WNT: "equal pay" & "fair pay"?

[CEO2044]

And you can’t tell me that owners shouldn’t care abt expenses/profits/the bottom line.

I agree they should care and get as much as possible, but I don’t agree with QKing that the pay should be exactly the same bc it’s a “national” team.

I gotcha. To be fair, he called it a side gig. I have a side gig- I don’t do it because I love my line of work so much, I do it because I’m paid well for it and it’s a nice supplement. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t offer up my extra time. I’m sure they are proud to represent their country, but when you consider their fairly paltry pro salaries, they depend on it.

Of course the bottom line matters- their argument is partly based on the fact that they feel FIFA and the USSF scrimp on them some and they feel they could benefit more from the bottom line they generate. You have to realize, their USWNT May be a ‘sidegig’, but it probably pays significantly more than their pro salary. Most pro players can’t live off that salary alone (most work another job while playing), and it keeps women from joining the pro league, which contributes to a lower quality of play, which lends to less enthusiasm from fans, etc. so on and so on.

They see see this firsthand and IMO aren’t just looking for a pay day for themselves, but want to explore some of these problems and see if there’s a way to invest in fixing them. I can’t blame them for trying.

 

[idog]

It’s not nearly as straightforward as the twittersphere makes it

Here’s a good analysis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1738c6180ba

 

[skydawg1]

You need to configure yours the right way.

 

[BiscuitEater]

There is now evidence that they produce more revenue than the men

I thought that the last men's world cup generated ~ $4 billion. Winning team split $38 million. US women got $250K for the win.

Think there is a big difference between 'generating revenue' and 'most watched.'

 

[EngDawg]

The USWNT has generated interest in women’s soccer in the US much as the Lady Dawgs have generated interest in women’s basketball at MSU. Our women happen to be good (Thanks Title IX) and our men suck. You might could make an argument for US Soccer increasing its pay for the women’s team if the revenue numbers come out in their favor (I don’t know as I haven’t bothered to look. I suspect that the numbers you see reported in the media will be biased one way or the other as this has become a political issue.) What you cannot make an argument for is an equal pot by FIFA. There simply isn’t much interest in women’s football in countries with competent men’s teams, and most of the countries that really matter footballwise have competent men’s teams.

 

[Forrest4Moore]

My favorite part about this thread is that some of the people trying to twist themselves into knots explaining why the USWNT shouldn't be paid more are the same people who ***** and moan about college baseball only getting 11.7 scholarships despite it being a niche sport that most Americans don't give a rat's *** about.

if this is a legit counter argument, then there should be no women’s athletic scholarships. Except for maybe 4-5 women’s basketball schools.

 

[Forrest4Moore]

If company A and B both make $1 million this year, but company A has been around for 10 years whereas company B is a startup. You can guarantee the CEO of company A makes the higher salary. Revenue is only one of many many factors that dictates the market rate.

This is part of it as well. The men have subsidized the women for 40 years. What’s the numerical value of that figure with interest?

The current revenues isn’t a fair comparison. Not to mention the TV deals flow directly to USSF without a direct correlation to the men or women. I’d wager 80% of the money generated from those deals are driven by the men.

I love the women’s team. And, watch all of their WC and Olympic matches. But there’s a reason hundreds show up to watch men’s qualifiers at the watch party in Bham and there isn’t a watch party for anything outside WC and Olympics for women.

 

[Forrest4Moore]

As already stated on this thread, national teams are a service that players do to their country. It's not the players' main jobs like professional leagues are, and in fact the professional leagues would abolish the national teams if they could get away with it.

National teams are a vehicle for fans to get their patriotic feels on. The players are cutting into their career to provide that to the fans. It's a totally different animal from professional teams.

Your argument about national pride and primary job makes sense for the men. However, for the women, the USWNT is their cash cow, their main job, main route to endorsements. Their clubs don’t care that they play for USWNT bc that’s the only driving force to get anyone to attend their club games. Not so in the men’s game.

Good luck getting Chelsea FC and Christian Pulisic to risk his $20mil a year for strictly national pride.

 

[dog12]

"These women are heroes"

LOL

(I'm sorry to whomever I may have offended by laughing at this ridiculous statement.)

 

[GloryDawg]

You need to configure yours the right way.

Mine is configured so I can see who replied to me and who replied to other posters on the front page. There is two ways of configuring this. One way is like mine that you can see who replied directly to me. The other way you see one line after the other even if you reply to a poster. If you are set up that way you need to post to the original poster or the one who started thread other wise it to those who have it set up like mine will see it as if you replied to them.

Example this post if set up like mine will show on front page as though I replied to you right below your post. The other way on the front page it will show up on the bottom of the thread. If you were a member of SPS when it was YUKU then you would know what mine looks like. It is set up for that view.

 

[PreacherDog]

What should they be paid?

I see a lot of tweets and articles saying the soccer women need to be paid more because they win more. But the big push back is that the women's leagues and tournaments do not generate as much, therefore it's simple economics. The it turns into a "sexist thing".

What's your take?

I read somewhere that the Women are on a salary where as the men are on commission. One reason they fought for a salary was due to this being their main gig. Their pro league pays so little. The men have MLS and a few play in Europe where they make millions more.
They made a bad deal in collective bargaining and now they want to cry foul. Their deal with USSF is different from the mens.
A solution would be to make them play under the same incentives. Then the men might cry foul though probably not.

 

[ezsoil]

Folks this all is a moot point as the whole gender identity issue will render differentiating men's and women's sports a thing of the past.

 

[Shamoan]

i am very marginally interested in this, but i did see a study that showed revenue for women over the last 4 years surpassed that of the men....only problem, in the last 4 years, there have been two womens world cups to the one for men. that is the mother of all cherry-picked statistics.

 

[patdog]

Their salary includes both their NWSL teams plus their national team games. The NWSL can't make it on it's own, but we need a legitimate women's pro league to continue to develop players for the national team, so US Soccer subsidizes the league by paying the salaries of the national team players who play in the league. So there can never be a true apples to apples comparison of women's vs men's salaries. They don't deserve true "equal" pay with the men considering both MLS/NWSL/European club salaries, but they do need to be paid more than they are now. Because the European countries are investing a lot of money in their women's soccer programs and if we don't continue to invest in it, we're going to fall behind them. 7 of the 8 quarterfinalists were European countries.

 

[8dog]

Its actually 16-18 which includes one mens wc and no womens

but none of this is clear

 

[L4Dawg]

Boy I feel sorry for those of you that have daughters and think the USWNT shouldn’t be paid equally to the men. Soccer has grown exponentially in the US over the past 20 years. A giant part of that is because of the success of the women. Additionally, the women generate more revenue than the men’s team in the US on a year over year basis. The men can’t even qualify for the World Cup and they still made more money just by losing for the past 4 years. This entire argument against the women is an uneducated joke.

LOL.

 

[L4Dawg]

i am very marginally interested in this, but i did see a study that showed revenue for women over the last 4 years surpassed that of the men....only problem, in the last 4 years, there have been two womens world cups to the one for men. that is the mother of all cherry-picked statistics.

The revenue for the one men's cup dwarfed that of all the women's cups ever played.

 

[Go Budaw]

The USSF gets to pay whatever they want if they don’t discriminate in regards to the law.

That’s pretty simple.

The law matters not our opinions.

In regards to the World Cup revenue, one of the key allegations in the lawsuit is that USSF must abide by US anti-discrimination law in payment distributions to national team players (both mens and womens), regardless of how FIFA distributes the money. Since the all the money from both men’s and women’s WC comes into the USSF directly, and they (as a single US corporate entity) distribute it to both parties who, in theory, do nearly equal amounts of work, it will be interesting to see how the case is interpreted.

If a ruling comes down in favor of the women, there would likely be equal disbursements down the middle for even the men’s World Cup revenue, or, you would see USSF dissolve into two separate entities that manage the men and women individually in order to avoid such a scenario (of course, that action itself might also be challenged in court by the WNT). Of course, the flip side to that is you would also see the men’s team sharing in the women’s WC prize pool in cycles like the current one where the men fail to qualify and the women win it all.

 

[johnson86-1]

Boy I feel sorry for those of you that have daughters and think the USWNT shouldn’t be paid equally to the men. Soccer has grown exponentially in the US over the past 20 years. A giant part of that is because of the success of the women. Additionally, the women generate more revenue than the men’s team in the US on a year over year basis. The men can’t even qualify for the World Cup and they still made more money just by losing for the past 4 years. This entire argument against the women is an uneducated joke.

You can't look year over year because the World Cups are not the same year. You have to look over at least a four year revenue cycle to equal out tournament revenue. In the last world cup the men participated in, the US Soccer Federation got $9M in prize money just for them advancing out of Group play. They also receive money for tournament costs, but I'm not sure how much (in 2018, it looks like $1.5M for tournament costs just for making it, plus $8M in prize money). For perspective, the women I believe received $4M for winning this year's world cup.

In the last 4 year revenue cycle where the men went to the world cup, the men out earned the women by almost $11M. Basically, if the men just qualify for the tournament, they are going to blow the women's away in earnings, even if they don't advance and the women win the world cup.

 

[johnson86-1]

In regards to the World Cup revenue, one of the key allegations in the lawsuit is that USSF must abide by US law in payment distributions to national team players (both mens and womens), regardless of how FIFA distributes the money. Since the money comes into the USSF directly, and they (as a single US corporate entity) distribute it to both parties who, in theory, do nearly equal amounts of work, it will be interesting to see how the case is interpreted.

I know their lawyer made a statement as to this, but if that's what they are actually arguing, I hope they lose and the women's soccer program gets shut down as punishment for having asinine lawyers.

They are essentially arguing that if a salesman generates 45 times the amount of a woman salesperson, the employer has to pay them the same amount because of the potential that the clients/customers are discriminating based on sex. That is a ******** argument that should get sanctioned.

If the women aren't being paid a comparable amount based on the net income they are producing (less player costs), then they should be able to make and prove that argument without presenting ridiculous arguments in court or to the public.

 

[L4Dawg]

Here’s a good analysis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1738c6180ba

Good read. I had no idea the women were on guaranteed contracts with the national team. That isn't the way it should be at all. It doesn't work that way in the real world. They are getting paid like club players do for the national team. Put the women on the same pay structure as the men, game played bonus only. No guarenteed contracts. Give them the same % of identifiable revenue as the men for the bonuses. Limit their games to the same number the men play unless they advance farther in the tournys. In other words, they earn their real money from their clubs, like the men do. That is as equal as it gets.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

The caveat being that this was due to the men missing the world cup. If they had made the world cup, it would've been lopsided in their favor.

...but they didn't, so that's the bottom line.

 

[Go Budaw]

I know their lawyer made a statement as to this, but if that's what they are actually arguing, I hope they lose and the women's soccer program gets shut down as punishment for having asinine lawyers.

They are essentially arguing that if a salesman generates 45 times the amount of a woman salesperson, the employer has to pay them the same amount because of the potential that the clients/customers are discriminating based on sex. That is a ******** argument that should get sanctioned.

If the women aren't being paid a comparable amount based on the net income they are producing (less player costs), then they should be able to make and prove that argument without presenting ridiculous arguments in court or to the public.

I think that argument would have to be settled by the courts, and this is a pretty unique situation that doesn’t come into play often in a traditional corporate setting. Going back to your salesman example, a more applicable comparison would be if it is legal, from a discrimination standpoint, for an employer to utilize differing employment contracts for a male salesperson(with a higher pay ceiling on a per sale basis) than women under the same organization. In theory, it cannot be known in advance if either team will even make the WC, with the exception of when either team is hosting (which will only occur every 30 years or so). So assigning a higher salary to one group or the other based on that possible revenue is a shaky proposition, from a contract standpoint.

You also have to admit that USSF made this very difficult on themselves by not segregating the sponsorships / TV revenue into separate contracts and accounting line items for the men and women’s teams. All the concrete revenue numbers that can be calculated, at this time, favor the women. We can speculate all we want, but the burden of proof is on USSF to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the men are FAR more responsible for the other 75% of the revenue streams that come from the TV deals, etc. The fact that the friendlies and other non-WC tournaments are international games played at various non-TV friendly times around the world makes things even more muddled, because you can’t just compare ratings either.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

Bull 17ing poop.

The real discussion should be over this oddly-endearing and hilarious expletive. Mad enough to use 17 but then immediately walked back to a child's word.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Saw this on Reddit.

View attachment 13403

This has been all over the internet but it is ignorant as to what the issues really are. The USA Women's Team is asking for more money, so taking that and equating it to the entire Women's World Cup field as compared to the entire Men's World Cup field is the same as you being exceptional at work and bringing my company a ****-ton of money but me paying you a low wage because people with your same title at other companies, who bring in nothing, make that pay. So, while it is a fact that the women's World Cup makes less money than the men's World Cup it is also a fact that the USA Women's Soccer Team brings in more money than the USA Men's Soccer team overall. The men suck, the women just won back-to-back World Cups....

I don't totally know the answer but I do know the stuff on Reddit is coming from the "Men's Rights" groups and you don't want to be associated with those crazy <17>ers.

 

[msstate7]

This has been all over the internet but it is ignorant as to what the issues really are. The USA Women's Team is asking for more money, so taking that and equating it to the entire Women's World Cup field as compared to the entire Men's World Cup field is the same as you being exceptional at work and bringing my company a ****-ton of money but me paying you a low wage because people with your same title at other companies, who bring in nothing, make that pay. So, while it is a fact that the women's World Cup makes less money than the men's World Cup it is also a fact that the USA Women's Soccer Team brings in more money than the USA Men's Soccer team overall. The men suck, the women just won back-to-back World Cups....

I don't totally know the answer but I do know the stuff on Reddit is coming from the "Men's Rights" groups and you don't want to be associated with those crazy <17>ers.

The women bring in more revenue than the men?

 

[L4Dawg]

This has been all over the internet but it is ignorant as to what the issues really are. The USA Women's Team is asking for more money, so taking that and equating it to the entire Women's World Cup field as compared to the entire Men's World Cup field is the same as you being exceptional at work and bringing my company a ****-ton of money but me paying you a low wage because people with your same title at other companies, who bring in nothing, make that pay. So, while it is a fact that the women's World Cup makes less money than the men's World Cup it is also a fact that the USA Women's Soccer Team brings in more money than the USA Men's Soccer team overall. The men suck, the women just won back-to-back World Cups....

I don't totally know the answer but I do know the stuff on Reddit is coming from the "Men's Rights" groups and you don't want to be associated with those crazy <17>ers.

Read the above article. They probably DON'T bring in more money. It's hard to say.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

They have this world cup cycle because the men didn't make the world cup. Had the men not blown it, they would've made more.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

None of this takes into account the degree of socialism within sports leagues, for lack of a better term. The Alabama’s of the world have bigger portions of their revenue passed down to the Mississippi States. The SEC’s distribute more down to the Conference USA’s of the world than pure market economics would dictate. The US women are the top of the totem pole in women’s soccer. They are “Alabama” and drive the revenue contracts. The US men are Mississippi State. They will get more from FIFA than they really deserve just because they happen to associate themselves with teams like Germany, Brazil, etc. that effect is very much in play here too.

 

[archdog]

It's economics. They should get a larger percentage than the men based on performance but the size of the bucket is the size of the bucket.

Wow, something I 100% agree with. They should get a much larger percentage than the men's team, but hell their sports just isn't that profitable. In the grand scheme of things.

 

[johnson86-1]

I think that argument would have to be settled by the courts, and this is a pretty unique situation that doesn’t come into play often in a traditional corporate setting. Going back to your salesman example, a more applicable comparison would be if it is legal, from a discrimination standpoint, for an employer to utilize differing employment contracts for a male salesperson(with a higher pay ceiling on a per sale basis) than women under the same organization. In theory, it cannot be known in advance if either team will even make the WC, with the exception of when either team is hosting (which will only occur every 30 years or so). So assigning a higher salary to one group or the other based on that possible revenue is a shaky proposition, from a contract standpoint.

Basically none of this is correct. Legally, you can use past performance to justify a contract for pay going forward. You can give a higher base pay to someone based on past performance. That's common. You can have two different people in the same position negotiate different pay structures. That's probably less common, but probably not unheard of.

You also have to admit that USSF made this very difficult on themselves by not segregating the sponsorships / TV revenue into separate contracts and accounting line items for the men and women’s teams.

Just a guess, but I would bet this was done in part to favor the women. In the past, it probably helped protect the women getting a decent share of revenue to not segregate it.

All the concrete revenue numbers that can be calculated, at this time, favor the women.

This is false. Whether revenue numbers favor the men or women depend on which time period you look over.

We can speculate all we want, but the burden of proof is on USSF to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the men are FAR more responsible for the other 75% of the revenue streams that come from the TV deals, etc.

This is also incorrect, both on who bears the burden and what the burden is.

The fact that the friendlies and other non-WC tournaments are international games played at various non-TV friendly times around the world makes things even more muddled, because you can’t just compare ratings either.

 

[Go Budaw]

Basically none of this is correct. Legally, you can use past performance to justify a contract for pay going forward. You can give a higher base pay to someone based on past performance. That's common. You can have two different people in the same position negotiate different pay structures. That's probably less common, but probably not unheard of.

Legally, you can use past performance to justify higher base pay? No kidding. So why did it take so long for the past performance of the women, which has exceeded that of the men for literally the entire existence of women’s soccer, to catch up to the men? Why does a team that didn’t even make the World Cup get a much higher pay ceiling based on “past performance”? There are arguments to be made there. And going back 4-5 years to say those financial figures are what sets the current market rate is not likely to hold water. You have to do quite a bit of gerrymandering of both on-field performance and revenue numbers to create a scenario where the men deserve almost 3 times as much (on a per-game basis) than the women prior to the latest women’s contract, and still more now although the gap has closed. Overall, the number of organizations in the country that have common employees with different union agreements based strictly on sex is microscopically small, so acting like this is just some open and shut discrimination case with all sorts of prior precedent is categorically false.

Just a guess, but I would bet this was done in part to favor the women. In the past, it probably helped protect the women getting a decent share of revenue to not segregate it.

Should have stopped at “just a guess”, because you have no idea. 3+ years of higher game sales revenue indicates that TV and sponsor revenue is quite possibly (and perhaps even likely) pretty equal between the men’s and women’s teams over that period. Saying that the men come out way ahead in how much they generate is purely speculation, based on no facts whatsoever. This is especially true of the sponsorships, which are only going to be even more through the roof for the women after another title.

This is false. Whether revenue numbers favor the men or women depend on which time period you look over.

Again, they only favor the men if you go back 4-5 years and ignore the most recent data, which is a preposterous way to set the going rate for any salaried position. Completely ignoring revenue growth over the most recent time period.....try buying a stock or completing any business deal whatsoever with that mindset. You’ll get laughed out of the room. But if USSF wants to make that argument, they are free to do so, I suppose.

This is also incorrect, both on who bears the burden and what the burden is.

USSF is the defendant in the suit. Should it go to trial, they will be asked, under oath, to provide the revenue and performance basis for the men’s compensation figures. If they have solid data showing sound judgment used in setting the compensation, the suit will likely get dismissed. If they can’t justify it, there is a good chance the WNT wins the suit. If they choose not to answer any questions about it, that’s gonna be a real bad look when all the recent data shows the women can financially hold their own in the measurable areas. If they know they are on shaky ground here from the get go, they will likely settle and everyone walks away. But there is zero chance they don’t get that question in a trial. Therefore, they absolutely have that burden on them IF it goes to trial.

 

[8dog]

But they didnt. And thats pretty important

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Without us

the SEC, Bama would be Georgia Tech, back in the early 60's.

Did not work so well.

 

[blacklistedbully]

The women's professional soccer teams pay an average salary very much in line with what the men got in the NASL, a Division II league that folded in 2013. NASL average salaries ran from $15,000 to $30,000. This year the women make from $16,538 to $46,200. Similar average attendance.

As someone else posted, interest and draw to the women's game peaks just after the World Cup and Olympics. Outside of that, there is not much support for women's soccer, just as there was not much support for men's Division II.

Also, the women's pro league average attendance has been impacted significantly by Portland's & Utah's fans. The other 7 teams averaged about 4,000. NASL men averaged 4,670 in 2013. That same year, the women averaged 4,270.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I think this is another issue that had gotten muddled. Rapinoe was talking directly about the difference in WC prize monies when she was talking about doubling and quadrupling.

The women have a negotiated collective bargaining agreement with the soccer federation. That is on them.

So it comes down to simply that as Forbes reported, mens world cup soccer revenues was 6 billion vs women's 134 million in the last WC for each. Women actually get 12% when men get 7% of their respective revenues.

 

[mstateglfr]

The entire existence of women's soccer is a magnanimous gesture.

Wow.

 

[mstateglfr]

You DO know that soccer isn't just the stupid World Cup don't you? My CLUB generates more revenue than the entire 4 year women's qualifying and world cup. That's ONE club. The EPL generates more than the entire women's sport, WAY more. That's just one league.

As for the SEC we don't play in the playoff, yet we get money from it.

Personally I could care less about women's soccer or MEN's international soccer. It's not the game played at its highest level. It's only function as far as I'm concerned is to get Liverpool players hurt. We had two come back this summer so far hurt.

Woah- John Henry posts on sixpack?!?!

 

[mstateglfr]

The USWNT has generated interest in women’s soccer in the US much as the Lady Dawgs have generated interest in women’s basketball at MSU. Our women happen to be good (Thanks Title IX) and our men suck.

Our men's team has finished in the top half of the conference 2 years in a row, won 48 games in that timeframe, and made the NCAA tournament a few months ago.
You claim they suck.


Brilliant.***

 

[MedDawg]

And yet, Nike's biggest selling soccer jersey in their history is a women's team jersey.
Link

Do the women make more from endorsements than the men's soccer team? If they do, are they willing to give some up to the men to make that even, too?

I'm actually for paying the women more. As much as the US men or more, because they actually win the whole thing. However, WHO should pay the US women more? If it's the world soccer organization(s), they can forget it, because as explained already, the world men make tons more than the world women. So who will/should pay the women to get their salaries equal to the men?