Aberdeen Women

[RicoS321]

The equal pay thing is another minefield and I'm jumping in. I'm 100% in agreement that, for example, in an office a man and a woman who do the same job should be paid equally. Obviously. That's a no brainer. But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game. And it would be exactly the same with football if the women somehow gain parity. As an athlete or sports person your pay should reflect your level and your influence on the sport. Women play best of 3 set matches in Tennis; but not because they're not capable of playing 5 sets because of course they are. They're athletes and look after themselves. But the painful truth is that next to no one wants to watch a female 5 setter.

 

Pay all athletes/sports people what they're worth regardless of gender. That is true equality.

 

Interesting. That assumes that you pay people for time on court, which is quite a bizarre criteria. Would a big-hitter be downgraded because they win their points in one shot rather than a 20 point rally? Should a person who loses in 3 sets be paid the same as a woman for that particular game? Has length of game got anything to do with quality or entertainment? Given that average point time in the men's and women's game is broadly similar, do they move to a pay-per-point scheme? Or do they judge the entire game on its merit?

 

Also, women that play tennis do so as a full time job in the same way as a man does. I don't imagine that Andy Murray works any harder than Serena Williams just because one has to play a 5 setter as opposed to 3). The overwhelming point about tennis is that Grand Slam events are single tournaments for both men and women, they are not separate entities with separate audiences. In that regard, the "office" equivalent from your example is the tournament with the paying company being the LTA or whoever. Thus, there is a fairly good argument for pay to be the same (or based on some other criteria if that's your thing).

 

Where do we start with "But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game"? Is that true? Would Serena Williams be more of a draw than Thomas Berdych? Is it split evenly across Male/Female lines rather than top of each gender being the draw? Even Graff v Navratilova would have been a bigger draw than a hell of a lot of mens games at the time, so it's nae a modern thing either. Furthermore, how does that transpose to other sports? Should the huns and tims be given massively bigger shares of TV money because they are the bigger draw? I don't think you or I would argue for that. The point being that they're part of the same organisation or league, so each needs the other to continue that league or host a tournament (indeed, if you don't want pay-parity, then tennis should split into gender-specific tournaments). You have to also bear in mind that significant money is available to players outwith prize funds in tennis just as it is with teams in football. If a sponsor wants to pay the huns more money or Federer more money then they're absolutely within their rights to do so (unless yer faking it like Man City).

 

Where I don't see any of the above being an issue is in women's fitba. They don't operate within the same league, the Scottish Cup isn't run in parallel with the Scottish Cup - Women's draw, nor the World Cup in parallel with the women's. If that were to become the case then there could be merit in pay parity. The bottom line is that clubs like the dons have seen an avenue in which to make money from the women's game. They've seen a market. If it comes to it that AFC have employees working full-time, playing the same number of games, in the top league of their gender side of a draw then I think AFC will have to - at some point - face the issue that a man in their employment gets X amount to do their job, with a women getting Y to do the same role. Much the same as every office does. We've all likely been in a situation where a worker (male or female) gets paid more/less/same than us despite doing a worse/better job but they have been there longer or have the same role but are shitter at it. I can't think of a good example of a company where one division will get paid more than another for doing the same job simply because that division makes more money (I'm sure it happens). I'm playing devil's advocate slightly of course, but it's clearly not a clear cut issue (and I disagree entirely about tennis), and it would be interesting to see if it stands up in court, when the inevitable time comes. I'd like to see AFC birds have their own separate legal entity, leagues and association and so on to be sure that the two were segregated completely. Even more so when it comes to setting up the cheeks version of mens-bigotry-lite - I see a massive opportunity for the girls to do something completely different to the men. Where I see "gender equality" being a thing is in the assimilation of AFC girls and boys at all. I'm not sure, however, if it's being done to promote gender equality or as an attempt to make sure that a market is not missed out on. I'd say that it's probably the latter and so, in the true traditions of capitalism, you get what you deserve in that regard.

[rocket_scientist]

I have no problem with women footballers getting paid MORE than the men. I just don't see anyone paying it because I can't imagine that the product would be interesting enough to sufficient people for there to be enough money in the women's game to pay commensurate wages. By all means encourage participation levels. The market value will determine itself. The only barrier to income levels will be the money available and compared to the men, it's going to be considerably less.

[RicoS321]

I have no problem with women footballers getting paid MORE than the men. I just don't see anyone paying it because I can't imagine that the product would be interesting enough to sufficient people for there to be enough money in the women's game to pay commensurate wages. By all means encourage participation levels. The market value will determine itself. The only barrier to income levels will be the money available and compared to the men, it's going to be considerably less.

 

But that's the point. If we have one single entity called AFC, whose footballing operations (girls+boys) makes X amount of money, how can the club legally justify splitting it's footballing salaries down specific gender lines? You've done yer legal stuff in the past, how do you think that could be justified? It seems really open to challenge in my mind like. A total minefield. As I say, I can't think of a single organisation that would operate on that revenue-based-salary approach other than for things like bonuses. I'm in total agreement that the way you suggest is probably/likely the way it should work, but I've a feeling that something (or someone) will occurr at some point soon that challenges that. It's interesting like.

[rocket_scientist]

It never occurred to me that AFC would take the women's side into the same business. I just assumed it would be a separate division and a totally separate legal entity, although if under a holding company, certain costs could be shared.

[rocket_scientist]

Philip Neville was talking today about Dawn Scott, the person he appointed. He spoke particularly about the need to treat women footballers differently and cited menstrual cycles!!!

[Ten Caat]

But that's the point. If we have one single entity called AFC, whose footballing operations (girls+boys) makes X amount of money, how can the club legally justify splitting it's footballing salaries down specific gender lines? You've done yer legal stuff in the past, how do you think that could be justified? It seems really open to challenge in my mind like. A total minefield. As I say, I can't think of a single organisation that would operate on that revenue-based-salary approach other than for things like bonuses. I'm in total agreement that the way you suggest is probably/likely the way it should work, but I've a feeling that something (or someone) will occurr at some point soon that challenges that. It's interesting like.

 

The obvious answer is that every single player in the men's squad has a contract specific to themselves. I'd guess that McGeouch is likely on near twice the wages that Ojo is on. Yet they do pretty much the same job (and imo Ojo does it better). I'm sure that if this were illegal then it would have been challenged long before now.

 

As regards Neville's comments in Rocket's post......it was reported last week that Chelsea wifies were the first team in England to devise individual raining regimes based around their menstrual cycles.

[Panda]

Philip Neville was talking today about Dawn Scott, the person he appointed. He spoke particularly about the need to treat women footballers differently and cited menstrual cycles!!!

 

I was, probably like most blokes, quite ignorant about the whole thing until a few months ago when a couple of female footballers were explaining how being on their period can actually increase the risk of ACL injuries.

 

Think they're now doing a study into it.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/10daily.com.au/amp/news/sport/a200217eztjb/sexism-or-science-aflw-investigates-if-players-periods-linked-to-acl-injuries-20200218

[rocket_scientist]

Eughhch. Who the fuck wants to read about their regimes when they're raining?

 

And we won't ask how the conversation came up.

 

Saddo pervert voyeur types.

[Panda]

Eughhch. Who the fuck wants to read about their regimes when they're raining?

 

 

Yeh, it's more a conversation for grown ups rather than the likes of yourself.

[Tyrant]

Interesting. That assumes that you pay people for time on court, which is quite a bizarre criteria. Would a big-hitter be downgraded because they win their points in one shot rather than a 20 point rally? Should a person who loses in 3 sets be paid the same as a woman for that particular game? Has length of game got anything to do with quality or entertainment? Given that average point time in the men's and women's game is broadly similar, do they move to a pay-per-point scheme? Or do they judge the entire game on its merit?

 

Correct. Agreed. Which is why I said absolutely nothing of the sort.

 

 

Also, women that play tennis do so as a full time job in the same way as a man does. I don't imagine that Andy Murray works any harder than Serena Williams just because one has to play a 5 setter as opposed to 3). The overwhelming point about tennis is that Grand Slam events are single tournaments for both men and women, they are not separate entities with separate audiences. In that regard, the "office" equivalent from your example is the tournament with the paying company being the LTA or whoever. Thus, there is a fairly good argument for pay to be the same (or based on some other criteria if that's your thing).

 

He 100% absolutely does work harder than any female on the circuit. I'd bet my house on that. But again that's not the point I'm making.

 

Where do we start with "But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game"? Is that true? Would Serena Williams be more of a draw than Thomas Berdych? Is it split evenly across Male/Female lines rather than top of each gender being the draw? Even Graff v Navratilova would have been a bigger draw than a hell of a lot of mens games at the time, so it's nae a modern thing either. Furthermore, how does that transpose to other sports? Should the huns and tims be given massively bigger shares of TV money because they are the bigger draw? I don't think you or I would argue for that. The point being that they're part of the same organisation or league, so each needs the other to continue that league or host a tournament (indeed, if you don't want pay-parity, then tennis should split into gender-specific tournaments). You have to also bear in mind that significant money is available to players outwith prize funds in tennis just as it is with teams in football. If a sponsor wants to pay the huns more money or Federer more money then they're absolutely within their rights to do so (unless yer faking it like Man City).

 

 

You could compare male and female rivalries all day but again that'd be missing the point. What I'm talking about is the money drawn by the WTA compared to the money drawn by the ATP. (The former being Women's tennis and the latter being Men's.) I don't have exact figures and although what the ladies are drawing has certainly increased (very much helped by the fact that Grand Slam tournaments have been paying equal prize money for years) what the men draw is still significantly higher. Why that is is a matter of opinion. Mine being that what the elite men serve up is significantly better than what the elite women do. And as such I can completely appreciate the argument of "fair" pay not necessarily being split 50/50 between men and women.

 

[rocket_scientist]

Watching USA v England just now and it's so bad and this is the best the women's game has to offer?

 

I guess the only attraction might be who are the least shit?

 

Terrible standard on show in the first women's game I've ever started watching. Half an hour in, I'll stay to HT but fucked wasting any more time on this. The She Believes cup? What the fuck's that about? Believe what?

[Panda]

The Dons won SWPL 2 today with two games to spare after thumping Dundee United 5-2.

That's them in the top fight next season.

[Madbadteacher]

Tup will be  

[BigAl]

2 hours ago, Madbadteacher said:

Tup will be  

Imagine he found out we signed a couple of the ladies from Der Hun

Complete meltdown 

[HaarDon]

I find women's tennis way more interesting than men's (some of that due to the demise of Murray).I also can't stand the big 3.

 There's way more competition in it and yes, some are honeys.

 

I also think any female on their period who goes in for a hard tackle and gets sent off has the right to appeal.

[Panda]

https://www.afc.co.uk/2021/07/03/afc-women-match-to-be-streamed-live-on-youtube/
 

Game and trophy presentation live on YouTube tomorrow, 4pm.

They're playing Boroughmuir Thistle who they've already beat 9-0 this season, while they won 8-1 on Thursday against Glasgow Women, so expect a few goals.
 

 

[Panda]

Aberdeen beat Hibs 1-0 today, which is quite possibly their biggest scalp since becoming Aberdeen Women, and certainly their biggest result since they knocked Spartans out of the Scottish Cup a few years ago while being in the third tier.

[Kowalski]

[BigAl]

At least only one of them was in injury time 

[Elgindon]

...only shree points

[Kowalski]

AFC Women have been annihilated in their first two games this season!

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, Kowalski said:

AFC Women have been annihilated in their first two games this season!

Yep, they've lost their best players to full time teams and are playing against full time teams. It'll be interesting to see how they perform against the bottom six, part timers. The full time teams are just going to get further and further ahead I expect. 

[Reekie_Red]

11 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

It'll be interesting to see how they perform against the bottom six, part timers. The full time teams are just going to get further and further ahead I expect. 

I don't watch much women's football. But if it's anything like women's rugby, then there's very obvious differences in quality that comes from being immersed full time in the game. The lady women's rugby world cup made that glaringly obvious. Scotland have since turned pro and it is starting to pay dividends already, even though they're only 3 years into professionalism 

[RicoS321]

Not surprisingly, that start to the season sees Colin Bell end his Dons management career.

[Reekie_Red]

Apparently for health reasons. Stuart Glennie, who is youth academy director, will lead an interim coaching team and oversee Wednesday's match at home to Montrose