Some good sports news – New Zealand and Australia have just been selected to host the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup.
Australia and New Zealand selected as hosts of FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023™
The FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023™ will be staged in Australia and New Zealand, following a vote taken by the FIFA Council during its meeting held via videoconference, the result of which was announced by FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
The joint bid submitted by Football Federation Australia and New Zealand Football received 22 of the 35 valid votes cast by the FIFA Council members in the first ballot, with the Colombian Football Association having obtained 13 votes. The full voting results are available below.
Following on from the astounding success of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2019™ in France and the subsequent unanimous decision by the FIFA Council, the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 will be the first edition to feature 32 teams and it will also be the first to be hosted by Australia and New Zealand and across two confederations (AFC and OFC).
At time of sparse sports news this is a big deal,even if it is for a few years in the future (when Covid will hopefully no longer be an issue).
Your NZ 
Gezza
/ 26th June 2020The FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023™ ?
Crikey. I hope you’re not going to get in trouble for using that term without getting their permission ?
Blazer
/ 26th June 2020I would be surprised if many NZ’ers knew who won the last Womens W.C….or any for that matter.
Gezza
/ 26th June 2020It was the yanks, wasn’t it?
Gezza
/ 26th June 2020Yeah, it was. I remember this bloshie hardass gay sheila. She & they got a lot of media coverage on Aljaz & for later in pay negotiations demanding parity with the men’s team. Fair enuf too. They were good & they won.
Pink David
/ 26th June 2020They lost their court case for pay on the grounds they were already paid more than the men.
Gezza
/ 26th June 2020Lol. How sexist of the Court.
Duker
/ 26th June 2020More complicated than that , but thats a fair summary.
They were on different deals and dating back to 2016 probably not so highly rated then
“The judge pointed out that the women’s team had actually earned more “on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis” than the men’s team during the years in the lawsuit. But, the crux of the judge’s decision was related to the different deals negotiated by the men’s and women’s teams…
The female players agreement allows the women to be compensated largely through salary guarantees, with additional opportunities for performance-based bonuses. On the men’s team, players do not earn salaries, but only bonuses, and therefore the men are only paid when they play.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/05/04/judge-dismisses-us-womens-soccer-equal-pay-case—heres-why/#1db741f4728d
However
““We asked to be under the men’s contract, and it was repeatedly refused to us, not only in the structure but in the total compensation. If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.”
It seems to me when they were more successful they wanted to renegotiate their existing deal to get even more money but it seems ‘a deal is a deal’
Pink David
/ 26th June 2020Amazing. It is almost like men and women have different view when it comes to risk.
Who knew?
Blazer
/ 26th June 2020unusual strip for U.S.A.
Womens tennis demand equal pay too.
I think a solution would be to have open tournaments where the women can play the men and win the bigger purse…if they are good…enough.
duperez
/ 26th June 2020As usual, it’s all about the politics. It seems strange to thoroughly assess all the requirements for the event to the nth degree and then park the findings on the sidelines and take emotional non-assessed factors into account
“UEFA, which runs European football, block voted for rivals Colombia, snubbing the trans-Tasman Women’s World Cup bid, even though the South American country had an inferior evaluation report.
Australia and New Zealand scored 4.1 out of five on the report with Colombia totalling 2.9.
The joint bid bettered the South Americans in every criteria – stadiums, team and referee facilities, accommodation, International Broadcast Centre (IBC) and competition-related event sites and commercial.”
The opening is set for Eden Park. I wonder if that means each of four other nominated venues gets one of the five matches or does a semi/quarterfinal get played at Eden Park too meaning one of Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington or Hamilton misses out.
Duker
/ 26th June 2020Another big event where the taxpayers and ratepayers fork out $10s of millions each. Hosting rights alone will be huge on top of ‘running costs’ And the TV rights go exclusively to FIFA
“The Fifa bid evaluation report estimated the cost of running the tournament would be about A$150 million, with just over A$100 million of that coming from governments.”
The revenue from ticket sales, was predicted pre covid and would be totally unrealistic now, and of course tickerts will be premium prices except for minnow teams.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/world-game/121952285/world-cup-2023-a-massive-boost-for-womens-sport–but-does-it-make-financial-sense
Kitty Catkin
/ 26th June 2020Someone on 3 thinks that the plural of stadium is stadia. It’s actually stadii, but it’s de facto an English word now; it’s changed its meaning completely, so why not just say ‘stadiums’ if one isn’t talking about a furlong or racetrack ?