This cannot be a comfortable time for head office. Whatever you think about the game's treatment of aspiring female footballers in the past it cannot be disputed that AFL CEO McLachlan has championed, driven and ultimately fast-tracked the birth of the eight-team national women's competition.

But the unbridled emotion and pure joy emanating from Lauren Arnell, Katie Brennan and Daisy Pearce at the AFL Women's launch on Wednesday were a stark contrast to the clear disenchantment and disappointment emanating from the AFL's male on-field leaders.

To think that on the eve of Collingwood's historic role in the first national women's game that the Magpies' captain and champion would envisage a sit-down quarter of football as protest against the AFL's still immovable pay offer.

Pendlebury's comments followed Patrick Dangerfield's declaration late last year that the players could strike during the pre-season competition – a comment that angered the AFL. For some time the outspoken Dangerfield looked like a lone agitator and must have wondered why the likes of his president Matthew Pavlich had not come out more strongly in his support.

But that all changed this week with Pendlebury's comments and also saw a backhander delivered to McLachlan from the generally pragmatic Sam Mitchell, who stated that the players would certainly consider taking action should McLachlan again refuse to engage with them as he did in early December.

McLachlan's decision to attend Melbourne broadcaster Neil Mitchell's Christmas lunch rather than travel to Torquay to address the player delegates was a poor one. Surely that was the day for the game's boss, who believes his case is strong, to put the AFL's case to the players.

And it appears to have inflamed the situation where the senior footballers themselves were concerned –  they are a proud group after all and McLachlan's snub served to further galvanise them.

For close to two months the AFL and the players' union did not meet at all, which underlines the level of McLachlan's anger and frustration at the players' pay demand. While McLachlan still hasn't spoken with AFL Players Association boss Paul Marsh the negotiations reopened around Christmas with McLachlan's CFO Ray Gunston searching for common ground with the union.

This time around, the league boss has pledged to fully fund the pay increase, which leaves the league's bottom line even more vulnerable.

Particularly when it continues to pour money into Greater Western Sydney and Gold Coast and AFL Women's and Etihad Stadium.

Last time the clubs were left to pick up the pieces after McLachlan's predecessor Andrew Demetriou struck a deal that cost the clubs up to $2 million over the five-year term. The philosophical divide lies in the fact the players believe they were dudded in the final years of the contract and the clubs believe they were paid too much.

Up until Christmas the league chief flatly refused to entertain a revenue-sharing model and was outraged at the players' reported demand for 29 per cent of key revenues. The two parties were reportedly $150 million apart over six years, which sounds significant but is comparable with the negotiating that occurred last time around.

But the AFL's initial offer of a 10 per cent wage increase was equally untenable, particularly when you consider the removal of the veterans' allowance, which saw the increase closer to 6 per cent in real terms.

Most of the top eight clubs agreed the AFL's offer was unrealistic and all face serious problems meeting their salary cap on those projections.

But until the dispute is resolved –  and it will be resolved –  the clubs remain in the dark as each list-management team grapples with a thicket of prospective contracts and caveats. It is interesting that the AFL has chosen not to consult at all with its 18 key stakeholders as the dispute drags on.   Most of last season they placed their full trust in McLachlan to complete the deal and do the right thing by them. Now some clubs are starting to worry.

The players' key beef is that CBA deals in the recent past have been completed on the basis of projected game revenues and on each occasion those projections have fallen well short of actual financial results.

Significantly Gunston has agreed to look at measures to trigger wage increases when revenues exceed expectations.

But no one believes a deal can be achieved by the start of the season.

Nor does the AFL believe the players will strike. Meanwhile, countering the simmering feud, are eight teams of determined, refreshing, articulate and highly ambitious women athletes who seem truly ecstatic at finally winning their moment in the sun.

At Friday's lunchtime function to launch AFLW, league executive Simon Lethlean spoke of the collective resolve that has achieved the launch of the new national league. Perhaps he was being pointed when he said the women footballers had often been prepared to work for free to promote their new frontier.

It's probably an unfortunate comparison but the differences between the men's and women's stories right now cannot be ignored.

It's difficult to see how AFL footballers with their $300,000 average wages can win this public battle.

It is unfair in so many cases but footballers are seen by the majority of the public as handsomely paid, protected tenants with overly scrutinised personal lives – not to mention social problems no different from the rest of us.

Surely the AFLPA will accept that some of what the players are currently demanding to earn in the hand should go towards retirement and other welfare funding.

My view is that a mechanism should be put in place to afford them a percentage of the competition's revenues. They deserve it – certainly of the broadcast money, gate takings and corporate sponsorship – but that the reported demand for a 20 per cent wage increase is far too high.