Womens Soccer Championship.

[mu03eng]

It's not selective statistics. The advertisers are paying for the audience. The Women most likely are playing in the championship, which means the audience will be much larger. It has consistently been true.

The 2019 final was the largest soccer audience since 2015, when the women played in the FIFA Women's World Cup final.

Those are facts.

It's also a fact that the women generate more revenue for the US soccer federation than the men.

Fair, I'm reacting to the general mixing of international soccer and US soccer both within this thread and with the public/media discussion. If we are discussing salary/revenue for US Women Soccer vs US Men Soccer I think you have a valid point, though I'm not privy to all the USSF revenue models so I don't know what US women are generating versus men but either way from an investment standpoint the US women should be getting at least the same as men IMO. Even if the women weren't this good, as a policy USSF should be investing equally in both because they have to grow the game for everybody if they want to succeed in the men's game.

However, we muddy the waters when we talk about the women and men at the international level from a pay/revenue standpoint. Example, I've continually seen the reporting around the 2022 Men's reward pool being at $440M where the women's pool is going to be at $60M in 2023. It is pointed at as a glaring example of inequality but at the international level the women's WC generates significantly less eyeballs/revenue than does the men's tournament. The US is by far the highest viewership of the women's game, I know England had record viewership this WC, but overall it is miniscual compared to the men's tournament. There are all sorts of reasons for that both cultural and quality in nature that should be addressed but it is what it is right now. At the international level, women get a higher share of the reported revenue in the reward pool than do the men and it is split amongst fewer players.

For me it comes down to the US women are underpaid and the international women's programs are probably fairly compensated at this time though I would certainly welcome more investment from FIFA in the women's game so that it can be more competitive. Anything else is just one faction or the other trying to "win the argument"

[Cheeks]

There needs to be a greater planning and commitment toward equalizing men’s and women’s compensation if only because of the statement it makes.

What statement does it make....we’re not going to base compensation on value, revenue coming in, etc, but because it makes everyone feel better?  Economics be damned?

Should WNBA players make the same as NBA players?  Should male pornstars make as much as their much higher paid female pornstars?  Should women’s tennis players and LPGA make as much?  Do not get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of it if the market dictates it.  But if 1/20th of the audience is watching the LPGA (example only) then no.  If the women’s World Cup of soccer draws far less (all matches, worldwide, qualifiers, etc), charges lower ticket prices, has lower attendance...then no.  Same for the other examples.  Feel goodness ultimately leads to failure, bankruptcy, etc.  The market dictates the value, fair or unfair, that is the deal and in FIFA that means the world not just the USA where we lazily give a damn ever four years for three weeks.  The worldwide market for women’s soccer is low, but picking up.  The US women can capitalize at home through sponsorships and “feel goodness” by those dollars....and believe me they will as brands fight over themselves to do so.  By the end of it all we will be sick of it via the hype machine, but that is how it works. 

[brewcity77]

What statement does it make....we’re not going to base compensation on value, revenue coming in, etc, but because it makes everyone feel better?  Economics be damned?

Should WNBA players make the same as NBA players?  Should male pornstars make as much as their much higher paid female pornstars?  Should women’s tennis players and LPGA make as much?  Do not get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of it if the market dictates it.  But if 1/20th of the audience is watching the LPGA (example only) then no.  If the women’s World Cup of soccer draws far less (all matches, worldwide, qualifiers, etc), charges lower ticket prices, has lower attendance...then no.  Same for the other examples.  Feel goodness ultimately leads to failure, bankruptcy, etc.  The market dictates the value, fair or unfair, that is the deal and in FIFA that means the world not just the USA where we lazily give a damn ever four years for three weeks.  The worldwide market for women’s soccer is low, but picking up.  The US women can capitalize at home through sponsorships and “feel goodness” by those dollars....and believe me they will as brands fight over themselves to do so.  By the end of it all we will be sick of it via the hype machine, but that is how it works.

The systemic sexism in this post is staggering.

[Cheeks]

48?  There aren't 16 teams being left out that have a legit chance to win the World Cup.  Most of those additional qualifiers would end up being fodder for the big boys.  It's just a reason for them to televise more games and sell more tickets.  Which is fine, but let's be honest, there aren't more than a handful of teams that are going to win the World Cup in any given year.  In it's history, only eight teams, from two confederations, have won.  I think only won team outside of Europe and South America has even made a semifinal.

Fodder not even close to the level of fodder that exists in the already smaller women’s tournament.  And yes it would mean more money and more eyeballs...that is what pays for all of this. 

When you have power houses like Italy not even making the men’s tournament that should tell you something.  Would Italy as the 42nd team draw ratings on the men’s side?  You damn well no they would same for American men’s team.  Would the barely missed out women’s team draw eyeballs.....nope.  And that’s the tale of the tape at the moment.  Maybe it changes down the road, I hope it does, but these are basic laws of economics in TV / Streaming land.  The audience isn’t there consistently, globally, and repeatable outside the hype once every four years.  That is not a winning economic model that can work.

[Cheeks]

As I said above, it just isn't about revenue generation.

I know, it is about making a statement so we all feel better.  Your next paycheck instead of money, you get a bunch of attaboys and feelgoods.  Let me know how that works....trust me you will feel better and you can tell the bank it’s ok regarding the mortgage, and the grocery store can cash the feel goods for your food, etc. 

[mu03eng]

What statement does it make....we’re not going to base compensation on value, revenue coming in, etc, but because it makes everyone feel better?  Economics be damned?

Should WNBA players make the same as NBA players?  Should male pornstars make as much as their much higher paid female pornstars?  Should women’s tennis players and LPGA make as much?  Do not get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of it if the market dictates it.  But if 1/20th of the audience is watching the LPGA (example only) then no.  If the women’s World Cup of soccer draws far less (all matches, worldwide, qualifiers, etc), charges lower ticket prices, has lower attendance...then no.  Same for the other examples.  Feel goodness ultimately leads to failure, bankruptcy, etc.  The market dictates the value, fair or unfair, that is the deal and in FIFA that means the world not just the USA where we lazily give a damn ever four years for three weeks.  The worldwide market for women’s soccer is low, but picking up.  The US women can capitalize at home through sponsorships and “feel goodness” by those dollars....and believe me they will as brands fight over themselves to do so.  By the end of it all we will be sick of it via the hype machine, but that is how it works.

So because the women's game has been either overtly or subconsciously suppressed for years within the US, we should continue to do so by not investing equally in both products? Women's sports has only truly existed within the general public's conciousness for the last 20 years whereas the men's sports have existed in some instances since before the invention of television. Taking a snap shot now and saying "well the economics don't make sense" is so short sighted. Honestly, I really think the discussion should be more about investment vs pay (for godsake the women are forced to play soccer on astroturf) but that's me quibbling. Either way, you gotta spend money to make money and if USSF continues to be oblivious to the equity issue they will lose money in the long run.

[Cheeks]

The systemic sexism in this post is staggering.

Lol.  No it isn’t, it is based on economic facts.

Lay out your case on why it is sexist....try to take emotion out of it for a minute and use facts.  Please, looking forward to your reasons.  Here’s your chance.

[Cheeks]

So because the women's game has been either overtly or subconsciously suppressed for years within the US, we should continue to do so by not investing equally in both products? Women's sports has only truly existed within the general public's conciousness for the last 20 years whereas the men's sports have existed in some instances since before the invention of television. Taking a snap shot now and saying "well the economics don't make sense" is so short sighted. Honestly, I really think the discussion should be more about investment vs pay (for godsake the women are forced to play soccer on astroturf) but that's me quibbling. Either way, you gotta spend money to make money and if USSF continues to be oblivious to the equity issue they will lose money in the long run.

Investment comes from the promise of returns, right?  People who are smart with money will invest if there is a return at the end.  If the opportunity makes sense, go for it. 

Let me ask you a question, how does the women’s pro soccer league in the US draw?  Can you even name the league?  Can you name 3 teams in the league?  Did you know there even was a league? 

If the opportunity is there, smart people will find a way to make it work.  Of course laying out the business case or the challenges that exist in the real world will get one labeled as sexist by those also claiming this accomplishment is equal to UCLA or other dynasties, so there’s that....unicorns, fairy dust and total lack of how media rights and revenue works.

[Cheeks]

I'm assuming you mean advertisers wouldn't be on board world wide.

In the US, the Women's World Cup draws a much bigger TV audience then the men. The women's World Cup final beat the men's by 22%.

But why limit it to the US, especially when the money is a global bucket for media rights?

What were global World Cup ratings for men last year in the final vs women this year... it US, but globally.  The number is staggeringly one sided.  Before someone says that is sexist, it is the truth.

3.4 Billion people watched the men’s World Cup last year around the world...almost have the planet’s population.  The women’s numbers won’t be available for a few weeks globally, but it will not come close.  I watched the women’s final in 4K, enjoyed it very much.  Talented players. I worked with Mia Hamm and Lilly years ago.  Much respect to them and to the current players.  Fair or not, this is not how the world sees the game and the eyeballs reflect that.

[Pakuni]

What statement does it make....we’re not going to base compensation on value, revenue coming in, etc, but because it makes everyone feel better?  Economics be damned?

But once again, the women's team is generating at least as much, if not more, revenue for the USSF, yet being paid less.
As someone who apparently believes this should be based entirely on current economics (ignoring trends and potential growth, which is super smart), why aren't you demanding the women get paid more than the men?

[Cheeks]

But once again, the women's team is generating at least as much, if not more, revenue for the USSF, yet being paid less.
As someone who apparently believes this should be based entirely on current economics (ignoring trends and potential growth, which is super smart), why aren't you demanding the women get paid more than the men?

Because that is not how the revenue streams are tied in, and you know this.  The USSF revenues are not sourced that way, it is a combination of inflows.

Forbes reported “the men's World Cup in Russia (2018) generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million… Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”

Globally, the men’s side brings in 40 times more.  Let’s not forget that USSF earns a big chunk of their revenues based on pot contributions from FIFA.  Yes, they also earn from sponsorships, etc, but those are sold as a bundle with men and women together, so how are you claiming with certainty that they are bringing in more revenue?  Back to the pot contribution, the men’s tournament brings in 40x what the women’s tournament does.  Those revenues are distributed to the national governing bodies and paid out.

On a proportional basis, the men are actually paid LESS than the women considering the massive amounts of revenue the men’s tournament brings in globally....which is a large source of revenue for USSF.


I’m all for fairness, separate the teams revenues moving forward.  Do women’s only sponsorships and keep the books separate.  Sell the women’s media rights separately, too.  That way it is clean and you will get a true read.  My advice, having done this type of work the last 10 years, this would go badly for those claiming they want equal distributions.  Bundling them together helps with scale and pricing leverage, but have at it and prove your worth worldwide....go for it....make it a long term deal, too.  Should be fun to watch that economic experiment play out.

[Pakuni]

Because that is not how the revenue streams are tied in, and you know this.  The USSF revenues are not sourced that way, it is a combination of inflows.

Forbes reported “the men's World Cup in Russia (2018) generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million… Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”

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.

[mu03eng]

Investment comes from the promise of returns, right?  People who are smart with money will invest if there is a return at the end.  If the opportunity makes sense, go for it. 

Let me ask you a question, how does the women’s pro soccer league in the US draw?  Can you even name the league?  Can you name 3 teams in the league?  Did you know there even was a league? 

If the opportunity is there, smart people will find a way to make it work.  Of course laying out the business case or the challenges that exist in the real world will get one labeled as sexist by those also claiming this accomplishment is equal to UCLA or other dynasties, so there’s that....unicorns, fairy dust and total lack of how media rights and revenue works.

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".

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Lol.  No it isn’t, it is based on economic facts.

Lay out your case on why it is sexist....try to take emotion out of it for a minute and use facts.  Please, looking forward to your reasons.  Here’s your chance.

It is based on economic fact, but just because it is economic fact doesn't mean it isn't also systematically sexist. The reason the men's team generates more revenue is because we live in a sexist society that prefers watching men's sports over women's sports simply because it's men playing. And because of this, men will get more pay and more investment meaning men will have more opportunities to go into sports whereas women will have less so the gap will continue to widen which will reinforce the sexist culture around sports which will lead to men getting paid more and.....so on and so forth.

But you are right in the sense that we can't make economic decisions solely on what's right or fair because that leads to bankruptcy and collapse which is bad for everyone. The best way to fix the disparity IMHO is to work on the sexism in our society so the next generation maybe enjoys women's sports a little bit more than the current generation, thus earning more investment, which increases opportunities for women to go into sports which will narrow the gap which will continue to improve the sexist culture around sports which will lead to....and so on and so forth.

That being said, I think investing a little bit extra than what the market demands because we think it is right and fair to do so is not a bad idea.

[warriorchick]

It is based on economic fact, but just because it is economic fact doesn't mean it isn't also systematically sexist. The reason the men's team generates more revenue is because we live in a sexist society that prefers watching men's sports over women's sports simply because it's men playing. And because of this, men will get more pay and more investment meaning men will have more opportunities to go into sports whereas women will have less so the gap will continue to widen which will reinforce the sexist culture around sports which will lead to men getting paid more and.....so on and so forth.

But you are right in the sense that we can't make economic decisions solely on what's right or fair because that leads to bankruptcy and collapse which is bad for everyone. The best way to fix the disparity IMHO is to work on the sexism in our society so the next generation maybe enjoys women's sports a little bit more than the current generation, thus earning more investment, which increases opportunities for women to go into sports which will narrow the gap which will continue to improve the sexist culture around sports which will lead to....and so on and so forth.

That being said, I think investing a little bit extra than what the market demands because we think it is right and fair to do so is not a bad idea.

I think you are overstating it here. 

As a general rule, people the best participants in any sport (absent some sort of affinity to a particular team or participant). The fact is that the things that make basketball exciting (fast play, dunks, etc.) men can outperform women.  If Natisha Heidemann played as well as any NBA player, no one would care which set of naughty bits she had.

On the other hand, women's gymnastics is more popular than men's.  People would rather watch a woman on the balance beam that a guy doing the pommel horse.  Perhaps balance beam were a men's event, they might theoretically be better, but some of the things people like about gymnastics (grace, flexibility), women are better at.  And to be honest, I am not sure Simone Biles wouldn't kick the men's teams ass if she decided to take up parallel bars or rings.

[brewcity77]

Lol.  No it isn’t, it is based on economic facts.

Lay out your case on why it is sexist....try to take emotion out of it for a minute and use facts.  Please, looking forward to your reasons.  Here’s your chance.

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.

[Pakuni]

I think you are overstating it here. 

As a general rule, people the best participants in any sport (absent some sort of affinity to a particular team or participant). The fact is that the things that make basketball exciting (fast play, dunks, etc.) men can outperform women.  If Natisha Heidemann played as well as any NBA player, no one would care which set of naughty bits she had.

On the other hand, women's gymnastics is more popular than men's.  People would rather watch a woman on the balance beam that a guy doing the pommel horse.  Perhaps balance beam were a men's event, they might theoretically be better, but some of the things people like about gymnastics (grace, flexibility), women are better at.  And to be honest, I am not sure Simone Biles wouldn't kick the men's teams ass if she decided to take up parallel bars or rings.

If people want to see the best participants in any sport, how do you explain the popularity of college sports?
Why did 40 million people attend a minor league baseball game last year?
Why do many Canadian junior hockey teams average more than 5,000 fans per game?

"People want to see the best" is just one of many factors for sports popularity/attendance/viewership. TAMU's remark that women's sports are viewed as lesser simply because they're played by women is another factor.

FWIW, the reason women's gymnastics are more popular than men's (and same for figure skating) is that those sports, and Olympic sports in general, are far more popular among woman viewers and spectators, not because women are better at gymnastics or skating than men.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

What statement does it make....we’re not going to base compensation on value, revenue coming in, etc, but because it makes everyone feel better?  Economics be damned?

The statement it makes is that when you have two people working for the same organization and doing the same job, they should be paid a similar amount.  Especially when the people who are actually successful at their job, makes less than those who aren't.

[warriorchick]

If people want to see the best participants in any sport, how do you explain the popularity of college sports?
Why did 40 million people attend a minor league baseball game last year?
Why do many Canadian junior hockey teams average more than 5,000 fans per game?

"People want to see the best" is just one of many factors for sports popularity/attendance/viewership. TAMU's remark that women's sports are viewed as lesser simply because they're played by women is another factor.

FWIW, the reason women's gymnastics are more popular than men's (and same for figure skating) is that those sports, and Olympic sports in general, are far more popular among woman viewers and spectators, not because women are better at gymnastics or skating than men.

The majority of the folks who attend the sports you mention in your first paragraph do so because of either affinity to the school or region the team represents (as I mentioned) or because they can't see better teams in person, or they can't afford to.  How many people would watch the Schaumburg Flyers if it cost the same as a Cubs game? Who watches junior hockey that involves two teams they have no connection to?

And if women's gymnastics is only popular because women watch it, why aren't the WNBA games packing arenas with women?  I see plenty of women at NBA games.

[Pakuni]

The majority of the folks who attend the sports you mention in your first paragraph do so because of either affinity to the school or region the team represents (as I mentioned) or because they can't see better teams in person, or they can't afford to.  How many people would watch the Schaumburg Flyers if it cost the same as a Cubs game? Who watches junior hockey that involves two teams they have no connection to?

So, what you're saying is that there are many factors why people watch/attend a sporting event beyond wanting to see the best.
We agree.

And if women's gymnastics is only popular because women watch it, why aren't the WNBA games packing arenas with women?  I see plenty of women at NBA games.

This is a complete bastardization of what I wrote.
And also a terrible analogy.

[WarriorDad]

Let's also not diminish their accomplishments. Their level of dominance is ridiculous. While it would be easy to say no one else is on the USA women's level, the world has had decades to catch up and based on results the USA women have pulled further away rather than letting the world close the gap. They've won three of the last four major tournaments (including Olympics) and overall have won 8/14 overall. Countries like China, Germany, Brazil, & Sweden were powers that never overtook us, while new rising nations like France, England, & the Netherlands still aren't there.

This is one of the most dominant programs in sports history. Based on the sport's history, the smarter money is on taking the USA than the field in major international tournaments. In a world where there's a constant trend towards sports parity, the USWNT has defied that.

I said it was an incredible accomplishment. 

[jsglow]

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.

[WarriorDad]

The statement it makes is that when you have two people working for the same organization and doing the same job, they should be paid a similar amount.  Especially when the people who are actually successful at their job, makes less than those who aren't.

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

Some good comments here, especially the last one.  It is easy to spend other people’s money and claim lack of fairness.  People and organizations that foot the bills usually do it with a profit motive in mind, and if it doesn’t pencil out they will not do it.  That isn’t sexist, racist, ageist, but simple math.

[Pakuni]

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.

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?