The Ref Stop

WSL/WC referee fees

Status
Not open for further replies.
But I don't think basing it on "average" attendances is particularly reliable. Average attendances in the WSL are around 5000, which is on par with National League average attendances - but no referee working at National League level will find themselves at the Emirates in front of 60,000 fans.

The variability in the WSL seems to be much more significant. And regardless of "low" ticket prices, selling out the Emirates at around £15 per ticket still equals nearly £1m income on gates alone - on that scale, the difference between the current £248 fee and the men's PL AR £850 fee mentioned previously is negligible. I don't know how feasible it would be to charge uplifts for certain bigger games, but the idea that even tripling referee fees for a club that can sell out a men's stadium for a WSL game will cause any kind of financial hardship is boot-licking nonsense IMO.
 
The Ref Stop
GraemeS said:
But I don't think basing it on "average" attendances is particularly reliable. Average attendances in the WSL are around 5000, which is on par with National League average attendances - but no referee working at National League level will find themselves at the Emirates in front of 60,000 fans.

The variability in the WSL seems to be much more significant. And regardless of "low" ticket prices, selling out the Emirates at around £15 per ticket still equals nearly £1m income on gates alone - on that scale, the difference between the current £248 fee and the men's PL AR £850 fee mentioned previously is negligible. I don't know how feasible it would be to charge uplifts for certain bigger games, but the idea that even tripling referee fees for a club that can sell out a men's stadium for a WSL game will cause any kind of financial hardship is boot-licking nonsense IMO.
Click to expand...
The nonsense would be different fees based on different attendances in the same league. There is precedent for uplift for televised matches, which has some logic, but beyond that makes no sense.

And the rather charmless 'boot-licking' comment is unnecessary and unbecoming
 
Quarryref said:
The nonsense would be different fees based on different attendances in the same league. There is precedent for uplift for televised matches, which has some logic, but beyond that makes no sense.

And the rather charmless 'boot-licking' comment is unnecessary and unbecoming
Click to expand...
He's right though, all these women's clubs are linked to massively wealthy men's sides. They can spare the extra fees
 
GraemeS said:
But I don't think basing it on "average" attendances is particularly reliable. Average attendances in the WSL are around 5000, which is on par with National League average attendances - but no referee working at National League level will find themselves at the Emirates in front of 60,000 fans.

The variability in the WSL seems to be much more significant. And regardless of "low" ticket prices, selling out the Emirates at around £15 per ticket still equals nearly £1m income on gates alone - on that scale, the difference between the current £248 fee and the men's PL AR £850 fee mentioned previously is negligible. I don't know how feasible it would be to charge uplifts for certain bigger games, but the idea that even tripling referee fees for a club that can sell out a men's stadium for a WSL game will cause any kind of financial hardship is boot-licking nonsense IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it could be feasible to offer an uplift in fees for games involving certain clubs at home. The clubs getting charged more would have a great argument as to why it's unfair. You'd then see referees of the same level earning vastly different fees for the same amount of work or alternatively you'd have to create a new level of referee (or appoint FIFA referees) for these games and then it wouldn't be fair on the other clubs that can't pay these high fees to be getting a lower level referee. It simply has to be the same fee for the whole league and that has to be based on the finances of all the clubs in the league, not just the big guns.
 
Quarryref said:
Being able to afford something is not a logical reason to be charged it.
Match fee based on the club owner's bank balance is wrong
Click to expand...
Sure it is, plenty of grassroots leagues set their fees in accordance with what clubs can afford.

If we based it on club income/attendance averages we'd all be doing sunday league for free!
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
Sure it is, plenty of grassroots leagues set their fees in accordance with what clubs can afford.

If we based it on club income/attendance averages we'd all be doing sunday league for free!
Click to expand...
Disagree. Sunday league clubs are sustainable because they charge their players. The amount they charge their players determines their income and the fees are set in accordance with what is affordable on the basis of the finances of the clubs in the league.

Subs/sign on fees are still income.
 
Last edited:
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
Sure it is, plenty of grassroots leagues set their fees in accordance with what clubs can afford.

If we based it on club income/attendance averages we'd all be doing sunday league for free!
Click to expand...
Of course fees are set in line with what is affordable by teams (not the same as clubs) at that level of football. The argument was about varying that depending on what the individual club can afford, which is clearly wrong. You can't charge a bigger club more than a smaller club in the same league and you can't charge a reserve team more because they happen to be affiliated to a bigger club (or Arsenal women more than Bristol City women because one is linked to a rich Men's Premier League club and the other to a loss making Men's Championship club)

We also can't take officials' fees in insolation and there is massively bigger gap between the average WSL Player salary (I think about £50k p.a.) and an average Premier League salary (£3.5m?) than there is between the officials' fees.
 
Quarryref said:
The nonsense would be different fees based on different attendances in the same league. There is precedent for uplift for televised matches, which has some logic, but beyond that makes no sense.

And the rather charmless 'boot-licking' comment is unnecessary and unbecoming
Click to expand...
I don't particularly see why we should be going out of our way to justify lower fees paid by the poor destitute owners of multi-million pound businesses? WSL is a small league, only 12 teams which means 11 home games a season. £1000 extra split across all match officials each game isn't going to bankrupt anyone, but will make a huge difference to young officials deciding if they want to put the time into working their way up the women's game, or to female officials who feel more comfortable there than trying to do grassroots mens football.
 
Quarryref said:
Of course fees are set in line with what is affordable by teams (not the same as clubs) at that level of football. The argument was about varying that depending on what the individual club can afford, which is clearly wrong. You can't charge a bigger club more than a smaller club in the same league and you can't charge a reserve team more because they happen to be affiliated to a bigger club (or Arsenal women more than Bristol City women because one is linked to a rich Men's Premier League club and the other to a loss making Men's Championship club)

We also can't take officials' fees in insolation and there is massively bigger gap between the average WSL Player salary (I think about £50k p.a.) and an average Premier League salary (£3.5m?) than there is between the officials' fees.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the men's club isn't loss making because they're hard up. It's a choice made by many championship clubs, much like it's a choice to make most women's sides play in a national league ground.

Fact is, if the FA wants to grow the women's game, and they claim they do, then officials need to be of a high standard. You will not get that if good officials can make more money as a L3 than they can as a 1W.
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
Sure, but the men's club isn't loss making because they're hard up. It's a choice made by many championship clubs, much like it's a choice to make most women's sides play in a national league ground.

Fact is, if the FA wants to grow the women's game, and they claim they do, then officials need to be of a high standard. You will not get that if good officials can make more money as a L3 than they can as a 1W.
Click to expand...
Err....as a level 3 I get £65 per game for a middle .... ??

Plus most of the top WSL officials referee across men's and women's football, so they are doing both anyway. Until the depth of the women's game grows, that also has to be the optimum way to develop officials for the top of the women's game.
 
GraemeS said:
I don't particularly see why we should be going out of our way to justify lower fees paid by the poor destitute owners of multi-million pound businesses? WSL is a small league, only 12 teams which means 11 home games a season. £1000 extra split across all match officials each game isn't going to bankrupt anyone, but will make a huge difference to young officials deciding if they want to put the time into working their way up the women's game, or to female officials who feel more comfortable there than trying to do grassroots mens football.
Click to expand...
They are not paying lower fees at the moment. They are already paying higher fees than to the equivalent level of referee (to be clear male or female) in men's football
 
Quarryref said:
They are not paying lower fees at the moment. They are already paying higher fees than to the equivalent level of referee (to be clear male or female) in men's football
Click to expand...
"Equivalent" based on what?

That's the source of the debate, because they're very much not being paid the same as a PL referee who might sometimes go out in front of a crowd of 60,000.
 
GraemeS said:
"Equivalent" based on what?

That's the source of the debate, because they're very much not being paid the same as a PL referee who might sometimes go out in front of a crowd of 60,000.
Click to expand...
Equivalent level of referee currently assigned to WSL games. i.e. not Michael Oliver et al

They are also already closer to PL pay than the players or managers
 
There is a table somewhere equating womens pathway levels to mens, but I'm not sure how official or accurate it is.

I think it equated 2w to level 4, which in itself is odd because 4w-3w candidates are observed on the same form as 5-4 candidates as you say
 
Quarryref said:
Equivalent level of referee currently assigned to WSL games. i.e. not Michael Oliver et al

They are also already closer to PL pay than the players or managers
Click to expand...
That's meaningless. The two pathways are separate and it's possible to progress up them at different rates. Rebecca Welch is both a WSL referee (actually, women's FIFA list) and in men's SG2, that doesn't make those two things equivalent.

I just don't understand referees arguing against better pay for referees. On an individual level it's obviously great, but on an institutional level, it's also going to widen the pool of referees and increase standards as a result. The only people with any valid reason to object are those signing the cheques.
 
GraemeS said:
I just don't understand referees arguing against better pay for referees. On an individual level it's obviously great, but on an institutional level, it's also going to widen the pool of referees and increase standards as a result. The only people with any valid reason to object are those signing the cheques.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest here, it's because it's the women's pathway. If there was a thread on increasing fees for the leagues done by level 5's and 4's we wouldn't be having the same debate
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
Let's be honest here, it's because it's the women's pathway. If there was a thread on increasing fees for the leagues done by level 5's and 4's we wouldn't be having the same debate
Click to expand...
I mean, I think that's absolutely the subtext - I was just waiting to see if anyone would be open about the sexism or if everyone objecting was just going to try and pretend it was about fairness and levels!
 
GraemeS said:
That's meaningless. The two pathways are separate and it's possible to progress up them at different rates. Rebecca Welch is both a WSL referee (actually, women's FIFA list) and in men's SG2, that doesn't make those two things equivalent.

I just don't understand referees arguing against better pay for referees. On an individual level it's obviously great, but on an institutional level, it's also going to widen the pool of referees and increase standards as a result. The only people with any valid reason to object are those signing the cheques.
Click to expand...
Is welch SG2. I thought she was ERDP?

Not relevant to the thread, I know!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top