Womens football, Paygap, how is this legal and why is no one talking about it?

[Stupidbonfire]

Just as the title says really. I don’t understand how it’s legal to pay the women footballers so much less. The equality’s act 2010 seems to support equal pay for effort put in.

Am I being stupid? Could someone explain to me how the law is applied in this instance that it’s legal for such pay disparity and why the media seems silent on addressing it?

The women footballers have done our country proud and surely they deserve the same remuneration as the men would.

thank you so much.

I think you might be confusing 'earnings'//appearance fees with prize money.

They prize money is vastly different for men and women in football. It's mainly because more people watch the men's games so the overall prize pot is bigger.

I do think the difference is shocking though.

The nation that wins the tournament will receive a total of around £1.9m/£2m (assuming they’ve won all their group games).
However, it pales in comparison to the money on offer in last year’s men’s tournament, Euro 2020, which saw eventual winners Italy handed a prize pot of almost £29 million – of which £10 million was awarded solely for winner the final.

www.scotsman.com/sport/football/womens-euro-2022-prize-money-what-will-england-lionesses-earn-if-they-win-is-it-equal-pay-3776136

On the other hand the women's prize pot for Euro 22 has doubled since Euro 17 so it's going in the right direction.

I don't get this argument that female sportspeople should automatically get paid the same as their male counterparts. The reason sports stars get paid a shitload is because it's worth companies sponsoring them because enough people are interested and will buy their product because of it.

If you look at sports where the women can compete directly with men (snooker, darts, motor racing) the women never end up earning the same as the men because they're not as successful. Winning brings sponsorship and more money. A football team might be the ones who pay the players, but it's really the sponsors who pay the bills.

I've heard people argue "it should all be one pot of money and men and women should be paid equally" but that is nonsense. Basically it's saying people who are interested in one thing should be subsidising something they don't care about. By that logic, why not implemement a knitting tax? Many women like knitting but don't care about women's football, so why not tax wool and use it to fund women's football?

Do different boxing or mma fights get paid differently (even within weight and sex categories)?

Like boxing, MMA fighters are paid a fee per bout (negotiated by their agents) by broadcasters, the winner of the fight will get a 'purse' in prize money. Obviously the top fighters in their class get paid more then some rookie.

Womens football will never be as big as men's. Look how many people in this thread are prefacing with 'I don't like football but...' Think how many men are obsessed with sports vs women. It's a stereotype but it's largely true.

I can't think of a single sport where there is a huge demand for the female version that doesn't exist for the male version. If you liked football, then you'd want to watch the more skilled men playing it as well. Unless you genuinely only watch women's tennis etc?

Then you have the men, who don't necessarily want to watch the women's game because it's so much slower and less entertaining.

Then you have the men, who don't necessarily want to watch the women's game because it's so much slower and less entertaining

Not sure how anyone finds the mens' game entertaining - they spend most of it rolling around the floor and surrounding the referees.

However, women and men aren't employed by the same people - in fact are they employed at all, or are they are on contracts for supply of services? In the latter case they would not be subject to the legislation on paying both sexes the same for the same job anyway.

@Stupidbonfire

But I think to think of it as “catching up” is a mistake. How do we even know that what we would do would be the same and in the same way as the men, if we did it without what they had done in mind as our aim to achieve what they have?
We act like that’s the case as they are all we have to aspire to be like in these regards.

But I don’t really think attaching to them like that till we’re on “their” level is any way to ever create something original. The worry is that that is all we ever do? Just attach to succes men have had and use it as a means for our own sucess?
What if one day for whatever reason men say no?
Women will have nothing, because we will have built nothing independent of men.

Then you have the men, who don't necessarily want to watch the women's game because it's so much slower and less entertaining.

I'm more of a rugby person then footie and live in SW London. Previously England women have played their internationals at Harlequins rather then the much larger Twickenham up the road, even then the 14,000 or so capacity ground was only half full and that was mostly made up by men, tickets only cost about £20 and you could even get in for free at half time. The games are advertised heavily locally and are broadcast on the BBC. For all the demands to grow the game and pay women more there are tragically few women willing to actually go and make that reality by paying to see a game.

Not sure how anyone finds the mens' game entertaining - they spend most of it rolling around the floor and surrounding the referees.

Women thankfully don't surround or swear at the referees but they are just as cynical as the men insofar as making a meal out of a tackle and tugging on shirts etc. Even the commentators yesterday were praising England for their 'tactical fouls' to waste time at the end and their ability to 'win a yellow card' for an oppo player. Of course it is called 'clever game management' rather then cheating!

Oh come on @SammySammySammytheBetterfly @ihavespoken

When men stopped allowing women to use the FA facilities women were barely able to vote. They didn't earn the money to be able to build the stadia from scratch to facilitate the crowds to get the money into the game. So yes it was a ban on playing football in a manner that allowed them to make a living from it.

When the ban was lifted the male dominated media wouldn't cover the games so then they couldn't attract sponsorship. It's not equality if one group holds all the power.

It’s amazing how many people fail to grasp the concept that professional sports are commercial businesses which pay players according to the revenues generated by the product they are selling, and not outposts of public sector equal opportunities departments. 🙄

@YetiTeri

You don’t need immediate media coverage and big sponsorship to start something new. Mens leagues in football and other sports weren’t professional and there was bang all money in them for a long time - yet they still did them and they slowly developed. That’s real passion and invention.
Just wanting to attach to what they’ve built and get money from it to fund womens imitation leagues and teams really isn’t.

Why must everything women achieve be provided by men? There is literally nothing right now stopping women from starting their own only female league - the capital is there to at least start it on a level appropriate to the interest and grow it from there. But it seems like the women who are into sports are more interested in attaching themselves to what men do and trying to benifet from it.

Im not into sports so I don’t care but I think it’s really unfair on the guys that they try to force them to provide what they demand. And honestly all kind of sad and pathetic that the best we can do is copy what the men do then make men pay us for it?

Men only need provide for their wives - not all women at a society wide level.

The women's isn't less entertaining than the men's.

Starting womens or girls teams independently will be really hard. There are council owned pitches but when you get to a professional level it costs a lot to run a league or team. If you are getting even 1000crowd you need some stewards. St Johns Ambulance presence, to up revenue drinks at half time. Then of course wages not just players but manager and back room even just a solicitor to sort out the contracts. Professionals need to be insured because if they are injured, but not so badly they won’t play again and retire they have no value to the club, who would need to provide physio.

I love football at the moment the mens game and women maybe for international. I also don’t attend in person. I don’t have any one who would attend local mens or womens and the premier league team I support is full season ticket. The waiting list for that is 40,000. When I was teenager and we were really good went with my uncle to cup games.

Gorls into football at the moment may have been inspired by the current Euros but I suspect that during the season are just as likely to follow mens as have probably been introduced by someone supporting a mens team.

Exactly. This England team has been FAR more entertaining than the England men. That's ultimately why it's captured the imagination of so many male football supporters.

That kind of patronising shit belongs in the 1970s.

Well that’s a matter of opinion. What is a matter of fact is that only a fraction of the people being entertained by the men’s game are being entertained by the women’s game. As such, supply and demand dictates that female footballers don’t enjoy earnings parity with their male counterparts.

I take it you don't realise that all footballers are paid different salaries?

You could have a dressing room with twenty players in and every single one will be on a different salary

There's not a set salary for a professional footballer

This is the second post today I've seen moaning about women's salaries in professional football

You really need to understand how football works off the field to begin to even slightly understand why women will never be paid even remotely similar to men

How about you understand how discrimination works? How girls are still not playing football in school and boys won't play it with them in the playground. And male media barons wouldn't cover it in their press and on their TV channels.

The BBC took a chance on the WSL and this tournament and it's paid off massively. These women are now household names, Arsenal's website crashed from people wanting to get tickets to their league games. The interest has always been there, it's just been crushed by patriarchy.

I was just looking at some figures.

The male Man City team brings in nearly 600 million in revenue a year.

The female team, 4 million.

On average a male player in the Premier league earns about 100 times what a top female player will earn, so compared to the revenue generated the women are actually better off.

Man City spends 62% of its revenue on salaries for male players, but actually spends more than its total revenue on salaries for the women's team.

@girlfrien unless you are entertained by the fact that they are women then I'm sorry, I don't see how you can not say completely objectively that the men are much better footballers. Everyone on this thread is falling over themselves to say how handicapped and underfunded and undeveloped women's football has been. They're right - and it shows. The level of skill is very different. That is WHY women's football needs support, because you have the chicken and egg problem that fewer people want to watch the women because they aren't as good - but they can't become as good without people watching and supporting.

@YetiTeri and yet nearly double the number of people watched the men's team lose last year as watched the women's team win this year? I'm sorry but you can't remotely compare it to the levels of hysteria we saw last men's euros.

Stupidbonfire

Do you also believe that the male under 21s and under 18s teams should be paid the same as the first team?

After all as far as you are concerned its the same job.

Besides one of the worst things that happened to the male game was the wage inflation

Or that a unknown band of teenagers playing their first gig to 20 mates in the back room of a pub should get the same money as the Rolling Stones?
Or that the guy playing third villager in provincial panto should get the same money as the lead in a West End musical?