Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Sports' started by LadyStanley, Jun 27, 2019.
USWNT Receive $529K Donation from Secret Deodorant After Women's World Cup Win
Are you trying to say that USA is a "world leader in equality and freedom"? A country that's ranked 51st in gender equality way behind places like Iceland, Norway and Finland, a country where socioeconomic mobility is very low compared to those same Nordic countries, and a country where the incarceration rate is through the roof thanks to the amazing power of the private prison industry? USA has 655 people incarcerated per 100,000 inhabitants. Iceland has 37. Why on Earth would you call USA "a world leader in equality and freedom"? Because they invest more on women's soccer than real footballing nations? I don't think that's an awfully relevant metric.
Ah yes, the typical Nordic smugness rearing its head again
Maybe because the USA still is a leader in equality and freedom? All that despite the horrific statistics you mention. I'm sorry, but the world exists beyond (north-) western European democracies of under 10 million people.
Those Norse nations would be goose marching to the tune of Horst Wessel if not for the USA.
You can compare USA to the European Union (population 513 million) if you so choose. And it's still behind in equality and freedom.
It's clear you have very little understanding of either the USA or the statistics you cite.
The Guardian has a pretty good article on the pay gap and taking a look at the validity that REVENUE accounts for the disparity.
- FIFA’s men’s World Cup revenue numbers includes ALL TV rights revenue, while their other events include none, despite it being bundled rights for everything
- FIFA and US Soccer both make no attempt to itemize the value of bundled TV rights.
Tatjana Haenni, the former head of women’s soccer at Fifa: “What is the potential value of the Women’s World Cup? Nobody knows the Women’s World Cup commercial value because it’s not sold separately. This is something that should at least be discussed.”
The head of FOX’s soccer production said “I don’t know how you quantify that,” he said. “But right now the shining star of US Soccer is the US women’s national team.”
The 2015 Women’s World Cup was watched by 764 million people, the 2014 men’s World Cup was watched by 3.2 billon.
That’s a men’s difference four times the women’s.
The FIFA men’s payouts are 13 times the women’s
HOWEVER, the US Soccer team is a totally different situation than the rest of the World, because the US Women are number 1 and four time champions and US Soccer fans started watching soccer when the women’s team existed and was elite. They aren’t an after thought.
By average, the men have higher TV ratings, but the women have more total viewers than the men, because they play in bigger games.
Does revenue explain the USWNT's World Cup bonus shortfall?
I support the USWNT and am kind of neutral on this "pay equity" thing.
I just wonder what the attendance for the women's games would be when the ticket prices are the same as the men's games...
That's part of the women's argument. They claim the lack of equal promotion and the booking of women's games in smaller venues is actually keeping their revenues lower.
If you look at the women's attendance, it's like 20,000 vs 23,000 compared to the men for friendlies. The women's friendlies are actually the most valuable games because in friendlies they can play top 5 clubs from Europe. The men's biggest crowds are WCQ because it means something. Women's WCQ doesn't mean anything. The group play of the Gold Cup IS WCQ for the women. Well, the women won three games by a total of 19-0. That earned them their WWC bid, and the knockout round was for the CONCACAF championship. It's boring because we're going to romp to another title, qualify easily, and those games were among the worst promoted and worst attended games the women play.
I wonder what the attendance would be for usmnt games without the massive amount of fans from the visiting teams in the building. I’ve been to a us/mexico game. 50/50 crowd.
I went to one of the qualifiers last October in Cary with my wife and daughter. I think the tickets were $35-40. If the games were played in a larger venue and charged the same price as a men’s qualifier, we would not have gone.
I seriously doubt if they charged the $80-100 the men get for qualifying games, the women would get 2,000 attendance.
And the point made below is well taken. Many of the games against Mexico and Central American teams are attended by (being PC - fans of those teams.). That’s not going to happen with the women’s games.
The game we went to vs Panama, Mexico played T & T in the second game. We stayed until halftime. There may have been 500 people left.
What's funny is that everyone thinks the men are packing 70,000 seat stadiums for games in WCQ. They really aren't. They're playing Mexico at whichever venue gives them the best home-field advantage (like, Columbus), and then they can't really sell out 70,000 seat stadiums for the rest of CONCACAF opponents, so they're averaging like 28,000 for WCQ.
The women charge the most for tickets for their post-World Cup victory tour. That's where all the dads bring their daughters and shell out big money at big stadiums. The women's tickets are fairly priced for other non-Victory Tour events; and the men's tickets are way too expensive now.
US soccer president side of the story.
Open Letter July 29, 2019 - Finding Common Ground
In the end both have different pay structures making any comparison challenging.
What entitlement by the women's team.
Nobody cares about women's sports. People just watch it in the way that people watch their little kids play. Its cute but everyone knows if you actually care about sports you watch the best play the best. That is why women's sports make nothing in comparison to the men's leagues. The fact that the women's teams don't recognize this is because of the failed logic of liberalism and making everyone feel "equal" instead of the realization of gender roles that God created from the foundation of this world. Gone are the days of traditionalism that brought greatness into civilization.
THANK YOU. I saw this two days ago and have just been waiting for someone to post it to this thread.
The US Soccer Federation has responded by claiming it paid the women $7.7 million more than the men over an 8-year period.
That pay period includes 158 men's games.... and THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO women's games. (more than double).
Per player, per game, that's:
That's not equitable.
This is true for every single case of men’s and women’s sports, except for the comparisons of the United States Women’s Soccer National Team to the US Soccer men’s national team.
The US women’s soccer team has the smallest male/female popularity gap vs their male counterparts than any team on the planet.
More TV viewers have watched the US women than the US Men in the last nine years, by viewership total.
This is because the US men’s team is more popular on a “same type of game” basis, but the women go to the World Cup Finals, and the men only get to the Round of 16 when they qualify.
The US women have generated more revenue than the men’s team from 2015-2018, because the men draw 24,000 a game and the Women draw 20,000 a game, but the women play more games.
The 2019 US Women’s soccer jersey is the top selling jersey in the history of Nike. They could not keep the USWNT jerseys for men and women in stock.
No one cares about women’s sports… except for the number of people passionate about US Soccer, who are usually passionate about both the MEN’S and WOMEN’S teams. Because every pro league and every national team every where else in the world had a 100 year head start on the women’s version, US Soccer fans were CREATED when the men’s and women’s team both existed and the women were better.
Oh, and you know who's supporting the US Women and speaking out about US Soccer?
The US Men.
Once again you can't compare it this way as both have different pay/compensation structure. Women chose to go lower risk hence lower reward by opting for more guaranteed money vs bonuses and to have other benefits. This means success and more games wont necessarily translate into more income but poor play wont have much negative impact either. When negotiating CBA women were offered the same bonus based higher risk structure as men but turned it down.
It does make sense for women to be more risk averse as they don't have the same opportunities for income from other streams (men leagues) but there is a price to pay for this comfort.
Which is exactly what the women's world cup is.... the best women's players from each country going head to head.
People don't care about the US professional soccer leagues (men's and women's) for the reason you stated. But it's pretty dumb logic to apply it to the World Cup solely because of their gender.
The salary thing is misleading, though. Because it’s only covering 20 of 42 games over a four-year period, which translates to $25,000 a year (less than a liveable wage. US Soccer is based in DC where the minimum wage equals $29,120 per year!). I could type a lot more on that, but I’ll skip to the wrap-up:
You’re doing a great job of EXPLAINING why the pay isn’t equal, but that isn’t JUSTIFICATION for why it SHOULD NOT be equal. What you describe is basically this:
Women’s Compensation + Funding of otherwise non-existent Women’s Infrastructure = Men’s Compensation.
That equation puts the burden of funding the growth of women’s infrastructure on the women’s players out of their compensation: They’d get more compensation if they didn’t need more infrastructure.
But that only works as justification IF there is no obligation for the USSF to create women’s infrastructure when none exists. And their own mission statement contradicts that:
The mission of the U.S. Soccer Foundation is to enhance, assist and grow the sport of soccer in the United States, with a special emphasis on underserved communities.
The infrastructure grows soccer, the women are underserved. The obligation comes from the mission of USSF soccer, not the women’s players compensation from USSF soccer.
How does paying the Men or Women’s national teams higher compensation work towards achieving this goal?
My intention was not to justify pay should not be equal. Simply pointing existing differences in total compensation structures making apples-to-apples comparison challenging. Not sure why you are referring to infrastructure.
On a related note, USNTPA issued a statement countering some of recent Prez claims.
USNSTPA statement in response to 7/29/2019 Carlos Cordeiro letter
Men are right in the middle of negotiations of their own CBA. Latest proposal apparently contains equal pay provision between USMNT and USWNT. Could both PAs join forces in a single union if both would be happy with equal pay?
Yeah, I noticed. I just an explanation for differences can make people go "SEE?!?! The women DON'T deserve more!" because they think we're arguing and you made a great point. You're totally right, but it doesn't mean those making arguments for equal pay are wrong.
I was using it as a general term for systems in place that the women don't have. Men don't need benefits from US Soccer because they get them from MLS/Club teams. The women need them from US Soccer because of the frailty of the women's pro leagues. The men are full time Pro Soccer players and part-time national team members. The women - at least the core 18-20 - are really the opposite because the women's league isn't big enough to be a full time job.
The European player development system is quickly expanding to women's programs in places like England and Netherlands. Pro clubs with youth teams are starting women’s teams because it’s easy: The infrastructure is already in place.
That provides them what US women’s soccer doesn’t have (All the North American pro clubs are independent, one-team operations with really only the San Jose Sharks / San Jose Barracuda as a possible exception). And that’s why Netherlands easily adopted Equal Pay for their men’s/women’s national teams.
I thought about a joint PA and was going to mention that a few times in this thread, but every time I wanted to mention it, it was like my 4th post in a row in the thread. hahaha.
In addition to San Jose...Anaheim, Arizona, Buffalo, Calgary, Carolina, Dallas, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Montreal, New Jersey, both the Islanders and Rangers, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg own their AHL teams NHL Affiliations: AHL and ECHL - Arena Digest
Apparently a few MLB teams own minor league teams as well (the Tampa Yankees, Springfield Cardinals and Gwinnett Braves were given as examples).
I understand the ownership, and your list helps me add Winnipeg/Manitoba to the list, But that's not what I'm talking about. It's not OWNERSHIP that matters, it’s the OPERATIONS.
The Pegula's own the Sabres and the Rochester Americans. But they're an hour apart at different locations. Same organization, but two separate operations. However, the Sharks/Barracuda and Jets/Moose are like the European model: They have one "Campus" where two levels of teams practice and play. They have ONE Operation that covers both teams.
A few years ago, Manchester City opened a brand new massive campus. Practice fields, smaller stadium, Huge HQ of offices that has weight room, locker room, dining room, chefs, concierge, video scouting department, all kinds of state of the art things for a Mega Club on the world stage.
Before that, there was a women’s team in town that had their independent, very small operation of like three staffers. No facility, no locker room, they showed up to a field and practiced. They even brought their own water with them. They paid for what little they had via a sponsorship deal with Manchester City: “You buy us jerseys and jackets and ankle tape and we rep your brand.”
MCFC met with the team, told them they were cancelling the sponsorship agreement because the women were in the 4th division and not living up to the standard of MCFC. The women were momentarily crushed, and then the Chairman said “You are now officially part of Manchester City Football Group, welcome to our new $3 billion campus, let me show you to your locker room.”
THAT’S the difference. The USWNT made compensation concessions in their last CBA because women’s pro soccer was like the City women practicing at someone else’s soccer field, bringing their own stuff with them and run on a shoestring budget. The Women's pro league teams couldn’t provide what MLS / European club teams provide the men, so the USWNT asked for what they could get from USSF.
City was going to build a new $3 billion infrastructure for their three teams, and simply just added the women as the fourth team. European clubs starting women’s programs is easy. They already have everything they need, just include a women's team. And that's why it's easy for Netherlands to give their national teams equal pay, because their women have the full-time infrastructure from the big men's clubs that they don't need to ask for "full time employee" things that the men have, the get it. They have the same "part time" compensation package the men do.
Does that make sense?
Separate names with a comma.