I applaud the funding boost.

Because giving increased TV coverage provides female athletes with, prima facie, equality of opportunity. It gives them the opportunity to be seen as frequent as male athletes.

But I disagree with going too deep into trying to acheive equality of outcome with regards to female pay. The pay difference is by in large due to simple consumer demand - by in large, more people will watch male sport. We can't let emotion cloud simple consumer economics.

With that being said, ANZ netballers are grossly underpaid, especially considering the TV deal and crows they have. To have a salary cap of $240k would suggest someone is making a pretty penny somewhere?

It's 2.4 extra hours per week of televised live sport (every week for 4 years), which is essentially a bit over 1 game of something each week. Is that value for money? $21m...

I agree with you MACDUB, but there needs to be sufficient interest in women's sport and people actually attending games to justify this kind of government expenditure.

Generally speaking: if enough people really did want to watch women's sport then they would... But too many don't.

Goid on-court product quality aside, it wasn't a pretty sight to watch the Lightning at Adelaide Arena with thousands of empty seats only a couple of years ago. The same goes for the women's AFL and cricket I've seen.

There's no reason that women's basketball or football should be struggling in terms of attendances based on female participation (playing and/or supporting) numbers.

My understanding is if people were willing to attend games, theres more likely to be a TV market - not necessarily the reverse. Hence public expenditure would be better spent on removing the barriers that potential consumers have with attending games, rather than a quick-fix 'showcase' of the products that few will take notice of.

A smart political move from Labor, however misguided I think it may be.

A smart political move with OUR money though PlaymakerMo, in typical Labor fashion.

"With that being said, ANZ netballers are grossly underpaid, especially considering the TV deal and crows they have. To have a salary cap of $240k would suggest someone is making a pretty penny somewhere?"


Pretty sure a sponsor has paid for the current TV deal, and crowds are similar to NBL. I suspect what they are being paid is similar to what NBL players could sustainably be paid in the current market.

'The funds may also be used by the ABC to develop a dedicated women's sport space on its digital platform iView, covering international women’s teams like the Southern Stars, Opals, Matildas, Diamonds and the Hockeyroos.'

I think this is great, I just hope it doesn't some how find its way into things like that AFL venture and the limited funds are diluted from where they should be best used...

Nothing against women playing football mind you, I just wouldn't like the cash spread unnecessarily and wasted, because $21Million may sound like a lot, but it really isn't huge dollars these days.

Netball is the only womens sport that I am aware of that would generate the interest needed to put this cash in. I feel like they're doing this for the womens vote and the idea will slip by the wayside once they're elected (if they were to be elected)

"
But I disagree with going too deep into trying to acheive equality of outcome with regards to female pay. The pay difference is by in large due to simple consumer demand - by in large, more people will watch male sport. We can't let emotion "

Really, these female athletes put in just as many hours as their male counterparts, so Macdub what your saying is they don't deserve the same payscale

If you equate it to the work force , which in professional leagues like NBL/WNBL it is....what your saying is women should not be paid the same as men....... Because of course women get cheaper mortgage rates, power bills, food bills, and petrol, it's far far cheaper for women to live than men isn't !!

Time to get out of the cave I think mate!!!! LOL

Of course more people watch mens sport .... Women's sport only has 7% of the overall broadcasting time dedicated for sport ...... And those figures were BEFORE they cut women's basketball and soccer from the ABC

^Not sure if srs or trolling, but I'll bite.

It doesn't matter how many hours they put in if there's not enough consumer demand for their service. This is a gender-neutral truth.

In the hypothetical scenario that WNBL players were paid the same as NBL players: how do the WNBL clubs generate enough revenue to justify these wages when NBL clubs can barely do so? The league would need to be almost entirely subsidized by the government and/or private benefactors. This is not sustainable.

"Really, these female athletes put in just as many hours as their male counterparts, so Macdub what your saying is they don't deserve the same payscale

If you equate it to the work force , which in professional leagues like NBL/WNBL it is....what your saying is women should not be paid the same as men"


No, what he is saying is pay should be on merit, not gender. Women can play in the NBL if they're good enough. They have the opportunity to earn the same as the men if they have the same level of talent, just like in any other industry.

The point in question is not what they have currently but what they deserve should they get the exposure which brings in the sponsorships to allow for the equality in payscale to happen.

Right now women's sports has little to no support at all, so what they are saying is they deserve the same equality rights to be able to attract the financial support to pay them accordingly.
If these women are doing this as a full time job then surely it warrants a full time wage?

In what way don't they have the same rights to attract financial support?

Should all musicians be able to draw a full-time wage if they do it as a full time job?

A smart political move with OUR money though PlaymakerMo, in typical Labor fashion.

"Really, these female athletes put in just as many hours as their male counterparts, so Macdub what your saying is they don't deserve the same payscale"

So by your logic, I should be able to do a makeup tutorial on Youtube for the same number of hours as one of the female 'stars' and receive the same royalties as them. You and I both know that wouldn't happen..why? Because more people will want to watch the female makeup artist and she is better at doing it than me. Why should i be entitled to the same payscale if, for example, I only get 10% of the subscribers she does?

You have to understand the economics element. The free market reigns supreme. People's pay reflects consumer demand. It's being that way for years and will always be that way (unless of course more government intervention comes into force, in which case it will no longer be a FM anyway).

Have to understand that "free market" principles don't just favour males. It swings and roundabouts. Women and Men both have the benefit of it. There will be times and situations when Women's payscale is higher than men on account of the consumer demand their service has over the same service offered by a male. But again, you're letting emotion cloud the 'black and white'.

^
Macdub that's hilarious lol

Though I should point out to you A large portion of the worlds leading makeup artists are male !

So under your analogy the women who play basketball in fact sport in general at these elite levels are not as good or successful as the men who play .......its that simple is it?

Maybe you should remind the opals that next time they are on the podium collecting a medal so they can hand it too the boomers who would be sitting in the crowd watching medals being handed out, or perhaps the aussie women's cricket and soccer teams even

You cannot use the equation of success to justify or warrant if our professional women deserve equal pay or not
And it has nothing at all to do with a "free market"

Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on a policy and is not applicable to the area of sport until you can get a level playing field with regards to exposure of both sporting genders.
Until then it's all assumption that the justification of a higher payscale for male sports is because of the public audience .
The public audience can only follow and support what is given to them as a whole, because that platform then attracts sponsors and as such they then aid in the financial support and gain of the participants.
Give the public a choice of equal time and I can guarantee that audience would increase substantially for women's sports purely because they would have it in front of them

What comes first the chicken or the egg, sponsors don't care who they are sponsoring as long as they get their value for money as in getting their name seen and product recognised, and if it's attached to a successful team all the better.
Up to now the only choice sponsors have had has been men's sports..... A whopping big 93% of the viewed market.

'241, if you're so confident that sponsorship and consumer attention naturally follow from exposure more than the product itself, why not buy low and sell high? Bankroll a mass market push of the WNBL (for example) and rake in money.

The TV networks aren't doing it for a reason.

Take it to a further extreme - buy even cheaper and make it ABL men or women instead. There's a 93-7 split for male-female sports broadcasting, but 100-0 if you compare AFL to either gender of ABL.


If the market isn't putting private sport out there, who should? The government? Which sports? Korfball? Chess? They can't choose based on demand because your argument is that demand is derived unfairly from an imbalance in exposure.

---

I'm arguing a point. I tend to think that the government should assist under-funded sport (mostly female some male) serving the health needs of society. If they can do it through broadcast or provision of expertise rather than production, even better.

Perhaps if we had pervasive high-speed fibre, we could shift to IPTV more effectively and eliminate the chokepoints created by woeful TV programming.

Uhmmm, I just don't think I could watch men's Netball, nope just couldn't come to grips with men wearing skirts and all that stuff I don't think...

LMFAOAM

"Simple question ... If a women's sporting league brings in less income but players, coaches etc are to be paid equal where will the money come from?"


The question should be Why do women's sporting leagues bring in less income?

One of the reasons is its lack of exposure, and that's ALL sports.

Using netball as a prime example... They are now getting more exposure, just signed a major deal and are really promoting the sport.
That has brought in much bigger sponsors which in turn will again enable the sport to grow.
Now imagine all women's spirts getting that type of exposure , the same way mens sport do now

Disagree with that^. Some sports played by women are just not as exciting as when played by men!

Sorry, not being sexist at all, just stating a fact and it doesn't matter what gender the audience is either...

I love the way people constantly put the cart before the horse when it comes to people wanting to watch a given sport & the level of electronic media exposure it receives.

The important point anonymous has missed is that women can earn the same money and get the same exposure if they're good enough to play in the best competitions. Any NBA or NBL team would sign a woman in a heartbeat if she was good enough, the publicity generated would be priceless.

If a player isn't good enough to make the higher grades, be they male or female, they are unlikely to make a good living. Examples of that are WNBL players and VFL players, who both put in enormous effort into their sport but neither of which are playing at the highest level in their country.

As a different example, Danica Patrick makes a very good living from sport because she is amongst the elite in her chosen field.

So, just to paraphrase; "The Labor party plans to tax me more and use than money to try to steal more Lesbian votes from the Greens".

With that being said, ANZ netballers are grossly underpaid, especially considering the TV deal

The debate has been had as to whether there will ever be a day where a woman will make the NBL or NBA. The chances are extremely unlikely. She could choose to be the greatest ever WNBA player, or a bench warmer in the NBL. The choice would be fairly obvious for most.

Let's be real: Lauren Jackson is the best female player Australia has ever produced, but I wouldn't like her chances up against an NBL role player as bland as even Brendan Teys.

As for what women should be paid, they should be paid in relation to the revenue they raise. It isn't about the bills they have, like some brainiac mentioned earlier - lets face it, work places don't pay you with your needs in mind - it is about giving you a fair percentage of the money you generate. Female athletes will almost always generate less money and interest than males, and the reason for that is the males are at the very top of their sport. Only Ronda Rousey has been able to buck that trend.

When it comes to a boost in women's sports, it is just another pandering move by Labor. I understand the need for representation, but this feels like they're trying to force womens sports down our throats when even women aren't all that interested in them.

There are two completely different concepts in play here.
Most people (especially kids) play sport for fun, exercise, and what you might call "achievement" or "fulfilment". If you're talking about girls, or some other subset of our society, not playing enough sport, then I agree more should be done.

But so-called professional athletes, are being paid for their entertainment value. Whys does a male basketballer get paid more than a female? Same reason she gets paid more than a professional lawn bowler.

Correct. And where they come together is when the coverage creates professional opportunities that encourage girls to keep playing through their teenage years and ultimately work towards broader health goals of the country.

Whether $21m balances out, I don't know. On one hand, it's a lot. On the other, in the scheme of government spending, it's a grain of sand on a beach. Taxpayers recently put money towards a water diviner trying to locate an underground water source. A water diviner. In 2016. Outrageous.