USWNT payday
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
I would be ticked if I had to share 1/2 my money with a minor league player. Man or woman.
Of course, folks are saying "The women are better, so they deserve it". Just like WNBA, WSNT doesn't produce revenue.
The women could win 10 straight WCs and the men could lose every game for 10 years. The men would still generate more revenue.
The women could win 10 straight WCs and the men could lose every game for 10 years. The men would still generate more revenue.
Soccer is big in other countries because they don't have American Football.
You are mistaking the fact that you don't care to everyone. The current World Cup has smashed historical attendance records. Soccer is by far the world's most popular sport. Women's sports have always taken off faster in the US than other countries but now other countries are catching up. Current women's standings has Brazil at #1 and the US at #2. Next year's WC in Brazil will be very excited. if you don't want to watch, don't hate, just don't watch.
According to Google, the average English Premier League player has a salary of about 4.1 million pounds, or roughly $5,500,000. The average Women's Super League (women's equivalent of the EPL) makes about 47,000 pounds, or $62,900.
When we're talking about building US national teams from the best American (or mostly American) men and women players out there, it seems logical to me that aside from appealing to their sense of patriotism, we'd pay them according to the market rates. It seems logical to me that if you are asking a guy making $5.5m as a soccer player to risk an injury during the summer playing for the USMT, you might have to pay him more than you would pay a woman player who is taking the same risk with her $63,000 per year job.
When we're talking about building US national teams from the best American (or mostly American) men and women players out there, it seems logical to me that aside from appealing to their sense of patriotism, we'd pay them according to the market rates. It seems logical to me that if you are asking a guy making $5.5m as a soccer player to risk an injury during the summer playing for the USMT, you might have to pay him more than you would pay a woman player who is taking the same risk with her $63,000 per year job.
I am not oblivious to the popularity of soccer outside the US, but it being popular elsewhere doesn't make it any more appealing to me. I know haggis is very popular in Scotland, pickled herring is very popular in Nordic countries and Indians (over a billion of them) love fiery hot vegetarian dishes. None of that means I do or should like those things. Different cultures like different things.
Soccer is as boring as watching paint dry to me. When a 4-1 match is thought of as some sort of thrilling score fest, I'm out. When kicking the ball out of bounds is an accepted strategy, no thanks. Any sport where the participants fake serious injury as a tactic should be ashamed (I think players who do down for injuries in American football should be required to sit out until a change of possession and any player who goes down twice in a game should be forced to sit out the rest of the game). Golf is edge of the seat excitement compared to soccer.
As to the metric system, it sucks worse than soccer. A centimeter is too small, a kilogram is too big, a kilometer is too short and a liter is too small.
There is also a reason that the women made such a fuss about getting the men's national team money.
The men have clubs they play for, and get a majority of their money from. The USNT pay is extra for them. They are paid as contractors.
For the women, that is their primary source of income. (Not counting some endorsements). The women need the USWNT money as a primary source of income because the womens clubs dont make enough money.
Outside of tennis, and, to a lesser degree, golf, women's sports are pure money losers. The play is inferior and the public has very little interest in watching women play sports.