POLL: Should USWNT and USMNT both receive equal pay?

[MJG-90]

What's going on with the women's team is the perfect definition of "sexism" and USA Soccer should be embarrassed!!!

That's ridiculous. Forget about gender. Take the Men's team completely out of the discussion. Just look at women's soccer as its own business model. What do they bring in vs. what they are paid. Maybe they deserve better treatment. Maybe they don't. I don't know. But they have the power to sit out the next round if they don't get their way. We'll see how much leverage they really have if they choose to find out.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Apologies. FTR, I did not call you a moron, but you did seem to insinuate that overall WC revenues aren't relevant and women's had higher ratings in the US.
If interested, I will answer your questions.

Why should we care what the men's world cup generated globally?
[FIFA dedicates a percentage of overall WC revenues to player compensation. It is no based on revenue generated in a particular region or country. The last numbers I saw were 9% to the men and 13% to the women]

I mean this seriously. I have no idea who even pays the team's salary.
[In the US, US Soccer is the governing body. It pays the players based on a collectively bargained agreement. WC revenues are just a portion of their compensation.]

In the USA, the last men's world cup final between France and Croatia drew 11.3 million American viewers. The women's world cup final just drew 14.3 million US viewers.
[This is not relevant to how WC money is distributed to countries/players. Also, it is comparing apples and oranges to compare interest in the US women's team to men from Croatia and France.
The men did not qualify for the 2018 WC, but let's take a look at the last WC that the men played in. In 2014, the Men's final between Germany and Argentina drew 26.5M viewers. The Group-stage match between the US and Portugal drew 24.7M viewers. To summarize that, in 2014, an early stage group match for the US Men drew 172% more viewers than the US Women in the WC final in 2019.]

Thank you. I rescind my dipshit comment.

 

[Pardlion]

women think that the men are getting some of what they deserve, I'd like to suggest a remedy. US Soccer should spin-off control of the USWNT to a separate body (ie US Women's Soccer). The new body can interface with FIFA and pay the players exactly what they are worth.

I think this is exactly where this is going.

 

[heckmans]

I think this is exactly where this is going.

Good. I think the women will be sorely disappointed, but we can dispense with this pay gap nonsense.

 

[Yanks49]

But they have the power to sit out the next round if they don't get their way.

Exactly. Go on strike if you don't like it. Go try out for the men's team if you don't like it. I hate people demanding they get paid more than they are making. There are plenty of opportunities out there to make more money. If I feel like I'm being underpaid by my employer, I have every right to go find another job. I do not have the right to force my employer to pay me more. Pretty simple.

 

[BrianS]

So, the so-so Men's soccer team is being compared to the WC Women's soccer team. Let's put things in a little perspective. I would say the MAJORITY of male athletes in our great country participate in these sports:
1. Football
2. Basketball
3. Baseball
4. Soccer
The rest of the world goes something like:
1. Soccer
2. whatever else
Now, the women's sports in the USA goes something like:
1. Basketball
2. Soccer
3. Softball
The rest of the world goes something like:
1. Soccer
2. whatever else
THerefore, the US men's soccer program is ranked about where they should be due to participation in OTHER major sports. The women's soccer program is doing great due to their participation in one of the top 2 sports in our country. Not hard to figure out.

 

[indynittany]

Why should there be separate accounts for men’s and women’s World Cup....

Because men's soccer generates considerably more revenue than women's soccer. Your way unfairly penalizes the men. They deserve what they get. If you want the women to make more, then it's up to the women to generate more revenue.

 

[SR108]

Apologies. FTR, I did not call you a moron, but you did seem to insinuate that overall WC revenues aren't relevant and women's had higher ratings in the US.
If interested, I will answer your questions.

Why should we care what the men's world cup generated globally?
[FIFA dedicates a percentage of overall WC revenues to player compensation. It is no based on revenue generated in a particular region or country. The last numbers I saw were 9% to the men and 13% to the women]

I mean this seriously. I have no idea who even pays the team's salary.
[In the US, US Soccer is the governing body. It pays the players based on a collectively bargained agreement. WC revenues are just a portion of their compensation.]

In the USA, the last men's world cup final between France and Croatia drew 11.3 million American viewers. The women's world cup final just drew 14.3 million US viewers.
[This is not relevant to how WC money is distributed to countries/players. Also, it is comparing apples and oranges to compare interest in the US women's team to men from Croatia and France.
The men did not qualify for the 2018 WC, but let's take a look at the last WC that the men played in. In 2014, the Men's final between Germany and Argentina drew 26.5M viewers. The Group-stage match between the US and Portugal drew 24.7M viewers. To summarize that, in 2014, an early stage group match for the US Men drew 172% more viewers than the US Women in the WC final in 2019.]

If your a father of girls, brother of sisters or just a reasonable person, of course you believe in equal/fair pay for equal work among the sexes. However, the issue here is that this is not equal work. Women vs women soccer is not the same caliber/work as men vs men soccer. If a women is good enough to be competitive on a men's team, then of course she should be paid the going rate on a men's team. People are equating playing the same game as being equal work, its not in this case.

 

[Dr. Evel]

View embedded media

Let's also pay WNBA players the same as NBA players. That makes sense, right?

 

[bmw199]

While we are at it, let's make minimum wage $1,000,000. What could go wrong?

 

[MJG-90]

If the women think that the men are getting some of what they deserve, I'd like to suggest a remedy. US Soccer should spin-off control of the USWNT to a separate body (ie US Women's Soccer). The new body can interface with FIFA and pay the players exactly what they are worth.

This is not a bad idea. But it won't stop the complaining. I follow hockey like it's a religion. The NHL contributes something like $100k annually to women's professional hockey (I think a check directly to the league). I'm not gonna say it was the players, but my Twitter was littered full of fools thinking the NHL "owed" them more. Why? Women's hockey is not their product. They don't owe anyone anything. They don't even have to spend money on college hockey or junior hockey if they choose. They do because it directly benefits the NHL to have college hockey and junior hockey develop players that eventually improve their own product. What benefit would the NHL get from growing women's hockey? The women hockey advocates should quit complaining before the NHL drops the $100k donation altogether.

 

[pa108]

I'm curious about what other countries do.
Are French womens futbol team paid same as men?
Germany?
UK?
Netherlands?

 

[PSUSignore]

Not sure where you live, but in northern NJ soccer is the #1 participatory sport by a long margin, for both genders. Less and less kids are playing football due to the risks involved. And most kids are bored by baseball, just too slow and not enough action for them.

I feel like I've heard people say that soccer is the #1 participation sport for 30+ years now. Even if true, it hasn't make one lick of difference in terms of the USMNT's level on a global scale.

 

[heckmans]

I feel like I've heard people say that soccer is the #1 participation sport for 30+ years now. Even if true, it hasn't make one lick of difference in terms of the USMNT's level on a global scale.

In raw numbers, it's true, but as they say, "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Soccer is almost always the first sport kids play and it's the easiest to manage - throw ten 5 year olds on a 25 yd field and watch the herd move as one around the field. It's also the place where non-athletes remain playing a sport as youth longer, because you can literally disappear and never be noticed as you would playing baseball/softball or other sports. Eventually however, they fall out of sports and (I suspect) soccer playing among mid to late teenagers does not eclipse other sports.
If you think about it, people who play(ed) a sport, also tend to enjoy watching the professional versions. If soccer was as popular as these participation numbers suggest, professional soccer ratings in the US would be astronomical. Of course, they are not.

 

[indynittany]

If your a father of girls, brother of sisters or just a reasonable person, of course you believe in equal/fair pay for equal work among the sexes. However, the issue here is that this is not equal work. Women vs women soccer is not the same caliber/work as men vs men soccer. If a women is good enough to be competitive on a men's team, then of course she should be paid the going rate on a men's team. People are equating playing the same game as being equal work, its not in this case.

They don't have to be competitive with the men. They just have to generate the same amount of revenue.

Ultimately, this is entertainment. They could be the most talented team ever assembled, but if nobody cares, there's no money for them.

 

[SR108]

They don't have to be competitive with the men. They just have to generate the same amount of revenue.

Ultimately, this is entertainment. They could be the most talented team ever assembled, but if nobody cares, there's no money for them.

Sure, but isn't "generating the same amount of revenue" the same as being competitive?

 

[BobPSU92]

Meanwhile, Megan Rapinoe flashed a tit at the ESPYs last night. The USMNT should have an equal opportunity to flash a crowd. I am offended by the flash gap.

This is the real issue we need to resolve.

 

[indynittany]

Sure, but isn't "generating the same amount of revenue" the same as being competitive?

In the context of compensation, revenue is all that matters. Isn't it? If the women wanted the same compensation as the men, they should seek to play against the men.

What if the greatest baseball player of all time decided to stay in the minors, rather than go to the show. Should he get paid based on his talent or on the number of people who are willing to pay to watch him play?

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

it is really that simple. this is NOT a US legal issue as much as Rapinoe wants to mouth it. having protests in DC over this is so stupid. are they really that stupid?

I don't think they're stupid. I think they're raising awareness.

You're right that worldwide interest in women's soccer and the relative revenues generated and ultimately distributed isn't a US legal issue.

Protests aren't going to equalize what's unequal here. But if their efforts and movement helps empower women, I'm all for it. We'll see what they can do.

 

[4rosco]

Nonetheless, the numbers are what they are. The men’s team generates a ton more revenue.

The US Men's team doesn't generate more revenue. While FIFA makes more money off the men the US women generate more revenue than the men.

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.

Looking year by year, 2016 was actually the only year in which the women’s team generated more revenue from games — $24.11 million, compared to $22.24 million for the men. In 2017, both teams brought in about the same revenue at $14.61 million, and in 2018, the men’s team brought in $13 million compared to the women’s $12.03 million.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

 

[Erial_Lion]

I feel like I've heard people say that soccer is the #1 participation sport for 30+ years now. Even if true, it hasn't make one lick of difference in terms of the USMNT's level on a global scale.

Of course it has. A generation ago, losing to Mexico 1-0 in a hostile environment in the final of our regional Championship would have been seen as a huge step forward. Now, it's a disappointing result for the tournament. Making the World Cup at all would have been huge in the 60's, 70's, or 80's. Now, missing one World Cup, after making 7 straight is seen as a disappointment of epic proportions.

Our youth national teams are continuing to make gains and get deep into tournaments. We've got youth players playing at top clubs around the world. US Men's soccer has never had a better future than it has today, but casual American sports fans don't realize it because they can't see past the "missing the World Cup" result (note that Mexico would have faced the same fate 4 years earlier had we not put the pedal to the floor in a meaningless game and allowed them to back their way in).

 

[Pardlion]

The US Men's team doesn't generate more revenue. While FIFA makes more money off the men the US women generate more revenue than the men.

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.

Looking year by year, 2016 was actually the only year in which the women’s team generated more revenue from games — $24.11 million, compared to $22.24 million for the men. In 2017, both teams brought in about the same revenue at $14.61 million, and in 2018, the men’s team brought in $13 million compared to the women’s $12.03 million.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

I believe you are talking about gate receipts, which is a far cry from revenue-generated.

You are excused, however, because you were misled by the media.

 

[4rosco]

I believe you are talking about gate receipts, which is a far cry from revenue-generated.

You are excused, however, because you were misled by the media.

And how much money did the US Men's team make from the 2017 World Cup since the money from the TV contracts is shared only with the teams that make it.

FIFA only pays those countries that actually make it to the Cup.

 

[Howie'81]

The women's team should be paid more. They're champions with name recognition. The men's team is about as relevant as Pitt football.

Misses the point entirely. I guarantee you that the US Men's team, if in the WC, will get more viewers, even if they suck.

 

[Howie'81]

Women should not be playing sports. They should be in the kitchen, baking cookies and getting a beer out of the fridge for the man in their lives.

 

[Pardlion]

And how much money did the US Men's team make from the 2017 World Cup since the money from the TV contracts is shared only with the teams that make it.

FIFA only pays those countries that actually make it to the Cup.

I am under the impression that they made 0 because they played no games and generated no income in that tournament.

I believe that the whole "equal pay" argument is based on a hypothetical: Hypothetically, if the women had negotiated the same contract that the men negotiated, they would have made X dollars for winning this WC, however, they only made Y dollars because their contractual pay structure is different.

 

[4rosco]

I am under the impression that they made 0 because they played no games and generated no income in that tournament.

I believe that the whole "equal pay" argument is based on a hypothetical: Hypothetically, if the women had negotiated the same contract that the men negotiated, they would have made X dollars for winning this WC, however, they only made Y dollars because their contractual pay structure is different.

I think there are 2 different issues here. Pay from US Soccer and Pay from FIFA.
FIFA controls the payouts from the World Cup and that is divided among the teams that competed. There is not much US Soccer can control in setting the amount and what is distributed to each team.
For the payments that US Soccer makes for players participating in "friendly" games they control. They have one TV contract for both teams (couldn't find details on the breakout of what was paid for the men's/women's rights). This is part of the revenue along with gate receipts, sponsorships, etc are what the US Soccer uses to pay the players.
If the revenues generated by the men and the women are the same then they should be paid the same.

 

[Lionguy32]

Misses the point entirely. I guarantee you that the US Men's team, if in the WC, will get more viewers, even if they suck.

I disagree. Can you name even one member of the US men's team? Forget the revenue arguments for a minute. Very few in the US care about the men's team. And the women's team has Alex Morgan.....

 

[Erial_Lion]

I disagree. Can you name even one member of the US men's team? Forget the revenue arguments for a minute. Very few in the US care about the men's team. And the women's team has Alex Morgan.....

Is this a serious post?

The TV ratings when the US men have made the World Cup blow away the women's ratings. A group stage game (US-Portugal) from the 2014 World Cup almost doubled the ratings for the women's final last weekend. Same thing happens with WC Qualifiers, Federation Championships, friendlies against other top teams, etc.

And what US fan that follows sports at all can't name Michael Bradley, Christian Pulisic, or Jozy Altidore?

 

[Pardlion]

I think there are 2 different issues here. Pay from US Soccer and Pay from FIFA.
FIFA controls the payouts from the World Cup and that is divided among the teams that competed. There is not much US Soccer can control in setting the amount and what is distributed to each team.
For the payments that US Soccer makes for players participating in "friendly" games they control. They have one TV contract for both teams (couldn't find details on the breakout of what was paid for the men's/women's rights). This is part of the revenue along with gate receipts, sponsorships, etc are what the US Soccer uses to pay the players.
If the revenues generated by the men and the women are the same then they should be paid the same.

I found this article, which does a half-decent job of explaining the economic arguments: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

My take is that the economic differences are not necessarily that great, depending on number of games played and results, with the exception of the FIFA payout differential is huge.

Some of the ladies gripes I find to be ridiculous: tickets to their games are cheaper and womens' professional-league games are only broadcast on Youtube. Duh, that's because the product is not in demand. No one is intentionally underpricing tickets or giving up broadcast rights.

 

[4rosco]

I found this article, which does a half-decent job of explaining the economic arguments: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

My take is that the economic differences are not necessarily that great, depending on number of games played and results, with the exception of the FIFA payout differential is huge.

Some of the ladies gripes I find to be ridiculous: tickets to their games are cheaper and womens' professional-league games are only broadcast on Youtube. Duh, that's because the product is not in demand. No one is intentionally underpricing tickets or giving up broadcast rights.

Was looking at that article as well. Big difference is what they get paid for playing in a "friendly" $13K for men and $5K for women. I think that is where their complaints are coming from.

I think one of the reasons they pay the men more is that they have to as the men have more options and could just play with their pro club is the money wasn't there. The US women make the majority of their money off of playing for the national team.

 

[Pardlion]

Was looking at that article as well. Big difference is what they get paid for playing in a "friendly" $13K for men and $5K for women. I think that is where their complaints are coming from.

I think one of the reasons they pay the men more is that they have to as the men have more options and could just play with their pro club is the money wasn't there. The US women make the majority of their money off of playing for the national team.

Well, the article points out that this result is under an expired CBA. Under the current CBA, the pay gap is 89:100. And, this assumes a certain number of "friendlies" played/won, so I'm not sure this even applies right now. In any event, this is the contract that the women negotiated, so it seems to me that they should be pissed at themselves.

 

[manatree]

Was looking at that article as well. Big difference is what they get paid for playing in a "friendly" $13K for men and $5K for women. I think that is where their complaints are coming from.

The per game rate is a bit of a red herring. The women negotiated and agreed to that pay discrepancy. In addition to the lower per game pay and winning bonus the women also get a guaranteed base salary as well as health insurance. The men’s CBA is purely a per game pay plus winning bonus. The women traded a lower per game rate in exchange for a guaranteed base salary & benefits.

 

[heckmans]

The US Men's team doesn't generate more revenue. While FIFA makes more money off the men the US women generate more revenue than the men.

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.

Looking year by year, 2016 was actually the only year in which the women’s team generated more revenue from games — $24.11 million, compared to $22.24 million for the men. In 2017, both teams brought in about the same revenue at $14.61 million, and in 2018, the men’s team brought in $13 million compared to the women’s $12.03 million.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

You neglect to include the next few paragraphs that conveniently ignores the other sources of income, namely marketing. It says its difficult to credit income from broadcast rights since they are sold as a bundle, however, you only need to look at ratings in the period preceding the deal to determine where the $$ were intended.
Basically the 2nd half of the article re: the CBAs obliterates the argument.
"In fact, under the new agreement, women’s team members are paid a guaranteed salary and then collect bonuses on top of that, while the men’s team players are paid only a bonus, the Associated Press reported. So the women have the security of a guaranteed floor.

Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker did obtain a copy of the new agreement. When they calculated the same 20-game scenario as the lawsuit did for the old agreement, they found that a women’s team player would now earn "$28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player."

In other words, by this calculation at least, a women’s team player would earn less than an equivalent men’s team player — about 11 percent less.

But that comparison is heavily dependent on such factors as games played and won. "If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount," the Fact Checker calculated. "That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary."

 

[Obliviax]

The per game rate is a bit of a red herring. The women negotiated and agreed to that pay discrepancy. In addition to the lower per game pay and winning bonus the women also get a guaranteed base salary as well as health insurance. The men’s CBA is purely a per game pay plus winning bonus. The women traded a lower per game rate in exchange for a guaranteed base salary & benefits.

I agree...you are correct. it is about leverage. pay, like prices, is set by supply and demand. The women negotiated a deal based on their S&D; leverage. The men did too. In the end, men have options. These girls had few, if any. They can choose to play or not play for that pay. They are seeking to use this championship as leverage, which is smart. They will also make a ton in endorsements. But at the end of the day, there are two leagues: The "open" league where the best play. And the women play, which is where the best women play. All the best to them, I hope they get their pay increase. But it has little to do with their gender, directly.

 

[Howie'81]

I disagree. Can you name even one member of the US men's team? Forget the revenue arguments for a minute. Very few in the US care about the men's team. And the women's team has Alex Morgan.....

We'll see who's right if the men qualify for the next WC.

 

[PSUinSTL]

I agree...you are correct. it is about leverage. pay, like prices, is set by supply and demand. The women negotiated a deal based on their S&D; leverage. The men did too. In the end, men have options. These girls had few, if any. They can choose to play or not play for that pay. They are seeking to use this championship as leverage, which is smart. They will also make a ton in endorsements. But at the end of the day, there are two leagues: The "open" league where the best play. And the women play, which is where the best women play. All the best to them, I hope they get their pay increase. But it has little to do with their gender, directly.

Since the majority of the Men's players aren't 'national stars' and females typically make more as 'models' will they only accept a contract that pays them what a men's player would make from said endorsement?

 

[dbldoofus]

The women should make more. Success pays.

 

[heckmans]

The women should make more. Success pays.

Feel free to duly compensate them from your available resources.
Those who currently pay them have already done so.
I'm always amazed at how generous people are with other people's money(especially politicians, but that's a different discussion.)

 

[sluggo72]

Is this a serious post?

The TV ratings when the US men have made the World Cup blow away the women's ratings. A group stage game (US-Portugal) from the 2014 World Cup almost doubled the ratings for the women's final last weekend. Same thing happens with WC Qualifiers, Federation Championships, friendlies against other top teams, etc.

And what US fan that follows sports at all can't name Michael Bradley, Christian Pulisic, or Jozy Altidore?

me. I have no idea who those guys are or what sport they play.