But,with little money to go around during the COVID-19 recovery phase,which could take years,sports administrators will be wielding the axe. They already are.

The big men’s competitions will be key to bringing back revenue;they attract the big broadcast dollars and big sponsorships. Less important will be the women’s versions of the games because,like it or not,they don't attract the dollars the men do. Yet.

It would be the greatest of shames if women's sport was seen as dispensable.

But it's not all doom and gloom. Cricket hero Ellyse Perry is bullish,andin an interview this week said governing bodies that cut costs in women's sport would do so at their peril.

"It’s certainly made organisations rethink how they run their sports and their codes,and potentially strip it back to what is really important,"she said."That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I don’t think it’s going to affect women’s sport.

"It's become so apparent that if you want all your population engaging in your code,you need to engage all the population. And part of that is having women’s involvement.

"It’s still very much an area for growth and that might be even more apparent after coronavirus because codes are going to have to keep finding new revenue streams."

Perry hit the nail on the head.

Sports have engaged the women’s games to attract more female fans."Get women,win the household"has been the belief. And it’s true.

Cricket,in particular,under the leadership of James Sutherland threw everything at its women's teams and competitions.

But consider this. In the early days of the sport shutdown way back on March 29,the Roosters and Warriors withdrew their sides from the four-team NRLW competition,citing the need to cut costs as a result of the coronavirus crisis. They were among the first things to go.

It costs NRL clubs about $500,000 a year to field a NRLW team,and they receive no funding from headquarters. The AFL subsidises clubs that field teams in the AFLW by about $250,000 a year.

It was an early warning sign of huge trouble on the horizon for women's sport across all our major codes.

Kiwis take fight

The loudest voice inside the NRL player pay revolt has come from across the Tasman. At all turns,it has been the Warriors,whose group is led by Blake Green,who have asked the most questions about the NRL restart. After all,they are in the toughest spot.

As one senior Sydney player said:"It’s easy for the Sydney clubs. We can train and play and go home to our own house. The Warriors can’t."

Through the whole process,players from other clubs have backed the Warriors. Green is very close to Cameron Smith as a result of their playing days at the Storm. When Green has said the Warriors want their families to travel with them,or when he said during Wednesday night’s phone hook-up that the Warriors would not come over without a pay deal signed off,Smith has backed him. The sheer weight of Smith’s stature in the game meant delegates from other clubs followed suit.

Rugby League Players Association boss Clint Newton is petrified of the public reaction to the players’ threat not to return to training until they knew exactly how much they would be paid. The players are,too,but their confusion about the poor state of finances at NRL headquarters outweighs that concern.

They’re not just worried about falling wages now,but also in the future.

ARLC chairman Peter V’landys was gutted on Thursday when he heard of the players’ stance. He’d worked tirelessly to save their season. He thought they were ungrateful. But,in turn,the players knew the NRL needed them more than ever. It gave them skin in the game and they wanted answers before signing on the dotted line.

In the case of the Warriors,before they flew to Australia and bunkered down in Tamworth,they wanted to know exactly how much money they would be sending home.