AFLW Round 1 - 2024 AFLW season

[Couch Coach]

Got to laugh at the MASSIVE 3 game suspension handed out - cleaning up someone after they dispose of the ball, glad they’re challenging - should be SIX

Six in mens maybe (6/24) is a quarter of the season.
Three in women's is (3/11) just over a quarter of the season.

Six in AFLW would be 12-13 in mens.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Times have certainly changed quickly, and AFLW is no exception.

This "collision" only got 2 weeks in 2017:


And this was only worth 1 week in 2018:


Pretty bad. I mean, nowhere near as vicious as a Chloe Molloy love tap to the midriff, but still.

 

[supahoops]

Six in mens maybe (6/24) is a quarter of the season.
Three in women's is (3/11) just over a quarter of the season.

Six in AFLW would be 12-13 in mens.

Season length should have zero to do with it.

 

[eddiesmith]

View attachment 2099275

Severe and high? The AFL are having a laugh surely, that’s a downfield free kick and that’s all.

 

[CURVE]

View attachment 2099275

O'Loughlin getting a week is a joke, Campbell was already falling forward when O'Loughlin tackled her and then they tripped over each other's feet as AoL was trying to turn her over. I'm disappointed North didn't appeal.

Also, the MRO missed the Brisbane player who slid into the back and head of a tackled Kearney knees first.

 

[NorthernBastard]

I understand the reasons why things are the way they are and I'm not bringing anything new to the table, but I wish this was a 12 team, 22 round competition. Or even 10 team, 18 rounds.

The gap between the top end talent, and the bottom end players is far too big, and the season is way to short to see meaningful player development. Most players will play around 10 AFLW games, and maybe a handful of state league games if they're lucky. Someone like Toogood now barely plays a handful of games in a calendar year due to an 8 week injury.

Having watched a fair bit of round 1 footy, I'm just left feeling frustrated with the state of the competition.

I'll still keep watching games & maintain my club membership, and hope that the league is given a real opportunity to flourish soon.

 

[Chief]

 

[Saints2001]

I'll still keep watching games & maintain my club membership, and hope that the league is given a real opportunity to flourish soon.

Not going to happen unfortunately until there's 6k attendances on average at AFLW games and 100k viewers on average for televised games.

 

[mookieb]

It's always going to take more than private enterprise though. Better public policy has to be the starting point.

For the past few months, including today, I've read/heard a lot of comments along the lines of the WNBA now being worthy of exposure and investment because of Caitlin Clark. What usually gets omitted from that train of thought is how there wouldn't be a "Caitlin Clark" per se without Title IX, i.e. legislation which at least attempts to ensure the American college system doesn't ignore female athletes.

We need a similar initiative for professional sport in this country. For example: an organisation should meet crystal clear gender equality standards (such as number of teams/players/matches, length of matches, timeslot and coverage thresholds) before being eligible to receive taxpayer funding.

$386m from the federal and state governments has been given to AFL clubs just for new facilities (which are predominantly used by the full-time men's teams) in the last 5 years. This trend will continue, no doubt about it. So it's crazy to not properly leverage it for the advancement of women's sport, since that is what the money is supposed to be primarily for.

Sport is entertainment and men's sport is inherently better quality than women's sport so there shouldn't be any concept of equality. The key to more bums on seats and sponsorships is to grow the sport and provide a better product. The AFL are doing a good job of funding and growing the sport and giving it a chance to flourish. The WNBA consistently loses money because people want to watch dunks, not missed layups. People didn't avoid watching games because of sexism, but the product. Now Caitlin Clark has arrived there is a buzz around the sport and she's filling stadiums.

Why give equal timeslots, coverage etc to AFLW when it's clearly not as popular? Imagine having the WB / Hawks game as the warm up game to WB vs Port in the women? It would be a disaster.

For the record players like Caitlin Clark or say the Matilda's shouldn't want equality. They should be earning more than men or the men's team if they generate the interest and revenue to justify it.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Not going to happen unfortunately until there's 6k attendances on average at AFLW games and 100k viewers on average for televised games.

The metrics clause is only pertinent to the timeframe of the current CBA.

Per the AFL's own Women's Football Vision publication, they're going to have to commit to significantly extending the season in the next CBA to meet their own targets for AFLW.

Sport is entertainment and men's sport is inherently better quality than women's sport so there shouldn't be any concept of equality. The key to more bums on seats and sponsorships is to grow the sport and provide a better product. The AFL are doing a good job of funding and growing the sport and giving it a chance to flourish. The WNBA consistently loses money because people want to watch dunks, not missed layups. People didn't avoid watching games because of sexism, but the product. Now Caitlin Clark has arrived there is a buzz around the sport and she's filling stadiums.

Why give equal timeslots, coverage etc to AFLW when it's clearly not as popular? Imagine having the WB / Hawks game as the warm up game to WB vs Port in the women? It would be a disaster.

For the record players like Caitlin Clark or say the Matilda's shouldn't want equality. They should be earning more than men or the men's team if they generate the interest and revenue to justify it.

Either you're mistaking equal outcome with equal opportunity, or just opposed to both concepts. Not too bright in any case.

 

[mookieb]

The metrics clause is only pertinent to the timeframe of the current CBA.

Per the AFL's own Women's Football Vision publication, they're going to have to commit to significantly extending the season in the next CBA to meet their own targets for AFLW.


Either you're mistaking equal outcome with equal opportunity, or just opposed to both concepts. Not too bright in any case.

I haven't stated anywhere that I oppose equal opportunity. As long as we aren't lining up to purchase bread and capitalism is alive and well then outcomes should be dictated by how good the product is.

There are many people that whinge about the AFL saying they don't care about women or promoting the game. You have good AFLW knowledge what do you think the AFL should do?

1. Same 24 game regular schedule as men?
2. All games played at AFL standard grounds?
3. Same prime timeslots as the AFL games?
4. If AFLW mimics the AFL for games and duration I assume you would want equal pay for equal work? So Superstars such as Chloe Molloy on $1m a year like her equivalent male comparison?
5. Identical salary caps for men and women's teams?

 

[petits]

I haven't stated anywhere that I oppose equal opportunity. As long as we aren't lining up to purchase bread and capitalism is alive and well then outcomes should be dictated by how good the product is.

There are many people that whinge about the AFL saying they don't care about women or promoting the game. You have good AFLW knowledge what do you think the AFL should do?

1. Same 24 game regular schedule as men?
2. All games played at AFL standard grounds?
3. Same prime timeslots as the AFL games?
4. If AFLW mimics the AFL for games and duration I assume you would want equal pay for equal work? So Superstars such as Chloe Molloy on $1m a year like her equivalent male comparison?
5. Identical salary caps for men and women's teams?

Teen Wolf's post above already gave a suggestion for a gender equality standard: "number of teams/players/matches, length of matches, timeslot and coverage thresholds". It didn't include salaries or grounds.

Capitalism is alive and well, but the AFL also takes government money, and there are perceived general societal benefits from its overall package of activities. That would be the argument (and lever) for imposing any equity requirements.

I'm not particularly defending the suggestion, just trying to help clarify.

 

[mookieb]

Teen Wolf's post above already gave a suggestion for a gender equality standard: "number of teams/players/matches, length of matches, timeslot and coverage thresholds". It didn't include salaries or grounds.

Capitalism is alive and well, but the AFL also takes government money, and there are perceived general societal benefits from its overall package of activities. That would be the argument (and lever) for imposing any equity requirements.

I'm not particularly defending the suggestion, just trying to help clarify.

His post did include some suggestions but they were vague and I'd like to know specifically what the AFL should be implementing.

His post didn't include mention or grounds or salaries but if people want gender equality standards why not apply gender equality standards across the board?

I agree that the AFL show be taking any government monies and using some of it to ensure equal opportunity for growth in the woman's game.

 

[jatz14]

I haven't stated anywhere that I oppose equal opportunity. As long as we aren't lining up to purchase bread and capitalism is alive and well then outcomes should be dictated by how good the product is.

There are many people that whinge about the AFL saying they don't care about women or promoting the game. You have good AFLW knowledge what do you think the AFL should do?

1. Same 24 game regular schedule as men?
2. All games played at AFL standard grounds?
3. Same prime timeslots as the AFL games?
4. If AFLW mimics the AFL for games and duration I assume you would want equal pay for equal work? So Superstars such as Chloe Molloy on $1m a year like her equivalent male comparison?
5. Identical salary caps for men and women's teams?

The AFL isn't capitalism. Its a not for profit, that by its own efforts, has made itself, with government backing, the financial cornerstone of Australian football.

The reason its involved in womens football is because it became impossible for there not to be a womens national league, and its impossible for there to be a viable national league without the AFLs direct participation.

What the women are paid isn't finally determined by the income/cost equation of the womens league, its determined, in the end, by the AFL, based on the overall financial circumstances of the AFL, and how it views the AFLW, and its place in its long term plans.

Paying the women more is certainly easier, the more money the AFLW makes, but that isn't the only consideration. And your right that quality will help drive good outcomes, but whats driving the rise in quality is the existence of the AFLW itself. If you want a high quality AFLW, you have to fund a lower quality AFLW first.

As defacto custodians of the game, the AFL has to make a determination of the value the role the AFLW plays in the broader sporting landscape, and what it wants to achieve.

None of this requires the AFLW mimic, or copy, of mirror, the mens league in anything. All that is required is that the AFL treat the AFLW as a serious league, deserving of effort, planning, resources and expectations. How the AFLW looks should be based entirely on that planning and effort, and not at all on what is happening in the mens league.

And none of this requires that the total money spent on the AFLW must be less than the money generated by the AFLW. It didn't in its inception, it doesn't now, and it will not in the future. So long as the men get pay deals they are happy with, and the overall finances of the AFL are sound, the AFL is free to spend as much money on the AFLW as it sees fit.

 

[Teen Wolf]

His post did include some suggestions but they were vague and I'd like to know specifically what the AFL should be implementing.

I have a huge list of things about which I'm not going to elaborate in a matchday thread. But I'll reiterate one:

Let's start by adding 3 minutes to each quarter. Remember when I said that? Not sure how a suggestion can be any clearer.

His post didn't include mention or grounds or salaries but if people want gender equality standards why not apply gender equality standards across the board?

Once again, when you're talking about top end salaries, that is an outcome issue. Not about equal opportunity.

Focussing on the latter: Female athletes who attract audiences should not be paid significantly less than fringe players in the men's league who aren't likely to get game time (see Caitlin Clark's $80k contract vs Bronny James' $1.2m contract)... but that is something the AFL is already pretty much on top of.

 

[cmndstab]

I take exception to the idea that men's sports is "inherently better quality" than woman's sports. Yes, most of the time the standard of play is higher in the men's leagues, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a better quality spectacle. There can be any number of factors that go into how much enjoyment one gets out of watching sport, beyond simply the standard of play. Hell, if my viewing habits were solely dictated by the standard of play, I wouldn't be a Crows supporter in the men's league at the moment, but I am. Most of the matches I watch involve the Crows. Could I watch a higher standard footy match if I watched some other teams? Of course. But I don't really watch footy because of the standard of play. I watch the Crows play because I care about the team that I follow, and because enough other people care as well so I feel like I'm part of a community.

I know lots of people who adore AFLW and don't care much about the men's league. Maybe it feels more grass roots, more community-oriented? Maybe they just like watching women compete more than men, for whatever reason?

Likewise, you could create a men's netball league tomorrow with teams that would absolutely smash the Thunderbirds. Would that mean the end of women's netball? Or would the men immediately get paid 10x what the women get paid? Of course not.



In any event, any kind of discussion around how much money the women's games bring in now compared to the men misses the point. The promotion of AFLW is primarily about building a market going forward. How many more women and girls are playing football now compared to in 2016? Hell, the Crows have multiple premiership players who never played a game of football until they were motivated to do so by the public exposure provided by AFLW. At the local level it has exploded in popularity. And how much more likely are each of those players to attend a match, or buy a membership, or indoctrinate their children and partners into the game? And how many young girls who would have put their efforts into something else will now become the superstars of the future, driving interest and cash into the game years and decades after the investment was made to capture them in the first place?

I struggle to imagine a scenario where the investment the AFL has put into the women's game doesn't pay off by an order of magnitude over time.

 

[petits]

I take exception to the idea that men's sports is "inherently better quality" than woman's sports. Yes, most of the time the standard of play is higher in the men's leagues, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a better quality spectacle. There can be any number of factors that go into how much enjoyment one gets out of watching sport, beyond simply the standard of play. Hell, if my viewing habits were solely dictated by the standard of play, I wouldn't be a Crows supporter in the men's league at the moment, but I am. Most of the matches I watch involve the Crows. Could I watch a higher standard footy match if I watched some other teams? Of course. But I don't really watch footy because of the standard of play. I watch the Crows play because I care about the team that I follow, and because enough other people care as well so I feel like I'm part of a community.

I know lots of people who adore AFLW and don't care much about the men's league. Maybe it feels more grass roots, more community-oriented? Maybe they just like watching women compete more than men, for whatever reason?

100%. People keep supporting consistently unsuccessful men's teams because following sport is about emotional attachment and narratives and going to games nearby, not just finding and watching the best kick of the ball.

I guess the only difference is that as an AFLW supporter I don't compare my team to the men at all, I just compare them to the other women.

 

[cmndstab]

100%. People keep supporting consistently unsuccessful men's teams because following sport is about emotional attachment and narratives and going to games nearby, not just finding and watching the best kick of the ball.

I guess the only difference is that as an AFLW supporter I don't compare my team to the men at all, I just compare them to the other women.

Being a Crows supporter, following AFLW is easy mode considering my team has been consistently successful, while the men's counterpart had one good year in 2017 that finished with disappointment, followed by 7 disasters in a row.

But, whatever. Are there extenuating circumstances around my love for AFLW? Of course. However, I also know that I wouldn't have gotten into women's football if there wasn't a national, televised competition. I didn't watch the exhibition matches. I didn't follow the SAWFL back in the days. I didn't know who Chelsea Randall was. I may have heard of Erin Phillips once or twice before, maybe? Not sure.

I honestly think I might have lost interest in football altogether over that 2019-2022 period when the Crows became wooden spooners, had their camp debacle, lost nearly all their players, and then had one of my favourite players still there drop a racist slur at a SANFL game. The enjoyment I got from the Crows women's team in that time period kept me afloat as a footy watcher in general.

 

[jatz14]

100%. People keep supporting consistently unsuccessful men's teams because following sport is about emotional attachment and narratives and going to games nearby, not just finding and watching the best kick of the ball.

I guess the only difference is that as an AFLW supporter I don't compare my team to the men at all, I just compare them to the other women.

The moment any discussion of womens footy turns to how far they kick compared to men, you know any meaningful discussion is over.

 

[mookieb]

I take exception to the idea that men's sports is "inherently better quality" than woman's sports. Yes, most of the time the standard of play is higher in the men's leagues, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a better quality spectacle. There can be any number of factors that go into how much enjoyment one gets out of watching sport, beyond simply the standard of play. Hell, if my viewing habits were solely dictated by the standard of play, I wouldn't be a Crows supporter in the men's league at the moment, but I am. Most of the matches I watch involve the Crows. Could I watch a higher standard footy match if I watched some other teams? Of course. But I don't really watch footy because of the standard of play. I watch the Crows play because I care about the team that I follow, and because enough other people care as well so I feel like I'm part of a community.

I know lots of people who adore AFLW and don't care much about the men's league. Maybe it feels more grass roots, more community-oriented? Maybe they just like watching women compete more than men, for whatever reason?

Likewise, you could create a men's netball league tomorrow with teams that would absolutely smash the Thunderbirds. Would that mean the end of women's netball? Or would the men immediately get paid 10x what the women get paid? Of course not.



In any event, any kind of discussion around how much money the women's games bring in now compared to the men misses the point. The promotion of AFLW is primarily about building a market going forward. How many more women and girls are playing football now compared to in 2016? Hell, the Crows have multiple premiership players who never played a game of football until they were motivated to do so by the public exposure provided by AFLW. At the local level it has exploded in popularity. And how much more likely are each of those players to attend a match, or buy a membership, or indoctrinate their children and partners into the game? And how many young girls who would have put their efforts into something else will now become the superstars of the future, driving interest and cash into the game years and decades after the investment was made to capture them in the first place?

I struggle to imagine a scenario where the investment the AFL has put into the women's game doesn't pay off by an order of magnitude over time.

To me inherently better quality means the standard of play is higher.

I actually agree with near 100% of your post and the ones before. AFLW should run it's own race and develop it's own culture and brand rather than be compared with the AFL. No reason they can't create their own cult heroes and rivalries between teams.

It's also beholden on the AFL to develop and foster the women's league to see what it can achieve. While it may or may not be profitable in the future it has a positive impact on society. For me considering how useless the AFL is in most things I believe they have done a great job in starting the league, expanding it to all 18 teams and ensuring that the players now are in a professional environment. Quite a good achievement considering where they started - I watched some of the games in the first season and the standard was appalling. Every year since the standard improves.

What I don't like is people being derogatory to AFLW because it's not near the standard of the men's and never will be. Also on the flipside people saying the AFL doesn't care about the women's game or the stupid gender comparisons because AFL has more games or better timeslots.