Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Yeah, this actually seems surprisingly cut and dry to me.
Five Top Female Players Accuse U.S. Soccer of Wage Discrimination
- Thread starter LyleLanley
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, this actually seems surprisingly cut and dry to me.
that doesn't mean more popular.
again they play a lot more friendlies. Revenue number also might not reflect the relationship between SUM and USsoccer. SUM negotiates the sale of media rights for soccer played in the US.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
I mean I believe playing for your country you should donate the earnings to Charity, but that probably doesn't translate over in America because MLS just isn't the same as what we have over here
":lol"
Unless you are talking exclusively about international stuff I dispute this claim massively.
Your data is very limited, do you watch football? Are you a fan? Or are you basing your entire opinion on those financials?
":lol"
Unless you are talking exclusively about international stuff I dispute this claim massively.
Your data is very limited, do you watch football? Are you a fan? Or are you basing your entire opinion on those financials?
VendettaRed07
Member
This is true, but from what I understand there is a cap threshold for the salary to kick in. So a USWNT player that plays in 5 draws gets nothing, but a USMNT player who gets 5 caps in 5 losses gets 25k+
So let's put aside the popularity argument...
If they're generating more revenue than the men this year, then surely they deserve more money than the men this year. Whether they do so by higher viewership or by playing more matches is irrelevant.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
The thing is, the women brought in $20 million MORE than the men last year apparently. So they should really be making more than the men.
Also they won the World Cup. The men had to win this week just to avoid being eliminated from even going to the World Cup.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Hard to argue against the numbers. Compensation should be commensurate with the revenue they bring the sport in this country.
I'll be honest, I'm a fan of US Women's soccer. It's extremely popular here in Pittsburgh (for obvious reasons) so I don't have much perspective outside of this market.
I'm absolutely including "international stuff" because it's what has driven the popularity of women's teams for the most part.
I'm saying that currently, based on their success at the World Cup and their likely success in the upcoming Olympics, women's US Soccer has more cultural weight than men's.
yes. but I would also like US Soccer to be more forthcoming about how much money they make from the sale of media rights. Right now because of the relationship with SUM, it isn't clear.
the last thing you can use as an argument is that they win more.
BronsonLee
Member
Nah people like winners
they win more, so they deserve more pay is stupid reasoning. There are very good reasons for a pay increase, this isn't one of them.
why they win more is pretty easy to explain......
that is a good point.
It's the Olympics. They are projected to win Gold and have a 10 game Victory Tour like they did after the World Cup. The budget doesn't include the Copa America for the men, it's included as Non-Operating Revenue item of Extraordinary Income – Copa America, $15 million btw. It's actually 29 games for the USWNT vs. 13 for the USMNT, so that kind of explains the difference.
"International stuff" is the entire scope of this issue. Not sure why people keep bringing in club play.
Because...
... This could well play a part in it, and is part of what I meant in my first post.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
That's fair enough, you should post in the football thread in OTC, I think you probably do have a significant bias though because of this though.
I can't see this,the women's world cup is becoming more popular but the global weight of both competitions aren't remotely comparable. You could blame FIFA for not putting enough money into it, but that's a battle for another day.
I'm not disagreeing that the women could do with a pay bump but those financials aren't a watertight argument and they don't give you the right to shoot down other peoples opinions with cocky remarks. I mean I'm not seeing serious number crunching, no factoring MLS and NWSL into it, Global popularity etc.
Bruh I'm not trying to be rude here but if you're not sure why people are bring in club play then I'm going to assume you don't know very much about football.
People in the sport business should always be paid based on the revenue they generate regardless of gender. So if it's true that the women have higher ratings and sell more tickets, than they should definitely be paid the same, if not more.
But bringing up success as an argument for equal pay is stupid.
But bringing up success as an argument for equal pay is stupid.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
At a glance of the story that's Id say that's objectively the correct moral opinion to have. But without factoring in league earnings you are not being shown the full picture.
I know plenty. There should be no connection between national team pay and club team pay. If someone doesn't want to play for their country because their country doesn't bring in huge revenue then too bad.
I might be wrong about this but the hugely famous and wealthy members of the US basketball team don't get paid at all (or at least they used to not get paid).
Yeah of course men players earn and should earn more from their respective teams but I was mainly talking about the payment from the US federation. I don't see a reason why the US federation should pay the women's national team less when they get more viewers than the men.
QuantumZebra
Member
Yea the USWNT is huge.
The Women's World Cup was the biggest televised sports event ever in U.S. history wasn't it? Or damn close...
Skellig Gra
Member
Women should get paid more but something is off with those numbers. Every time I watch a womens match the stands are practically empty and wasn't Canada handed the Womens World Cup essentially unopposed because no one cares about it?
Netherscourge
Banned
Exactly my question.
Your salary should only be dependent on how much money you personally generate for the sport.
I don't know the breakdowns, but if the men's sport is making more money overall, then the men's players will make more money.
It's not sexism - it's supply and demand.
However, if this is not true and women's soccer generates more money than men's soccer, then yes, something is amiss.
Is that combining all the matches? I don't know exactly how that figure would be defined but it is probably done in a way that makes it hard to compare to other sporting "events" in the US outside of soccer. And I say that as someone who watched almost every match last year.
Simply Sami
Member
No it's not.
USA team always give everyone a tough game at the World Cup. They not some team who just come out and rollover. It's always going to be hard for them to compete against the European or South American teams. They just have better players. It's the same for Australia. For a Aussie the biggest sport in their country is cricket. For American it's obviously American football. The coaching in these countries is not as good. Where as all the European and South American teams the biggest sport is football.
The women's team do better because the competition is a whole lot weaker.
This is coming from a English person too.
If they bring more money, they should earn more money, regardeless of how good they are. On the other hand, if they are bringing less money than the men, they should expect to earn less.
QuantumZebra
Member
I believe the final game(s) were absolutely massive on the U.S. ratings scale (and internationally IIRC).
The USWNT is infinitely more popular and well known in the U.S. than the MNT, as many here have posted.
I know every player on the women's team; but if you grilled me on the MNT I'd probably put up a big fat 0.
I can't imagine women's soccer is watched all that less than men's soccer, at least in America.
I think this issue is slightly more nuanced than it appears at first glance
The mens team earns massive TV revenues from playing in the World Cup and WC qualifiers, something the women's team doesn't bring in
The womens national team played 11 friendles between the end of the world cup and their first competitive international in early 2016, compared to the mens team who played significiantly less than this
With that in mind, it's probably fair to say the women brought in more ticket revenue, but not TV revenue, but I don't have the exact figures
The mens game also has the rapidly growing MLS behind it, which has TV deals and ever growing attendance, something the womens game does not have
The mens team earns massive TV revenues from playing in the World Cup and WC qualifiers, something the women's team doesn't bring in
The womens national team played 11 friendles between the end of the world cup and their first competitive international in early 2016, compared to the mens team who played significiantly less than this
With that in mind, it's probably fair to say the women brought in more ticket revenue, but not TV revenue, but I don't have the exact figures
The mens game also has the rapidly growing MLS behind it, which has TV deals and ever growing attendance, something the womens game does not have
They deserve every penny. Swap the pay completely, imo.
The team was unstoppable in the final last year. I don't think Japan was up to the challenge as a fluke loss by the UK team is what kept them from playing the US instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__1PwHRpAM
How about a hat trick in 15 minutes?
The team was unstoppable in the final last year. I don't think Japan was up to the challenge as a fluke loss by the UK team is what kept them from playing the US instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__1PwHRpAM
How about a hat trick in 15 minutes?
I think the biggest reason is the MLS salaries giving the men a much stronger negotiating platform. The women don't have that baseline as a starting point.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
It's nothing to do with correlating the wages, but more the structure/hierarchy of football. Internationals are not as regular and are a risk to national league fans, that's not just you Americans either, you have players in all the major leagues in the world including over here in the Premier league which is one of the most physically demanding in the world, it also generates the most revenue out of any football league in the world. By calling them up they are risking serious money and the clubs position in their respective league and you're say that is irrelevant?
I'd also like to reiterate that it's not just MLS
It's the premier league, la liga, Bundesliga. America have top class players in the best leagues in the world, MLS is growing but some of these players are risking a hell of a lot more
If the women bring in more revenue, than they should be paid more. I think everyone can agree on that.
I do contend, however, that the women's soccer team is more popular than the men's team here in the US. Some people even going so far as to say they are infinitely more popular. I would say they are about equal. Let's look at the recent World Cup for each as an example.
Yes, it is true that the Women's World Cup final had higher viewer numbers than the highest US men's game. But a.) it was the final and b.) it was on FOX, which is a free OTA channel. The highest rated US men's game was on ESPN, a cable station and it was a first round match. I have no doubt that if the men had made it to the final and it was aired on ABC, it would have equaled or topped the women's number.
Not to mention, the US men regularly pull better ratings in their friendlies and other assorted competitive matches than the women. The women are more competitive in their big events and people love watching big events, so they pull in some great numbers during those and that skews the numbers and people's perception. But I don't think that means they are more popular than the men's team.
EDIT: Some numbers to back up that last paragraph. Ratings for the most recent men's and women's games:
USMNT vs Guatemala (WC18 qualifier), ESPN2: 954k viewers
USWNT vs Ireland (Intl. friendly), FS1: 268k viewers
I do contend, however, that the women's soccer team is more popular than the men's team here in the US. Some people even going so far as to say they are infinitely more popular. I would say they are about equal. Let's look at the recent World Cup for each as an example.
Yes, it is true that the Women's World Cup final had higher viewer numbers than the highest US men's game. But a.) it was the final and b.) it was on FOX, which is a free OTA channel. The highest rated US men's game was on ESPN, a cable station and it was a first round match. I have no doubt that if the men had made it to the final and it was aired on ABC, it would have equaled or topped the women's number.
Not to mention, the US men regularly pull better ratings in their friendlies and other assorted competitive matches than the women. The women are more competitive in their big events and people love watching big events, so they pull in some great numbers during those and that skews the numbers and people's perception. But I don't think that means they are more popular than the men's team.
EDIT: Some numbers to back up that last paragraph. Ratings for the most recent men's and women's games:
USMNT vs Guatemala (WC18 qualifier), ESPN2: 954k viewers
USWNT vs Ireland (Intl. friendly), FS1: 268k viewers
FriedConsole
Banned
By this logic women should be paid more because they don't have other sources of income. You are going to lose women to getting regular paying jobs.
HighResTomato
Member
Do people think that players like Howard would risk their big money contracts at huge clubs to play in the USMNT?
Seriously agreed, the US men's team are good, they're just unfortunate in that they have to go up against teams who have the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Ozil, Neymar etc in their ranks, but they always give a good account of themselves and impress me every time I see them play at a tournament.
I wish my team (Scotland) were as good as them, we might actually qualify for tournaments then. LOL! Who am I kidding, we would still find a way to bottle it against the likes of Georgia. Fucking Georgia. I almost flung myself off a cliff after that disaster of a game.
Iorv3th
Member
What? What he's saying is it's a risk for an athlete that gets paid really well at their club to come play for the national team and risk injury.
CyclopsRock
Member
But surely this all depends on what the actual goal of the body that's paying these guys and girls to play for the national teams is, no? Are they there to make themselves profit? Or are they there to try and win as many tournaments as possible? Because the example given here - and I don't know if it's true but I see no reason why it wouldn't be - suggests that these two goals could lead to differing pay structures depending on which you choose.
Edit: Also, how many more people in the US watch world cup games that don't have the USMNT playing in them because the USMNT is in the tournament, who otherwise wouldn't be watching? IE they get into the World Cup (in the same way the Olympics gets people interested in sports they don't care about outside of that 3 week period every 4 years) and the revenue this pulls in? It's basically impossible to quantify but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is also the case for the women's team, naturally.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
I mean, if international footballers exclusively played in the Olympics then sure this reasoning would make sense
Dusk Soldier
Member
Tennis is different because while as a whole the men's tournament brings in more revenue than the women's tournament, individually there are plenty of female players that bring in more revenue than male players.
For instance, there is no reason why Serena Williams, or Maria Sharapova, don't deserve the same pay as or more than Richard Gasquet or Milos Raonic.
How is this possible? Even as a Scot living across the ocean I could name lots of them. Many of the US Men's team squad play in the top and most famous leagues in the world. There is no way you shouldn't be able to name them, unless all you watch is International football or something, which would be weird since club football is the crown jewel of the sport.
tkscz
Member
The Martian. They both in the Martian. That was the movie Pill wanted more money for (I could be talking about the wrong actress though).
Yes, I'm saying that if they make the decision to risk injury/fatigue for way less pay then that is completely on them. It isn't incumbent on the national federations to insure/compensate them for this. If it isn't worth the risk they shouldn't play. Compensation is a totally separate issue and should rely on income produced.
As stated before, the US mens basketball team salaries are probably equivalent (or more) to any international soccer team in the world (once scaled for only having 12 players) and they get paid nothing. The players have to decide for themselves if it is worth the risk of injury and exhaustion. Some players opt out for those very reasons.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked