• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Women's Rugby

Women's Rugby

  • it's awesome

    Votes: 14 42.4%
  • it's awesome but I'm not the target market for this

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • it's rubbish

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • I watch it for the spunks

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I can only watch the top level stuff

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • Maybe women's rugby can save the whole stupid sport

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • It'll be wild when the transgender blokes turn up for a game haha

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Does GAGR have ANY women members?

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Just Derpus

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Stupid Derpus

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33

SouthernX

Peter Johnson (47)
One of the problems supporting the female rugby comp is there’s a lot of curtain raiser matches before the men’s game and it’s hard to gauge who’s there for the women versus men and having a accurate funding model based on gated attendances

We need move the female competition to its own standalone product
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
What gold mine?

None of the aforementioned women's sports are profitable. They are a financial black hole because paying fans have no interest in paying for the product. Look at the WNBA in the US.... running for over 25yrs and have never been self funding, in fact have made losses every year with the annual subsidies from the NBA the only reason it still exists. Basically an insolvent business kept alive by charitable donors. Note, the WNBA players are also complaining about lack of pay etc.

I am no hater of women's sport, the more sport for everyone the better! But professional sports are a business and players are paid based on what they are worth. No male rugby players are complaining about the salaries of players in the NBA, NFL MLB or the European football leagues, because the sport doesn't make enough money! It's tiring listening to the continual whining when the reality is so clear and obvious....
Beg to differ, women contribute to many decisions, and to get them annoyed with you and drive them to other codes is madness in the extreme.

Further, 980 million (Australian), is the reported revenue FIFA received for the WWC in Australia and NZ, thats hardly not paying for yourself.

The world is changing old mate, FIFA took a massive risk in this WC and they broke even, but where prepared to loose heaps to stage it, they recognise and have for years the importance of women in sport. Massive rating world over, almost two million thu the gate. FIFA expect to triple revenue for the next women's WC.

You can also do what League has done, the AFL will do some of and the A_L will also do some of is play the womens game before the mens game.

So many people making these decisions I assume are not wrong.

Beyond crazy not to recognise what has just happen, if you told me 4 weeks the rating and crowds I would have referred you to the looney police. But if hard to ignore the evidence in front of you.
 

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
The 1,977,824 people who attended the 64 women's football world cup games may beg to differ. Average stadium capacity of 75%. There is absolutely interest when the product is funded, promoted, and well executed.
The sad thing is even FIFA have said the World Cup will only break even or there is potential they will have to tip money in for it to do so.

There is truths on both sides of this argument. Perhaps there is lots more RA can do but also think this is a little bit of political grandstanding in a time to leverage against the union. Both sides of the argument are fine.
 

LeCheese

Ken Catchpole (46)
The sad thing is even FIFA have said the World Cup will only break even or there is potential they will have to tip money in for it to do so.
Basically every World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc. ever has been run at a loss - but often, and as I imagine will be the case with the women's WC, the benefits to the players, administrators, economy, and game itself will be seen for years to come.
 

Jimmyjam

Darby Loudon (17)
Beg to differ, women contribute to many decisions, and to get them annoyed with you and drive them to other codes is madness in the extreme.

Further, 980 million (Australian), is the reported revenue FIFA received for the WWC in Australia and NZ, thats hardly not paying for yourself.

The world is changing old mate, FIFA took a massive risk in this WC and they broke even, but where prepared to loose heaps to stage it, they recognise and have for years the importance of women in sport. Massive rating world over, almost two million thu the gate. FIFA expect to triple revenue for the next women's WC.

You can also do what League has done, the AFL will do some of and the A_L will also do some of is play the womens game before the mens game.

So many people making these decisions I assume are not wrong.

Beyond crazy not to recognise what has just happen, if you told me 4 weeks the rating and crowds I would have referred you to the looney police. But if hard to ignore the evidence in front of you.
Not sure what your point is here, but comparing soccer to rugby is a bit of apples/oranges.... Men's professional rugby is barely profitable across the world, whilst professional soccer is killing it. Unfortunately the bandwagon Matilda soccer fans jumped off on Wednesday and won't be back until the next world cup is held in Australia. I'd personally be happy if all professional female sports were paid better.... on the proviso that their sport was profitable. The numbers don't lie.
 

Wilson

David Codey (61)
The sad thing is even FIFA have said the World Cup will only break even or there is potential they will have to tip money in for it to do so.

There is truths on both sides of this argument. Perhaps there is lots more Rugby Australia can do but also think this is a little bit of political grandstanding in a time to leverage against the union. Both sides of the argument are fine.
Not sure if that break even includes the broadcast rights money, but most accounts suggest they pretty significantly undercharged for them this time around, better valuation of them in the future will make a significant difference.
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
The sad thing is even FIFA have said their World Cup will only break even or there is potential they will have to tip money in for it to do so.

There is truths on both sides of this argument. Perhaps there is lots more Rugby Australia can do but also think this is a little bit of political grandstanding in a time to leverage against the union. Both sides of the argument are fine.
True FIFA have reported they spend about 980 million Australian, and just broke even. But after the success and investment they expect the next WC will at least triple in revenue, and the ongoing support for soccer will continue to expand as women help make decision these days about whats watched.

And there is these little know people in sport called sponsors, you may have heard of them. These sponsor folk actually like appealing to women more than men, as it is said women make most of the day to day buying decisions. Call me naïve but if I am a sponsor I may pay a tad more more for a code loved by women and men, not just men.

On Offsiders yesterday the point was made for all the crap they cope FIFA made a huge decision and took a massive risk, cut no corners regarding cost but the future rewards will be huge.

Over the last few years, the AFL has run the WS Giants, at a massive loss. as they did the Swans for decades, they run these things at a loss in the belief the investment will one day pay off big time. Its the same logic with womens sports
 

Jimmyjam

Darby Loudon (17)
True FIFA have reported they spend about 980 million Australian, and just broke even. But after the success and investment they expect the next WC will at least triple in revenue, and the ongoing support for soccer will continue to expand as women help make decision these days about whats watched.

And there is these little know people in sport called sponsors, you may have heard of them. These sponsor folk actually like appealing to women more than men, as it is said women make most of the day to day buying decisions. Call me naïve but if I am a sponsor I may pay a tad more more for a code loved by women and men, not just men.

On Offsiders yesterday the point was made for all the crap they cope FIFA made a huge decision and took a massive risk, cut no corners regarding cost but the future rewards will be huge.

Over the last few years, the AFL has run the WS Giants, at a massive loss. as they did the Swans for decades, they run these things at a loss in the belief the investment will one day pay off big time. Its the same logic with womens sports
I agree, the big difference however is that the AFL (and FIFA for that matter) were/are making very large profits. Bit more difficult when you're barely breaking even as is the ARU....
 

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
Basically every World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc. ever has been run at a loss - but often, and as I imagine will be the case with the women's WC, the benefits to the players, administrators, economy, and game itself will be seen for years to come.
You’re getting some things confused here. The governing body will make an absolute motza from these events. The RWC in Japan for example earned world rugby hundreds of millions. FIFA is the same they make unbelievable money from world cups. It underpins the organizations for the next 4 year cycle. The home organiser also usually makes a nice lump sum through ticket sales etc. who will lose money is the local and federal sponsor (government) but as you mentioned they generate other benefits from economy/tourism in the future, infrastructure and general health benefits.
 

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
Not sure if that break even includes the broadcast rights money, but most accounts suggest they pretty significantly undercharged for them this time around, better valuation of them in the future will make a significant difference.
Completely agree it will lead to future growth in the pie. Not sure what the tv ratings were like overseas, but can guarantee there will be more money offered from Aus broadcasters. Will be good to see
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
Not sure what your point is here, but comparing soccer to rugby is a bit of apples/oranges.... Men's professional rugby is barely profitable across the world, whilst professional soccer is killing it. Unfortunately the bandwagon Matilda soccer fans jumped off on Wednesday and won't be back until the next world cup is held in Australia. I'd personally be happy if all professional female sports were paid better.... on the proviso that their sport was profitable. The numbers don't lie.
Hard to argue the points you make especially about the bandwagon supporters.

Thats not the point I was posting about, I was looking at the post the indicated womens sport runs at a loss, and therefore why should players get paid more.

The side benefits, and the future possibilities are thee for all to see, and rugby had a big jump on AFL and NRL, and simply did SFA to promote its position and is slipping, it is kinda a history in Australian Rugby in failing to both recognise and then take advantage of positive positions we have
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
Completely agree it will lead to future growth in the pie. Not sure what the tv ratings were like overseas, but can guarantee there will be more money offered from Aus broadcasters. Will be good to see
Reports to date on world wide ratings are staggering, tis said even FIFA can't believe the figures, Europe has more than doubled, North & South America massive growth, Middle East and Africa mega to mega increases, Asia up a lot.

Much of the credit is being given to the head of Australia's FA, which is interesting moving forward.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
I’m a bit in Switzerland on this issue. I enjoy watching many disciplines of women’s sport. But full contact sports are not those. By full contact I mean rugby union xv’s and rugby league xiii’s. I can’t comment on WAFL because I don’t watch the sport full stop. In the rugby codes teams can exploit an advantage purely from physical aspects of the game at the expense of skills, and hence selections are made accordingly and the skill level across the board is diminished. I love watching the girls play 7s because its all about skills and athleticism. I know I am very much not alone with these views.

On the other hand, I don’t begrudge any female that wants to play rugby, the more the better. However, any expenditure national bodies make to promote the sport both to participants and spectators needs to be proportionate to the revenue and return they can expect to generate from that expenditure. I have no idea what that level of expenditure is, and it deserves that much, plus a bit extra to get the wheels turning.

This will be my only comment on the issue. I’m happy to sit back and watch.
 
Last edited:

Latts1992

Herbert Moran (7)
Sadly all the self proclaimed Walleroo (and other female sports for that matter) supporters on here and social media do not actually support them in any other manner than a few virtue signalling keystrokes online. They do not attend the games, buy the tickets year on year, buy and wear the merchandise, watch them play on tv etc. This is how the revenue is generated by which they could be funded. If they actually supported them with their actions they could be paid not just the same, but more than the men. Over to you Walleroo supporters..... Put your money where your mouth is.
Most of the matches are played overseas - in the past the team has gone years without a home test, or even a test match at all. The TV time is equally limited, and the merchandise is almost exclusively available online. It's not like RA are doing much to make the women's game more accesible. Without investing in development and exposure, there won't be interest.
 

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
I enjoy watching many disciplines of women’s sport. But full contact sports are not those. By full contact I mean rugby union xv’s and rugby league xiii’s.
I think that Women's Rugby will have a limited potential for a number of reasons, the contact aspect and associated gruesome injuries will turn of many viewers.
I love seeing blood in sport, boxing is one of my favourites and I have fond memories of players like David Croft splitting their bald heads and seeing the blood flow.
Maybe this is a sign of misogynism, but I don't like seeing blood on female athletes.
I think there are a number of factors that made the Womens World Cup a success, apart from the off side rule, you can basically learn the rules in about 30 seconds and many people came to a game they don't traditionally follow because they felt like they could have input into conversations about a sporting contest that they may not previously had an interest in.
How long would it take to teach someone the laws of rugby 15's? The game is limited by its laws, I love Rugby but appreciate that it is too hard for some passing fans to understand exactly what is happening.
I don't think Womens Rugby is as marketable as Womens Football, all of the athletes that play Rugby should be admired for their skills and fitness but I dont think that due to the different body sizes required for rugby that some positions will ever headline a major sponsorship agreement.
I realise that this is a totally sexist male point of view, but even if you look at athletes who are on the covers of a womens magazine not too many are going to be props.
I want our Womens 15's team to be a success but they have to start from somewhere and unfortunately I don't see them being more popular than NRL, AFL or A-League women.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
I don't think Womens Rugby is as marketable as Womens Football, all of the athletes that play Rugby should be admired for their skills and fitness but I dont think that due to the different body sizes required for rugby that some positions will ever headline a major sponsorship agreement.
I realise that this is a totally sexist male point of view, but even if you look at athletes who are on the covers of a womens magazine not too many are going to be props.
I want our Womens 15's team to be a success but they have to start from somewhere and unfortunately I don't see them being more popular than NRL, AFL or A-League women.
Yes.

Fortunately, sport is more than just sexy bodies and pretty faces.
 

SouthernX

Peter Johnson (47)
Can we move the woman’s super rugby season after the NRL grand final? Plop it right into that dead window of no rugby between club rugby ending and the northern hemisphere tour.

I didn’t follow much of the girls rugby this year but if it didn’t interfere with the men’s game (probably watching the NZ darbys instead of the woman’s curtain raiser) might drum up more support.

Another plus is - you could get some of these off contract girls to do their nrl mad Monday turn up on Tuesday to rugby Australia - go collect a 8-10 week pay cheque in the 15s code.
 
Top