Good, not great, but good

Why on Earth does the W-League need a salary cap?

to give Victory a chance

Also its one thing to be playing better then the guys, its another thing to pay them equally

"the nine clubs will increase payments from less than half a million dollars in 2016/17 to $1.62 million this season" .... so again those pesky greedy club owners who are only in it to make a profit will be expected to foot the bill for Australian footballs growth. Thank god Steven Lowy out the boot into them last month, but his rant makes even less sense now lol.

And no FTA deal - only the ffa could fail, again, to secure TV coverage ... ???

But all in all, this looks very good 👍

Good deal for the players. Might lead to some financial pain for some clubs which have been paying their players virtually zero though. Hopefully the money to cover these costs is increasing as well with the ongoing success of the Matildas. 

Its the FFA blindly following a template of something they don't fully understand hoping they can emulate the success of others who do it

If I wore a suit and tie I'd be a millionaire too

The only thing the ffa appear to be paying more for is "with FFA providing financial support to cover travel and accommodation costs" ... so an increase of $1.5m spend is to be absorbed by the clubs then?

This is a key question that never gets answered. Where is the money coming from? I have big concerns if the W-League isn't able to bring in enough revenue to cover its own costs and A-League clubs are forced to find the money out of their own budgets.

Up to us to support it then hey. I shamefully have only seen 1 W-League game, when it was a curtain raiser to a Melbourne Derby. I'm pretty keen to see Sam Kerr in action though this season.

@ kamaryn

I doubt the women's game can generate enough cash to self fund itself so football has to decide if it wants to invest or not. My personal opinion is it can't afford not to, AFL are going after this market for a very good reason and we can't afford not to imo but then as you say, who is paying and how much?

I agree. That's the debate to be had then and it's a purely commercial one. In the end, it means we are sponsoring a league at a cost to the A-League in the hope of gaining positive publicity for football, avoiding negative publicity that comes from paying too little (whatever that is), maybe getting some more female supporters going through the gates, and maybe getting some more mums encourage their kids to play football over something else. If we can admit that, then we can ask how much are we likely to benefit and what are we willing to spend to get that? Any discussion that does so on the grounds of "equality" is naive (not hearing you say that btw).

I think you missed improving the quality of the national team (Matildas) as a big reason for investing money. 

I'm not paying a cent to support women's Football. 

how can you be so sure ?

As has been mentioned many times before none of the national teams, besides the socceroos and even any revenue they bring in would barely cover costs I'm imagining, produce any revenue at all.  Yet no one here would seriously suggest the FFA don't send the Under 19's, for example, on to some overseas competition because they bring nothing to the FFA revenue wise.  

Look at the blowup when they stopped funding futsal.

Some here can't seem to differentiate between what's good for the game and what's good for the coffers.

When the girls win the world cup, and they will decades before the men, they will provide more free coverage and interest beyond anything men's competition can dream of.  Millions upon millions of free advertising dollars and a huge upturn in junior registrations.  More kids, more parents, more regos, more interest.  There is almost no downside.  

Women's football is officially bigger than netball.  There's no doubt the Matildas would have helped get football into that position.  

What is good for women's football in Australia is good for all of football in Australia.


  

Yeah you are, through taxes.

http://www.footballnsw.com.au/index.php?id=149&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=11949&cHash=993d9f48abe877654ab826f2f123ddb8
http://www.footballnsw.com.au/index.php?id=71

You may not live in NSW but i'm sure other states have similarly targeted programs. I like living in a country where people end up paying to support things they don't like, to the benefit of everyone. We literally do not get the choice to be selfish asses.

What the numbskulls don't seem to realise is that if you don't give the womens game enough attention you're going to get fucked over big time when you want Government Support for

Local Pitches
Facilities
Grants 
Infrastructure
etc

HAL fans wanking on about whether a part of the game is profitable is the biggest irony of all

That's why I mentioned those things in the subsequent post and said we need to ask the financial question of "how much are we willing to spend" for those sort of benefits. I think everyone in this thread is in greater agreement than we realise.

The CBA for the W-League sees the distribution to the clubs rise from $50k to $150k.  It would be interesting to know whether this is included in the proposed $3.55m distribution or additional to it.

http://thewomensgame.com/2017/09/w-league-cba-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

This is great means no chance for a second divison

The Matilda's just put 600k plus into the FFA's bank account, with a another two games currently selling like hot cakes.

Surely if nothing else it highlights the potential of women's football to st least pay its own way!

But yes a long way to go.

Joffa - Agree

The Matildas draw decent crowds for an entire week and you all think we should throw money at them. Their success may help get extra cash from the government but a more effective way of leeching of the taxpayers is to adopt the VFL method - old fashioned bribery. It will also allow our administrators to prepare for their internationals, bribing FIFA officials.

19 September 2017Friendly   
Australia    3–2    Brazil -16,829

16 September 2017Friendly   
Australia    2–1    Brazil - 15,089

7 June 2016Friendly   
Australia    1–1    New Zealand - 8,604

4 June 2016Friendly   
Australia    2–0    New Zealand - 4,371

21 May 2015Friendly   
Australia    11–0    Vietnam - 4,277

'Decent crowds for a week'

Last five Matilda home matches open to the public listed above, blind Freddy can see the Matilda's have been growing in popularity for quite some time.

It wasn't all that long ago when 4K to a Socceroos match would be an about expected crowd.

Long bloody time ago, actually

But with the ridiculous ticket prices, the crowds are headed that way.

By comparison, Family ticket to the Matilda's was $30 for2 adults and 2 under 16s.

So for the economists around, price elasticity rules.

So if the FFA want bigger crowds for Socceroos games, reduce the ticket prices by more than $10.

'Long bloody time ago, actually'

Oh really?

2004 World Cup Qualifying campaign


31 MayGroup Stage   Australia    9 – 0    Tahiti   Australia -1,200

2 JuneGroup Stage   Australia    6 – 1    Fiji   Australia Adelaide, Australia -2,200

4 JuneGroup Stage   Australia    3 – 0    Vanuatu   Australia - 4,000

6 JuneGroup Stage   Australia    2 – 2    Solomon Islands -3,500

Dont worry. Im sure we will be fine if we dont win the Wleague.