Saw this the other day as part of cricket Australia's announcements.
It's still only 10% of what the mens average team member makes but is it fair? Too much?
Is it a form of welfare or simply a changing of the times? (It's subsidized by the mens team revenue)…
Thoughts?
Is it a form of welfare…(It's subsidized by the mens team revenue)…?
You're totally kidding, right? Given that they've previously been excluded, paying them from 'general (cricket) revenue' makes practical sense.
Its good that women sports is becoming more mainstream,
I think the AFL has taken the right approach in giving free tickets to some women's AFL games and increasing its popularity via the sport of AFL itself and not through crazy advertising. The money will come later as people are recognizing how entertaining Women's AFL can be.
As you said, the high pay for men's cricket and other sports is justified through the amount of advertising revenue, tickets, merchandise, game day revenue and sponsorship. alternatively the low pay for women's cricket can in the same way be justified.
I think to an extent its some form of "Welfare" to appear generous which can be seen by the way this was announced.
Compare it to the AFL in which they wanted to build women's AFL as a national sport. They supported those athletes in traveling to different states to play for the team they made it into. One team member from NT who played for a team in SA attended club meetings via skype. The Women's inclusion to play in high level AFL appeared to be built with the intent to actually build Women's sports in Australia and not to publicly announce "Women cricket win big pay rise- foxsports". So yea, the way they are trying to build womens cricket in Australia seems like a "Welfare" handout to an extent. Regardless, they are getting paid decent money for the attraction Women's cricket actually gets so i dont think they would be complaining. If they wanted to build Women's cricket as a culture like the AFL i think they they are doing it the wrong way.
Build the sport as a culture, show the things those athletes go through to be able to play the sport they love at a high level (Like the AFL did, they showed many stories of what these women did just to play in front of a nice crowd and play the sort they love) Instead "Women's massive pay rise" - to me, big whoop, i dont have any intention to go watch Women's cricket. But i now have an interest in women's AFL cause the way the brought out and would happily pay the money for a ticket now.
I'm not kidding. On the Sydney Morning Herald article comments section about it the main argument from those against it was that it was basically welfare (I'm talking hundreds of comments along these lines). Wanted to know people's thoughts here. The argument was that women's cricket wouldn't currently make anywhere near enough money from sponsorship to cover the costs of these salaries and that they were being given this salary because they are women, not because of the laws of supply and demand and thus; it's a form of welfare and a pity case.
Exactly! Im not against it but the way they are going about it is wrong. It is coming off as welfare because financially there is no way to support it, women's cricket simply doesn't get the crowd, the people, the revenue and its being subsidized by the men's side.
If they went about it the same way as the AFL did with Women's AFL, they would be setting a strong foundation for plenty of money to come in the future and also building up womens sport as a culture. Instead, they wanted to look like the good guys and said, well lets just pay them!
I dont get your comment, are you suggesting those people in the comments section are wrong? I agree with them totally! Your initial comment about not kidding suggests that you find the comments about generating revenue out of order.
no, someone suggested that I must be kidding in a reply above. I think 180K is too much.
morally it's a good decision but from a financial point of view I really don't think so.
no way is 180k 10% of a male cricketers salary - that means they make crazy money. but honestly, the men make more because they pull more crowds.
the average salary of a male Australian cricketer is apparently $1.8 million per year. That's the national team, not the domestic league, but the guys who play tests and one day matches for Australia.
Seems pretty accurate to me.
yeah i just checked it out myself. they also get endorsement and branding money as well. shiettttttttttt
Female porn stars make more than their male counterparts. This needs to change before changes can be made to female cricketer salaries.
It's cool when women are paid more for the same work than men, haven't you worked that out yet?
Was it a woman who changed the female figure crossing bulbs in melbourne?
Is it a form of welfare
For some reason ever other sports code in Australia pays money to it's players but it's only when the new women's cricket team starts getting paid that the payments become "welfare" as though the players were recieving the dole from duh gummints.
You're missing the point. No one is saying they shouldn't be paid. The point of concern is how much should they be paid.
Is 180K too much? That's more than some professional AFL footballers get paid. Are they just riding the coat tails of the mens team to a juicy million dollar career over 7 or 8 years?
What do the women's cricketers do that constitutes being paid 180K a year other than play a sport that the men's team is very good at?
If the under 14 mens Australian cricket team could trounce the women's national team, are they really good enough to get paid 180k?
It's just part of the whole politically correct movement garbage, pretending women need to be paid relative to men rather than relative to the revenue they produce. It's actually kind of insulting to females, telling them their worth is tied to what men achieve and not tied to what women produce themselves.
Just look abroad to the WNBA in America where that league is a complete money sinkhole generating financial loss after financial loss year in and year out, and needs to be heavily subsidized by the NBA profits.
I have a lot of admiration for female athletes and the sporting success they achieve, I just wish they were shown respect by paying them relative to their own body of work and not this condescending notion of them needing to be propped up by the men's revenue to be successful.
Could not agree more. Unfortunately there are folks out there that will judge success based upon their own partisan set of statistics and justify a skewed outcome based on a minority perception. The reason that international superstars of ANY sport get paid mega $$ is because of the entertainment that they provide, in the same way that Hollywood actors or rock-stars or inspirational public presenters get paid mega $$. Being a generic male cricketer guarantees you nothing, I have plenty of overweight male middle aged weekend warrior friends that are living proof. When there are female cricketers that bring paying punters through the gates they should get commensurate rewards, in the same way that male superstars have negotiated. Look to women's tennis, golf etc for examples. Any movement to take interest from superstar players and try to use it to pay others through some kind of socialist population engineering attempt is prejudicial to those generating the interest in the 1st place.
maybe the issue isn't women sports players getting under paid but mens sports players being overpaid.
maybe the men are underpaid relative to the revenue they bring in?
It would be fair to say that the men's cricket team brings in at least 1000% more revenue to cricket Australia than the womens team, yet the men only get paid 10x the amount the women do. Is that fair?
Point is someone here is getting overpaid.
example: Lebron James gets about $30 million a year playing basketball in the NBA. If there were no salary cap, he'd easily get $150 million a year and when thinking about the minimum 1 billion dollars he generates for the NBA, he's very underpaid- even if it's an enormous amount that he makes. Someone is making money off these players.
That being said, there is also a minimum salary for NBA players. Perhaps some of those guys aren't worth what they're being paid, and it balances out. (I don't think it does but I understand the argument).
The argument is that the women's cricket team is making money off the mens cricket team simply for being women who play cricket- because their skill level is that of an under 12 state mens team- or slightly lower.
Interesting topic and I like hearing people's thoughts on the issue.
Who decides? The players themselves would likely argue that since they are the ones risking life and limb and they are the ones generating all of the interest and as a result almost all of the revenue, they should receive most of the rewards. In a team sport, different players have a different impact upon the result so those that most often tip the scales to a win would then argue that they should receive most of whatever is on offer.
The question here is how much interest and by derivation, how much revenue is women's sport likely to generate. Probably not enough to provide the same types of rewards being realised by the top male players. If I am wrong and there are female players generating significant interest and revenue then they should be rewarded accordingly. Any movement to oay them according to anything other than their ability to generate interest in the game is welfare pure and simple.
I mean show business is all that just business it's all about revenue they bring in.
This thread is so old that it isn't funny.
I'm probably not the best to say, since I don't really watch any sports, but with a lot of things I feel stuff life sports is based on consumer demand, and I'm unsure how much it is for womens cricket?
I guess its good to hear they're really giving it a real go through like not the team itself (I figured they'd try their best) but I mean the media, and whoever runs it actually putting money into it and trying out something they're unsure it will make them money. We will soon see whether it becomes popular to the people though, I guess the goal is that they can sustain themselves without subsidizing other teams.
As its new its hard to say whether its too much or not, I'm not surprised about the male salary because I assume its popular and raking in money. If the womens team can do the same, then I'd imagine their salary will go up, if not I'd imagine they'd probably dwindle away.