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

FIFA sparks widespread backlash with private investment proposal

In a shock announcement made on Tuesday this week, FIFA revealed plans to create a subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to manage commercial and event operations for major competitions, including the World Cup. FIFA promises to reinvest all benefits back into the game, but the plan is receiving widespread criticism from governing bodies and governments around the world.

 

“Unleashing” football’s commercial power

Following the huge financial success of this summer’s FIFA World Cup, FIFA President Gianni Infantino indicated plans to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity” at FIFA’s disposal.

Indeed, it appears Infantino is wasting no time in capitalising on the tournament’s success, which generated AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion) for FIFA.

An eye-watering number. A tournament record. And, apparently, still not enough.

Tuesday’s announcement made clear the intention to bring commercial rights under a new subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This, according to FIFA, could generate AUD 6 billion (USD 4.2 billion) of initial capital with all net benefits going back into grassroots and infrastructure development for Member Associations (MA) through the FIFA Forward programme.

The money would be raised by selling minority stakes in FFE to private third-party investors, although FIFA has outlined that it will retain “sole control of FFE”.

The venture has a reported valuation of AUD 29 billion (USD 20 billion), prompting questions and backlash from around the world over who will actually benefit from the finances – and whether anyone should benefit at all.

 

What are critics saying?

On the surface, the principle of generating more money for MAs and investing into grassroots, coaching, women’s and youth football is a worthwhile ambition.

Currently, each MA receives AUD 11.5 million (USD 8 million) per year from FIFA Forward. FIFA affirms that, should the proposal go through, this funding would increase to AUD 29 million (USD 20 million) between 2027-2030.

However, several governing bodies, including UEFA, Concacaf and the English FA, are adamantly fighting the plans.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said via an official statement on social media.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” UEFA continued.

“None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Concacaf also expressed deep concern over the reports, citing a distinct lack of warning and due process from FIFA prior to the announcement.

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place,” Concacaf said via official statement.

“As leaders within football, we are custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the Confederations and every Member Association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport.”

Further concerns also centre around the company set to lead the proposed investor group – Thrive Eternal. Founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Thrive Eternal’s role in the venture opens the door to potential conflicts of interests – and emboldens criticisms that Infantino’s relationship with the US President is compromising his leading role in football’s international governing body.

 

Football was never about the money

Investing into the game is vital to football’s sustained future, especially for nations without the financial power to fund it independent of football’s governing body.

Nobody will argue that supporting the entire football pyramid – from grassroots to professional, men’s and women’s, youth and para, playing and coaching – should benefit from the financial might of the sport’s elite.

And FIFA is promising such benefits for all – arriving in the form of tens of millions of dollars – and stemming from third-party investors intrigued by the commercial value of the beautiful game.

But this is exactly where the venture’s flaws start to appear.

Rhetoric about increasing football’s commercial power following the 2026 World Cup leads the governing body down a slippery slope to a sport which prioritises money over integrity, due process and the fans who uphold it week-in week-out.

Football – from its very first beginnings as a working class sport – was never about the money.

Although modern commercialisation has turned clubs into businesses and players into tradable assets, everyone within the pyramid is a custodian of the game.

The game is not a product to sell – especially by those entrusted to uphold its integrity.

 

What happens now?

FIFA stated its intentions to only proceed with the venture if it receives support from the majority of MAs. While many are already uniting in opposition to the proposal, there are national governing bodies who have vocalised their support, including the Czech FA.

UEFA, on the other hand, is set to hold an emergency meeting with its 55 members to discuss a potential boycott of future tournaments.

But with a deadline of September 19 for MAs to accept the proposal, and the promise of a payment worth AUD 57.5 million (USD 40 million) if they do, the next eight weeks will reveal the future of the game and the nature of its global governance.

FIFA’s plan, although laced with promises of investment, development and growth for all, has instead kicked off a contest to save the game’s soul – or change it forever.

Football Australia Chairman Reflects on Socceroos World Cup Campaign, Points to Reform Agenda Ahead

Football Australia Chairman Anter Isaac has released a statement reflecting on the Socceroos’ FIFA World Cup 2026 campaign, which ended in a penalty shootout loss to Egypt in the Round of 32 on 3 July.

Isaac thanked the players, coaching staff, medical and performance teams, and volunteers who supported the campaign, saying they represented the country with professionalism, humility and pride.

He said the tournament had brought Australians together across every state, culture and generation, calling it one of the few sporting moments capable of uniting the country.

Isaac linked the campaign to Football Australia’s broader governance work, pointing to the organisation’s recently announced reform agenda and the Enduring Principles adopted last year: Better Access to Football for All, More Football, Better Football, More People Enjoying Football, and Winning Football.

He said those principles, together with the organisation’s values of Welcome, Ready, Connect, Excel and Protect, formed the basis for every decision Football Australia makes.

“World Cups do not define our leadership,” Isaac said, adding that they instead reveal progress made long before a ball is kicked.

He said Football Australia’s responsibility extended beyond preparing for the next tournament to strengthening the institution that supports every tournament that follows.

Isaac said progress in a sporting ecosystem of Australian football’s scale depends less on any single body’s authority than on the willingness of clubs, federations, leagues and government to align around shared goals.

He said the organisation would study the lessons of the campaign carefully and continue refining its approach.

“Adaptability is not changing direction with every headline,” Isaac said. “It is improving the path while remaining true to the destination.”

Isaac framed his own role in terms of long-term stewardship, saying the game should be left in a stronger position for the generations that follow than it was for those who built it.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend