Why the celebration? CM is all for equal opportunity. Just not equal outcome. As CM said at the time of the US soccer team’s whinging over equal pay, if Megan Rapinoe and team make more revenues and broadcasting rights, pay them “more” than their male counterparts, not the same. Who could forget the almost North Korean level chants of “equal pay” during the Women’s World Cup this year?
How is equal pay remotely sensible for the Football Federation Australia’s (FFA) women’s team, the Matildas? Surely within the women’s team, there are proper stars and average players. Will those pay rates be equalised? So that the women’s soccer supremo that scores the most goals and achieves the highest number of tackles gets paid the same as the forward who can’t score and can’t defend to save herself? Who do the fans want to see? Who powers the turnstiles?
Look to other sports. Lewis Hamilton in F1 gets paid multiples more than fellow competitor, Romain Grosjean. Same job, Same conditions. Same everything. Yet, the 6x world champion gets factor fold levels of advertising dollars, hence he also banks that in his contract. Marc Marquez, the 8x world champion in MotoGP gets paid a fortune. Whereas Tito Rabat does not. Maybe because he is leading most of the time that the race coverage is focused at the front, rather than the back. It is all based on performance and TV exposure. Michael Jordan, Shaq, A-Rod and so on. The cream always gets paid what the market will bear. Some might call the $100mn that Ronaldo gets paid at Real Madrid as excessive but the club wouldn’t pay it if his magic didn’t cover the bills.
Ronaldo has 78 million Twitter followers vs his Real Madrid captain, Sergio Ramos who has a pitiful 16m. Surprise, surprise. Ronaldo makes more. Rapinoe has 899,700 followers. Should she get paid the same as Ronaldo? US men’s soccer team player Landon Donovan has 1.4m followers. Does the USSF see that the box office is sadly still skewed to the men’s game?
Once again, 260m watched the Women’s Soccer World Cup final in 2019. The 2018 men’s World Cup in Russia saw 1.12bn tune in for the final. 4.3x the audience.
To quote the Football Federation of Australia’s annual report of 2018,
“Sydney FC had the honour of hosting the Westfield W-League 2018 Grand Final against
Melbourne City FC at Allianz Stadium. In front of a vocal crowd of 6,025.”
Six thousand. Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle can feel a bit better about the abysmal attendance rugby has at home for the domestic series.
The men’s Melbourne Victory vs Newcastle Jets soccer final in 2018 saw 29,410 fans attend that match. 5x that of the women’s final.
Same for the Matildas. They achieved a peak crowd attendance of 16,829. The men’s Socceroo team saw 77,060 supporters at ANZ Stadium on 15 November 2018. 4.6x more fans watched the men’s national team over the women’s. It is nothing to do with gender. Fans prefer the men’s game. Because of that, sponsors are willing to pay for greater exposure.
This is not to denigrate the Matildas. It is to point out that this constant pandering to “equal pay” is a disastrous way to win over fans. Because if the right talent isn’t paid accordingly, an overseas league will quickly bid them away and hollow out the local market. Attendance will drop and the revenues and sponsorship dollars will dry up with it. Doesn’t require rocket science.
Still, get woke, go broke. The Wallabies are proof is in the pudding for management that focuses on inclusivity and diversity instead of accepting reality of what actually pays the bills – the fans. The financials continue to deteriorate.
By all means, if the Matildas smash the Socceroos for revenue, viewership and broadcasting rights then by all mean pay them more, not the same. Welcome to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Australia in 2019 where virtue signalling means more than merit.
Just watch the mainstream media gush at how progressive the FFA is before realising in years to come just how regressive it eventually becomes for the game and how could it have happened?