though, the same piece said that average men’s player salary would be up to like $500k~ which is still absurd to me.

those in the know will be able to answer this for essendon specifically, but when i was doing my undergrad at swinburne, i’d occasionally see younger/drafted tigers players in classes there, while that’s likely because the clubs sponsored by the uni, does essendon make the younger kids/drafted players also attend university classes in their first few years?

 

[Mercurial89]

I guess it comes down to whether you think a first year rookie on an AFL list is of more value than the best paid players in the AFLW.

I think the minimum wage should be the same across both comps at the very least.

Pro rata for games played, training commitment etc.

Not really, it comes down to what each comp brings in dollars wise.
It's not even a gender issue.

If you set the minimum for both comps the same you are already elevating the salaries in the comp that isn't bringing in as much money.

If you are already struggling to find money to pump into the pathways and facilities which have been two of the biggest complaints then I'm totally fine with the players earning a little less than what some want to ensure that there is some nice consistent growth over time.
Not pumping up salaries and adding costs to the game before it can bring in a reasonable revenue.
Once it does, they will grow naturally.

 

[faible]

Yeah I'm referring to average, not median or mode. According to the ABS it's just under $90k now.

As mentioned, average is a complete waste of time given it doesn't actually represent anything relevant to the average person.

Median is the number you're after. So they're on above average income for the average person.

 

[faible]

Not really, it comes down to what each comp brings in dollars wise.
It's not even a gender issue.

If you set the minimum for both comps the same you are already elevating the salaries in the comp that isn't bringing in as much money.

If you are already struggling to find money to pump into the pathways and facilities which have been two of the biggest complaints then I'm totally fine with the players earning a little less than what some want to ensure that there is some nice consistent growth over time.
Not pumping up salaries and adding costs to the game before it can bring in a reasonable revenue.
Once it does, they will grow naturally.

The women's salary has increased pretty rapidly as well to this point, we've seen it go from barely a part-time wage, to a low level full-time rate, so now a semi-decent full time rate.

 

[jdstorm]

Not really,
In any pay negotiation the parties have to come to an agreement on the value that the playing group represents. Especially if there is a lopsided value being brought by another party and the agreement is being done as a group.

They got a substantial increase as well as 12 month contracts, as they bring in more revenue they will be able to lay claim to a greater share of that pie and other benefits.

It's a really simple equation.
They got their increase, probably greater than their actual value because they negotiated combining men's and women's and as that revenue builds they can get rewarded more.

What would you propose they were paid?


Edit -
As an aside I think as there would be a limited money pool to be allocated to the AFLW, a smarter and better way of spending it is on the grassroots, pathways and facilities whilst still bringing the average pay up competitively, not pumping up the pay packets alone to show how "equal" we can be.

The best thing about this new deal is that all AFLW players can now be full time footballers. 12 month contracts that are competitive with a full time job is going to be huge for the quality of the game going forward.

Telling kids at a grassroots level this can be your full time job from 18-32 and be comparable in pay to retail/hospitality/admin jobs is a huge step up in that respect.

 

[Mercurial89]

The best thing about this new deal is that all AFLW players can now be full time footballers. 12 month contracts that are competitive with a full time job is going to be huge for the quality of the game going forward.

Telling kids at a grassroots level this can be your full time job from 18-32 and be comparable in pay to retail/hospitality/admin jobs is a huge step up in that respect.

Not enough apparently.

 

[jdstorm]

Not enough apparently.

In retail some companies own multiple brands. Imagine if a big National company owned a menswear brand and a women’s clothing brand.

One was more successful than the other so the men’s clothing company paid their staff 500k a year and the women’s brand got paid 87k for the same job.

We’d consider that sexist. The commercial reality is that the men’s comp makes more then the womens, but with that much overall money in the AFL it shouldn’t be on each department to be run separately in a common collective bargaining agreement

 

[faible]

In retail some companies own multiple brands. Imagine if a big National company owned a menswear brand and a women’s clothing brand.

One was more successful than the other so the men’s clothing company paid their staff 500k a year and the women’s brand got paid 87k for the same job.

We’d consider that sexist. The commercial reality is that the men’s comp makes more then the womens, but with that much overall money in the AFL it shouldn’t be on each department to be run separately in a common collective bargaining agreement

Professional sport isn't exactly analogous to a normal profession for so many reasons.

The AFL is effectively an entertainment product, similar to acting where the big stars draw more viewers and are worth exponentially more. Even within AFL sides we see huge discrepancies between the worst and best paid player on the list despite them all being full-time athletes doing the same job.

 

[Mercurial89]

In retail some companies own multiple brands. Imagine if a big National company owned a menswear brand and a women’s clothing brand.

One was more successful than the other so the men’s clothing company paid their staff 500k a year and the women’s brand got paid 87k for the same job.

We’d consider that sexist. The commercial reality is that the men’s comp makes more then the womens, but with that much overall money in the AFL it shouldn’t be on each department to be run separately in a common collective bargaining agreement

Whilst I understand your point, we need to stop comparing regular corporate structure and practice to professional sport, we do it far too often in many aspects.

As Owen said, this is an entertainment product.
You get paid your worth, hence the exorbitant salaries some make to others comparatively within even the same comp.
That is the model, and it is the same model across acting, and most professional sports leagues, even in your combat sports you are judged on what you bring in and paid accordingly. Not all champs make he same money even being at the Pinnacle of a division.

It is the epitomy of equality. You get what you earn.

If we want to go against that model and reward a player who is not as professional (at this current time there is a gap between the standards each comp is held to in regards to contact hours) and in a smaller competition where the amount of money you bring in the door is much less then that is not equality.
You are going against what is the defined fair model because of someone's gender. Why do that?

The women's comp is a great thing, and what they earn will increase over time as the value of the comp increases. They have already got some really good wins in this bargaining agreement.
Hopefully more money is pumped into the more important aspects of the comp and it grows.

For some reason some people seem to want to make something out of some perceived gender issue, ignoring the way these things work in this industry.

 

[frodos gardener]

Whilst I understand your point, we need to stop comparing regular corporate structure and practice to professional sport, we do it far to often in many aspects.

As Owen said, this is an entertainment product.
You get paid your worth, hence the exorbitant salaries some make to others comparatively within even the same comp.
That is the model, and it is the same model across acting, and most professional sports leagues, even in your combat sports you are judged on what you bring in and paid accordingly. Not all champs make he same money even being at the Pinnacle of a division.

It is the epitomy of equality. You get what you earn.

If we want to go against that model and reward a player who is not as professional (at this current time there is a gap between the standards each comp is held to in regards to contact hours) and in a smaller competition where the amount of money you bring in the door is much less then that is not equality.
You are going against what is the defined fair model because of someone's gender. Why do that?

The women's comp is a great thing, and what they earn will increase over time as the value of the comp increases. They have already got some really good wins in this bargaining agreement.
Hopefully more money is pumped into the more important aspects of the comp and it grows.

For some reason some people seem to want to make something out of some perceived gender issue, ignoring the way these things work in this industry.

Agree and another aspect to it is any industry with large revenues (profits) will have all employees trying to get their snouts in the trough, and often this results in salaries being above comparable jobs in other industries. It’s almost impossible to stop. It is what it is.

So whether AFLW “earn their money” or not becomes irrelevant - they are part of the industry and they’ll be paid according to a healthy slice of the pie. It would only be a problem IMO if the men weren’t being paid a decent living, but they are.

We also can’t be myopic about this - AFLW will have long term influence over AFL being truly national. In less than a generation we’ll have young adults entering as father-daughter picks, mother-daughter and mother-son… across the country. That’s pretty cool for mine.

 

[mike14]

In retail some companies own multiple brands. Imagine if a big National company owned a menswear brand and a women’s clothing brand.

One was more successful than the other so the men’s clothing company paid their staff 500k a year and the women’s brand got paid 87k for the same job.

We’d consider that sexist. The commercial reality is that the men’s comp makes more then the womens, but with that much overall money in the AFL it shouldn’t be on each department to be run separately in a common collective bargaining agreement

I feel in this scenario the designers for each fashion company would be paid at different rates based on popularity of designs and volume sold...

 

[Maddogm]

If we want to go against that model and reward a player who is not as professional (at this current time there is a gap between the standards each comp is held to in regards to contact hours)

Contact hours that are controlled by those doing the paying - And who've been arguing to keep those hours low

 

[jannissary]

in a vacuum higher player salaries would suggest that players (regardless of gender) would do better and perform better as they could solely focus on playing football, versus playing football and working another job in conjunction with playing the game. in my opinion (not backed up by fact ofc) higher salaries across the board will eventually lead to a higher quality of game

 

[Kong]

Whilst I understand your point, we need to stop comparing regular corporate structure and practice to professional sport, we do it far too often in many aspects.

As Owen said, this is an entertainment product.
You get paid your worth, hence the exorbitant salaries some make to others comparatively within even the same comp.
That is the model, and it is the same model across acting, and most professional sports leagues, even in your combat sports you are judged on what you bring in and paid accordingly. Not all champs make he same money even being at the Pinnacle of a division.

It is the epitomy of equality. You get what you earn.

If we want to go against that model and reward a player who is not as professional (at this current time there is a gap between the standards each comp is held to in regards to contact hours) and in a smaller competition where the amount of money you bring in the door is much less then that is not equality.
You are going against what is the defined fair model because of someone's gender. Why do that?

The women's comp is a great thing, and what they earn will increase over time as the value of the comp increases. They have already got some really good wins in this bargaining agreement.
Hopefully more money is pumped into the more important aspects of the comp and it grows.

For some reason some people seem to want to make something out of some perceived gender issue, ignoring the way these things work in this industry.

It's the old equality v equity thing though, isn't it.

Nobody's saying AFLW earns the same revenue. I'm not saying the average W player warrants $500k a year or whatever the men's average will be, either.

However if you want women to have a genuinely equal opportunity at a career, you pay them more now to encourage the best possible candidates, to give them every opportunity to succeed (fully removing the need to work another job).

Often when looking for candidates an employer will advertise a stretch salary to attract better candidates. Same principle applies here; if you want young females choosing AFL over alternative careers where they could earn as much as more, you're better giving them added financial incentive.

Especially when, this is a combined pool. It's not like the money isn't there.

 

[andleanback]

Sounds positive, but it's strange to see the AFLW salary under this increase, will still be less than the average salary in Australia.

Surely they can do better than that.

Do better than that? Are you serious

Where are the afl just pulling all this money from

Plus they only play half the season the afl do, so technically it’s $160k really. 82k for 12 games is extremely good considering how poor it is commercially

 

[Orange crush]

In retail some companies own multiple brands. Imagine if a big National company owned a menswear brand and a women’s clothing brand.

One was more successful than the other so the men’s clothing company paid their staff 500k a year and the women’s brand got paid 87k for the same job.

We’d consider that sexist. The commercial reality is that the men’s comp makes more then the womens, but with that much overall money in the AFL it shouldn’t be on each department to be run separately in a common collective bargaining agreement

Just compare what you pay to your female OnlyFans compared to your male ones

 

[Kong]

Do better than that? Are you serious

Where are the afl just pulling all this money from

Is that a serious question?

The article itself says that they're paying $2.2B

The AFL "pull this money from" broadcast rights, just as they have done for the men.

 

[eth-dog]

The AFL need to be investing more into grassroots footy for the women. We're seeing fewer and fewer women play locally every year. It's the best way to increase the quality in the Coates League, the VFL and then the AFL. Which in turn makes the AFLW a much better product, so more people will go and the women will then get further pay rises to reflect that.

 

[ant555]

Whilst I understand your point, we need to stop comparing regular corporate structure and practice to professional sport, we do it far too often in many aspects.

As Owen said, this is an entertainment product.
You get paid your worth, hence the exorbitant salaries some make to others comparatively within even the same comp.
That is the model, and it is the same model across acting, and most professional sports leagues, even in your combat sports you are judged on what you bring in and paid accordingly. Not all champs make he same money even being at the Pinnacle of a division.

It is the epitomy of equality. You get what you earn.

If we want to go against that model and reward a player who is not as professional (at this current time there is a gap between the standards each comp is held to in regards to contact hours) and in a smaller competition where the amount of money you bring in the door is much less then that is not equality.
You are going against what is the defined fair model because of someone's gender. Why do that?

The women's comp is a great thing, and what they earn will increase over time as the value of the comp increases. They have already got some really good wins in this bargaining agreement.
Hopefully more money is pumped into the more important aspects of the comp and it grows.

For some reason some people seem to want to make something out of some perceived gender issue, ignoring the way these things work in this industry.

I am not one to give much time that the AFLW should be paid like the men or even 3/4 of the men for the same reasons as you. At the end of the day the product does have to earn an income. However I did hear Daisy Pearce talk about it on SEN and she was not asking for equal but she did raise a good point in that while it is costs more than it makes now and will do so over the next 10 years or so it is still an investment into footy. From all the girls that start supporting the women's game there will be a percentage that become club supports and buy AFL items and even start following the men's game in some way so you are increasing the fan base.

As far as our household goes AFLW has contributed 2 memberships and a bit of merch for the other half and we do watch a few of the games every week. It all adds up over time and the product gets better every year. There is already a very big gap between AFLW and VFLW . Even more than the men's game.

 

[Mercurial89]

I am not one to give much time that the AFLW should be paid like the men or even 3/4 of the men for the same reasons as you. At the end of the day the product does have to earn an income. However I did hear Daisy Pearce talk about it on SEN and she was not asking for equal but she did raise a good point in that while it is costs more than it makes now and will do so over the next 10 years or so it is still an investment into footy. From all the girls that start supporting the women's game there will be a percentage that become club supports and buy AFL items and even start following the men's game in some way so you are increasing the fan base.

As far as our household goes AFLW has contributed 2 memberships and a bit of merch for the other half and we do watch a few of the games every week. It all adds up over time and the product gets better every year. There is already a very big gap between AFLW and VFLW . Even more than the men's game.

Agreed, though my main point is I believe money is better spent on pathways and opportunity, that is a more sustainable and consistent model then having a nice fat pay packet as the carrot to encourage participation.

That's really my overall point, they are getting a nice pay rise, the money is finite as much as people like to point to an overall number and say "but $2.2billion".
There needs to be a balance between what the game brings in and what you pay the players. I'm not even really arguing don't spend that money, just don't plug it into the salaries just yet. (I emphasise yet, just so people don't get the idea I'm trying to cap progress).

It's the old equality v equity thing though, isn't it.

Nobody's saying AFLW earns the same revenue. I'm not saying the average W player warrants $500k a year or whatever the men's average will be, either.

However if you want women to have a genuinely equal opportunity at a career, you pay them more now to encourage the best possible candidates, to give them every opportunity to succeed (fully removing the need to work another job).

Often when looking for candidates an employer will advertise a stretch salary to attract better candidates. Same principle applies here; if you want young females choosing AFL over alternative careers where they could earn as much as more, you're better giving them added financial incentive.

Especially when, this is a combined pool. It's not like the money isn't there.

I think we are just going to disagree.
I don't think it's an issue that a comp that doesn't make as much money doesn't prioritise large pay packets for its employees.
I'll break what I said earlier as an example to best illustrate the basis of my point, the gender stuff is irrelevant in my view.
Two businesses run, both doing real estate sales, one company makes $800m a year and pays its employees each $300k a year.
The second company makes $40m a year and pays its employees $250k to keep competitive with the other company and attract talent.
Their business falls over or stalls because instead of pumping money into marketing, training, development they are paying too high of salaries.
As I said not good to compare real world scenarios but just trying to explain that it's only really a numbers calc.

 

[Lore]

Professional sport isn't exactly analogous to a normal profession for so many reasons.

The AFL is effectively an entertainment product, similar to acting where the big stars draw more viewers and are worth exponentially more. Even within AFL sides we see huge discrepancies between the worst and best paid player on the list despite them all being full-time athletes doing the same job.

That’s why I was talking about minimum salaries with a comparison to an AFL rookie — the kind who is paid full time all year to train and play VFL, and doesn’t contribute a cent to the entertainment product.

Your big actors get the big money but the extras and the backstage folk still have a minimum wage.

I’d be fine with match fees or prize money being different based on the sponsorship money on the prize they’re playing for.

 

[jdstorm]

Agreed, though my main point is I believe money is better spent on pathways and opportunity, that is a more sustainable and consistent model then having a nice fat pay packet as the carrot to encourage participation.

That's really my overall point, they are getting a nice pay rise, the money is finite as much as people like to point to an overall number and say "but $2.2billion".
There needs to be a balance between what the game brings in and what you pay the players. I'm not even really arguing don't spend that money, just don't plug it into the salaries just yet. (I emphasise yet, just so people don't get the idea I'm trying to cap progress).



I think we are just going to disagree.
I don't think it's an issue that a comp that doesn't make as much money doesn't prioritise large pay packets for its employees.
I'll break what I said earlier as an example to best illustrate the basis of my point, the gender stuff is irrelevant in my view.
Two businesses run, both doing real estate sales, one company makes $800m a year and pays its employees each $300k a year.
The second company makes $40m a year and pays its employees $250k to keep competitive with the other company and attract talent.
Their business falls over or stalls because instead of pumping money into marketing, training, development they are paying too high of salaries.
As I said not good to compare real world scenarios but just trying to explain that it's only really a numbers calc.

It’s kind of pointless spending money on pathways if they don’t lead anywhere. Like congrats kid, you’re the no1 pick in the AFLW draft Here’s 87k a year. You’d make more as a PE teacher.

Startups fundraise to pay people with needed professional skills at industry standard rates. Many companies use a loss leading stratergy at times and it’s complete normal.

The AFL is trying to start up a league for Women but is only begrudgingly treating the women who make up these leagues as full time professional athletes.

It doesn’t matter if the pay per hour is good if the overall pay isn’t due to the number of games. If the AFL want professional standard women’s players they have to pay enough for women to be able to do this as a viable profession.

Comparing AFLW pay to what someone might earn on minimum wage for 40hours a week is frankly insulting to the time and effort it takes these players to reach this level. And it’s needlessly cheap when it’s a billion dollar buisness. The money is there.

Now I agree that in many buisness’ such as realestate a commission model that incentives performances is nessecary and valid and will mean some make far more then others.

However when it comes to setting a baseline amount of pay if one team within a company makes huge money and another less successful department is having to work other jobs to make ends meet that’s clearly wrong.

Ie Say Apples iphone department were all making 500k a year and their less successful Apple Watch department were on 49k a year for the same job. There would be outrage.

Now it’s a neuanced conversation as men’s players bring in a huge amount of revenue and won’t want their pay to go backwards (and it shouldn’t) but the baseline pay for AFLW players should be higher.