The AFL's decision to double the pay of AFLW players is the consequence of a decision in 2017 to jump aboard the train that was delivering females to opportunities in sports until then largely the preserve of males - at least at a professional level.

The expectation that has arisen, as a result of that call, has proven impossible for the AFL Commission to resist.

Yet that expectation remains considerably greater than the product that is being delivered.

As a result, from the next season there will be 18 teams and a roster that will begin in August and consist of ten games and a final series.

Under the new pay deal, the lowest paid players will get just over $39,000 for the 10-game season.

That's a wages bill for 18 teams with 30 listed players each of a little over $21 million without a single player being paid at any of the three higher payment tiers.

That's a huge investment for an immature sport where only a limited number of players have advanced skill levels, where few still move through the turnstiles to watch and which doesn't, as yet, have a full roster nor a fixed seasonal home.

Nor does it have an adequate base in terms of feeder competitions with sufficient playing grounds and facilities, coaching, sports medicine and officiating resources.

In the race to keep up with competitor sports like rugby league, rugby union and cricket and to play catch up with soccer, which is way ahead of the pack, the solution it seems is to pay the best available the sort of money that they have come to expect.

Not that it will stop at this point.

But it is a ridiculous contention that there should be pay equity with male players and this will remain so for a very long time.

Then there is the small problem of where a more talented and skilful cohort of players might come from to justify such a salary investment and the inevitable calls for continual increases.

It's unlikely that will be easy for the next ten years at least.

A home-Olympics comes at best once in a generation.

It is therefore doubtful that in the decade leading up to Brisbane in 2032, first-choice female athletes are going to opt for an AFLW career over a chance to pursue their Olympic dream whatever dollars are dangled in front of them.

Especially when the other latecomers to female professional sports are also in the market.

But perhaps for these reasons it's better for the AFL to do it now than in five years' time when any chance they have got would be severely diminished.

The scenario therefore is that the AFLW will be fighting for consolidation based on an on-field cohort of mid-range talent that might continue to be increasingly well paid for a game that might well stand still for a while.

Obviously, the AFL, after seeking financial help to make its way through and out of the chaos of the pandemic, has managed to find itself very quickly in a position where it can spend big on what is a relatively new budget line.

Keeping up with other sports cannot be the sole reason for such brazen behaviour.

It surely has something to do with the anticipated revenue from the current round of broadcast rights negotiations.

Even here the AFL must take care.

There may well be new broadcast options willing to enter the fray and pay the big dollars to get the rights to show the games the way they want to.

But what about the long-term fan?

There can be no more dedicated fan group of AFL than older Australians, many of whom know and have only one option to access the game - on free-to-air television.

Some say they are already disenfranchised with fewer games being shown during the day.

This is especially true of those living in aged-care facilities whose biggest social interactions of the week might be watching games in a communal lounge with their friends before tea.

Maybe the regular questioning of the nation's leaders about free-to-air television during the election campaign had real implications.