Womens Soccer Championship.

[Galway Eagle]

Not qualifying for 2018 was an extreme fluke, and after 2022 when the tournament expands, the odds of the men not qualifying will be the same as the odds that the women don't qualify.

Once again I don't think that there is one right answer to the pay question, because while the 2015 and 1999 Finals are the two most watched games in American history, it's undeniable that the overall spike in popularity in the sport stems from the men hosting in 1994. 

Not a perfect analogy, but the best I can think of; where would the X-games and extreme sports in general be without Tony Hawk?  They're still pretty far down as it stands, but you can argue that they would be virtually dead without him.

Or hockey without mighty ducks

[forgetful]

Once again I don't think that there is one right answer to the pay question, because while the 2015 and 1999 Finals are the two most watched games in American history, it's undeniable that the overall spike in popularity in the sport stems from the men hosting in 1994. 

Partially true. Undoubtedly hosting in 1994 kickstarted everything, and without it, maybe the Women in 1999 doesn't draw as many eyes. But after the 1999 Women's win, they apparently intentionally would schedule men's games before the women's games in order to get audiences to watch the men, as the Women were a major draw.

The above is part of the lawsuit, where despite using the women to prop up the men, the women were getting crappier benefits.

[Its DJOver]

Partially true. Undoubtedly hosting in 1994 kickstarted everything, and without it, maybe the Women in 1999 doesn't draw as many eyes. But after the 1999 Women's win, they intentionally would schedule men's games before the women's games in order to get audiences to watch the men, as the Women were a major draw.

The above is part of the lawsuit, where despite using the women to prop up the men, the women were getting crappier benefits.

I'm neither a lawyer or very familiar with the lawsuit, but if this is true, why aren't the former players suing rather than the current?

[mu_hilltopper]

I found this to be a good read:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

..the women's team said that if each team were to win 20 exhibition games in a year, "female WNT players would earn a maximum of $99,000 or $4,905 per game, while similarly situated male MNT players would earn an average of $263,320 or $13,166 per game."

.."If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount," the Fact Checker calculated. "That's because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary."

..under the new agreement, women's team members are paid a guaranteed salary and then collect bonuses on top of that, while the men's team players are paid only a bonus, the Associated Press reported. So the women have the security of a guaranteed floor.

..from 2016-18, the women's team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men's team brought in $49.9 million. That's a difference of less than 2% in the women's favor.

[forgetful]

I'm neither a lawyer or very familiar with the lawsuit, but if this is true, why aren't the former players suing rather than the current?

No idea, also not an attorney and just re-report what I read in the lawsuits. My guess would be that the former players wouldn't have standing anymore, but current players can use it as a pattern of behavior.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

90% of what you wrote is incomprehensible.

The other 10% is either completely reinventing what I said, or completely misunderstanding reality.

I didn't discuss who would beat who men vs. women. I simply indicated, to you and others claiming that it should be based off revenue (or what the market allows), that in such a case the women should make at least as much as the men, since they bring in equal or more revenue.

Other randomness you want to bring in, e.g. base pay, indicates you misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent reality. The men get base pay too, it is just a per game base pay. The women lump that across 20 games. So if the men and women both play 20 games, they earn $100k base salary. The women as base pay lump sum, the men as base pay of $5k per game.

The differences in pay between the men and women come as a result of bonuses for winning. The men get larger bonuses for winning games compared to the women. The men also get to fly chartered flights, play on better/safer practice facilities and numerous other unequal benefits that do not reflect the actual revenue contributions.

Men get paid on TOTAL revenue which is billions while the total for women's soccer is $780MM. The disparity in pay is that the men's pile is bigger and their % of the pie is actually lower than the percentage the women receive from their revenue.
My wife and I are big women's soccer fans and have been to World Cup games and many friendlies but the skill level and pace of play cannot match the men. We watched the final and then switched over to U.S. vs. Mexico and it was a far more entertaining game: faster paced with more accurate passing and far more exciting opportunities. We were also disappointed in the lack of professionalism they displayed during and after the tournament.. Not a good representation of our country.

[Its DJOver]

No idea, also not an attorney and just re-report what I read in the lawsuits. My guess would be that the former players wouldn't have standing anymore, but current players can use it as a pattern of behavior.

I'm not sure how well that would hold up, as there have certainly been multiple new CBA's since the women "propped up the men".

I do think that the women haven't been treated fairly, but more in terms of being force to play on turf, non chartered flights etc.  Where I am less convinced is when the argument turns to "look at all these trophies that we've won compared to the men", because as ha been pointed out, the level  of competition across the genders varies wildly.  The men also have advantages built in that neither they, nor the USSF, can control. 

[The Sultan]

We were also disappointed in the lack of professionalism they displayed during and after the tournament.. Not a good representation of our country.

Which is an opinion that many don't share and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Its DJOver]

..from 2016-18, the women's team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men's team brought in $49.9 million. That's a difference of less than 2% in the women's favor.

While I'm sure that these stats are correct, I do not think that they provide the entire picture.  This is, without a doubt, the golden age in Women's soccer in the US, it also happens to be happening at the same time as the biggest dip in men's soccer since the 80s.  The men (better) recover, and the women may take a slight dip, just because it's so hard to stay on top and the rest of the world is catching up.  the further that this data goes back i would guess that the percentages skew more and more in the men's favor. 

It's like the folks over in Cincinnati, or Houston that think the AAC is better than the BEast because it sent the same number of teams to the tournament and had more success.  Technically true, but almost all neutrals (or even now former members of their own conference) would still say that the Beast is better.  The Women made more over the last two years, but in the last 5, or 10, or 20 the men probably made much more.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU, as I've said before, I have a lot of respect for you and enjoy our discussions of these issues.  I tend to learn a lot from you, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate and respect you as well Still, thanks.

1)  It's also possible that you simply enjoy watching men more.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Some sports, I like watching men more.  Other sports, I like watching women more.  I will not deny that there is institutional sexism out there, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the reason for your preferences.

I never said it was THE reason but it certainly is a reason. I honestly think that's inarguable.

2)  At times, this conversation has gotten side-tracked because of different interpretations of the word "sexism."  I vaguely recall you and I having a similar discussion of the term "racism."  Some hear it and interpret it as implying malice.  Others use it very technically and don't intend to imply malice.  I think that a big part of the problem with those two words is that they have become weaponized and are so frequently used to imply malice that many people (myself included) become defensive when they hear those words applied to situations they are discussing.

I don't disagree with your analysis. But I'm not sure what can be changed. I understand this reality and that's why I am willing to be patient and reexplain what institutionalized sexism means (and what it doesn't mean) over and over again in the same thread. You say these words have been weaponized and in many ways you are correct. But I would also argue that many have tried to render these words meaningless as well by trying to narrow the definition to something that's either impossible to prove (i.e. racism requires intent and you can't know what's on a person's heart) or only exists on the very fringes of modern society (i.e. KKK is racist...anything less than that isn't racist). I think the only way to combat both issues (weaponizing and trying to make them meaningless) is by using the words correctly and appropriately challenging when others use them incorrectly.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

isn't it possible that there's at least a tiny element of you prefer watching men's sports to imagine yourself in there? You can identify with them. You can't really do that with women's sports. I'm sure everyone here used to play hoops in the alley (or drive way) and imagine they were hitting a game winning shot. Or in a shoot out in soccer/hockey before coming in and watching the game with their dad or brother or friends. When you're dreaming that stuff you aren't hitting the shot in the women's league. And as people grow up I think there's still a bit of that element in watching sports.

I could be wrong and someone's gonna tell me they had no imagination or inclination to play sports and just chose to watch men's on a whim.

Yes absolutely. I pictured myself hitting walkoff homeruns for the Brewers and hitting buzzer beaters for the Bucks  all the time as a kid....but my sister imagined the same things, even though she "couldn't identify with them." Like I said to Still, I'm not saying it was THE reason, but it certainly was a reason, and I suspect one of the bigger ones, why I am as big of a men's sports fan as I am.

[forgetful]

Men get paid on TOTAL revenue which is billions while the total for women's soccer is $780MM. The disparity in pay is that the men's pile is bigger and their % of the pie is actually lower than the percentage the women receive from their revenue.

Not sure why you are using these numbers. They reference revenue on the World Cup side, not the US Soccer Federation side. The latter is where the men's and women's salaries/benefits are coming from that are of interest to the lawsuit.

For that matter, the men didn't even make the last World Cup so those numbers are even more meaningless.

I do find it odd thought that so many people seem to want to go out of their way to attack amazing role models, and to go out of their way to justify them being paid less, and supported comparatively poorly.

[Galway Eagle]

Yes absolutely. I pictured myself hitting walkoff homeruns for the Brewers and hitting buzzer beaters for the Bucks  all the time as a kid....but my sister imagined the same things, even though she "couldn't identify with them." Like I said to Still, I'm not saying it was THE reason, but it certainly was a reason, and I suspect one of the bigger ones, why I am as big of a men's sports fan as I am.

I'm gonna have Lori confirm that with your sister and get back to you on my position.

She said she dreamed of hitting the shot for MUBB so you win. Also said you were a cowboys fan?

[jesmu84]

This seems like a weird discussion.

Market forces are at play here, as they are in any similar situation.

Yes, the women are better with regards to their competition than the men.

[Jockey]

We were also disappointed in the lack of professionalism they displayed during and after the tournament.. Not a good representation of our country.

They were extremely professional and have been great, great representatives for our country.

Seems like maybe you think women need to be controlled and told how to act.   

[Cheeks]

No, money is the important factor.

Women's ticket revenue since 2015: $50.8M
Men's ticket revenue since 2015: $49.9M

Women bring in more money...FACT!

Women's jerseys selling at record amounts compared to men and women.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/nike-sells-record-number-of-usa-soccer-jerseys-due-to-womens-world-cup-2019-6-1028317598

FACT!

Women's World Cup viewership for in US, higher then Men's.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/us-viewership-of-the-womens-world-cup-final-was-higher-than-the-mens.html

FACT!

Interesting, I almost thought you were going to apologize for your nonsense about attendence....but you didn't, despite saying I what I wrote was false...when it wasn't.  Fact.

Women had many more games and barely the same revenue .....fact.  Per ticket prices much lower for the women...fact....if the product is the same or better, why aren't they charging more....weird....fact.

Wait, you mean the women's jerseys sold more than the men despite being sold more cheaply....you don't say....interesting that the numbers are only from Nike and Fanatics direct sites, when the men's jerseys were sold by many more official vendors,...weird.

What else you got?

[Cheeks]

Woeful understanding of human psychology.

Oh really, Sigmund.  Please explain.

[Cheeks]

I don't think they receive any money from FIFA if I read their audited financials correctly.

https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/financial-information

But again, this shouldn't just be about revenue generation.  It should have to do with the importance of paying genders more equally for doing similar jobs.

"Similar jobs"

Interesting

[Cheeks]

The women are better than the men are in their respective competitions.  To ignore that is bizarre.

Which means absolutely nothing.

Using this asinine argument, the WNBA champion is much better that the 5th place NBA team....so they should be paid more?


Fucking bizarre

[Cheeks]

There was an argument that the revenue numbers didn't take into consideration domestic TV-deal revenue. The point is, that the women draw larger TV audiences, so they would contribute more to that revenue picture.

The men's team didn't even make the 2018 World Cup, so their value there was zero. It is reasonable to assume that the men may not make the World Cup in any given cycle, whereas the women have a high probability of winning. Thus their value in terms of TV market is higher.

Regarding the 2014 comparison. This years Women's World Cup final was at 10 AM on a Sunday. The 2015 Women's final is the highest audience ever in the US (men's or women's) in terms of audience.

So the fact is, that the women bring more to the table in terms of US soccer federation revenue from domestic TV deals.

Omg, laughable.  You do realize there are qualifying games for World Cup on tv for both men an$ women.  Compare apples to apples.....man the moving of goal posts 8n this fraud exercise nationally has been epic.

[Pakuni]

Interesting to see those who once proclaimed this should all be about revenue and economics have completely abandoned that (cause it favors the women) and have retreated to "yeah, but menz are better!" as justification.

[The Sultan]

unnatural carnal knowledgeing bizarre

What's bizarre is you making five posts in a row, none of which actually refute the points being made, simply because you don't think the women should be paid the same.

Your objective claims have been repeatedly refuted.  You have decided to shift goalposts and build strawmen in response.  You simply don't want to say that you may have been wrong.

Oh well.  It's been interesting.

[tower912]

While simultaneously downplaying the accomplishment and attempting to drain all enjoyment from it.

[Golden Avalanche]

They were extremely professional and have been great, great representatives for our country.

Seems like maybe you think women need to be controlled and told how to act.

The team was criticized for pouring it on against Thailand which is ironic because they took their job of scoring goals and winning games seriously. Dare I write, showing such seriousness in the workplace would be the ultimate sign of professionalism.

America loves brash athletes. But once the guy made it political about the women's soccer team there are certain men of a certain vintage with a certain tint who take that brash attitude and now refer to it as bratty, childish, and/or unprofessional. The ruse is transparent. 

[Cheeks]

Interesting to see those who once proclaimed this should all be about revenue and economics have completely abandoned that (cause it favors the women) and have retreated to "yeah, but menz are better!" as justification.

Who is saying that.  It is about economics, and the men are better.   


If the men were to play the women, the through balls would kill the ladies.  The men are faster and would decimate the defense.  The men are also taller, in some cases much taller....corner kicks and other set plays would be a huge advantage for the men to score.