Equal pay in football is one thing, but fair prize money is much harder to achieve

After the stunning success of the 2019 Women’s World Cup in France, continued calls for equal pay rang loudly across the globe.

The tournament took the women’s game into the stratosphere. Broadcast wise, the numbers were astonishing, stadium attendance was superb and the football played impressive. The growth in women’s football at the elite level has a momentum unparalleled by any other global sport and the process of guiding the game through that growth is an important one that must be overseen astutely.

Australia’s national women’s team, the Matildas, will play a key role in the short term future of football, as one of the top ten nations in the female game. With a significant portion of the national squad now plying their trade in the FA Women’s Super League in the UK, their personal development as footballers appears limitless.

The Super League has attracted the best of the best from around the world and appears likely to become similar to the EPL in terms of the quality of play and the financial remuneration available to players.

It is that financial remuneration that has been a hot topic in recent days, with news surfacing the England’s FA have been paying the exact same amount in match fees and bonuses to its men’s and women’s teams since January 2020. The Brazilian Football Confederation has confirmed that a similar parity has been occurring since March and the ground breaking collective bargaining agreement announced in November 2019, saw Australia’s elite female players earn true equity in pay and conditions.

That agreement saw Matilda salaries increase to around A$100,000, in line with their male counterparts, whilst also increasing their share of revenue generated from national team play.

No doubt, more and more countries around the globe will follow suit in the short to medium term and by the time the world gathers in Australia and New Zealand in 2023 for the next edition of the FIFA Women’s World Cup, it is highly likely that true pay equality will be universally in existence for all the squads competing.

Sadly for the United States Women’s National Team (USWNT) the road to financial parity has been a less than simple and uncontroversial one. A March 2019 court proceeding seeking US$100 million was tossed from the court room by a federal judge, citing the team’s original decision to reject the payment structure adopted by the men’s team and their subsequent dissatisfaction with that choice.

Taking legal action retroactively once the error of their way became clear was frowned upon by the judge, yet claims that the medical treatment and travel support offered to the squad were inadequate, will indeed see the USWNT have their day in court in the near future.

No doubt the USWNT’s situation will be resolved in due course and wages and conditions set in line with those provided for the men’s team, however the best female players in the world will still be well behind males when it comes to the potential financial windfall they can take from the game they love.

At the 2019 Women’s World Cup, the USWNT received $4 million for its victory. Each participating team was given $750,000 for playing in the group stage, with bonus funds due the further a nation progressed through the tournament. Overall, FIFA allocated $30 million to the event, a smallish figure when compared to the $400 million paid to the teams participating at the 2018 World Cup in Russia.

National federations receive the funds and dole out the money as they see fit and this is where the next discussion around the reimbursement of female players will lie. Whilst the Matildas are pleased with their negotiated 30 per cent share of prize money, such an agreement does not exist for most women’s national teams.

Some might argue that if FIFA’s total investment in the Women’s World Cup was around seven per cent of the $400 million spent on the men’s tournament, then the share of prize money allocated to female participants should be at around the same rate.

However, FIFA makes little distinction between the two tournaments, claiming revenue cannot be split among all FIFA events, as broadcast and corporate arrangements are agreed to as a complete package. Thus, a discussion around the value of the women who play the game at the highest level and the share of the purse they should earn will be the next step in the path to true pay equality.

Australia has pioneered that path and will look to lead the rest of the world when it comes to ensuring that the current and future generation of Matildas is compensated fairly; not only via salaries and match payments, but also through the allocation of prize money awarded for the entertainment they provide and any success they have on the pitch.

 

 

 

Previous ArticleNext Article

Soccerscene Launches ‘Unfiltered’ Podcast with Bill Papastergiadis

Soccerscene is kicking off a bold new chapter in football storytelling with the launch of its brand-new podcast, Unfiltered. The series promises honest, thought-provoking conversations about football culture, identity, and the stories fans don’t usually hear in mainstream coverage.

In the very first episode, host Mihaila Kilibarda sits down with acclaimed lawyer and South Melbourne FC President, Bill Papastergiadis, to explore football’s role in shaping communities, culture, and personal identity. From emotional connections to off-the-pitch stories, Bill’s perspective brings a unique depth to the game, blending intellectual insight with genuine passion.

“Football is more than just a game — it’s where culture, identity, and community meet,” says Papastergiadis during the episode. “It’s a space where stories are told, and people find belonging.”

Listeners can expect Unfiltered to go beyond match reports and transfers. Each episode will dive into the ideas, people, and cultural forces that make football one of the world’s most compelling sports. Episode 1 is available now, and it sets the tone for a series that will challenge, entertain, and inspire.

Listen now on Spotify: Episode 1 – Bill Papastergiadis

With Unfiltered, Soccerscene is giving fans a space to think, feel, and debate about the game they love. Further, it is encouraging conversations that are as engaging as the football itself.

Stay tuned for future episodes, featuring more voices shaping the beautiful game.

$28 Million for Box Hill City Oval, While Football Is Being Pushed to the Back Seat

When nearly $28 million can be mobilised for one AFL venue in the City of Whitehorse, capital alignment is clearly possible. Federal, State and Council funding moved swiftly and decisively to support redevelopment at Box Hill City Oval.

Yet in that same budget cycle, Football, the state’s largest participation sport, received no transformational infrastructure commitment in the City of Whitehorse 2025 26 Budget.

At a time when Football faces a projected $385 million to $550 million statewide infrastructure requirement by 2035, there is no comparable capital signal in this municipality.

If participation growth is real, and the numbers confirm it is, why is investment not following it?

The Funding Breakdown

The redevelopment of Box Hill City Oval carries a total value of approximately $27 million to $28 million.

Funding sources include:

• $13.6 million Federal Government
• $6 million Victorian State Government
• Approximately $5.5 million City of Whitehorse
• AFL aligned contributions

This follows the earlier Michael Tuck Stand investment in the City of Boroondara.

Combined, nearly $60 million has now been committed to two AFL stands in neighbouring municipalities.

The capital was coordinated. Multi tiered. Politically aligned.

In contrast, the City of Whitehorse 2025/26 Budget allocates no funding for new synthetic pitches or Football facility upgrades.

That is not interpretation. It is fiscal record.

Source City of Whitehorse Council Budget 2025/26.

Demographics and Demand

City of Whitehorse is one of Melbourne’s most culturally diverse municipalities and home to one of the largest Chinese diaspora communities in Victoria, centered around Box Hill and surrounding suburbs.

Football is globally embedded within multicultural communities. Participation growth often mirrors demographic expansion. Demand is visible across junior registrations and female programs.

When infrastructure investment does not reflect demographic reality, misalignment follows.

Infrastructure signals priority. Priority shapes growth.

The Quantified Infrastructure Gap

According to Football Victoria Facilities Strategy 2025 to 2035, Victoria must deliver by 2035:

55 lighting upgrades
70 pitch reconstructions
80 pavilion redevelopments to meet gender equity standards
75 percent of competition pitches upgraded to 100 plus lux
85 percent of change rooms gender accessible

These are baseline requirements.

Conservative modelling places the statewide Football infrastructure requirement between $385 million and $550 million over the next decade.

Yet in City of Whitehorse’s capital works program, there is no pathway reflecting that scale of need.

Meanwhile, $60 million has been mobilised for two AFL stands.

The contrast is measurable.

The Volunteers Carry the Pressure

Infrastructure shortfalls do not first appear in Treasury briefings. They appear in club committee meetings.

Across Victoria, including Whitehorse, Football clubs are governed largely by volunteers. Mum and dads. Small business owners. Middle class Australians who give up evenings and weekends to keep community sport running.

In political language, they would be called the battlers.

They are not salaried executives. They are community stewards managing growth within facilities never designed for today’s scale.

When lighting restricts training capacity, when pitches are overused, when pavilions lack equitable access, it is not government that absorbs the pressure first.

It is these volunteers.

They are the ones who must explain:

Why do registrations close early?
Why cannot teams be formed?
Why are children being placed on waiting lists?

As a father of two, I can say plainly there is no more uncomfortable conversation than telling a child or their parent that there simply is not enough infrastructure capacity for them to play.

Not because demand is absent. But because investment is.

When capital alignment lags, volunteers carry the burden.

That is not sustainable governance. It is deferred responsibility.

“Delayed infrastructure doesn’t hurt departments, it hurts the middle class battlers who govern our clubs. Volunteer mums and dads are left explaining to children that participation has outgrown investment.”

Victoria is not the only jurisdiction facing growth pressure. The difference is how it responds.

Asia Embedded Football into Policy

In a recent Soccerscene interview, Hisao Shuto of the J.League explained:

“We don’t believe any single factor is prioritised above all others in player development. Each club equally values the development environment, including facilities, coaching staff, and the philosophy cultivated by the club itself.”

Facilities are foundational.

He further stated:

“J.League clubs contribute in multiple ways to increase youth Football participation, going beyond mere technical instruction to focus on both promotion and development within their communities.”

Japan embedded Football into municipal planning.

The K League followed similar principles.

They aligned capital with participation early.

They treated Football as civic infrastructure.

Where Is the Strategic Learning and Who Drives It

If Victoria wants to lead in Football export, where is the investment to study those mature markets?

Where is the bipartisan delegation to Japan and South Korea?

But this conversation cannot sit solely with government.

If a delegation is to be meaningful, the private sector must be brought into it. That is precisely why I have consistently called for a national and unified strategy that ends the age of silos in Australian Football. Fragmented thinking will not deliver structural reform. Coordinated leadership across government, industry and the private sector will.

Victoria is not short of business leaders capable of driving international engagement. There are passionate, prominent Football supporters within our corporate landscape, genuine shakers and movers who understand scale, logistics and long term investment.

One example is Lindsay Fox AC, who has led and participated in major international delegations, including heading the Prime Minister’s business mission to India and serving as co chair of the Australia India CEO Forum. He has represented Australian business interests at global summits and served in advisory roles such as the Committee for Melbourne.

The point is not individuals. The point is capacity.

Victoria has the private sector firepower to assemble serious, outcome driven delegations combining government, infrastructure specialists and commercial leaders to study how mature Football markets embed sport into municipal strategy and economic growth.

Delegation investment is not indulgence. It is capability building.

If we can align multiple levels of government for physical infrastructure, we can align public and private leadership for strategic learning.

The Unavoidable Conclusion:

Participation growth is documented. Infrastructure deficits are costed. Capital priorities are visible.

And it leads to a simple conclusion:

Two AFL stands total of $60 million. No strategic investment to learn from global Football markets, yet Football is told to take the back seat. If Victoria is truly the “Education State”, it is time we start acting like it.

This is not anti AFL. It is pro alignment.

If participation does not influence capital allocation, growth becomes strain. And strain eventually becomes stagnation.

The numbers are clear. The question now is whether leadership responds.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend