This was posted 6 years 10 months 18 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

FREE Entry to 2018 AFL Women's Matches across Australia

340
FREE Entry to 2018 AFL Women's Matches across Australia
Go to Deal
Repposh on 05/02/2018 - 17:10 afl.com.au (553 clicks)
Last edited 05/02/2018 - 17:30 by 1 other user

2018 NAB AFL Women's Fixture

All matches for the 2018 NAB AFL Women's competition are FREE ENTRY with the exception of R2 : Fremantle v Collingwood at Optus Stadium, Perth. Tickets $2 available via Ticketmaster.

Entry is subject to capacity.

NSW - Blacktown International Sportspark Sydney
VIC - Ikon Park
VIC - Whitten Oval
VIC - Casey Fields
VIC - Olympic Park Oval
QLD - South Pine Sports Complex
SA - Thebarton Oval
SA - Norwood Oval
WA - Fremantle Oval
ACT - Manuka Oval
NT - TIO Stadium

As per last year's deal

https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/290448

Sports & Outdoors Sport Football

Related Stores

Australian Football League
Australian Football League

closed Comments

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/02/2018 - 17:23
    +3

    Great deal - not being sexist but - but no thanks

    • DeWalt on 05/02/2018 - 18:17
      -1

      The same thing is seen in Europe. They promoted women’s soccer for 30 years. The crowds are small and almost no women watch the games. According to the advertiser, they will continue to push WAFL on the front of newspapers until the numbers of spectators are equal for men and women because … equality. The only possible way I see this happening is to drive men away from the game.

      Isn’t is just possible that more men like sport than women, especially a game like AFL? If there are any credible studies that prove the significant differences are social conditioning, i’d like to see it. There is a lot of evidence that says biology is a significant factor.

      See the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sex Differences In Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures:
      "Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men.”

      • puckman on 06/02/2018 - 17:10
        +1

        And yet, for example, 25000 people turned out to watch the round one women's game between Carlton and Collingwood.

        The journal article you refer to (I have access through UNSW) mentions sport once, and it doesn't mention interest in watching sport at all - it just says that as equity increases, the difference in the number of men vs. women who do short length sprinting/running increases.

        A better example might be the USA. Pre "Title IX" (which made sex discrimination in school sports illegal) 7% of athletes in high schools where women, now that number is 42%. That is as a direct result of attempting to break down barriers to participation, of which perception is a significant factor.

        To me it seems absolutely admirable to try and increase female participation both in playing sports and in watching them. These are meant as fitness/leisure/entertainment activities and they are as entitled as anyone else to be involved. And if ultimately the numbers don't stack up (I've not heard any mention of what you say about aiming for equal spectator-ship, only increased spectator-ship) then what harm has been done by trying to engage half of the population? Why do you think this will somehow "drive men away from the game"? I don't see any logic in that.

        • rokufan on 06/02/2018 - 21:30

          @puckman You might want to do further reading into the consequences of Title IX and the "Dear Colleague" letter. It forced colleges to have equal funding of men/women sports - even when their was insufficient demand for women sports, which resulted in underfunded men's sports and enormous waste on the women's side. It also led to campus kangaroo courts, where the presumption of innocence was abolished, and male students accused of rape and sexual harassment were expelled summarily, quite often without knowing the evidence used against them. This has lead to many multi-million dollar lawsuits against colleges by the accused. Thankfully, the Trump Administration are now taking corrective action.

  • jv on 05/02/2018 - 17:35
    +10

    Normal price. Not a deal.

  • AustriaBargain on 05/02/2018 - 17:36
    +10

    WAFL can not score field goals. But they have good fundamentals, that more fun to watch.

    • Magus on 05/02/2018 - 19:22

      I's more like watching a mens game from the 80's. 50m+ kicks are rare, but the tackling is still hard.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2018 - 17:50

    Free is exactly how much it should cost.

  • marantz on 05/02/2018 - 17:55
    +1

    Would be fun to go but blacktown is really far. Too bad they don't have any other locations in Sydney

  • DU99 on 05/02/2018 - 18:03
    +1

    FREE.. Tickets $2 available via Ticketmaster.

    • Repposh on 05/02/2018 - 20:03
      +1

      The title was "Free or $2 entry to 2018 AFL women's matches across Australia" until it was edited. One match costs $2. The rest are all free as listed above

  • TheDukeOfNukem on 05/02/2018 - 18:06
    +2

    Me: (profanity) it, I don't really care about AFL at all, I mean, I used to as a kid, then I was exposed to video games and moved on, but like, I'll go to one of these AFLW games with my daughter, she'll have fun.

    looks at fixture

    Oh, Essendon aren't one of the AFLW teams. Figured they would all have a team.

    Googles who's who in AFLW

    Oh, lots of teams don't have a AFLW team. Almost like it's not (profanity) then.

    …

    I don't care about football too much, but apparently I did enough at one point that the idea of rooting for any team other than the Bombers pisses me off deeply.

    • PinzVidz on 05/02/2018 - 18:50
      +2

      Bummers were snubbed for both 2019 and 2020 AFLW seasons, no sight of whether they'll get in…

      • TheDukeOfNukem on 05/02/2018 - 18:55

        I was about to say "tbh a loud footy game isn't probably the best idea for a two year old anyway"

        But then I remembered it was only AFLW so it probably won't be too loud.

      • jasswolf on 05/02/2018 - 19:28
        +1

        They put in an extremely half-hearted bid compared to several other teams, all of whom put in almost 12 months work into setting things up.

    • Magus on 05/02/2018 - 19:20

      only a limited number of teams allowed. Many other clubs applied, but were knocked back

    • AustriaBargain on 05/02/2018 - 20:30

      WNBA was the same, is still the same. The number of teams keeps going up and the viewership slowly goes up over time, but still most states done have a WNBA team. In 30 years time I think they all will probably.

  • PinzVidz on 05/02/2018 - 18:54

    Lions girls have 2 home grounds this year (only one listed above), round 6 vs Pies at Moreton Bay Central Sports Complex.

  • krushgroove on 06/02/2018 - 10:31
    +2

    Can't make any jokes about this, in this current climate. #metoo

    • puckman on 06/02/2018 - 16:50
      -3

      Oh really? What joke do you want to make? Would you laugh at your daughter, or another young girl, who tells you they want to play AFL? What century do you live in where you think it's funny to say that women can't play sport at a professional level?

  • dein_gesicht on 06/02/2018 - 12:08
    -1

    I would rather sit all day at a bus stop. They need to reduce the size of the field for woman as they are slower and can't kick as far to make the scoring a lot easier. This is normal price

  • puckman on 06/02/2018 - 12:54
    -2

    In this thread: people who claim they aren't sexist, but somehow still feel the need to go out of their way to disparage women's AFL. Obviously having women play AFL takes something away from you, somehow?

    • 72unsuited on 06/02/2018 - 13:40
      +3

      Not enjoying womens football doesnt automatically make you sexist FYI

      • puckman on 06/02/2018 - 16:41
        -1

        I agree. I'm pointing out the people who go out of their way to make sure everyone knows they don't enjoy it, as if it is a personal affront to them.

  • wings bubbin boaz on 06/02/2018 - 14:22

    respek wahmen

    • rokufan on 06/02/2018 - 15:24

      *respec whamen

  • rokufan on 06/02/2018 - 15:05
    +1

    Free all season? Not an AFL fan so haven't followed this closely, but hard to miss the progressive media desperately trying to boost the league. Doesn't this obviously mean the men's game is massively subsidising the women's game? Sounds like female privilege or a form of socialism. I wouldn't be surprised if idiotic demands for equal pay start in the near future, just like we've seen with the national soccer teams - even though women's soccer has a tiny fraction of the men's revenue and most likely makes no profit. Of course the feminist mob will scream sexist if you point out any of these facts.

    • puckman on 06/02/2018 - 16:49
      +1

      They are a business, so they can make whatever decision they want. The fact that AFL is run by a private organisation is actually the complete opposite of socialism. And the idea, in the long run, is to build up the female fan base to massively increase overall revenue. They are already getting over 25,000 people at some games, which is more than a lot of men's NRL games.

      I know you probably would just dismiss it as the rhetoric of what you call the "feminist mob" (I'm a man btw) but men have had lots of privilege, in many areas, for a long time. The idea with offering extra support to women in areas like this is that it changes perceptions, and eventually becomes self-supporting and even a source of increased revenue if you are willing to think long term.

      I always compare it to my field, engineering. Women are vastly underrepresented, despite the plentiful evidence that they can do the job as well as anyone. So if you have some advertisement campaigns and scholarships encouraging women to enter the industry, then they are successful and become role models, then young women start to enter the industry under their own steam.

      I agree that the overall salary pool should reflect the income generated in the long term. But to say that it's not worth investing in women's sport because it doesn't generate income would mean that you should never invest in anything that doesn't already generate an income, which mean the failure of capitalism as we know it.

      • 72unsuited on 06/02/2018 - 18:01
        +3

        At the risk of being called 'sexist' by puckman i would say that the issue with womens football and cricket is that the standard of play is far too low for how heavily it is pushed on us by the media. When I watch the australian open tennis I am under no illusion that I could win a point against serena williams and co, they would wipe the floor with me. However when I watch WBBL and AFLW I am watching an under 14 level of skill and quite honestly as a washed up sportsman in his mid 30s still in reasonable shape I think that I would go pretty well if I was out there playing which doesnt bode well for an 'elite' competition.

        Unfortunately any attempt to bring this up as a serious discussion point gets you labelled as a bigot so usually its easier just to keep your mouth shut.

        • rokufan on 06/02/2018 - 18:54
          +1

          @72unsuited
          Yep. Matildas lose 7-0 to under fifteen Newcastle boys side.
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Ma…

        • rokufan on 06/02/2018 - 21:09

          @rokufan: But they want equal pay.

        • puckman on 07/02/2018 - 13:11
          -1

          To me it sounds like you either haven't watched WAFL or don't understand AFL in general. There's no doubt that women are, on average, less strong than men. But there's no evidence that they are less dexterous, agile, athletic etc. So they can kick less far is pretty much the only difference. The level of competition is great because as it happens, no one is suggesting women versus men, so the strength difference is irrelevant. Both teams are at similar skill levels. The WAFL is fantastically competitive and great to watch. These people are real athletes, and this is the level of skill they are at with barely any funding available to them.

        • puckman on 07/02/2018 - 13:18

          @rokufan:
          Saying men and women are different isn't sexist. Men's tennis players also destroy women's tennis players. And yet watching women play each other in tennis is just as entertaining as watching men, because they are elite athletes at comparable levels.

        • 72unsuited on 08/02/2018 - 15:39

          @puckman:

          For a start it is AFLW - WAFL is the local western australian football competition.

          Secondly with regards to the athleticism of participants. I have already made the point that I could not hang with a female tennis player as their skills are unbelievable. If it is about athleticism how do you think I would go against the women at the commonwealth games in say the 100m sprint, the marathon, weightlifting? I'll give you a hint, not well. They are real athletes, AFLW players are not.

      • rokufan on 06/02/2018 - 18:50
        +1

        @puckman

        They are already getting over 25,000 people at some games, which is more than a lot of men's NRL games.

        Let's see what crowd they pull when they start charging real ticket prices.

        Yes they are a private company and can do what they want. But it appears to me this is driven by ideology not a profit motive. The men's players' union should also be free to challenge the use of revenue they generate being diverted away from their own salaries - but of course they will be muzzled by the fear of being called sexists. My socialist comment was in regards to effectively taking money from men (players) to give to women - which is correct in the broader sense.

        I'm hardly making an argument against capitalism, the opposite in fact. The quickest way to ruin is to invest in bad projects, particularly in an area where there is a track record of failure: see the lousy figures of the decades' old WNBA (US women's basketball league) which had similar propping up.

        As for engineering, do you really think the only reason for female under representation is sexism or a lack of role models? See Google engineer James Damore's memo which put forward other evidenced-backed reasons for why this maybe so. Also see the excellent Professor Jordan Peterson. RE Privilege: you might want to look into how much female privilege there is in the Western World (the answer: a lot!). A good starting point would be the commentary of Karen Straughan.

      • mickeyjuiceman on 07/02/2018 - 06:42
        +1

        They are already getting over 25,000 people at some games, which is more than a lot of men's NRL games

        Because they give the tickets away. Are you TRYING to make irrelevant arguments? Go have a look at the scores from the Collingwood/Carlton game last weekend and somehow craft an argument that it's some level of quality above "abysmal."

        • puckman on 07/02/2018 - 13:16

          No I'm not trying to make irrelevant arguments, though you seem inclined to dismiss them as such without any fair consideration. People value their own time, and don't go to every free event. They go to the ones they are interested in. There is a prevailing argument throughout these comments that "no one cares". Well then, why are they giving up their time to watch?

          Do you know that for decades most AFL games (and other sports) were free to watch for the general public, before the professionalisation of sport began? Do you know that the best way to create revenue in the long run is to gather as much interest as possible before beginning to charge? (think of how uber eats and deliveroo were free for months before they had a user base to start charging).

          You can feel free to make your own counter-arguments and I will be happy to listen, but your response shows a lack of consideration and thought.

  • Blottski on 06/02/2018 - 18:08

    Great that they are trying to get people to these games

    However.

    I watched a game of this on Fox Footy the other day. I was actually shocked at the lack of quality of the players. Simple basic skills are lacking (I coached for for years when I was younger)

    I know the league is young etc but truly laughable if this is best players the AFL has showcase…

    I suppose they have to start somewhere..

    • 72unsuited on 06/02/2018 - 18:11

      And the number of teams in the competition will increase from 8 to 14 by 2020.

      • Blottski on 06/02/2018 - 18:36
        +1

        they would want to be pumping a sh#tload of $$$ into grassroots womens football then because the talent level currently on offer for a national competition is a joke.

        If the FFA put out a W League* with the quality of player the WAFL is (lack of simple/basic skils), it would be laughed out of town.

        *I know the W league imports a good number of overseas based players but I've watched a ton of NPL South Australia Women's football and even at state based level, their skills are above board and then know what they are doing. (both skills wise and tactically)

        Some of these WAFL girls of the match I watched couldn't even kick a ball correctly which in turn probably explains why the scorelines are on the low side.

        I'm not ragging on the girls having a go here, I'm ragging on the AFL put putting out a competition on the national stage which makes the sport looks comical/of low quality.

        Do your worst Puckman. :)

  • DavRo on 06/02/2018 - 20:00

    Not a bargain when it has always been free.

    The women that play obviously enjoy themselves and good on them. I think it is of value prior to AFL starting and you get reasonable value for your money.

    To be a bargain would need petrol rebate or free food.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join