Flashback to June this year, the Australian Women’s national team, the Matildas, were the toast of the nation.

The Matildas had performed outstandingly well at the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup in Canada, achieving a history-making, best ever performance by an Australian football team, in reaching the quarter finals at a World Cup. Even at that point in time, the dark clouds were gathering as collective bargaining agreement (CBA) talks with Football Federation Australia (FFA) began to stall.

Fast forward to now, more than six months of bargaining has passed and negotiations have morphed into a full-blooded industrial dispute. The Professional Footballers Association (PFA) as part of it’s “whole of game” collective bargaining negotiation, an approach supported by FFA, tabled an offer on behalf of the players in the past few days. The offer was a two-tiered system, which would see Tier 1 players (14 players) earn approximately $40,000 a year, with Tier 2 players (6 players) earning approximately $33,000 a year. The FFA has rejected the PFA proposals outlined above as unaffordable. It has offered an increase of about 10% a year over a four-year term; effectively an initial rise from $21,000 to $23,000. The Matildas formal withdrawal from the US tour on Wednesday marks a new nadir in the dispute.

So what is the dispute about? What are the Matildas key demands?

The dispute centres on a number of objectives some of which are interrelated, and can be broken down as follows:

(i) provision of basic minimum standards setting out the time commitment and requirements necessary for high performance standards in international football;

(ii) pay equality and equality of opportunity;

(iii) establishing a career pathway for elite women footballers and making football the sport of choice for young women.

Minimum standards

The Matildas want basic minimum standards set out in the CBA, which provides for the setting of a minimum level of commitment expected of the players, to match the remuneration they are paid. The expired Matildas CBA was negotiated on the basis that the level of commitment expected of the Matildas was that of a semi-professional player. However, to prepare for the World Cup, the Matildas were required to undertake a six-month preparation program without any adjustment to their remuneration and conditions, which would recognise the extra commitment. Players had to forgo employment, family and other sacrifices to play for Australia, with no compensation forthcoming from FFA.

Equal pay and equality of opportunity

It is not disputable that the Matildas are poorly remunerated when compared with their international counterparts, world class football countries such as United States (USWNT), Germany, Japan, England and France. As full-time professional athletes, most Matildas were paid a maximum of $21,000 a year under the expired CBA, an amount well below the Australian national minimum wage. As evidenced by the World Cup campaign, the Matildas, essentially, have been playing for Australia as full-time professionals while being paid part-time wages. The dispute is not solely about pay equality per se, however it is important to recognise the principles of equal pay, and therefore look to narrow the pay chasm in women’s sport.

As an example, USWNT CBA provides for a base salary of US$70,000, which with the addition of appearance fees and bonus payments, a Tier 1 player in USWNT could net an average pay of approx US$200,000. USWNT remuneration includes salary for participation in the US domestic league (National Womens Soccer League – NWSL). A further example is that of the English FA, which pays its England Women’s team players an average of £21,000 (approx $40,000) a year.

Furthermore, the Matildas are entitled to similar working conditions enjoyed by the Socceroos in regards to a high performance environment. The preparations for the Womens World Cup apart, it would be unthinkable that Socceroos coach, Ange Postecoglou, would accept conditions which are suboptimal to achieving the goal of competing at a world-class level, when the environment does not support such an aim. The semi-professional nature of women’s football puts an extraordinary financial burden on national team players, because unlike players who just play in the W-League and state leagues, they are required to train and make themselves available for international matches even in the off-season. This means national team players cannot hold down regular jobs because of the professional commitment required to attend training camps, travel and represent the national team.

Career pathway and sport of choice

Lastly, the players union and the FFA are united in their view that women’s football is strategically important for the growth of football, and that football should be the sport of choice for young women aspiring to play professional sport.

Implications

So where to from here? There is much work to be done in bridging the gap between both parties especially regarding the pay offer put to the Matildas which can only be described as derisory. The Matildas are effectively professional athletes being paid part-time wages. So far the Matildas have received strong support from their male counterparts as well as support from their international colleagues including players in USWNT who have sent messages of support.

There are grave implications for the Matildas’ dressing room if the rumoured reports of their captain Lisa De Vanna’s preparedness to break ranks with her teammates and play in the US tour prove to be true. Leadership is a two-way street, a relationship which presupposes followers who consent to follow the leader. De Vanna’s position as captain may well be untenable after the labour dispute is over.

In conclusion, the Matildas pay claim is a meritorious one. The Matildas, as professional players, are entitled to the protection of the employment law of this country, and as such, the current payment of $21,000 would be illegal in any workplace in Australia. Women in particular are likely to interpret Gallop’s assertion that the Matildas interests has been taken “hostage” by the PFA as paternalistic and patronising. Perhaps it’s time to address the issues.