The RFU Won’t Offer England’s Women Full-Time Contracts After World Cup

[Which Tyler]

Looks like it is being reviewed again...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/sport/rfu-ready-to-resolve-row-over-england-womens-rugby-pay-gap-a3617456.html?amp

Essentially the article says ideas will be looked at such as match fees like the men's game in the more immediate term, and the long term plan is to provide full centralised contracts for both 15s and 7s. Plus, a little comment on security assurance for those players falling out of contracts now will be looked after.

With the new Women's premiership starting, will the RFU be putting money into those clubs? And will those clubs filter that money into club contracts for the players?

Covered above - RFU are putting £800k into the new premiership on top of whatever they're funding for the 7s specialists, and that they were always going to be paying at the very least appearance fees for the XVs ladies and almost certainly part-time contracts on top for further training.

It shouldn't, but it does still confuse me that this massive reduction in funding for the women's game that's being reported seems to be a fairly significant increase in the money being spent by the RFU on the women's game.
Previous spending was "over £1M" new funding is £800k (on the league) + 17 full time contracts at ~£35k = £600k + appearance fees for the XVs players and almost certainly some part-time contracts in there; let's call it a pot of (almost certainly more than) £350k leaving us with £1.8M spend already - massive reduction? what massive reduction?


ETA: Having clicked your link...
So they're claiming that the current full time contract is worth "about £18k"; and we know that there are 16 of them, along with 16 part-time and 16 short-term - how the hell did that add up to "over £1M" already reported?

 

[profitius]

Its amazing how things get twisted by the media. They complain about inequality even though the womens game is subsidised by the mens game!

 

[McTallshort]

Its amazing how things get twisted by the media. They complain about inequality even though the womens game is subsidised by the mens game!

Well of course its subsidised by the mens game. The mens game is far more established and makes a shed load of money its only right that money from it is the used to develop other areas of the game. The RFU is leading the way in this and should be applauded for it.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Its amazing how things get twisted by the media. They complain about inequality even though the womens game is subsidised by the mens game!

No one's asking for equality, they are asking for continued investment in an underdeveloped part of the game.

Should we ignore age grade and tier 2 rugby since they are subsidised by tier one senior sides?

 

[profitius]

No one's asking for equality, they are asking for continued investment in an underdeveloped part of the game.

Should we ignore age grade and tier 2 rugby since they are subsidised by tier one senior sides?

Age grade and tier 2 rugby are proper investment opportunities. The womens game is and always will be subsidised by the mens game.


I've no problem with subsidising the womens game to a degree but lets face facts, they are basically demanding and getting money because they're women, not because they generate the money themselves.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Age grade and tier 2 rugby are proper investment opportunities. The womens game is and always will be subsidised by the mens game.


I've no problem with subsidising the womens game to a degree but lets face facts, they are basically demanding and getting money because they're women, not because they generate the money themselves.

do you have any evidence that age grade and tier 2 are better investments than the women's game... you're treating opinion as fact

 

[profitius]

do you have any evidence that age grade and tier 2 are better investments than the women's game... you're treating opinion as fact

Yes and to give one example. Theres so much money in the mens game that getting to knock out stages and winning cups brings in a lot of money from attendances, prize money, sponsor bonuses etc not to mention more ticket sales the next season. You need a good team for that so investing in the academy is a must for most teams especially for southern hemisphere and pro 14 countries.


Investing in tier 2 countries is more of a long term goal but it is a no brainer. A few more competitive countries would be great for the world game. If Germany for instance became a tier 1 rugby country then the investment by world rugby would be repaid multiple times over. There would have a massive knock on effect for everyone else.

 

[ncurd]

Why is investing in Tier 2 teams good for the RFU?

 

[profitius]

Why is investing in Tier 2 teams good for the RFU?

I just said why. The RFU is part of World Rugby.

 

[ncurd]

I just said why. The RFU is part of World Rugby.

The RFU is only interested in what benefits English Rugby more competitive teams is not in that interest the entire argument is flawed.

 

[profitius]

The RFU is only interested in what benefits English Rugby more competitive teams is not in that interest the entire argument is flawed.

The mole mentioned tier 2 rugby so I was responding to that point. I presumed he was talking about world rugby. I'd say the RFU are very interested in other countries and why wouldn't they be? The more COMPETITIVE countries playing the more money the RFU makes. Same goes for everyone else. Thats the magic of capitalism.


The point of my argument is womens game is being subsidised and rugby is losing money by pumping money into it. Whether you agree with that or not is besides the point.