Ethics CasesSport

Cases · AFL Women's (AFLW) · 2017–2026

Ten Rounds Is Not a Career: AFL Women's Pay and Season Length

When the AFL Women's league (AFLW) began in 2017, most players earned $8,500 for a seven-match season. Successive bargaining deals raised average pay to $46,280 in 2022 and set a path to $82,000 by 2027. Season length became the main sticking point. Players wanted a 17-round season in which every club meets every other club. The 2023 joint agreement instead set 12 rounds from 2025 and made 14 rounds conditional on average crowds of 6,000 and broadcast audiences of 100,000. The case asks whether audience targets are a fair test of whether women's sport has earned investment.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. AFLW launches with eight teams and a seven-match season, with listed players paid $8,500.
  2. A one-year CBA raises average pay by 94% to $46,280 but keeps 10 rounds.
  3. Season seven begins with 18 clubs and 540 players.
  4. The first joint AFL–AFLW CBA runs to 2027, with average AFLW pay rising to $82,000.
  5. The CBA sets 12 rounds from 2025 and ties 14 rounds to audience metrics.
  6. A compressed season fits 11 rounds into 10 weeks, with midweek matches.
  7. Average home-and-away crowds of 2,660 in 2024 fall well short of the target.
  8. The season runs 12 rounds in 12 weeks.
  9. The AFL confirms 12 rounds again, with 14 rounds only if the metrics are met.

The ethical issues

  • Equal treatment versus commercial justification.
  • Conditional growth tied to audience metrics.
  • Part-time contracts and unpaid overtime.
  • Who bears the risk of investing in women's sport.
  • Scheduling decisions that affect the metrics themselves.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
AFLW playersA full-time career and a longer season.
AFL Players' AssociationPay, security and growth.
AFLFinancial sustainability and the growth of the game.
ClubsCosts and competitiveness.
Fans and broadcastersAccessible, quality games.
Girls in the gameA visible professional pathway.

The case

When the AFL Women’s competition (AFLW) began in 2017, a “marquee” player earned $27,000 for the season, and $10,000 of that was for marketing and ambassador work. A priority player earned $12,000, and every other listed player earned $8,500. The season was seven matches plus a Grand Final.[1] The AFL called it “a semi-professional competition initially with players employed on a part-time basis,” but said it wanted it “to evolve into being fully professional as soon as possible.”[1] The AFL Players’ Association (AFLPA) said that “a level of parity had been established,” because the minimum wage was set pro rata to the male rookie salary.[1] Since then, the fight has been over both pay and how much football women get to play.

Background

The first deal covered out-of-pocket medical expenses for 52 weeks after a contract ended. It also paid for a carer when a player with a child under 12 months travelled interstate.[1] By season six, players were contracted for just 15 hours a week and only during the season. ABC News reported growing frustration over “the amount of unpaid overtime they were undertaking.”[6]

What happened

The May 2022 agreement was a one-year deal. Average pay rose 94%, from $23,904 to $46,280, across 540 players at 18 clubs.[2] The minimum salary rose to $39,184, from $20,239.[6] Total player payments rose to $25.6 million, from $10.4 million. The AFL estimated that more than 40 players would earn over $100,000 once marketing deals and other allowable payments were included, up from 12.[2]

Season length was the sticking point. Fremantle player Hayley Miller wrote that “the main issue was the number of games to be played per season.” She said the AFL had first proposed a three-year deal with 10 games and four finals each season, which players felt was “worlds apart” from their goal of a full-time AFLW by 2026.[5] ABC News reported that the AFL “would not agree to extend the season length.” Instead, the finals grew to a top-eight, four-week series.[6]

In September 2023, the AFL and AFLPA signed their first joint agreement covering both men’s and women’s players. It runs to the end of 2027.[3][4] AFLW pay rose 29% immediately, taking the average to $60,000, and will reach $82,000 by 2027. Players gained 12-month contracts, multi-year deals, and relocation benefits equal to the men’s competition.[3][4] A 12-month pregnancy policy was also introduced.[7] The gap with the men’s game remains wide: under the same deal, the average AFL men’s salary will be about $519,000 by 2027.[3] The season was to grow to 12 games in 2025. A 14-game season by 2027 depends on “key audience metrics” modelled on season two in 2018: about 6,000 fans and 100,000 broadcast viewers per game.[4] AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh said, “This was a big push (for 17 games),” but called the metrics “achievable.”[4] Melbourne captain Kate Hore said “the important thing is that there’s growth.”[4]

The rules and governance

The metrics trigger is written into the collective bargaining agreement. Because some venues cannot hold 6,000 people, reaching 90% of capacity counts as equivalent.[9] Scheduling, venues and time slots are AFL decisions.[8]

Aftermath

ABC News reported that home-and-away crowds averaged 2,660 in 2024. That season compressed 11 rounds into 10 weeks, with Tuesday and Wednesday night games. Earlier moves to suburban grounds had also hit attendance.[8] Total attendance had grown 52% since season one, but expansion spread fans across more teams.[8] ABC also noted reports that the AFL had told clubs the women’s game was losing $50 million a year. An AFL executive insisted “the competition is here to stay,” and compared it to long-term investment in expansion markets.[8] The 2025 season ran 12 rounds over 12 weeks. For 2026, the AFL again set 12 rounds, and a club report said the attendance and broadcast benchmarks were unlikely to be met.[8][9]

The core dilemma

Should a women’s league earn a longer season by hitting audience targets? Or is a full season the investment that makes those audiences possible?

Competing values

Equality stands against commercial sustainability. Players’ career security stands against the league’s financial risk. Accountability for results stands against control over the conditions that produce them.

Strongest arguments

For the metrics: Growth must be sustainable. The targets were achieved before. The pay rises are large, and the competition reportedly loses money.[4][8]

Against the metrics: The AFL controls the fixtures, venues and time slots that drive the numbers. Men’s expansion clubs were given long-term patience. A 10- or 12-round season limits careers and visibility.[5][8]

Applying the frameworks

Justice

Distributive justice asks whether the women’s competition is held to a standard that men’s investments, such as expansion clubs, were not.[8]

Utilitarian

A consequentialist weighs the losses against the long-term benefits of growth, participation and audience development.[4][8]

Rights

A rights view stresses equal treatment at work, fair working hours and the pregnancy protections.[3][7]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? The pay figures, the season lengths and the metrics.[2][3][4][8]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? Players, the AFLPA, the AFL, clubs, fans and girls in the game.
  3. What are the options? Keep the metrics; lengthen the season unconditionally; or set metrics tied to scheduling commitments.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Equality against sustainability.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? Justice questions whether the targets are fair; utilitarianism depends on forecasts of growth.
  6. What would you decide and why? Decide as an AFL commissioner.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The pay figures and the terms of the CBA.[1][2][3]

Contested: Whether the metrics are fair and how much the league is really losing.[4][8]

Why this case matters

Compare with the Matildas’ CBA, the WNBA’s 2026 revenue-sharing talks and the USWNT equal-pay lawsuit.

Key terms

Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Glass ceiling
Invisible, systemic barriers in hiring and promotion that keep women and minorities out of leadership roles.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Is it fair to tie season length to audience metrics?
  2. Who controls the factors that drive those metrics?
  3. Should women's leagues get the same patience as expansion clubs?
  4. Is equal pay realistic when revenues differ?
  5. What would a just CBA look like?

Sources

  1. AFL Women's payment terms agreed — AFL
  2. AFL, AFLPA announce new CBA for AFLW season seven — AFL
  3. Landmark joint Collective Bargaining Agreement reached — AFL Players' Association
  4. Longer seasons, better pay: Future of AFLW takes shape — AFL
  5. MILLER: My insight into the AFLW CBA negotiations — AFL
  6. New CBA sees AFLW players receive 94 per cent pay rise with season set to start in August — ABC News
  7. AFLW players happy with conservative season expansion — The Canberra Times (AAP)
  8. With numbers stagnating, here's how the league plans to increase AFLW crowds this year — ABC News
  9. AFLW confirms number of rounds, start date for 2026 season — Western Bulldogs