WSL Wages

[Well b back 3,267]

Some of these figures are looking a little outdated. I guess Arsenal’s figure has been excluded as their average attendance was 17,501 I am also not sure where the figures that are shown on here come from as for the 22/23 season as Manchester United were second with 10,174 and Manchester City was 7195. Maybe these figures have not included something that the figures I have found don’t.

This compares to Bournemouth whose average was 10,309. I appreciate that their ground is quite small, but this is the discussion amongst women’s teams currently. There was a conversation about this yesterday and the women’s game is in a bit of a dilemma, in that they play in grounds that this year ( not previous years ) regularly sell out. Chelsea for instance, as do Manchester City ( who play at the academy ground ) see their grounds as ideal as they are used to small compact grounds. However this means their growing following cannot always get tickets. So do they play in the men’s stadiums, today we will see 50,000 plus for the Manchester Derby, or do they bite the bullet and build stadiums with capacities of 15 - 20000.

Attendances last year increased by 182% from the year before ( where I think the figures here are getting quoted from ) and this year 23/24 is expected again to increase by 200%. 
Tickets for the Manchester Derby today for adults range from £15 - £37. Juniors and concessions are £7.50 - £10.

Some Barcelona players are said to be paid in excess of €200000. The WSL will have to keep up or the likes of Lauren James will not be playing in it.

One other thing worth noting is that women’s football tv viewing figures are 3x more than the football league.

And no I don’t follow women’s football, I just think it is something that brings people into football, that would never think about going to a game.

[nutty nigel 7,585]

6 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

The men's game is being subsidised by human rights abusers and/or oil barons to a huge degree but they still want more.

This is true. And it becomes acceptable because it's subsidising 'our team'.

But I don't think attendances will be the key to adding millions to the women's game. TV contracts will do that. Once it becomes something enough people want to watch the tv money will follow. And the sponsorship. Maybe even human rights abusers and oil barons. Then attendances will rise through day outers and trippers. They won't even have the 'problem' of tens of thousands of 'legacy fans' to contend with.

[Ulfotto 641]

4 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Absolutely agree Cambridge, there have been some examples of teams not associated with mainstream teams doing really well in the higher echelons of the female game 

Google the Doncaster belles squeezed out to make room for Manchester City. Unfortunately money talks.

[RobJames 884]

Yet is clearly evident that this is not something people want to watch, at any sustainable level.  My main point is not the lack of money games raise, but that the attendance is based on a very low admission price. Were some of these clubs to be charging prices that came anywhere towards what Kings Lynn charge, then how many would be at the games ?

We see this with FA/League cup games. What would be the attendance were these games charged at League prices. What these games at Arsenal and other similar grounds offer is the 'experience' of watching a game at a relative low cost - see how many turn out at Southends Roots. London clubs also have the advantage whereby those attending already have paid for travel, (Oyster Cards etc) so there is no extra cost as would be the case outside of London. Dad takes his two kids, and it could work out at less than £12 in total.

City charge a fiver, and a quid for kids and get a crowd of 300 at th Nest. That is the reality. Darts attracts TV coverage over their 'final' played over Xmas, though take away the alcohol and see how many attend. See how many are at darts games the rest of the time, as with Speedway and now Snooker. Technology has made covering sporting events much easier and cheaper, hence the minority channels being abl to cover ... minority sports. You could almost put Rugby in this category. Huge amount of hype, and delusion about where the game stands in the grand scheme of things, and we see top clubs folding

And no amount of hype will change that reality for womens football.

 

[Ulfotto 641]

2 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Yet is clearly evident that this is not something people want to watch, at any sustainable level.  My main point is not the lack of money games raise, but that the attendance is based on a very low admission price. Were some of these clubs to be charging prices that came anywhere towards what Kings Lynn charge, then how many would be at the games ?

We see this with FA/League cup games. What would be the attendance were these games charged at League prices. What these games at Arsenal and other similar grounds offer is the 'experience' of watching a game at a relative low cost - see how many turn out at Southends Roots. London clubs also have the advantage whereby those attending already have paid for travel, (Oyster Cards etc) so there is no extra cost as would be the case outside of London. Dad takes his two kids, and it could work out at less than £12 in total.

City charge a fiver, and a quid for kids and get a crowd of 300 at th Nest. That is the reality. Darts attracts TV coverage over their 'final' played over Xmas, though take away the alcohol and see how many attend. See how many are at darts games the rest of the time, as with Speedway and now Snooker. Technology has made covering sporting events much easier and cheaper, hence the minority channels being abl to cover ... minority sports. You could almost put Rugby in this category. Huge amount of hype, and delusion about where the game stands in the grand scheme of things, and we see top clubs folding

And no amount of hype will change that reality for womens football.

 

Jesus is there any subject in the world that provokes responses like this. I get it women’s football is not for everyone but if it’s not for you why tell everyone it’s not for you. I’m not particularly keen on Eastenders for example but if you like it fair enough I respect that. It’s like the minute someone mentions women football people jump in to say why it’s rubbish, it’s not sustainable etc. etc.. Ok fine it maybe all of those things but people seem very keen to voice those opinions time and time again.

[alex_ncfc 664]

Just now, Ulfotto said:

Jesus is there any subject in the world that provokes responses like this. I get it women’s football is not for everyone but if it’s not for you why tell everyone it’s not for you. I’m not particularly keen on Eastenders for example but if you like it fair enough I respect that. It’s like the minute someone mentions women football people jump in to say why it’s rubbish, it’s not sustainable etc. etc.. Ok fine it maybe all of those things but people seem very keen to voice those opinions time and time again.

It's called a discussion forum. 

You might have heard of them.

[ec-p 98]

Beauty of a goal by our Lauren Hemp, to put Man City 2-1 up. Just saying.

[canarydan23 4,060]

56 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

Jesus is there any subject in the world that provokes responses like this. I get it women’s football is not for everyone but if it’s not for you why tell everyone it’s not for you. I’m not particularly keen on Eastenders for example but if you like it fair enough I respect that. It’s like the minute someone mentions women football people jump in to say why it’s rubbish, it’s not sustainable etc. etc.. Ok fine it maybe all of those things but people seem very keen to voice those opinions time and time again.

How do you know someone doesn't like women's football?

They will tell you.

Worse than vegans.

[Well b back 3,267]

53 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Yet is clearly evident that this is not something people want to watch, at any sustainable level.  My main point is not the lack of money games raise, but that the attendance is based on a very low admission price. Were some of these clubs to be charging prices that came anywhere towards what Kings Lynn charge, then how many would be at the games ?

We see this with FA/League cup games. What would be the attendance were these games charged at League prices. What these games at Arsenal and other similar grounds offer is the 'experience' of watching a game at a relative low cost - see how many turn out at Southends Roots. London clubs also have the advantage whereby those attending already have paid for travel, (Oyster Cards etc) so there is no extra cost as would be the case outside of London. Dad takes his two kids, and it could work out at less than £12 in total.

City charge a fiver, and a quid for kids and get a crowd of 300 at th Nest. That is the reality. Darts attracts TV coverage over their 'final' played over Xmas, though take away the alcohol and see how many attend. See how many are at darts games the rest of the time, as with Speedway and now Snooker. Technology has made covering sporting events much easier and cheaper, hence the minority channels being abl to cover ... minority sports. You could almost put Rugby in this category. Huge amount of hype, and delusion about where the game stands in the grand scheme of things, and we see top clubs folding

And no amount of hype will change that reality for womens football.

 

As I have said 3x more people watch the WSL on tv than watch the EFL games. As far as advertising goes, I am sure lots of companies would prefer to advertise amongst an atmosphere of families applauding, rather than hearing some of the abuse thrown at officials in the men’s game ( I would have to include myself in that abuse ).

As I have also said, I don’t follow the WSL, but I also don’t expect it to just disappear. I fully expect at least a Championship team to employ a woman as a manager / head coach in the next five or six seasons. 

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,044]

Advocates of the WSL need to start attending matches for two schillings and sixpence. Notts County had nearly 12,000 attending yesterday and most would have paid £20 to be there. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[Mr.Carrow 378]

On 18/11/2023 at 04:07, KeiranShikari said:

I'm surprised it's so high, honestly. Bar 1 side attendances are Vanarama level and season tickets can be bought in the WSL for around £50.

https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/womens-super-league/attendances

https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/national-league/attendances

https://www.90min.com/posts/wsl-ticket-prices-how-you-can-watch-chelsea-arsenal-man-city-man-utd-more

If all the twitter types that come out of the woodwork when there's a women's tournament on actually attended games games I'd suggest they'd be earning a lot more money. 

Look up Rob Henderson's idea of "luxury beliefs".

[Canaries north 151]

3 hours ago, Well b back said:

As I have said 3x more people watch the WSL on tv than watch the EFL games. As far as advertising goes, I am sure lots of companies would prefer to advertise amongst an atmosphere of families applauding, rather than hearing some of the abuse thrown at officials in the men’s game ( I would have to include myself in that abuse ).

As I have also said, I don’t follow the WSL, but I also don’t expect it to just disappear. I fully expect at least a Championship team to employ a woman as a manager / head coach in the next five or six seasons. 

 

The 3 times I believe is because a number of games are on free view via the BBC. The championship is only on sky?  You might also have more up to date figures than me but from what I have seen WSL gets an average of 125k on all channels and championship games only on sky get 200k. If the figures I have seen are correct and they might not be as some were taken from a debate on how much sky pays the SPL, but that wouldn't be a fair comparison. If the championship was on the BBC I still believed more people would watch the championship. This might change but at the moment that is my belief. 

[Yobocop 1,105]

5 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

Google the Doncaster belles squeezed out to make room for Manchester City. Unfortunately money talks.

Ah yes Donny belles it was not notts county but I’m sure notts county were another one who were forced out previously had greenwood and Ellen white play for them I believe 

[Well b back 3,267]

3 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Advocates of the WSL need to start attending matches for two schillings and sixpence. Notts County had nearly 12,000 attending yesterday and most would have paid £20 to be there. 

Not sure if the same applies at football league grounds, but any child 14 or under attending a WSL game must be accompanied by a full paying adult.

Notts County

• Adult: £22
• 65 and over: £16
• 18-21: £16
• Under 18: £8
• Under 16: £6
• Under 12: £1*

Tickets for the Arsenal Chelsea game are fast selling out, but cheapest tickets are

Adult

£16.65

£15.00 Ticket + £1.65 Fees

-0+

Junior U18

£9.15

£7.50 Ticket + £1.65 Fees

-0+

Senior 65 and Over

£12.90

£11.25 Ticket + £1.65 Fees

-0+

Young Adult 18-24

£12.90

£11.25 Ticket + £1.65 Fees

Tickets available online for the men’s Manchester Derby are selling fast at £217.

Manchester Derby not sure of attendance but 45 - 50000 +

Get your tickets from just £15.00 for adults, and £7.50 for concessions.

 

 

 

 

[alex_ncfc 664]

5 hours ago, Well b back said:

As I have said 3x more people watch the WSL on tv than watch the EFL games. As far as advertising goes, I am sure lots of companies would prefer to advertise amongst an atmosphere of families applauding, rather than hearing some of the abuse thrown at officials in the men’s game ( I would have to include myself in that abuse ).

As I have also said, I don’t follow the WSL, but I also don’t expect it to just disappear. I fully expect at least a Championship team to employ a woman as a manager / head coach in the next five or six seasons. 

 

Sorry but anybody who believes that more people watch women's football than the EFL is seriously deluded. 

[hogesar 9,722]

More women need to start supporting women's football and going to games. They could genuinely get decent attendances and lead to better sponsorship and better pay.

[dylanisabaddog 4,970]

22 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

I’ve just checked the prices for Leicester Ladies. Every home match at the KingPower and £42 for an adult season ticket. I paid a quid more than that to watch Norwich play Leicester at CR in 2015. I’m surprised attendances are so low when they practically give tickets away. 

The King's New Clothes at the King power! 

FFP clearly isn't being applied to the female game. Arsenal's wage bill is more than double the money they bring in from tv and gate receipts. 

If I was a season ticket holder at one of the big clubs funding this nonsense I would be asking why my money was being wasted. 

[shefcanary 2,444]

17 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

How do you know someone doesn't like women's football?

They will tell you.

Worse than vegans.

They do protest to loud, don't they? Just enjoy what is on offer or ignore totally is how I see it, no need to be spout **** just because you think your own preferences might be threatened.

The men's game has to learn lessons to accommodate this new challenge, instead my fear is that people like those protesting on here are in charge of the men's game (Webber anyone?) and ignore that challenge so weaken the men's game as a result as they sit idly by rather than working hard to make the men's game return to a period when it was genuinely open to all sides to become both competitive and successful. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If I was a season ticket holder at one of the big clubs funding this nonsense I would be asking why my money was being wasted. 

The Arsenal Women received roughly £5 million in "commercial income" which can basically be interpreted as the cash they get from Arsenal Holdings Ltd.

The trouble is, you'd be foolish to ascribe all of that as being charity from the men's wing, as the commercial deals are packaged together; Fly Emirates sponsor both shirts.

So you have to factor how much cash the Arsenal Women would get if they branched out for their own sponsorship deals, and it's fair to say it would be a sizeable amount. The WSL in 22/23 got an average of 522k viewers on their BBC games (up from 393k in 21/22) and 220k on Sky games (almost doubled from 111k the previous season). The TV viewing figures are rapidly catching up with the Championship and on current trends will overtake them, potentially this season.

So it's fair to say that a theoretical independent Arsenal Women's team would bag themselves at least a couple of million in sponsorship revenue, arguably more. But we'll stick at the £2 million figure and agree that the men's side of things subsidies the women's side to a tune of £3 million.

Now, there are 42,000 Arsenal season tickets and the average price is an eye-watering £1,050. That's a total of £44.1 million pounds. However, Arsenal's total revenue in the year up to May 2022 was £372 million, so roughly 12% of that revenue is season ticket sales.

So to cut a long story short, 12% of that £3 million comes from season ticket holders, £360,000.

So if you were a season ticket holder of Arsenal paying an average price for your ticket, you would be asking why they are "wasting" £8.57 of your £1,050 ticket on women's football. I suspect if you did a straw poll of those 42,000 and asked if it bothered them, the tiny amount of those who would say "YES IT DOES ACTUALLY" would have a complexion that reminds one of a common Sunday Roast meat that comes from a pig and isn't pork.

 

 

[spencer 1970 207]

Good luck surviving in London on £20K a year?! Hopefully thats propped up with sponsorship money. 

[essex canary 504]

On 19/11/2023 at 14:31, nutty nigel said:

This is true. And it becomes acceptable because it's subsidising 'our team'.

But I don't think attendances will be the key to adding millions to the women's game. TV contracts will do that. Once it becomes something enough people want to watch the tv money will follow. And the sponsorship. Maybe even human rights abusers and oil barons. Then attendances will rise through day outers and trippers. They won't even have the 'problem' of tens of thousands of 'legacy fans' to contend with.

Let's hope that the Equalities lobbies insist on the day tripper logic being applied to men's football. Then the logic of Football Clubs living off the legacy of non attending season ticket holders and other legacy schemes such as our shareholders can truly be put to bed. 

[Newtopia 519]

12 hours ago, spencer 1970 said:

Good luck surviving in London on £20K a year?! Hopefully thats propped up with sponsorship money. 

I used to go with my daughter to watch Brighton, one day we were chatting with Victoria Williams’s Mum at a game. She said that the players lived together fully paid shared housing at the clubs Victoria had played for.  So that takes the location part out of the calculation, and adds a bit more value to the contracts,assuming all the clubs do the same or similiar.

[shefcanary 2,444]

6 hours ago, Newtopia said:

She said that the players lived together fully paid shared housing at the clubs Victoria had played for.

That's back to the future kind of(!) 

If you read the Norwich City Archives, half the houses on the perimeter of the old Nest were owned by the club and the players lived in them as part of their contract. I believe as late as the 70's the club still owned quite a few houses on Dereham Road (?), so yes, the provision of free housing is one way players can benefit which wouldn't necessarily be accounted if you looked at the basic salary in the contract. Given the type of accommodation most of the women players live in (see their insta posts) this is easily "worth" another £20K p.a. for most in free rent, rates and utilities.

On top of that there will be other benefits (breakfast & lunch are no doubt provided FOC at the training ground, sponsorship contracts providing most of the clobber they wear as well). Then don't forget the performance bonuses on top of that. By the time you add all that up then the women supposedly on NMW are actually earning two to three times what is stated as their basic salary in their contract.

If they are canny, the cash they receive could easily be put straight into an investment account. But you know instead it will be squandered on clothes, accessories, flash holidays and fast cars, just like their male counterparts have done with their cash ad infinitum.

[dylanisabaddog 4,970]

20 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

The Arsenal Women received roughly £5 million in "commercial income" which can basically be interpreted as the cash they get from Arsenal Holdings Ltd.

The trouble is, you'd be foolish to ascribe all of that as being charity from the men's wing, as the commercial deals are packaged together; Fly Emirates sponsor both shirts.

So you have to factor how much cash the Arsenal Women would get if they branched out for their own sponsorship deals, and it's fair to say it would be a sizeable amount. The WSL in 22/23 got an average of 522k viewers on their BBC games (up from 393k in 21/22) and 220k on Sky games (almost doubled from 111k the previous season). The TV viewing figures are rapidly catching up with the Championship and on current trends will overtake them, potentially this season.

So it's fair to say that a theoretical independent Arsenal Women's team would bag themselves at least a couple of million in sponsorship revenue, arguably more. But we'll stick at the £2 million figure and agree that the men's side of things subsidies the women's side to a tune of £3 million.

Now, there are 42,000 Arsenal season tickets and the average price is an eye-watering £1,050. That's a total of £44.1 million pounds. However, Arsenal's total revenue in the year up to May 2022 was £372 million, so roughly 12% of that revenue is season ticket sales.

So to cut a long story short, 12% of that £3 million comes from season ticket holders, £360,000.

So if you were a season ticket holder of Arsenal paying an average price for your ticket, you would be asking why they are "wasting" £8.57 of your £1,050 ticket on women's football. I suspect if you did a straw poll of those 42,000 and asked if it bothered them, the tiny amount of those who would say "YES IT DOES ACTUALLY" would have a complexion that reminds one of a common Sunday Roast meat that comes from a pig and isn't pork.

 

 

Why do you find it necessary to be so incredibly rude? It's behaviour normally associated with people who are unable to have a rational, intelligent debate. It's also rather childish. 

There is comment above that people who don't like womens football are gammon or as bad as vegans. For God sake, can you not have a reasoned discussion without being so sill? I don't like womens football because having seen it I found the standard to be poor. If you want to watch it that's absolutely fine but please don't be abusive because I don't share your view. Quite simply, not liking womens football doesn't mean I don't like women or I'm a mysoginist. It just means that I don't think it's worth watching. 

Are you really saying that people who hold that view shouldn't be allowed to air it on a public forum? I've been quite polite with my opinions, you and one or two others have descended into childish name calling. Grow up. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[canarydan23 4,060]

50 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Quite simply, not liking womens football doesn't mean I don't like women or I'm a mysoginist. It just means that I don't think it's worth watching. 

Of course it doesn't, nor have I said anything to even imply that's the case, so I'm not sure why you're being demonstrably over-sensitive about the issue.

What's weird people, you included, don't seem to be able to not like women's football in silence. You have a need to voice it whenever the topic comes up. There are countless examples where someone has made a post relating to women's football and people, you included, have a compulsion to not only click on a thread title about something they don't like but to also to spend time posting a response telling everyone they don't like it. It's just bizarre. Hence my adapting the common joke about vegans to women's football.

And yes, I do think there is something gammony about the idea people would get really angry at a couple of pints worth of their expensive season ticket was going to subsidise women's football and I won't apologise for that if someone gets butthurt over it or think it's childish.

58 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Are you really saying that people who hold that view shouldn't be allowed to air it on a public forum?

You are absolutely entitled to do that, just as I am equally entitled to reply ridiculing you for it.

I don't particularly like Rugby Union, if I saw a thread on here that said "Saracens v Gloucester", guess what? I wouldn't click on it. I certainly wouldn't click on it and then post, "Rugby Union sucks butt". It's like walking past a pub where a live jazz act are playing and thinking, "You know what? I'll pop my head in there and shout JAZZ SUCKS!"

Of course, I would be perfectly entitled to do those things, but equally I would expect actual Rugby Union and jazz fans to find my behaviour pretty odd and wouldn't be at all surprised to see them react by ridiculing me.

[Canaries north 151]

52 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Of course it doesn't, nor have I said anything to even imply that's the case, so I'm not sure why you're being demonstrably over-sensitive about the issue.

What's weird people, you included, don't seem to be able to not like women's football in silence. You have a need to voice it whenever the topic comes up. There are countless examples where someone has made a post relating to women's football and people, you included, have a compulsion to not only click on a thread title about something they don't like but to also to spend time posting a response telling everyone they don't like it. It's just bizarre. Hence my adapting the common joke about vegans to women's football.

And yes, I do think there is something gammony about the idea people would get really angry at a couple of pints worth of their expensive season ticket was going to subsidise women's football and I won't apologise for that if someone gets butthurt over it or think it's childish.

You are absolutely entitled to do that, just as I am equally entitled to reply ridiculing you for it.

I don't particularly like Rugby Union, if I saw a thread on here that said "Saracens v Gloucester", guess what? I wouldn't click on it. I certainly wouldn't click on it and then post, "Rugby Union sucks butt". It's like walking past a pub where a live jazz act are playing and thinking, "You know what? I'll pop my head in there and shout JAZZ SUCKS!"

Of course, I would be perfectly entitled to do those things, but equally I would expect actual Rugby Union and jazz fans to find my behaviour pretty odd and wouldn't be at all surprised to see them react by ridiculing me.

Bu

 

52 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Of course it doesn't, nor have I said anything to even imply that's the case, so I'm not sure why you're being demonstrably over-sensitive about the issue.

What's weird people, you included, don't seem to be able to not like women's football in silence. You have a need to voice it whenever the topic comes up. There are countless examples where someone has made a post relating to women's football and people, you included, have a compulsion to not only click on a thread title about something they don't like but to also to spend time posting a response telling everyone they don't like it. It's just bizarre. Hence my adapting the common joke about vegans to women's football.

And yes, I do think there is something gammony about the idea people would get really angry at a couple of pints worth of their expensive season ticket was going to subsidise women's football and I won't apologise for that if someone gets butthurt over it or think it's childish.

You are absolutely entitled to do that, just as I am equally entitled to reply ridiculing you for it.

I don't particularly like Rugby Union, if I saw a thread on here that said "Saracens v Gloucester", guess what? I wouldn't click on it. I certainly wouldn't click on it and then post, "Rugby Union sucks butt". It's like walking past a pub where a live jazz act are playing and thinking, "You know what? I'll pop my head in there and shout JAZZ SUCKS!"

Of course, I would be perfectly entitled to do those things, but equally I would expect actual Rugby Union and jazz fans to find my behaviour pretty odd and wouldn't be at all surprised to see them react by ridiculing me.

But if the title was why aren't Rugby players paid the same as footballers then I think you would look. The moment it says WSL wages you know it will be about the comparison to men's football. The answer by the way to why aren't Rugby players paid the same is revenue. Pure and simple. The same also applies to the WSL at this moment in time. It might not in the future but that is where it is. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Canaries north said:

But if the title was why aren't Rugby players paid the same as footballers then I think you would look. The moment it says WSL wages you know it will be about the comparison to men's football. The answer by the way to why aren't Rugby players paid the same is revenue. Pure and simple. The same also applies to the WSL at this moment in time. It might not in the future but that is where it is. 

You're reading a lot of things that aren't there.

Which poster has said women should be paid the same as men in club football?

[Jsim1986 150]

Can we just ignore CanaryDan23 honestly I find him so boring, he loves women's football and loves to argue or belittle anyone who doesn't share his opinion, quite honestly this should be in the non football section as I don't come here to read about the crappy WSL 

[canarydan23 4,060]

JSIM1986: I don't come here to read about the crappy WSL

ALSO JSIM1986: *clicks on a thread titled WSL Wages*

[Canaries north 151]

38 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

You're reading a lot of things that aren't there.

Which poster has said women should be paid the same as men in club football?

I also think your reading a lot into that 😀 

The comment was a reply to another comment saying if it was a Rugby Post the person in question would not have bothered reading. To my mind the moment you post WSL wages most people who are just into WSL or just men's football or love both would look as it's fair to say it will come back to how much the men are paid at some point. Strangely that is how it turned out.