U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination

[Nice Squirrel]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/31/news/companies/womens-soccer-equal-pay/index.html?adkey=bn

"The women's team does the identical work as the men's team, except they have outperformed in every way," said Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer who represents the women. "The U.S. Soccer Federation made profit of $16 million on women's team last year. It had a loss on men's team."

Kessler said the women filed a complaint Wednesday evening with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces equal pay law. It's the first step in what could become a touchstone in the debate about the pay gap between men and women.

Good for them.

 

[bigfield]

The women's team does the identical work as the men's team

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

 

[Malintent]

I scribbled on a piece of paper yesterday. since I do the IDENTICAL WORK as the artist Bansky, I expect to sell that piece of paper for $1,000,000... or else I am being treated unfairly.

 

[dismal]

They seem confused between a "we do equal work" argument (which is complete garbage) and a "we draw in more revenue" argument (which may be full of merit).

The other aspect missing here is that in general playing for the national team is not about making money.

My sense is Ronaldo, Messi and the other big money guys make their money at their clubs and play for the national team more for pride.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They seem confused between a "we do equal work" argument (which is complete garbage) and a "we draw in more revenue" argument (which may be full of merit).

The other aspect missing here is that in general playing for the national team is not about making money.

My sense is Ronaldo, Messi and the other big money guys make their money at their clubs and play for the national team more for pride.

That brings an interesting question. Does the team have to pay more to draw top talent compared to a women's team?

 

[dismal]

They seem confused between a "we do equal work" argument (which is complete garbage) and a "we draw in more revenue" argument (which may be full of merit).

The other aspect missing here is that in general playing for the national team is not about making money.

My sense is Ronaldo, Messi and the other big money guys make their money at their clubs and play for the national team more for pride.

That brings an interesting question. Does the team have to pay more to draw top talent compared to a women's team?

Well, that's my point. I'm not sure national teams have to pay much at all. It isn't a full-time gig, and people are generally honored to be named.

On the other hand, the fact that the men can make more money in their clubs may be an argument to pay the women a bigger stipend so they don't take jobs outside the sport.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That brings an interesting question. Does the team have to pay more to draw top talent compared to a women's team?

Well, that's my point. I'm not sure national teams have to pay much at all. It isn't a full-time gig, and people are generally honored to be named.

On the other hand, the fact that the men can make more money in their clubs may be an argument to pay the women a bigger stipend so they don't take jobs outside the sport.

But if the team can get the best women by paying half while they can't do that for men, it's the opposite argument.

 

[dismal]

Well, that's my point. I'm not sure national teams have to pay much at all. It isn't a full-time gig, and people are generally honored to be named.

On the other hand, the fact that the men can make more money in their clubs may be an argument to pay the women a bigger stipend so they don't take jobs outside the sport.

But if the team can get the best women by paying half while they can't do that for men, it's the opposite argument.

I'm not convinced they have to pay to get the men either.

If you are a USMNT quality player you can make a good living playing club soccer and stay decently fit and ready outside of the national team breaks.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But if the team can get the best women by paying half while they can't do that for men, it's the opposite argument.

I'm not convinced they have to pay to get the men either.

If you are a USMNT quality player you can make a good living playing club soccer and stay decently fit and ready outside of the national team breaks.

Then they should cut the mens pay to equal the women.

 

[dismal]

I'm not convinced they have to pay to get the men either.

If you are a USMNT quality player you can make a good living playing club soccer and stay decently fit and ready outside of the national team breaks.

Then they should cut the mens pay to equal the women.

In looking at the OP link it's not even clear to me who "they" is. If we are talking about FIFA prizes for the world cup it's reasonably safe to say there's no effing way that's going to happen. The men's world cup probably draws about 3 billion more viewer's than the women's.

As far as the pay from the US federation for playing exhibition games, maybe that should be made more equal. No information was provided on revenues generated by these games. It is my general observation that Americans care about women's soccer every 4 years when the word cup comes around and not much in between. The articles seem to cherrypick stats about world cup ratings and profit in world cup years which may not even be slightly representative.

 

[ronburgundy]

They seem confused between a "we do equal work" argument (which is complete garbage) and a "we draw in more revenue" argument (which may be full of merit).

They don't do equal work. The work is winning and generating revenue. So, if their numbers are valid, then they do far superior work on behalf of the US soccer Federation. The fact that they could never beat the men's team has no relevance to their relative quality of work. The women get paid 5 times less for far superior work, because they have no leverage to bargain for better pay, because it is while less than the men's it is still more than double what the top female players earn in their professional leagues, which is too little to actually live on. IOW, female players are desperate for work and thus allowed the Union to agree to their lesser pay.

The other aspect missing here is that in general playing for the national team is not about making money.

IF that were true, then there would likely not be a 5-fold disparity in pay. The men's team is terrible is has nothing to be proud of, so they wouldn't be playing for pride. They pay the men more because the men refuse to play without that level of pay. They men hold out for more pay, because they can afford to, due to making much more than the women in their regular Professional league. Women's soccer has been highly unsuccessful in creating a viable professional league. Other than the Portland team, no one shows up to watch, with average crowds of less than 4,000 for 7 of the 9 teams. Several leagues have been created and failed since the Women's 1999 World Cup Victory. The current incarnation is only 2 years old and doing better than prior ones but still struggling to turn a profit. The top players get paid $30,000 per season, and some as little as $6,000. IOW, women players are essentially forced to play for the US team, because they cannot make a living playing soccer otherwise. Their pay on the national team is more than double their professional soccer salary. Despite being 5 times higher than the women's, the men's pay for playing on the National teams is still only half what they get in their professional league.

Given that their lower pay was agreed to by their Union, its hard to see how they have a case. If it is true that they are the one's generating most of the revenue for the US soccer Federation, then they need to simply refuse to play and bargain for more pay.

 

[dismal]

They don't do equal work. The work is winning and generating revenue.

It seems pretty clear in the context of the quote that they are defining the equal work as "playing a soccer game". If you wish to engage in semantic quibbling about that you'll have to talk to the person who said it.

 

[ronburgundy]

They don't do equal work. The work is winning and generating revenue.

It seems pretty clear in the context of the quote that they are defining the equal work as "playing a soccer game". If you wish to engage in semantic quibbling about that you'll have to talk to the person who said it.

Well, they are playing the same amount of soccer games that last equally long, so by that metric it is equal amount of work. By any other reasonable metric of work quality, their work is far superior in quality, which as any good free-marketer knows can only be measured by its market value. What they produce is in greater demand and yeilds more revenue for the same "amount" of product.

So, their amount of work is equal and their quality of work is superior.

 

[dismal]

It seems pretty clear in the context of the quote that they are defining the equal work as "playing a soccer game". If you wish to engage in semantic quibbling about that you'll have to talk to the person who said it.

Well, they are playing the same amount of soccer games that last equally long, so by that metric it is equal amount of work. By any other reasonable metric of work quality, their work is far superior in quality, which as any good free-marketer knows can only be measured by its market value. What they produce is in greater demand and yeilds more revenue for the same "amount" of product.

So, their amount of work is equal and their quality of work is superior.

The USMNT could beat the USWNT with ease, so not by that measure.

The women do better in competitions against other women because most of the world does not give a crap about women's soccer. The US gives a slight crap every fourth year.

 

[ronburgundy]

Well, they are playing the same amount of soccer games that last equally long, so by that metric it is equal amount of work. By any other reasonable metric of work quality, their work is far superior in quality, which as any good free-marketer knows can only be measured by its market value. What they produce is in greater demand and yeilds more revenue for the same "amount" of product.

So, their amount of work is equal and their quality of work is superior.

The USMNT could beat the USWNT with ease, so not by that measure.

And as I already explained, which team would win head to head has zero logical relevance to the quality of their work. That is as irrelevant as whether the men's team could physically beat up the women's team.

Their work is not to play each other, but to play the teams within their respective associations, and to win, and thus earn revenue as a result. Thus, by all relevant indicators of quality, the women are better at their work and the products they produce from their work is of higher quality by all economic metrics.

Imagine my job is to design highly demanded luxury sports cars, but I design cars that no one wants because they perform at the bottom of luxury sports cars on all measures. Your job is to design economy family sedans and they are the top selling car in their class and the highest ratings on all dimensions.

Your argument (and that of others in the thread) is that because your car can beat mine in a head to head race that you are better at your job, do higher quality work.

See how absurd that is?

The women do better in competitions against other women because most of the world does not give a crap about women's soccer. The US gives a slight crap every fourth year.

Also completely irrelevant to what their job is. Their job is not to be the best humans to play soccer in the world. Neither is that the men's job. Their respective jobs are nothing more than to beat the competition within their leagues and raise revenue for the US Soccer Federation. The women are meeting their job goals almost all well as can be done while the men are failing to meet theirs almost as badly as can be done. What makes the most economic sense would be for the US Soccer Federation to completely eliminate men's soccer and put all resources into making the women even more dominant and profitable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the US Soccer federation just selling teams to play at the International level or does it do other things?

 

[Bronzeage]

That brings an interesting question. Does the team have to pay more to draw top talent compared to a women's team?

Well, that's my point. I'm not sure national teams have to pay much at all. It isn't a full-time gig, and people are generally honored to be named.

On the other hand, the fact that the men can make more money in their clubs may be an argument to pay the women a bigger stipend so they don't take jobs outside the sport.

On the other hand, tighten the shorts and crop the shirts a little higher and the women's team can fill stadiums.

 

[ronburgundy]

Is the US Soccer federation just selling teams to play at the International level or does it do other things?

FIFA does pay the US Federation much more for the men's participation than the women. However, the total $ they get from FIFA appears to be a small fraction of their total revenue. Most of their revenue appears to come mostly from sponsorships, and then from home games.

The men had a total of 396,000 attendance at home games in 2015 while the women had 361,000.

Can't find data on sponsorships broken down by gender, but the women claim to be able to show that their near equal attendance draw and far greater popularity of their sponsored promotional events, means that they are bringing in most of the sponsorship money, and thus the majority of revenue. Given that the women are well known names and almost no one knows any male players on the US team, and the women are the best in their class and the men may not make the world cup, it seem a very reasonable claim that sponsors would be paying more for the women than the men.

IT is an odd situation where people don't care about women's professional soccer (so they get paid near nothing for that), but they care alot about the women's national team. The result is the women generate most of the $ for the US federation, and yet because they are so poorly paid in their professional leagues, the Federation is able to take advantage of their desperation for a paycheck.

Their timing is bad. Their next World Cup is 3 years away. They should have threatened to boycott the World Cup last year, unless their pay was increased.

 

[dismal]

And as I already explained, which team would win head to head has zero logical relevance to the quality of their work. That is as irrelevant as whether the men's team could physically beat up the women's team.

I do not find myself swayed by your declarations of what is true and relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's my point. I'm not sure national teams have to pay much at all. It isn't a full-time gig, and people are generally honored to be named.

On the other hand, the fact that the men can make more money in their clubs may be an argument to pay the women a bigger stipend so they don't take jobs outside the sport.

On the other hand, tighten the shorts and crop the shirts a little higher and the women's team can fill stadiums.

You must be watching a different USWNT than the one I see.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the US Soccer federation just selling teams to play at the International level or does it do other things?

FIFA does pay the US Federation much more for the men's participation than the women. However, the total $ they get from FIFA appears to be a small fraction of their total revenue. Most of their revenue appears to come mostly from sponsorships, and then from home games.

The men had a total of 396,000 attendance at home games in 2015 while the women had 361,000.

Can't find data on sponsorships broken down by gender, but the women claim to be able to show that their near equal attendance draw and far greater popularity of their sponsored promotional events, means that they are bringing in most of the sponsorship money, and thus the majority of revenue. Given that the women are well known names and almost no one knows any male players on the US team, and the women are the best in their class and the men may not make the world cup, it seem a very reasonable claim that sponsors would be paying more for the women than the men.

IT is an odd situation where people don't care about women's professional soccer (so they get paid near nothing for that), but they care alot about the women's national team. The result is the women generate most of the $ for the US federation, and yet because they are so poorly paid in their professional leagues, the Federation is able to take advantage of their desperation for a paycheck.

Their timing is bad. Their next World Cup is 3 years away. They should have threatened to boycott the World Cup last year, unless their pay was increased.

But the national teams are only a small part of the US Soccer. It also includes the professional teams and other leagues.