Thought it was great. It reminded me of International rules in that the girls didnt slow play very often. Lots of running and quick movement. It was "mark" and immediately play on (quite often when they shouldnt have) and there were actually some pretty big, high speed hits as a result.
Obviously these were the best 40-odd players. How it looks next year when they need 300 players is a different question.
We should also keep in mind (as mentioned above somewhere) that these are not full-time professional footballers. That day will come, when female players will be 100% dedicated to the game, be 100% fit, filtered through a long process from childhood, etc.
Will that ever happen though?
I honestly can’t see it getting past where the VFL is now (short of the AFL running a massive loss on it over a very long period of time).
Nothing against the girls as they should be encouraged to play at the highest level possible, just don’t think we’ll ever see the interest or $$$ turnover required for them to be full time
18 clubs with 40 players at $60,000 annual salary is $43 million. And that’s not including support staff, coaches, admin etc. that money has to come from somewhere for it to be sustainable
It would depend.
Maybe - just maybe, women, who form at least half of avid footy supporters, will slowly start to get interested in footy by their own gender.
Thought it was great. It reminded me of International rules in that the girls didnt slow play very often. Lots of running and quick movement. It was "mark" and immediately play on (quite often when they shouldnt have) and there were actually some pretty big, high speed hits as a result.
Obviously these were the best 40-odd players. How it looks next year when they need 300 players is a different question.
We should also keep in mind (as mentioned above somewhere) that these are not full-time professional footballers. That day will come, when female players will be 100% dedicated to the game, be 100% fit, filtered through a long process from childhood, etc.
Agree. And either way, its great for them to get some coverage anyway. My wifes cousin played last night. Apparently she hasnt had much support from some parts of her family, so that game (and next years league) offers a measure of “stick that up ya” for her. She will not be the only one in that boat either.
I have two youngish daughters. Id watch them play marbles if that was their go. I dont think either is temperamentally likely to opt for footy. But for any girls that do, this is a brilliant development. I cant see a single negative. And i think the game was eminently watchable.
Heard on Offsiders this morning that the player’s who’ll play in the inaugural AFL Women’s League, will be played a miserly $5000 for the season? What the? If last night was anything to by, they “at least” deserve 4 times that number. That should be the minimum!
Heard on Offsiders this morning that the player's who'll play in the inaugural AFL Women's League, will be played a miserly $5000 for the season? What the? If last night was anything to by, they "at least" deserve 4 times that number. That should be the minimum!
Apparently this was the highest rating Saturday night game of the year?!?
Let’s keep in mind though, at this level it is still just a novelty, could be different levels of interest once it’s week after week with watered down skill levels due to more teams.
Nothing against it and I wish them all the best, just don’t see it ever supporting itself. The parts I seen were quite boring actually.
Heard on Offsiders this morning that the player's who'll play in the inaugural AFL Women's League, will be played a miserly $5000 for the season? What the? If last night was anything to by, they "at least" deserve 4 times that number. That should be the minimum!
The marquee signings will get minimum $25,000 minus some costs (and tax)
Heard on Offsiders this morning that the player's who'll play in the inaugural AFL Women's League, will be played a miserly $5000 for the season? What the? If last night was anything to by, they "at least" deserve 4 times that number. That should be the minimum!
The marquee signings will get minimum $25,000 minus some costs (and tax)
Heard on Offsiders this morning that the player's who'll play in the inaugural AFL Women's League, will be played a miserly $5000 for the season? What the? If last night was anything to by, they "at least" deserve 4 times that number. That should be the minimum!
The marquee signings will get minimum $25,000 minus some costs (and tax)
And the season will go for two months next year.
Yup. $3,000 a week for Daisy Pierce and co. $625 for the bottom half dozen at each club
Plus Holden reportedly split their sponsorship 50/50 to the men’s/women’s teams, and giving a few of the players cars to drive (courtesy Eddies comments about Caro).
Who can put their life on hold to move interstate for a couple of months for $5000? You’d probably have to leave your job. Would it be worth moving your life for?
Who can put their life on hold to move interstate for a couple of months for $5000? You'd probably have to leave your job. Would it be worth moving your life for?
My issue is there are several blokes who play local footy get paid substantially more than that a season. FFS, this is the elite women’s competition. They deserve to be paid more than some bloke who played a few seasons of VFL and is now dominating some local comp because he was too lazy to play with guys who took it seriously.