Something I heard about female soccer players

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I heard on television last night--maybe it was the Daily Show--that the US women's team players make 25% as much as men. Last year they won the cup and generated $20 M more in revenue than the men. Their exhibition (and maybe I've got the wrong word) games give them no money, but the men make $5K per exhibition game.

Personally, I think it's silly to argue over sports players making gazillions of dollars. However, I thought I'd bring it up because in another thread I read masculinist arguments that men's wages in sports were justified by greater revenue. So I have to wonder what is going on.

 

[Derec]

Women are playing in a "little pond", where overall women's soccer gets far lower viewership and thus revenues. But in that little pond the US women are the big fish for some reason, whereas US men are small fish in their much bigger bond where huge predatory fish like Germany or Brazil lurk. That said, US men didn't do bad at all in Brazil. They narrowly beat out Portugal (Cristiano Rolando's team) in group stage and lost narrowly (2:1 after extra time) to Belgium in the Round of 16.
I am sure the payment structure was conceived to take into account the relative competitiveness of each of the "ponds". But if women's soccer really brings more revenue (doubtful on the $20 M figure though) they should take that into account. But the time for that is when the contract is negotiated (i.e. players should demand more money), not to complain and file lawsuits afterwards.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Thanks for mansplianing.

 

[Derec]

Thanks for mansplianing.

The reality is that Men's World Cup actually subsidizes the Women's World Cup.
World Cup Women Players Overpaid Compared To Male Counterparts

In 2011 the Women’s World Cup hosted in Germany had earnings of $72,818,500. The South Africa World Cup in 2010, had sales of $3.7 billion. That is 50 times greater.
The 2014 World Cup was even a greater success, $4.8 billion.
When comparing the pay of the players relative to the event’s revenue, one sees the discrepancy, that women players gain a higher percentage of the event’s earnings than men. In 2011, the payout for women’s event was $10 million. This would mean the players earn 13 percent of total revenues.
In 2010 the total men’s prize money was $348 million, that is nine percent of that tournament’s earnings. It was even worse for men in 2014 when they received seven percent of the revenue.
On average 53,592 attended Brazilian stadiums for the men in 2014 and while the women attracted an average gate of 26,029 in Canada. Nothing about the pay in the respective World Cups favors men, if anything the women have an advantage.

The revenues just aren't there for women's soccer.


It's amazing how any man's opinion that is not 100% in agreement with feminist orthodoxy is dismissed as "mansplianing" [sic]. Not even me agreeing that women should be free to demand more money when they negotiate the next contract was enough for you not to use that silly charge.

All that said, they should still give them real grass, for fuck's sake!

 

[dismal]

From the article above:

These figures lag behind the men’s cup, the most widely watched sporting event in the world — nearly a billion people tuned into the final alone in 2010 — but the ad revenues lag much further behind: The 2011 Cup brought in just $5.8 million, while the men’s cup in 2014 netted $1.4 billion.

So, the women's world cup, which is really the only time in a 4 year cycle most people pay attention to women's soccer at all, generates 0.4% of the revenue the men's world cup does.

 

[Bronzeage]

Lingerie soccer is the answer.

 

[Rhea]

I think the distinction is not that Women's world cup made more revenue than the men's World cup, but if I'm reading the OP correctly, that the US Women's Team brought in more than the Men's US Team.

Hence the pay of the US team players, based on the revenues to those US teams (not the Brazailian team nor the Qatar team, who have perhaps no say in what the US men's team pays their men) should reflect that the US teams gain more revenue from their female players than from their male players.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read the OP.

 

[thebeave]

Thanks for mansplianing.

You misspelled "mansplaining". [/mansplaining]

 

[Rhea]

http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/art...discrimination-action-vs-us-soccer-federation

The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn.

So the USSF gained more revenue from women's soccer than from men's.
The people who pay the soccer players gained more revenue from the players whom they pay 75% less.
No one is talking about worldwide revenue to people and entities not involved with paying the US players. They are talking about this corporation and its revenue streams versus payroll.

...
That's the complaint.
They are negotiating this now, aren't they. Apparently talking in person didn't do anything, so now they are negotiating in court.
Good negotiators!

 

[Godless Raven]

http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/art...discrimination-action-vs-us-soccer-federation

The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn.

So the USSF gained more revenue from women's soccer than from men's.
The people who pay the soccer players gained more revenue from the players whom they pay 75% less.

...
That's the complaint.
They are negotiating this now, aren't they. Apparently talking in person didn't do anything, so now they are negotiating in court.
Good negotiators!

I think national teams should get paid the same, male and female. If it goes to court, I think they should get back paid for previous years they got fucked too. Not cool.

 

[Rhea]

more from the article:
So yeah, this is a good example of how negotiation can work and the data seems to suggest back pay in in order.

"In early January, the Women's National Team Players Association submitted a reasonable proposal for a new CBA that had equal pay for equal work as its guiding principle," Kessler said in the statement. "U.S. Soccer responded by suing the players in an effort to keep in place the discriminatory and unfair treatment they have endured for years."

 

[bigfield]

The handicap league doesn't pay as much? Who could have guessed!

 

[dismal]

I think the distinction is not that Women's world cup made more revenue than the men's World cup, but if I'm reading the OP correctly, that the US Women's Team brought in more than the Men's US Team.

Hence the pay of the US team players, based on the revenues to those US teams (not the Brazailian team nor the Qatar team, who have perhaps no say in what the US men's team pays their men) should reflect that the US teams gain more revenue from their female players than from their male players.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read the OP.

Yes, though data that actually demonstrate this have been scarce and there could be other factors involved.

I fully support any woman refusing to play if they don't think they are being paid enough.

But this does not belong in courts and "equality" has nothing to do with it. If they generate more revenue they may be able to negotiate more money than the men.

 

[SimpleDon]

From the article above:

These figures lag behind the men’s cup, the most widely watched sporting event in the world — nearly a billion people tuned into the final alone in 2010 — but the ad revenues lag much further behind: The 2011 Cup brought in just $5.8 million, while the men’s cup in 2014 netted $1.4 billion.

So, the women's world cup, which is really the only time in a 4 year cycle most people pay attention to women's soccer at all, generates 0.4% of the revenue the men's world cup does.

The point of the OP is that in the US the women's team does draw more revenue than the USNMT does. If the amount of revenue is why worldwide the men are paid more than the men wouldn't it mean that in the US that the opposite would hold, that the women are paid more?

And $5000 a game is a token amount for the men's sport. Özil, a German intentional, is asking for 200,000 English (£) pounds, about $300,000, a week, from his club team, Arsenal. And he will get it. And he doesn't score many goals, he provides assists and is the playmaker. A 19 year old winger, Iwobi, who has scored two goals in the handful of matches that he has played, just signed a renewed contract for £30,000 a week with the same club.

Women's soccer is very entertaining to watch. It is more tactical with more skill involved than the men. If anything the men's game is moving more toward the women's than the other way around.

 

[dismal]

From the article above:



So, the women's world cup, which is really the only time in a 4 year cycle most people pay attention to women's soccer at all, generates 0.4% of the revenue the men's world cup does.

The point of the OP is that in the US the women's team does draw more revenue than the USNMT does. If the amount of revenue is why worldwide the men are paid more than the men wouldn't it mean that in the US that the opposite would hold, that the women are paid more?

And $5000 a game is a token amount for the men's sport. Özil, a German intentional, is asking for 200,000 English (£) pounds, about $300,000, a week, from his club team, Arsenal. And he will get it. And he doesn't score many goals, he provides assists and is the playmaker. A 19 year old winger, Iwobi, who has scored two goals in the handful of matches that he has played, just signed a renewed contract for £30,000 a week with the same club.

Women's soccer is very entertaining to watch. It is more tactical with more skill involved than the men. If anything the men's game is moving more toward the women's than the other way around.

Yes, we had a thread about this already where all this came up.

The national team is not a job. It is more of an honor for most. There is no entitlement to be paid at all. If you don't think you are being paid enough to represent your country then you are free not to play. There are 150,000,000 more American women to choose from, many of whom I imagine would play for nothing.

Women's soccer is very entertaining to watch.

This is a purely subjective opinion and one most of the world does not share. It is almost by definition, inferior play. If it were not, there would be no women's soccer.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the distinction is not that Women's world cup made more revenue than the men's World cup, but if I'm reading the OP correctly, that the US Women's Team brought in more than the Men's US Team.

Hence the pay of the US team players, based on the revenues to those US teams (not the Brazailian team nor the Qatar team, who have perhaps no say in what the US men's team pays their men) should reflect that the US teams gain more revenue from their female players than from their male players.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read the OP.

You are not wrong. Hence the discourse about worldwide revenues is simply irrelevant.

Sexism in soccer is obvious. For example, the last Women's world cup was played on astroturf - something FIFA will not permit for men's soccer. Even though the women complained that was unfair (which it is), it didn't matter.

 

[Derec]

I think the distinction is not that Women's world cup made more revenue than the men's World cup, but if I'm reading the OP correctly, that the US Women's Team brought in more than the Men's US Team.

Right. Which is why I do not object to them demanding more money come next round of negotiations. But suing after you agreed to a particular pay structure is ridiculous.
But my point was also that part of the revenues US women get is because the main World Cup subsidizes the lesser Cups (women and youth) because if women got the same percentage of their cup's revenue in prize moneys they would get substantially less revenue. And if anything, if the men's Cup wasn't subsidizing women, the percentage should be lower because many costs associated with organizing the Cup are fixed and do not scale with revenue.

Hence the pay of the US team players, based on the revenues to those US teams (not the Brazailian team nor the Qatar team, who have perhaps no say in what the US men's team pays their men) should reflect that the US teams gain more revenue from their female players than from their male players.

Again, it should be something they bring up in negotiations, not in a lawsuit.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think the distinction is not that Women's world cup made more revenue than the men's World cup, but if I'm reading the OP correctly, that the US Women's Team brought in more than the Men's US Team.

Hence the pay of the US team players, based on the revenues to those US teams (not the Brazailian team nor the Qatar team, who have perhaps no say in what the US men's team pays their men) should reflect that the US teams gain more revenue from their female players than from their male players.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read the OP.

Yes, though data that actually demonstrate this have been scarce and there could be other factors involved.

I fully support any woman refusing to play if they don't think they are being paid enough.

But this does not belong in courts and "equality" has nothing to do with it. If they generate more revenue they may be able to negotiate more money than the men.

Ah, yes, the famous other unnamed factors involved. But you are correct, there are other factors involved.

Playing for your country is a privilege. It is not done for money. What ever they are paid it is only token, a small fraction of what they are paid by their club teams. This is another factor involved that doesn't have to remain unnamed.

 

[Derec]

That's the complaint.
They are negotiating this now, aren't they. Apparently talking in person didn't do anything, so now they are negotiating in court.
Good negotiators!

No, they are suing. They want to use the government to force the USSF to pay them a certain amount even they freely agreed to another.
Negotiating would be: I want this much money, or I walk. Not: I want this much money and here's the government to take it from you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should they be entitled to any sort of pay?