POLL: Should USWNT and USMNT both receive equal pay?
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
They should have access to the same funding for training, facilities, equipment, etc. Does US Soccer pay the salaries here (or determine how much each team gets)? Or is it determined by the various World Cup entities?
Agreed. This is why players are so thankful for the legendary players that got them to the level they are today. If there was no Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, there would be no Jose Abreu. Things just don't one day, happen. I'll take it a step further. Up until a hundred years ago, careers were almost completely dependent upon physical skills. Up until 50 years ago, women had very little control over pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing. We can all wish these things never happened or that progress came faster. But we are where we are due to real things. The attempt to rewrite history is stupid and foolish.
Isn't training, facilities and equipment all a factor of the funding? Isn't your post like saying PSU should cut the football budget y 96% and give that to woman's crew? Isn't the funding, facilities, training all provided for out of the ample income football makes. And if so, isn't it up to the sport to make it happen? At some point, there are sports people don't want to watch. Should they be similarly funded?
Sorry, but this is nonsense to some degree.
ON FACILITIES
Do you think the PSU men's soccer team should have "the same funding for training, facilities, equipment" as the PSU football team? Of course not, and they don't.
The NBA and WNBA operate in vastly different orders of magnitude.
The NBA generates $8B in revenues each year.
The WNBA generates $60M.
To be clear, the WNBA generates less than 1% of what the NBA generates.
For the FIFA world cup
The Men's tourney generates $6B
The Women's generates $130M
That is 2.16% of what the men's tourney generates.
ON SALARIES
US Soccer negotiates compensation with each team. The Men get paid $X for each appearance. It's all or nothing The Women negotiated financial security. They get healthcare and a bigger pool of players get paid. If you put it in terms of a salesperson compensation, the Men are 100% commission based, and the women have a high base salary.
The world cup payouts is a FIFA thing for each event. See revenue disparity between men/women's events
What gained traction for the casual observer is pure nonsense in reality. Ms Rapinoe and the rest of the aggrieved ladies stated that they got paid less despite bringing in similar/more revenue. I'm forgetting the exact figures, but it's complete nonsense. They cherry picked data for a time period in which the Women went to the world cup and Men did not qualify.
Let me first state that the Women's players should get every single dollar they deserve. In order to guarantee that they are not taken advantage of by men, US Soccer must split into 2 separate entities - US Men's Soccer and US Women's Soccer. That way the women can control every single dollar they generate. I wish them the best of luck and all the success in the world!
We're talking the same sports here - not entirely new facilities or equipment. So, you're misrepresenting what I said, and as previously noted, more people watch the women's USNT than the men's. That said, the number of people watching doesn't necessarily determine salaries. I am saying that the USSF, who funds both programs, should fund them equally, unless they can explicitly determine which sponsors are ponying up for which teams (noting big time sponsors like Nike have reported that the Women's USNT jersey is the best selling soccer jersey of all time on their website - men or women's) and many are here for the women. That's 50% of the operating budget of the USSF. Another 25% comes from playing matches. Bottom line is it's a complicated issue that isn't going to be solved by just giving the women everything the men have (though politicians will have you believe that).
I know you hate mainstream media, but this exists, which is pretty fair.
This is a shame. Sue Bird is getting paid less for the exact same work. There shouldn't be a difference just because she identifies as a woman and Lebron chooses to identify as a 6'9" 250lb chiseled man with generational talent.
Does one entity fund the WNBA and the NBA (like the USSF)? Does the USSF break down how much of it's sponsorship funding is for the men's team or the women's? No? Is PSU Football the same as Men's Soccer? The men get their salary by virtue of being men in a sport that is popular around the world, not because they are good or even decent. The women are the best the world. I'm not saying it's fair that they make less than the men, but the economics unfortunately force it. I'd force the USSF to make sponsors note how much of their advertising/sponsorship dollars they want to go to the men's team and women's team. Then distribute from there.
Did any of the male players say that they would take less money so that it could be redistributed to the Womens Teams? If the pot of money is finite in size then that would seem like the right idea - I can bet I know the answer to that though.
The women should get MORE. They are eminently watchable, and they have produced RESULTS. The U.S. mens' team is a FAIL. Unwatchable in its present state, IMHO.
Sports is a commodity. Commodities are valued due to supply and demand. Equality isn't at play here.
The women are getting exactly what THEY collectively bargained. They wanted a salary, benefits etc. They could have had pay for play like the men but they didn't want that deal.
The women aren't the best in the world. None would make the junior level on the men's team.
The women are the best in the league which excludes 99.999% of the best athletes in the world at the sport.
How about an under 4' team. Would they get paid the same as the men's team? No.
When you have a league that specifically forbids certain athletes from playing, for competitive reasons, that league is not comparable th the main league.
LdN
Didn't the woman's team lose to a high school team in the runup to the last Olympics game? Regardless, it is all about revenue. The women's teams need to figure out a way to make more revenue. They either need a new collective bargaining agreement, new partners, new outlets or just get better. Once they make more revenue, there will be a bigger pie that they can slice up for benefits, facilities, endorsements and salaries.
You can't just dip into things like these, ignoring the science and history, and just make stuff up.
Why not? Because you say so? If you can't stick to what is being argued here - men's national team and women's national team - without devolving the argument into fantastical hyperbole, or claiming that men would beat women in a match, you don't have much of an argument. Are there leagues of under 4' teams who play in the Olympics or World Cup? Holy shit.
They already share their endorsements with the men's team. How much? Who knows? USSF divvies up that pie. If Nike comes in and says 'we want 50% of our sponsorship dollars to go to the women's team - or 75% or whatever' - then maybe their piece of the pie gets bigger. Whether or not a woman's team lost to a boys team is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion. Has as much bearing as eye color. None.
The US men are a top 20-25 team in the world right now, and are trending much higher. They certainly aren’t “unwatchable in its present state”.
Well, that is completely up to them. they are the ones that need to make their "pie bigger" assuming they drive anywhere near the revenue the men do. Women make less because, historically, their sport has suffered due to their lack of physical ability compared to men. We can't restart history and we can't ignore the science. These are facts. What will the future bring? it is up to them.
I believe that is one thing that the WNBA has been asking for. Last I heard/read, the WNBA gets a much small percentage of the WNBA revenue for salaries & benefits than the NBA players get of the NBA revenues.
Personally, I think that is a very valid point.
That’s not true when looking at apples to apples comparisons...numbers that show that are greatly skewed.
The WNBA loses money, and gets subsidized by the NBA to stay afloat. Shouldn’t that play into the demands? Or should the NBA be forced to lose more $ and bump salaries?
You are wrong.
I support both teams. The USA men are quite fun to watch right now. They are loaded with young talent.
The USA women are very fun to watch as well.
I have no problem with them getting more so long as there is more revenue. There isn't.
Agreed...expect when you consider the "fixed costs" of operating a league. So if the NBA is making a massive profit and the WNBA is losing money you would still expect there to be more paid in salaries. So instead of using gross revenues, use profits. The challenge then is who is handling the books. Hollywood, for example, has been known to "cook the books" to minimize monies owed to stars who negotiated a piece of the profit.
Based on revenue of the two leagues, Sue is (slightly) underpaid. Doing the math:
NBA Revenue: $7.4 billion, WNBA: $60 million (or about 0.8% of the NBA)
LBJ Salary: $37.44 million, SB Salary: $215K (or a little under 0.6% of LBJ)
SB would need to make about $300K for it to be "equivalent" based on league revenue.
Another way to look at it, if SB made the same salary as LBJ it would be 62% of the entire league revenue. That wouldn't leave too much for the other 140 players (not to mention coaches and all of the other team expenses).
Good information. The fact is, the market dynamics are incredibly complex given the economy, history, licensing, facilities, fixed costs, licensing, and more. This is why "free markets" work and communist/socialist societies do not. People, owners/workers/investors, simply go to where they can maximize their income. If the women can't make enough, their great athletes will go elsewhere; damaging the product to where the owners will pay more. Supply and demand. That's where its at.
As I stated earlier, the men's model is much more mature and defined given a) the market dynamics and b) history. Is it right? Hell no, but that is economics 101. The same is true about teachers, scientists, nurses, firefighters....etc. You are paid based on what you make for the investor class and what you can demand.
There is nothing fantastical about the fact that the women's national team is the equivalent in talent to a low level men's junior college team.
If they want equal pay, try out for the men's team. If they are better than any of the men they will be welcomed.
The thing about sports is that the competition is fair in the top league for all who want to compete.
How many women play in the EPL?
How many in MLS?
LdN
If Nike comes in and says they want half the dollars to go to the women's team Adidas will be sponsoring the men's team.
LdN
Agreed but it doesn't matter. It is about their ability to draw revenue. If they can play like six-year-olds and figure out a way to make billions that would work too.
But to your point, the men's game is the best in the world; it is the "open championship". If a woman can compete, she certainly can. The woman's game is, by any athletic standard, less. So, to me, it is like watching a LionsGate movie Universal versus watching a YouTube video.
The women’s team are the world’s tallest midget. In many countries women can’t even play sports. The US is light years ahead of other countries in opportunities for women to participate, train, and develop in sports. The men, on the other hand, have to compete with pretty much every country in the world where soccer is almost always the main (or only) sport everyone plays. Comparing the men’s team and the women’s team’s success is apples and oranges.
The argument is equal pay for equal work and I am saying it isn't equal work.
It's like the LeBron comparison. Why isn't Johnny benchwarmer paid the same as LeBron?
They work the same hours. They even work for the same company... the Lakers.
Oh wait... LeBron is the best in the world and Johnny isn't.
Same argument against women being paid the same as the men.
LdN
Since they don’t, and since no woman competes in any professional men’s leagues, it’s not worth considering. Men and women get the same amount of prize money at Wimbledon. Is that economically justified?
Well, I totally agree with you. "Equal Work" is flipping burgers or placing a nut on a bolt at a Ford Plant. A lot of people watch the NBA to see Curry, Embid, Doncic orAntetokounmpo. Nothing close to that in the WNBA.
I can appreciate the woman's game in terms of precision, spacing and teamwork. That is all great. But unless more people are willing to pay to watch that, it is all a useless argument
women can compete in the men's games in just about any sport. in fact, we just had a woman FG kicker in college football. There is no league in the USA that restricts women by rule.
Maybe justified based on fan interest and ad $$ although I would argue in this instance it is easy to demonstrate it is not equal work (best of five vs best of three).
I say “yes”, because they are able to generate similar levels of interest. Same with women’s volleyball or gymnastics vs their male counterparts, even though the men are generally more athletic and better.
But soccer doesn’t (even though they want to twist the numbers to show it does)...and basketball is in a whole different level (hence why I found the NCAA catching heat about inequalities in the men’s/women’s tournaments to be laughable)...and I’m someone that likes women’s soccer and basketball.
LOL...same reason why this board doesn't have a lot of male "who's the hottest" contests!
LOL...same reason why this board doesn't have a lot of male "who's the hottest" contests!
New poll idea...
Similar threads
