-
Features
Something I heard about female soccer players
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
We were discussing whether or not the current standards were being applied equally. To focus on the "equally" part and take out the "current standards were being applied" is to take the post out of context.
What exactly are "the current standards" and how are they not being applied equally?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
It's in the paragraph I wrote.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Which paragraph?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I give up.
Oh, was that too hard for you? Pointing me to a paragraph you already wrote?
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
He's talking about the OP. The argument is that employees are paid according to their marginal productivity. It's the driving factor, but not the only factor in determining wages.
Whose argument is that? Mr Strawman's?
"The current standard" seems to be that they pay enough to get the people they want to play out there on the field. Since I am not aware of any women US Soccer wants to play for the USWNT not being willing to play for the money offered it might be possible to conclude they are paying too much.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
It's the general argument for reflective pay for a person, but it's not the only rule in effect. The biggest issue is that the productivity for a women's soccer entertainer is only high in this place but on average it's much lower.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Technically, I was talking about the paragraph dismal responded to where he took the last sentence out of the surrounding context of that paragraph. HOWEVER, you're still correct since just about everything I have written in this thread really goes back to the op. And RavenSky is correct too that this idea is all over the thread. I salute you, sir, for paying attention to the issue.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
The demand for employees tend to be up to up the marginal productivity with the profit but that doesn't mean that the employee will always pay up to that amount. And the supply of players for the women is below that point because the opportunity costs for women soccer entertainers are lower so they will accept lower payment. So yes they can be paid up to the point of where they make their intended profit but doesn't mean that the company has to pay that much.
Huh? Assuming we want to think of this as a business with employees, why would they pay more than it took to get the players they want on the field to play?
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
I agree with you, but an employer who wants a X% of profit will pay up to the portion of Revenue - X% profit (whatever the reverse math is) and the the employer will be grateful if the workers will be have pay less than that. So Don is asking why are other salaries high, and that's because of an employer will pay up up the Revenue minus profit wanted.
Any ruthless and greedy and ruthless employer worthy of the name would pay as little as possible. Heck, they would charge people to play if they could. I have no doubt there are competitions on TV where the players are paying to play because I have watched them. My daughter played club volleyball, and I paid for her to be in the club, the club paid entry fees to be in tournaments, and parents paid for the travel to get to the tournaments. And some of these tournaments would end up on TV. I would imagine those cheerleading tournaments you see on ESPN 8 the Ocho are the same. I would bet the little league world series is the same.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
I agree with you. But what prevents every employer from only paying minimum wage to every employee?
Not all employees are willing to work for minimum wage. They have other options. There is competition for people with skills.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Because their productivity is greater than minimum wage. So you have the balancing act of employers want the lowest wages, the productivity of the employees, and then the competition for those skills, In the case of women soccer players, they have 2 of the 3.
As an ruthless and greedy employer I would be willing to pay them more than minimum wage if they could produce more for me than the minimum wage but I would not pay them more if I did not have to. The reason I have to is because there is competition for people with skills. Some of the competition is with other careers people could pursue. If you don't pay them enough to play soccer they might driver for Uber, sell insurance, or become strippers.
Since there is not any indication they are not paying enough to get the best of the best US women arguably they are paying too much.
As a side note, there is some competition for players in international soccer as many players are eligible to play for more than one country and FIFA requires you to pick one when you reach the senior level and stick with it. The last USMNT in the world cup featured a large number of players who grew up in Europe but had an American parent. I think there were 4 or 5 Germans alone. The money, and the likelihood of seeing the field to collect it, could be part of the reason a player would decide to play for the US instead of the more powerful Germany. For the women this is far less common as our youth programs for soccer are far more advanced than most of the world and playing for the USWNT is the main path in the world to fame and success.