Football Ferns

Rosie White playing for Liverpool FC womens league

I think Rosie is playing for the Boston Breakers now

oh 

your right as of novembe r9th

Rosie WHite

what's up with erceg?

Wants to be treated like a Professional Athlete? 

I imagine there is a systemic problem with providing the men's team with some luxuries and the women's team with barely the minimum. Understandable way to try to instigate change 

it's hard to get the impression the men's team get luxuries. both seem pretty 'smell of an oily rag'

THey at least get business flights. Don't think the ferns do. 

some get business flights  and dont know about the Ferns

As Abby says, the big difference is that only half the women's team are pros and have to juggle top-level international football around work/study. Meanwhile:

Mad respect for @aerceg5. I wish more footballers had the courage to speak out and take a stand. Sacrifice is never easy. https://t.co/4buYlY6Cu8

— Hope Solo (@hopesolo) February 21, 2017

Shes moaning about money.  Was this not the same issue the men had back between 02-05/06?

And I recall that back then, the men were told to fudge off as well.

So the entire issue is she feels shes not being paid enough?

Or the team isnt being funded enough?

Or both?

Whats the difference in money paid by NZF to men and women?

If the team isnt being funded enough, has someone calculated the revenue to NZF vs the amount paid in funding based on the gender teams?  How does that stack up?

Having listened to both interviews the issue appears to be pretty simple.

Erceg believes it's time to treat those 'in or around' the Football Ferns as professionals seeing as they are expected to live and train like professionals in order to properly represent their country. Whereas NZF believe they are doing the women a favour by putting them in the shop window with the hope they can earn a professional contract with an overseas club.

It's hard not to agree with her, they are representing NZ but being paid nothing by NZF to do so. But how do you fund 20-odd players with $500k a year ? But then why is the focus solely on the High Performance Sport NZ money and it's recent cut ?

I don't know the first thing about NZF finances but a quick Google tells me they had a $989k surplus in 2015 with another $1.7 million set aside for 'international activity'.

I appreciate the need to keep the governing body solvent but surely after being in surplus for 7 years in a row some money could be spent on keeping the top players available for NZ and growing the sport as a result.

Not being prepared to invest in the womens game whilst you have money in the bank, and have been as successful as they have been over the last ten years, is just madness.

And quite frankly I find it insulting to tell the current Football Ferns there is no money for them when the game participation rates are at the highest they have ever been. Is that not down to their efforts on the pitch and the exposure their results have gained for the women's game in general as well as NZF ?

I'm sure it's more complicated than it's being made out to be. But the number one rule of being successful in sport and business is to look after what you already have.

This is the crux of it. The stated aim of NZF is for the Ferns to win tournaments, but how on earth are they going to do that when they are expected to play and train for nothing. So either change your aim or find a way of funding it

And in the meantime, at least act like a professional organisation. It must be hard for her to come from her club in the US back to this shambles, just as it is for the likes of our top men

NZ football does not have the money. If you look here you will see that NZF's finances are not great. 

That operating surplus of slightly less than a million dollars was only because they took a million dollars out of their reserves and treated it like income. In actual terms they're running at a slight loss and topping it up with their savings, which are basically the last of the TV money from the World Cup qualifiers vs Mexico. There is no year-in year -out surplus that money could be drawn from to fund ongoing costs.

Maybe clubs should just put subs up to $500 per player.

Isn't this more or less what's happened in Australia? NPL clubs charging huge fees to juniors to fund their first teams?

Those of us with long memories will tell you of times when "special Levies" were charged to bail NZF out of the shark

With respect, when you say this, its hard to take your opinion seriously because its so misinformed and not the case. See Conans post.

Not a lot can be done if High Performance Sport NZ or whatever the fck it's called these days don't change their criteria for funding. Seems a little unfair for a team ranked in the top 20 in football to be judged the same as a kayaker ranked 20th in the world, but that is how it's done unfortunately.

Seriously ? 

The only thing I can see is semantics. So the surplus is simply there because they are transferring money from one account to another. There is still money to be spent.

And that statement there just re-enforces what I said.

For your benefit, here is an extremely quick and basic overview of NZF funding. (others please step in where I am wrong)

2010: Got $10m from FIFA for WC qualification. NZF stashed a bunch of that aside as 'International Teams Fund'

2011/12/13: Lost money each year from the operations of NZF but took funds from the International Teams Fund to make it look like a profit.

2013: Failed to qualify for FIFA WC but got $6m from Mexican TV company for the broadcasts right to the game in NZ

Rinse and repeat 14/15/16 with 11/12/13.

You will note in and around the period of 12/13 there was the scandal around youth paying to represent their country. Had there been money in the International Team Fund........

Essentially they bring in money every 4 year cycle and their operational expenditure is spent beyond their means so they take from the International Teams Fund to record a profit. Why do the AWs play away? Because its cheaper than playing at home. Why do they not play at home? They have no money, the money that would be in the International Team Fund but is not.

So flash forward to 2019 when we don't qualify for Russia and we play a country that wont throw money at us for the rights to broadcast 1 game.... Where is the International Team Fund that is used by NZF to balance the books and show a profit and then alongside that, the intended use of funds for International Teams?

Seriously, if Abbey thinks its bad now, its about to get a shark load worse.

Not to mention that it would probably be prudent to keep some cash stashed away in case a major sponsor falls through or something.

Didn't we just sign a deal worth millions with isps handa?  What is that being put towards?  

Did we? I know it was naming rights for the Chatham Cup but does anyone have any details on it? I don't think its as big a windfall as suggested.

I see you're at in in this thread too, Jeff Vader. When they take money from the international teams fund, it's because they've spent the bloody money on the international teams!

Oh god

Interesting day.

I have been accused of being sexist, called wilfully ignorant and coming from a position of not really caring.

Miss GG has played with current and future FFs. Everyone knows the situation: as a woman, repping for NZ is a fudgeing hard road and that's not likely to change in the near future.  

Should there be more professional opportunities for women? Absolutely. Should NZF compensate for lack of pro opportunities? Perhaps. 

Is the situation "fair"? No. 

Is it likely to change much? No. 

The harsh reality is, it is ultimately a choice. Most of the young women I know in this situation make an informed choice. 

In Aussie: NPL clubs charge juniors $1500-2000 for subs.

In Aussie: Young talented female sports players will increasingly be drawn to pro netball, cricket and Aussie rules. That's where they will make a bit of a living. Female football, despite the player base, is in trouble unless there is a drastic change.

NZF sold all women/men age group WC games TV rights to SKY up until 2018. How much did they get and where does that money go?.

Yup, another misinformed idiot

i am not sure. Probably "selling" them means games covered at no cost. At best it may have bought an ice block for the kids

I would be incredibly surprised if money goes from SKY to NZF to broadcast anything - my suspicion would be funds move in the other direction to ensure coverage (at least of some aspects...)

That would only change if viewing figures increased significantly...

NZF paid Sky $300k to broadcast last years ASBP

I don't understand it - New Zealand Football puts this money aside to pay for international teams, and then every year it uses it for that purpose? Why is this controversial????

If the money put aside was sustainable / reliably obtained then it would be ok to include it in the "surplus". But as it may or may not come every 4 years, it cannot be included as argument for a profitable NZF. 

The reason they put it in the fund is so that over four years, NZF doesnt make 2 million profit in one year and a half a million deficit every other year. Instead, they roughly break even every year.