Interesting. Do you expect that in, say, 2 years, you will be watching more women's soccer than men's?
POLL: Should USWNT and USMNT both receive equal pay?
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Awareness of what? That fewer people care about women's soccer relative to men's soccer? Stop the presses!
Ultimately, money flows where people want it to flow. Everything I'm hearing about how to rectify this so called injustice involves using force to manipulate the flow of money against the will of the people who voluntarily fund the sport.
Maybe the women aren't underpaid, so much as the men are overpaid.
Apparently it doesn’t....success pays if enough people give a sh!t. The best tiddlywinks player in the world isn’t raking in big dollars.
It's all relative. I'm sure the best tiddlywinks player in the world is making more money than the average tiddlywinks player. In that context, success does pay. But you are correct.
why in hell should any taxpayer funds go to the world cup to begin with?
are we going to subsidize the NFL next?
WTF?
Because it’s an event that will bring hundreds of millions (or probably more accurately, billions) of dollars to economies around the country.
N
I'm not sure if this was meant to be sarcastic.
Most NFL stadiums are built with significant-- $100s of millions --tax dollars.
The men's team is a joke. If you can't see that then there's no need for me to add anything more to the conversation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cybrown/2019/06/10/the-usmnt-has-a-lot-of-problems-to-fix/#2025752bc783
The results are totally irrelevant to revenue and ultimately to salary of players. If you can't see that then there's no need for you to have an opinion on player salary.
BTW, that author is effing clueless: "It should be mentioned up front that the U.S. was without three of its best players, Christian Pulisic, Michael Bradely [sic] and Tyler Adams."
Even half hearted fans know that Bradley** is no longer a top 3 player.
Ok... what about this author https://us.as.com/us/2019/03/26/futbol/1553636945_103157.html
Or this one... https://brobible.com/sports/article/experts-explain-why-usa-sucks-soccer/
Or maybe this one... https://deadspin.com/the-usmnt-got-exactly-what-it-deserved-1819355441
Or this one... https://dbsportstours.com/why-america-stinks-at-soccer/
The US Mens team is a joke! Plain and simple.
So...I think what you are saying is that there are a ton of good teams in the men's game but the woman's game only has a handful of top programs?
If that's your point, I agree. USA is probably a top 20 team but even teams from Jamaica and Costa Rica are competitive.
In watching the woman's games, there were a lot of games that weren't heavily attended in France.
This article provides a good summary about the main differences in the CBAs
On the matter of the USWNT and equal pay, it’s complicated
By KEVIN BAXTER
LA Times
JUL 13, 2019 | 6:40 PM
The women’s lawsuit and the equal pay argument focus largely on bonuses and other issues related to national team games. A player on the U.S. men’s national team can make as much as $17,625 depending on the opponent and the outcome, court documents allege. A women’s player would get about half that for a comparable result.
What the lawsuit leaves out, however, is the fact the union representing the women’s team negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the federation two years ago that pays national team players a base salary of $100,000 a year, plus another $72,500 for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League, the domestic league that U.S. Soccer subsidizes.
That means the top 18 players in the women’s national team pool will earn $172,500 from the federation this year before factoring in bonuses and game-day pay. Other players get slightly less, and the federation also pays health insurance as well as maternity and adoption leave.
Male players get none of that and are paid only if they make the 18-man roster for an international game.
“The biggest issue from an equal-pay perspective is complicated because they have a different payment structure than the men do,” said Steven A. Bank, a professor in the UCLA School of Law. “The women negotiated for security. Salary security.
“The women could still have a claim, but it’s just not so clear to say ‘equal pay.’ What would equal mean?”
A women’s national team player who appears in 20 friendlies a year could earn as much as $271,500 in salary and bonuses, all paid by U.S Soccer. A male player who suits up for 20 friendlies and wins all 20 would get $8,000 less from the federation.
What the lawsuit leaves out, however, is the fact the union representing the women’s team negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the federation two years ago that pays national team players a base salary of $100,000 a year, plus another $72,500 for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League, the domestic league that U.S. Soccer subsidizes.
That means the top 18 players in the women’s national team pool will earn $172,500 from the federation this year before factoring in bonuses and game-day pay. Other players get slightly less, and the federation also pays health insurance as well as maternity and adoption leave.
Male players get none of that and are paid only if they make the 18-man roster for an international game.
“The biggest issue from an equal-pay perspective is complicated because they have a different payment structure than the men do,” said Steven A. Bank, a professor in the UCLA School of Law. “The women negotiated for security. Salary security.
“The women could still have a claim, but it’s just not so clear to say ‘equal pay.’ What would equal mean?”
A women’s national team player who appears in 20 friendlies a year could earn as much as $271,500 in salary and bonuses, all paid by U.S Soccer. A male player who suits up for 20 friendlies and wins all 20 would get $8,000 less from the federation.
USWNT gets $529k gift from Secret deodorant.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-wo...53/uswnt-get-$529k-gift-from-secret-deodorant
Enough for the men, but paid to the women.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-wo...53/uswnt-get-$529k-gift-from-secret-deodorant
Enough for the men, but paid to the women.
USWNT gets $529k gift from Secret deodorant.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-wo...53/uswnt-get-$529k-gift-from-secret-deodorant
Enough for the men, but paid to the women.
I don’t actually care about this that much, but it is sorta the antithesis of us soccers approach to negotiating bundled rights for men and women. I guess this means an advertiser could contribute solely to the men’s team?
To summarize some of this.... the organization that pays the US mens and womens players is paying them similarly in total, but the contracts are structurally much different. The big (huge) differences in pay are in World Cup payouts from FIFA.... do I have that right?
Last edited:
Sorry if already posted, but in 2017, the top male model, Sean Pry, made $1.5M. Kendall Jenner and Giselle made $22M and 17.5M. I demand equal pay for Sean (and the less paid, ugly male models). Where is the outrage?
You should always be paid for the value you create.
If the two teams create the same value per capita, ok, but I doubt that is the case.
Because of the insane standard of disparate impact - without proof of intent- in our civil rights code, we are obsessed with quotas. That imo is extremely unhealthy for the well being of this country.
If the two teams create the same value per capita, ok, but I doubt that is the case.
Because of the insane standard of disparate impact - without proof of intent- in our civil rights code, we are obsessed with quotas. That imo is extremely unhealthy for the well being of this country.
I disagree. Its capitalism at work. If the WNT pulls in more money than the MNT then I'd have no problem with them making more money than the men. I'd be curious if women's gymnastics pays more than the men's gymnastics. Its the same scenario just reversed.
As a person in finance, to me it all comes down to revenues generated. Plain and simple. Operating expenses are likely to be similar, so what does each team generate in terms of revenue? The fairest way in my eyes is to give each team an equal percentage of net operating revenues. Whomever generates more, receives more. But, they will still be equal on a percentage basis.
So is thinking one gender's sport should get the same pay as a another gender's sport merely because it's the same sport.
This is so simple. Way back when someone linked an article that shows the Women's Team collectively bargained a different pay structure than the men. They wanted more security.
The women's team collectively bargained for and won a pay structure that guarantees them salaries, severance pay, medical benefits, and some performance-based bonuses. The women's team wanted the security of salary-based pay rather than purely performance-based pay, and they wanted to guarantee a salary even for players who were on the roster but didn't play.
By contrast, the men are strictly pay-for-play. They do not receive a salary or additional benefits like health insurance or severance pay. Their pay structure is performance-based.
This is why their argument is disingenuous.
The woman were offered the same deal as the men. They refused it. They wanted to take a more secure deal which they signed up for and were happy with a few years ago. Actually, if the men had the women's deal, they would have made more money the last couple of years. And if the woman had the men's deal the last couple of years, they would have made more money too. This is a case of the women not wanting to take the same (equal) risk the men do for salary. Now, they want to have their cake, and eat it too.
Similar threads
