WSL Wages

[essex canary 497]

45 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?

Lot's of women are paid the same as men in Club Football just not those actually playing the sport.

[Fen Canary 848]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Lot's of women are paid the same as men in Club Football just not those actually playing the sport.

Most women footballers earn more than my mate does for playing football. Admittedly that’s because he plays in front of 3 men and a dog at step 5

[Midlands Yellow 4,012]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Most women footballers earn more than my mate does for playing football. Admittedly that’s because he plays in front of 3 men and a dog at step 5

Your mate plays for Norwich?

[Fen Canary 848]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Your mate plays for Norwich?

He did until Webber sold him

[Well b back 3,232]

On 19/11/2023 at 22:49, alex_ncfc said:

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

An average of 796,000 viewers watched Emma Hayes' side win 5-1at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, with a peak audience of 955,000.

There were a further 141,000 requests to watch the match on BBC iPlayer.

[RobJames 881]

More relevant was how many turned out to see City play Worthing, or at any other similar game that weekend ? Guesstimates for one off TV games count for little, especially when it comes to funding.

The Eurovison song contest probably had viewing figures into tens of millions. Does that transfer into live paying audience figures for any of the acts ?

How many will watch the L2 play off final at Wembley on the TV. How many will then be at the home games the following season ? The latter is what will count as far as finances go, and that in general determines how much the players are paid.

Edited November 21, 2023 by RobJames

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

Guesstimates for one off TV games count for little, especially when it comes to funding.

1) They're not guesstimates

2) The BBC will broadcast 22 WSL games this season, so they're not one off

3) TV money dwarves gate receipts in WSL (and the EPL, for that matter) so TV games matter a lot when it comes to funding

Other than that, good point well made.

[Well b back 3,232]

3 hours ago, RobJames said:

More relevant was how many turned out to see City play Worthing, or at any other similar game that weekend ? Guesstimates for one off TV games count for little, especially when it comes to funding.

The Eurovison song contest probably had viewing figures into tens of millions. Does that transfer into live paying audience figures for any of the acts ?

How many will watch the L2 play off final at Wembley on the TV. How many will then be at the home games the following season ? The latter is what will count as far as finances go, and that in general determines how much the players are paid.

They are not one off anymore, Spurs Villa 750,000 + Iplayer the talk has gone from women’s football, 31,000,000 for 2 international games, to the WSL, to Norwich ladies. 

[RobJames 881]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

1) They're not guesstimates

2) The BBC will broadcast 22 WSL games this season, so they're not one off

3) TV money dwarves gate receipts in WSL (and the EPL, for that matter) so TV games matter a lot when it comes to funding

Other than that, good point well made.

Do you understand what BARB is, or is there is a monitoring device in every screen in the UK ? That game was a one off, as far as audience figures for other games.  PL clubs derive their TV money from subscription, global in part. So far no subscription has offered for a Womens TV package.

Regards rugby. The one offs/show game (6 nations) are likely to be lost by the BBC (as comment today) yet outside of those games rugby Union struggles. With London Irish, joining Wasps and Worcester folding, citing lack of money. Many pro rugby clubs play at Football grounds, as there is not the income to built or maintain their own stadia.

This is the situation with womens football, and why Norwich ladies are more reflective of the game rather than any one offs - a few hundred paying less than a thousand pounds in total, to sustain a fortnights pay. That's the cloth they have to cut from, not some imagined PL level of pay because they share the same well known name, and they refer to themselves as a super league.

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

 

https://theconversation.com/the-lionesses-had-a-terrific-world-cup-but-womens-football-in-england-is-on-shaky-economic-ground-new-research-211767#:~:text=Our research also found other,£1.4 million in 2019.

Edited November 22, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

11 hours ago, Well b back said:

An average of 796,000 viewers watched Emma Hayes' side win 5-1at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, with a peak audience of 955,000.

There were a further 141,000 requests to watch the match on BBC iPlayer.

The comparison with the Premier League is an eye opener. 796,000 sounds a lot but it isn't. By comparison, the Premier League managed a total of 3.5 billion worldwide views last season. 

And of course there was no Premier League football at the weekend which presumably is why Manchester United were playing Manchester City and Chelsea played Liverpool. 

[king canary 7,623]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The comparison with the Premier League is an eye opener. 796,000 sounds a lot but it isn't. By comparison, the Premier League managed a total of 3.5 billion worldwide views last season. 

I'm sorry but this post is just numerically illiterate.

You've compared the amount of people watching one match on one channel in one country to the entire world wide total views of a league across a season. I've heard of comparing apples to oranges, this is like comparing apples to blue whales.

Also I don't think anyone is claiming WSL gets close to the numbers the PL generates

[hogesar 9,704]

15 hours ago, Well b back said:

An average of 796,000 viewers watched Emma Hayes' side win 5-1at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, with a peak audience of 955,000.

There were a further 141,000 requests to watch the match on BBC iPlayer.

I'm not sure how this really proves anything compared to EFL though.

If the BBC showed big Championship clashes live, the "equivalent" big game in the EFL would quite clearly generate significantly more viewers. 

Not that I hugely see the point in comparing the two anyway, just thought it worth noting.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I'm not sure how this really proves anything compared to EFL though.

If the BBC showed big Championship clashes live, the "equivalent" big game in the EFL would quite clearly generate significantly more viewers. 

Not that I hugely see the point in comparing the two anyway, just thought it worth noting.

Agreed, Championship matches on the BBC would invariably get more viewers than they do on Sky.

However, you'd probably be surprised at how close the viewing figures are for WSL and Championship fixtures on Sky televised matches.

[RobJames 881]

8 hours ago, king canary said:

Also I don't think anyone is claiming WSL gets close to the numbers the PL generates

Actually that was pretty much the point Wellbe back was claiming, without putting it into any context.  Apart from the dozen or so at the top, the rest is a very small attended minority interest. Norwich play Brum on Sunday and with the mens team away you would expect interest. However I would expect the attendance to be a few hundred, at best.

That I expect is the story around the country, outside of those top 12 clubs. How much is the attendance there based on club rivalry in the mens game, as opposed to being drawn by the quality of the football ?

As stated, prestige games will always attract the numbers, as did Rooneys and Vardys wives court case. Did that mean an increased interest in the judicial protest ? Complaints that women players are bwing underpaid is ridiculous, that 905 are being paid is ridiculous, as per Dylans link above. You can only be paid what your club generates. If the manager, coach and ground hire was taken out of Norwichs paltry gates they would be running at a huge loss Sponsorship can only go so far and there is not much to be gained by advertising to 300 people.

"It's back ro 'cutting your cloth according to....."

[RobJames 881]

7 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Agreed, Championship matches on the BBC would invariably get more viewers than they do on Sky.

However, you'd probably be surprised at how close the viewing figures are for WSL and Championship fixtures on Sky televised matches.

Both games being 2nd tier, I presume.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

You can only be paid what your club generates.

Let me introduce you to a thing called the English Premier League...

[RobJames 881]

16 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Let me introduce you to a thing called the English Premier League...

eh ?

So the PL does not generate it's money. Who does ? The tooth fairy ?

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

On 22/11/2023 at 10:16, king canary said:

I'm sorry but this post is just numerically illiterate.

You've compared the amount of people watching one match on one channel in one country to the entire world wide total views of a league across a season. I've heard of comparing apples to oranges, this is like comparing apples to blue whales.

Also I don't think anyone is claiming WSL gets close to the numbers the PL generates

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself. 

This thread started with a comment regarding low wages in female football. Without going all the way back to the start I think an Arsenal employee had complained that they had staff trying survive on £20k in London. Arsenal Ladies play 20 league games a year so it's probably not unreasonable to assume that it's a part time role. 

The main reason for my post was to highlight the huge financial difference between the male and female games. Sponsors and advertisers pay for exposure and are usually global businesses. They get huge exposure from the male game but not the female game. Added to that, the gate receipts in the WSL are less than 5% of those achieved in the EPL.  That should explain quite simply why wages are 'low'. 

To highlight the problem the womens game has, the attendance last night at the European Cup tie between Chelsea and Paris was less than 5,000.

Edited November 24, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[Ulfotto 640]

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

To highlight the problem the womens game has, the attendance last night at the European Cup tie between Chelsea and Paris was less than 5,000.

So that sort of attendance would make Chelsea women a small league 1/2 team akin to Crewe, Northampton, Colchester, Newport etc… Now back to the original point there is no way a player at those teams is paid 20k a year I would guess it’s a minimum 50k. The call is to try and make a pathway for girls from grassroots into a professional team where they can make enough money to focus solely on football and not have to take additional jobs.

The point I assume with women’s football is that the national teams are booming as illustrated by the euros and World Cup. Grassroots is booming but the gap between those two is huge and is the challenge facing women’s football going forward. Is it sustainable I mean I don’t know but I think that the top level women’s team Arsenal etc.. are more sustainable than a league one or two team. 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ulfotto

[shefcanary 2,426]

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Arsenal Ladies play 20 league games a year so it's probably not unreasonable to assume that it's a part time role. 

As I've explained elsewhere, I suspect the £20K quoted is the contracted salary, but also included will be accommodation free of charge (given the photos the players share on social media there is no way they could afford the quality of digs portrayed on National minimum wages). Given current accommodation costs in London, this is worth another £20K a year at least. The Arsenal women's first team squad are full time, c.£40K seems an appropriate "quasi salary" to enable this. The club no doubt capitalises the cost of the property, so not receiving a cash rent is no skin off their nose. This is no different than the arrangements clubs like Norwich entered into with their squads to attract good players prior to the property boom manufactured by Thatcher in the 80's, the club owned property around Norwich rented FOC to player's well into the 1970's.  

Edited November 24, 2023 by shefcanary

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

As I've explained elsewhere, I suspect the £20K quoted is the contracted salary, but also included will be accommodation free of charge (given the photos the players share on social media there is no way they could afford the quality of digs portrayed on National minimum wages). Given current accommodation costs in London, this is worth another £20K a year at least. The Arsenal women's first team squad are full time, c.£40K seems an appropriate "quasi salary" to enable this. The club no doubt capitalises the cost of the property, so not receiving a cash rent is no skin off their nose. This is no different than the arrangements clubs like Norwich entered into with their squads to attract good players prior to the property boom manufactured by Thatcher in the 80's, the club owned property around Norwich rented FOC to player's well into the 1970's.  

I'm afraid not. The £20k is almost certainly for non playing staff. It's people like physios and coaches for youngsters. 

I'd be surprised if Arsenal still owns properties for players /employees. Most clubs got rid of those when they got caught by HMRC a long long time ago. 

[king canary 7,623]

On 22/11/2023 at 20:24, RobJames said:

eh ?

So the PL does not generate it's money. Who does ? The tooth fairy ?

I think the point here is plenty of mens team pay their players more than their club generates.

In the Championship for example the average wage to turnover % is over 100%. So that is a whole league that, on average, pays players more than they generate.

[RobJames 881]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I think the point here is plenty of mens team pay their players more than their club generates.

In the Championship for example the average wage to turnover % is over 100%. So that is a whole league that, on average, pays players more than they generate.

Which actually underlines my point. The cutrrent Championship over spent is 108% of turnover,. Turnover being the optimal word. The amount spent is not some random amount either, but an amount that represents a small percentage of the money that club generates. How much would an 8% increase amount to on gates of 300 (NCFC) ?

What would NCFC womans club borrow against ? As, like EVERY other similar club, they neither own a training ground, stadium or anything to borrow against. Even if somehow they could borrow, is that a sustainable model ? The overspend in the Championship is with a view to gaining PL money. What would be the aim in the womns game at the 2nd tier level.

If the womens game is to be sustainable then it needs to be self funding, not an offshoot of it's parent club. Otherwise there is a thin line beteeen that, and being a majorette.

It does not follow that you are entitled to higher pay because you share the name of a big club. Are stewards at Arsenal paid far more than those at Accrington ? How much should City divert from the mens game to subsidise the womens game ? I suspect that through the provion of a training/playing ground, kit (?) and probable admin costs it amounts to a figure that would otherwise mean no money for player wages.

Edited November 24, 2023 by RobJames

[king canary 7,623]

19 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Which actually underlines my point. The cutrrent Championship over spent is 108% of turnover,. Turnover being the optimal word. The amount spent is not some random amount either, but an amount that represents a psmall percentage of the money that club generates. How much would an 8% increase amountbto on gates of 300 (NCFC) ?

What would NCFC womans club bottow against ? As like EVERY other similar club, they neither own a training ground, stadium or anything to borrow against. Even if somehow they could borrow, is that a sustainable model ? The overspend in the Championship is with a view to gaining PL money. What would be the aim in the womns game at the 2nd tier level.

If the womens game is to be sustainable then it needs to be self funding, not an offshoot of it's parent club. Otherwise there is a thin line beteeen that, and being a majorette.

It does not follow that you are entitled to higher pay because you share the name of a big club. Are stewards at Arsenal paid far more than those at Accrington ? How much should City divert from the mens game to subsidise the womens game ? I suspect that through the provion of a training/playing ground, kit (?) and probable admin costs it amounts to a figure that would otherwise mean no money for player wages.

I'm not sure how it underlines your point at all to be honest.

You said 'you can only be paid what your club generates' which is demonstrably not true in the mens game. It is weird to be preaching about how the women's game needs a sustainable model when this apparently doesn't apply to the mens game.

Personally I don't see an issue with the women's game being an offshot of existing clubs to begin with. And it isn't about asking for more wages because the parent club is bigger- Arsenal's ladies have by far the largest attendence in the WSL and are one of the most successful teams in England. So I'd imagine they've probably got a good case for being paid more than someone at Aston Villa women for example.

But largely, I'm unsure why people care about whether Arsenal, or other Premier League teams is subsidising the women's team. The parent club have revenues of over £400m, I'd imagine the funding they would be giving to the team, even with increased wages, is a drop in the ocean, a decent chunk of which they get back via ticket sales, shirt sales, TV rights etc etc. I'd get it annoying people if the clubs were funding loss making women's teams while on the brink of going bust but they aren't. 

[RobJames 881]

Yet again ignoring, or missing the point. The overspend on wages is a percentage of what the club has generated. Would Rotherham be over spending that of Forest, of course not. Pointing out basic business facts is not preaching. Womens football has not the assets to borrow against.

"I'm unsure why people care about whether Arsenal, or other Premier League teams is subsidising the women's team".

So why reply ?

[king canary 7,623]

4 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Yet again ignoring, or missing the point. The overspend on wages is a percentage of what the club has generated. Would Rotherham be over spending that of Forest, of course not. Pointing out basic business facts is not preaching. Womens football has not the assets to borrow against.

I'm clearly missing your point because I do not understand the relevence of any of this.

The overspend is overspend. So it is more than the club is generating. The money is usually not being borrowed against assets but being financed by some ultra rich owner. What Rotherham or Forest have to do with anything I don't know. 

You seem to think that mens teams getting into astronomical debt is fine as a business model but women's teams being funded by mens teams isn't. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

57 minutes ago, RobJames said:

If the womens game is to be sustainable then it needs to be self funding, not an offshoot of it's parent club. Otherwise there is a thin line beteeen that, and being a majorette.

I disagree with a lot of people on here, but generally I can see the logical trail they've followed to get there, but this one is too much for me. Did the weekend start earlier for you?

So because some of the money used to fund the Arsenal Women's team comes from revenue generated by the men's team, there is a fine line between the female players being footballers and majorettes?

Erm....what?! It's Friday afternoon so I'll put it down to an early start on the beers.

As for becoming self-funding, they are certainly on their way towards that. Like I've mentioned, the current TV deal is worth £8 million a year but runs out at the end of the season. The deal was signed in March 2021, before the massive spike in interest triggered by the Euros and the Worlds. When the next one is penned not long into the new years, it is going to be worth considerably more than £8 million a year, with TNT preparing to enter the bidding process. It's entirely possible that come next season the WSL will enjoy a higher annual TV revenue than League Two and League One. On the current deal they don't get significantly less when you look at it on a per team basis.

Last year DAZN agree a six-figure sum to broadcast WSL games across western, southern and eastern Europe as well as in Japan, and in 2021 Sky Mexico and Scandinavian broadcaster NENT agree six-figure deals that sees WSL games broadcast across Scandinavia and in Central Europe.

I'm not expert on the issue, but are there many TV companies around the world forking out serious cash for majorette broadcast rights?

[The Raptor 1,218]

On 21/11/2023 at 18:41, Well b back said:

An average of 796,000 viewers watched Emma Hayes' side win 5-1at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, with a peak audience of 955,000.

There were a further 141,000 requests to watch the match on BBC iPlayer.

That's impressive viewing. How does that compare to non international weekends when there are premier league/championship games on at tgw same time?

I doubt it's anywhere near that. 

I wish I'd watched it. Always good to see Liverpool lose!

 

[Paul101 93]

On 19/11/2023 at 08:16, Terminally Yellow said:

What an absolute load of nonsense. And "Basildon Birds" is sexist. 

the endgame needs to be woman playing in the football league but we are a long way of that maybe in 7-10 years the current crop outside the topflight play vs part time players Champions league vs the postwoman and bricklayer other then a few elite teams

currently they are two different sports I would say with one funding the other but since the mens game is built on debt that sort of cancels that argument out