Commerical concerns "tend to dictate the revenue returns" in terms of the men's and women's Australian national football teams, even though it might not "seem fair or equitable," according to Michael Lynch of THE AGE. It will not change unless concerted efforts are made by sports administrators to promote women's sport and crowds show their interest by turning up -- which will "prompt media to invest more in its coverage." Then, sponsors are "likely to get behind it, because all they are really interested in is exposure for their product, brand or name." Men's sport is "generally where the big bucks are." This is particularly the case for football, as the men's game globally "attracts huge TV rights deals and pulls far bigger crowds." In Australia, the A-League, shown on Fox Sports and SBS, "attracts average gates of around 12,000," while the W-League, which has lost its TV deal with the ABC, is "played in front of far smaller audiences." Sponsors "go where the interest lies," and up to this point, the Matildas and the W-League have been the "poor cousins of the A-League and the Socceroos." The differences largely "reflect the interest in the two teams and are a proportional representation of the way both sides attract sponsor payments and generate revenue for the code." That, of course, could change if the Matildas "go on to succeed in Canada, sponsor interest picks up and larger crowds turn up to watch their games and buy merchandise associated with the players and the team." Women's football is a "growing game" and participation numbers are constantly increasing, as is the quality of athlete taking part, so anything that improves players conditions can only be a positive for the sport (THE AGE, 6/25).
