Women’s World Cup will embolden footballers to fight for the pay they deserve – despite FIFA’s actions
Everything you will see at the Women’s World Cup the players had to fight for.
To be allowed to play football. To be able to compete at a FIFA event. And to be paid to be able to dedicate themselves to the sport.
The next month in Australia and New Zealand will undoubtedly be the biggest stage yet for the women’s game with an expanded 32-team festival of football.
And England will be feeling the pressure. As European champions, Sarina Wiegman’s side should be challenging for a first World Cup – despite injuries to key players.
The commitment of the co-hosts promoting the tournament should provide the buzz lacking across much of France in 2019 when England finished fourth under Phil Neville.
And globally the increased profile of players and their teams – and improved media coverage – should generate unprecedented interest.
Little wonder FIFA President Gianni Infantino declared this week in Auckland that “you’ll hear from me only positive things” until after the final.
Gianni Infantino
That does chime in part with the message from the England camp about putting their internal dispute over team bonuses on hold until after the tournament.
Read more:
Why are women footballers facing an ‘epidemic’ of ACL injuries?
Women’s World Cup warm-up match abandoned after 20 minutes for ‘overly physical’ challenges
But as veteran defender Lucy Bronze said of their collective activism: “It’s a very empowered player group.”
And across women’s football – empowerment is the watchword.
Why are players being guaranteed minimum pay from FIFA for the first time? Because of pressure exerted on Mr Infantino by players and their global union, FIFPRO.
“It just shows what happens when players come together united behind very clear principles for change for themselves, but also a legacy for players to come,” said Sarah Gregorius, a former New Zealand player now leading FIFPRO on women’s football.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky’s Nicole Johnston explains everything you need to know.
The stadium in Lyon boomed to chants of “equal pay” four years ago as the Americans lifted the World Cup.
That is yet to be achieved. Far from it.
England collected $17m (£13m) for the men reaching the quarter-finals at the Qatar World Cup last year, while champions Argentina banked $42m (£32.5m).
The country that collects the Women’s World Cup in Sydney on 20 August will only bank $4.3m (£3.3m).
FIFA has effectively blamed rights-holder broadcasters for maintaining disparities by not paying enough to show the games.
But this is a governing body with $4bn (£3.1bn) in cash reserves.
That makes it harder to justify a prize pool of $440m (£340m) for the 32 men’s teams in Qatar and $209m (£161.7m) for the clubs of players when that total is only $152m (£117.6m) for the Women’s World Cup.
FIFA will point to the rise from $30m (£23.2m) from the France 2019 prize fund – but eight more finalists have also been added.
England players during a training session at Spencer Park, Brisbane, Australia
And then there is the guaranteed squad pay now – from $30,000 (£23,200) for players who exit in the group stage to $270,000 (£208,800) for each of the champions.
It is a significant commitment – secured by FIFPRO – given that FIFA’s last published research showed the average global salary for female professional players is only $14,000 (£10,800) and many countries still lack professional women’s leagues.
But the cash will still go to the national football associations rather than the players directly – another barrier that might have to be overcome.
And the players are still feeling marginalised by FIFA beyond pay.
Captains, including England captain Millie Bright, have been banned – just like the men in Qatar – from being allowed to wear “One Love” multicoloured armbands featuring a heart.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Lioness stars Beth Mead and Leah Williamson are out of the England women’s football team with ACL injuries, but they’re not alone.
They would have obliquely referenced LGBT+ rights at a tournament with so many out gay players, including Australia captain Sam Kerr, who said: “Obviously, we would have liked to have worn it, but I’m not going to put this team at risk.”
While there is an armband very similar to the One Love armband among the approved options, FIFA made a point of telling the media that the colours should not be considered a rainbow or representing LGBT+ pride.
Perhaps FIFA was unwilling to cave in again having dropped Visit Saudi as a tournament sponsor under pressure from Australia and New Zealand, as well as the players, over the kingdom’s anti-gay laws.
That lobbying made clear the players won’t be silenced on a platform they were denied for so long.
While the men’s World Cup started in 1930, FIFA only sanctioned a women’s world championship in 1991 and then allowed the World Cup brand to be used later.
And while Mr Infantino wants a purely positive focus for the next month, so many players are determined the World Cup spotlight won’t just be used to showcase their skills.
There are battles for equality still to be won with FIFA and in their home countries. Playing at the World Cup will only embolden them to fight for the parity deserved – and earned.
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
British Steel declined to comment.
UK
Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway