Players' union chief Gordon Taylor says the Football Association's £18,000-a-year contract offer to England's top women players is "embarrassing".
Hope Powell's squad have decided not to sign their central contracts after advice from the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA).
Taylor says the offer does not reflect the popularity of the women's game.
"Come on, that figure is embarrassing. Top Premier League players are earning more in a day," he said.
The PFA is seeking to reach an agreement with the FA as England women's previous £16,000-a-year deal ended in November and players went unpaid last month.
It is understood that negotiations between the PFA and FA centre around the additional 24 hours players are allowed to work each week in addition to players' central contracts and money they receive on a semi-professional basis from their clubs.
England have qualified for Euro 2013 in Sweden while the 2012 Olympics proved a big hit with fans, more than 70,000 turning out at Wembley for the GB women's win over Brazil.
Taylor said: "I am surprised the FA have not been more responsive to the girls' reasonable demand.
"In some ways, [the FA] have done a lot for the women's game, which now has increased TV coverage and obviously the facility at St George's Park [the recently opened FA centre of excellence in Burton] is available for both male and female players.
"But they are offering to move these central contracts up from £16,000, which has been the figure since 2009, to £18,000."
Surely he doesn't need anyone to tell him that womens football is of a shocking standard and hardly anyone pays to go and watch? Pretty ridiculous to think the 70k at the GB game were there for any other reason than to say "i went to an Olympic event".
I would bet good money that about 69k never go to another womens match in their life.
0
Comments
Can't see the problem myself. He's doing his job.
Without knowing how much money the England football team does or could generate it's hard to say what they are worth but just saying the standard of women's football is "shocking" isn't really an argument.
18k a year to play football isn't a bad wage for a semi-pro as Gary says. Would the top female players be better or worse than a good semi-pro male player?
In the same way Engand Cricketers are tied to central contracts.
To build the womens game in this country the best players need to stay here and play.
Not as if there is no money in football or at the FA.
IMO there is no reason other than an outdated and out of touch mgmt within the fa
The 16k was in 2009 the game has moved on a great deal and so has the cost of sponsorship for the woman's game
We pulled away from a sponsorship package with the woman's England team due to the cost becoming to expensive in comparison to other years
So who gets that money as a big thing was made back in 2010 as to assisting the women earning a standard that would enable them to focus the majority of their time on football
However, it's a chicken and egg situation - if the womens game is to improve it needs to be resourced adequately such that it can operate on at least a semi-pro basis.
But it's not and economically it is similar to a professional pub singers' union demanding similar pay to what Mariah Carey takes home.
He should be lobbying clubs, sponsors for extra funding, not moaning that "the men earn that in a day".
Perhaps he could look into getting one of these top male players to 'sponsor' a top female player. Theo Walcott for example could give up a days wages to pay a top Arsenal ladies player for the entire season. Get to work Gordon.
I really wish we had not had to scrap the previous Charlton women's team as enjoyed the 2 cup finals i attended to watch them.
Losing to Arsenal i believe and then beating Everton the year after?
Good days out especially the year we won.
However.... It is a bit chicken/egg. If you want the standard to go up, reasonable pay is required for the full timers to be able to improve. Personally I can't see womens domestic football catching the public imagination in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean the ladies shouldn't try. I went to watch the old Charlton Ladies once and it was not good. Wouldn't try it again.
By the way I once played in a pub tournament with a professional lady footballer from the Arsenal and let me tell you she was very good, better than all the amateur blokes, which maybe wasn't saying much, but she would never have been able to compete in the Ryman League (just my opinion). Not relevant to the subject, I know.
I don't see how giving the England national players more money would improve the standard of womens football in this country?
Surely our top women would improve by going to a better standard of league like Germany, France or Sweden?
Agree with what Rodders says. Personally I think with low attendances, they are lucky to get 18k a year. Especially if they are only doing semi pro type hours.
Perhaps the FA should look at paying them a bonus when they play for England?
Also, if the attendances are low for domestic games then who exactly is it that wants the standard to improve??
Also these women can surely make more money (probably more than you and I) through advertising and stuff.
Charlton life vs Charlton ladies
I'd imagine there's a fairly limited budget and giving the England players more would take away from the other areas of the women's game which require investment.
Comparisons with the men's are completely misleading. For a start these women are being offered £18k for what mist amount to a 3 day a week "job".
A better comparison would be with the income from the central governing body for a male athlete competing in what is essentially a minority sport.
A top female golf player would beat me 17 holes out of 18 every time.
A top womens football team would probably have a battle to beat me and my mates.
Therein lies the reason why the womens game is not that attractive to watch, and has negligible crowds.