Womens Soccer Championship.

[WarriorDad]

I don't necessarily think anyone disagrees with this (though it wouldn't be accurate to suggest all quarterbacks on the same team are doing the same job, would it?) .
The question here, at least for me, is why are members of the USWNT being paid less than members of the USMNT, when they're more successful on the field AND producing more revenue for the national federation?

The backup QB becomes the starting QB the moment the starter is hurt or if the coach benches him.  In that case, the salary of the QB doesn’t become the same as the QB that was starting despite doing the same job.

I do not know enough about the particulars to answer your second question.  From what reading I have done (trying to stay away from the emotional articles that seem to not always include all the facts), it is a complicated source of revenue from various sources. Some of those are directly controlled by the US governing body, but some come from FIFA.  The FIFA money is mostly from the men’s tv deal in the World Cup I think.  It also appears that the money specifically coming in directly for the US agency is tied with the women and men together. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Jumping in here.  Do you not lose control of your argument rather quickly with some examples?

Not all quarterbacks are paid the same on the same team, despite doing the same job and working for the same organization.  A team of lawyers may be paid differently based on experience, cases they win, workload.  In sales, the team that is producing revenues will be paid more than those that are producing less, even though same organization and job.

People who are better at their job usually are paid more than those who aren't.  Which is actually a reason why the women should be paid more.

I think what we're seeing here is the usual migration to extreme camps.  Do I think that the US Women's soccer team has a valid point about compensation disparity and could something be done to level the field somewhat?  Sure, I'm all ears as to a reasonable idea. 

I guess it's all about how you define "reasonable."

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think what we're seeing here is the usual migration to extreme camps.  Do I think that the US Women's soccer team has a valid point about compensation disparity and could something be done to level the field somewhat?  Sure, I'm all ears as to a reasonable idea. 

Do I think folks are 'sexist' because they prefer watching Giannis to (pick your favorite WNBA star)?  Of course not.  Ridiculous. 

Should that WNBA star be paid the same as Giannis?  Sure, but only if she (and the league) can find someone to foot the bill.

Glow, if you think my position is an extreme camp, then the one you jump into in your last sentence is just as extreme in the other direction.

The disproportionate amount of support, interest, and funding for men's sports when compared to women's creates more opportunity for men and less opportunity for women. That is by definition, sexist. It's no one person's fault, you aren't a bad person if you watch men's sports more than women's sports (God knows I do), but it is a reality that they way things are currently set up benefit male athletes over female ones.

Despite this, I recognize the economics that drive things and they need to make sense otherwise the whole system falls apart which makes things worse for everyone. So disparity is inevitable but I think assigning some money to help increase the popularity of women's sports is not a bad thing.

[mu03eng]

Despite this, I recognize the economics that drive things and they need to make sense otherwise the whole system falls apart which makes things worse for everyone. So disparity is inevitable but I think assigning some money to help increase the popularity of women's sports is not a bad thing.

This is where I'm at, there needs to be some market making here on the women's side. The systemic issues are never overcome, and it's not a pejorative position as you said.....no one's fault per se but we are trying to create equal opportunity we have to invest more than the pure economics say they should.

[Cheeks]

Uhh ... you realize that USSF revenues aren't exclusively generated by a quadrennial tournament, right?
And given that the USMNT didn't qualify for the 2018 WC, I can think of only one reason why you're citing those figures.

Correct, and didn’t I say that revenues come from multiple sources?

Interesting article that the women are paid more

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/08/yes-soccer-pay-gap-women-make-men/

[Pakuni]

Correct, and didn’t I say that revenues come from multiple sources?

Interesting article that the women are paid more

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/08/yes-soccer-pay-gap-women-make-men/

Did you actually read the story? Because it doesn't say that.
And again, it focuses solely on revenue from a single quadrennial tournament, not total revenues generated by the respective USMNT vs USWNT.
So, not only does it not say what you say it does, but it cherrypicks revenue sources in order to reach a false conclusion.

And, then there's this gem of a sentence that's 100 percent not sexist:
"Lastly, men’s sports, especially men’s team sports, are inherently more entertaining to watch than women’s."

[Cheeks]

Ah, the ole smart people argument. Plus I'm not talking about the domestic leagues, that's a whole different argument that is much more impacted by local factors, etc. I'm talking about investing equally in the national team. The numbers show that the women's team draws eyeballs, why underinvest in that market? Honestly, my only explanation is the old school "girls sports aren't as interesting/good/valuable as boys sports".

Do they do domestically?  Are they drawing eyeballs in the women’s pro league here?  You sure about that.   

And yes there are smart people out there that will try to make money on worm racing if it paid off, they don’t care if it is women’s sports, men’s, etc.  That has not materialized to the same level.  Some of that is cultural, if Brew wants to say it is institutional sexism...fine....the reality is there are a lot of people that don’t find it entertaining.  I’ve been in this business 25 years...I love women’s sports, find it highly entertaining, love the opportunities it affords women and girls, it is why I am so worried about paying college players and what that could do to destroy those opportunities.....but but but, there are large swaths of people that just don’t care about women’s sports.  Or for that matter men’s sports.  You cannot force a fan of men’s sports to be a fan of women’s sports.  Some here jump to it being sexist.  Is it sexist that some guy finds men’s basketball more appealing than women’s?  I don’t think so.  Different game, different styles, different athleticism.  If same guy loves women’s softball but doesn’t like women’s hoops or soccer...is he sexist? 

[Cheeks]

Your mistake, and where you reveal your sexism, was in citing porn stars. The reason female porn stars embody that position is for the gratification of men.

Accepting this as "okay", which your post implicitly did, indicated a support for systemic constructs that elevate men over women. You are saying that it's okay for women to be paid on par with or above men only when that serves men's needs.

This is systemic sexism 101. We will keep women down unless it gratifies men.

Okay, uhm wildly off base, but ok.  I didn’t realize porn was only there for male gratification....I thought viewers varied...JayBee can weigh in.


So the jobs in which women make more than men, and there are many you can look up, which don’t slot into your definition of male gratification, please explain how it is systemically sexist.  Replace porn actress with any of those other jobs if it suits you. Looking forward to your response.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Do they do domestically?  Are they drawing eyeballs in the women’s pro league here?  You sure about that.   

And yes there are smart people out there that will try to make money on worm racing if it paid off, they don’t care if it is women’s sports, men’s, etc.  That has not materialized to the same level.  Some of that is cultural, if Brew wants to say it is institutional sexism...fine....the reality is there are a lot of people that don’t find it entertaining.  I’ve been in this business 25 years...I love women’s sports, find it highly entertaining, love the opportunities it affords women and girls, it is why I am so worried about paying college players and what that could do to destroy those opportunities.....but but but, there are large swaths of people that just don’t care about women’s sports.  Or for that matter men’s sports.  You cannot force a fan of men’s sports to be a fan of women’s sports.  Some here jump to it being sexist.  Is it sexist that some guy finds men’s basketball more appealing than women’s?  I don’t think so.  Different game, different styles, different athleticism.  If same guy loves women’s softball but doesn’t like women’s hoops or soccer...is he sexist?

You are mixing up institutionalized/systematic sexism and individual sexism. No one in this thread is saying that if you prefer men's sports over women's sports that you are sexist. We are saying that the way things are currently set up creates more opportunities for male athletes than female athletes.

[Cheeks]

This is where I'm at, there needs to be some market making here on the women's side. The systemic issues are never overcome, and it's not a pejorative position as you said.....no one's fault per se but we are trying to create equal opportunity we have to invest more than the pure economics say they should.

Aha.  The feel goodness is back, glad we are finally fleshing this out which is what the argument was from the start.

Now, who is paying...erh...offering up the charity so we can all feel good?  That’s the economic question.  And isn’t there a lot of “feel good” things we could be doing that also aren’t funded that need way higher prioritization than this?

[Pakuni]

Aha.  The feel goodness is back, glad we are finally fleshing this out which is what the argument was from the start.

Now, who is paying...erh...offering up the charity so we can all feel good?  That’s the economic question.  And isn’t there a lot of “feel good” things we could be doing that also aren’t funded that need way higher prioritization than this?

I'm curious as to why you have a very different economic stance when it comes to college athletics.

Also, it's not about feeling good. It's about investing in something with significant growth potential.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Aha.  The feel goodness is back, glad we are finally fleshing this out which is what the argument was from the start.

Now, who is paying...erh...offering up the charity so we can all feel good?  That’s the economic question.  And isn’t there a lot of “feel good” things we could be doing that also aren’t funded that need way higher prioritization than this?

What's wrong with economically feasible feel goodness?

[muwarrior69]

I have not followed tennis that much, but do male tennis players make more or the same as female tennis players? If the male players make more I wonder why that would be as it seems to me that both men and women get equal exposure at the big 4 tennis events. Are ticket prices different for men vs women at these events? Are TV rights distributed equally between the men and women?

[Pakuni]

I have not followed tennis that much, but do male tennis players make more or the same as female tennis players? If the male players make more I wonder why that would be as it seems to me that both men and women get equal exposure at the big 4 tennis events. Are ticket prices different for men vs women at these events? Are TV rights distributed equally between the men and women?

The pay in the tennis grand slams is now equal, but that's a relatively recent development. Wimbledon was the last holdout, when it made the prize money equal in 2007.

[Jay Bee]

What's wrong with economically feasible feel goodness?

Is this code for “welfare”?

[mu03eng]

Is this code for “welfare”?

It's code for doing the right thing because you can. No different than corporations giving employees time to volunteer in the community or donating to local charities, etc. Economically it doesn't make a ton of sense but it has positive impact so why not.

[Cheeks]

I'm curious as to why you have a very different economic stance when it comes to college athletics.

Also, it's not about feeling good. It's about investing in something with significant growth potential.

It is about feel goodness, this is just the latest faux rage out there. 

My stances are different in pro and college sports because pro sports is self contained, the money comes in and supports that team, league.  It is driven solely by market forces.

College sports, to a large degree, are not.  The vast majority of sports in college are revenue losing, and market forces exist only for a small portion of college sports.  If you went to a professional model, you would destroy massive opportunities that currently exist and rip them away.  The revenue sports subsidize the losers because we have deemed it valuable that a college student can represent her school while playing tennis and earning a scholarship.  The money from the pot of NCAA money allows that to happen.

Two different models.  That’s why.  If college students want to get paid, go pro. 

[Cheeks]

Did you actually read the story? Because it doesn't say that.
And again, it focuses solely on revenue from a single quadrennial tournament, not total revenues generated by the respective USMNT vs USWNT.
So, not only does it not say what you say it does, but it cherrypicks revenue sources in order to reach a false conclusion.

And, then there's this gem of a sentence that's 100 percent not sexist:
"Lastly, men’s sports, especially men’s team sports, are inherently more entertaining to watch than women’s."

In fact he does say that.

Is that last statement sexist or their opinion of the entertainment.  Feels like a broad opinion made by the author is based on what capabilities exist and style of play, etc,  If the type of basketball you find entertaining means 10 dunks a game, would you find the women’s game exciting?  Probably not.  If someone finds ice skating entertaining more than football because women are more graceful, etc...are they sexist against men?  I don’t think so in that case either.

People want to make something out of anything these days.  Could the comment be sexist...yes.  Is it?  Not necessarily so.  Apparently it depends who says the what.  Suppose a female author made the same comment about the entertainment value, is it sexist?

[jsglow]

Glow, if you think my position is an extreme camp, then the one you jump into in your last sentence is just as extreme in the other direction.

The disproportionate amount of support, interest, and funding for men's sports when compared to women's creates more opportunity for men and less opportunity for women. That is by definition, sexist. It's no one person's fault, you aren't a bad person if you watch men's sports more than women's sports (God knows I do), but it is a reality that they way things are currently set up benefit male athletes over female ones.

Despite this, I recognize the economics that drive things and they need to make sense otherwise the whole system falls apart which makes things worse for everyone. So disparity is inevitable but I think assigning some money to help increase the popularity of women's sports is not a bad thing.

At the collegiate level we do assign money.  Lots and lots of it.  I'd argue that's been a net positive, especially as it pertains to the development of young women.  Secondly, doesn't the NBA provide economic support in some fashion to the WNBA in much the same way it supports the D league?  I could be wrong on that.

[Pakuni]

It is about feel goodness, this is just the latest faux rage out there. 

My stances are different in pro and college sports because pro sports is self contained, the money comes in and supports that team, league.  It is driven solely by market forces.

College sports, to a large degree, are not.  The vast majority of sports in college are revenue losing, and market forces exist only for a small portion of college sports.  If you went to a professional model, you would destroy massive opportunities that currently exist and rip them away.  The revenue sports subsidize the losers because we have deemed it valuable that a college student can represent her school while playing tennis and earning a scholarship.  The money from the pot of NCAA money allows that to happen.

Two different models.  That’s why.  If college students want to get paid, go pro.

This makes no sense. You're essentially saying "It's different because ... um, it's different."

[Pakuni]

In fact he does say that.

He says it ... but nothing in the actual article supports it. Again, if you read it, you would see that. Nowhere in the artiicle does it support the conclusion that the women's team is paid more.

Is that last statement sexist or their opinion of the entertainment.

It's sexist.

[brewcity77]

Okay, uhm wildly off base, but ok.  I didn’t realize porn was only there for male gratification....I thought viewers varied...JayBee can weigh in.


So the jobs in which women make more than men, and there are many you can look up, which don’t slot into your definition of male gratification, please explain how it is systemically sexist.  Replace porn actress with any of those other jobs if it suits you. Looking forward to your response.

Wildly off base because you brought up an industry that exists for make gratification and fuels the exploitation and trafficking of women? AYFKM?

Your every argument is completely disingenuous. "I didn't realize porn was only there for male gratification"?!? Cut the crap. This is proof you have no interest in an honest discussion, just muddying the waters with BS & obfuscation.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It is about feel goodness, this is just the latest faux rage out there.

Treating people with genders more equally is just "feel goodness?"

[MU82]

This makes no sense. You're essentially saying "It's different because ... um, it's different."

Leave chicos alone; he actually is being consistent. In one case, he gets to keep the women down; in the other, he gets to keep the college kids down. He has always been the champion of the overdog, so nothing new there.

I was wondering why Scoop had been relatively chill the last week or so, with relatively few folks arguing for the sake of arguing; chicos musta been on vacation.

[Cheeks]

What's wrong with economically feasible feel goodness?

Define economically feasible.