Phantomfan;842612384 said:

---

Seems 100% legit. Anything else would be ridiculous. If anything, the US Women's team made too much money.

http://www.businessinsider.com/womens-small-soccer-salaries-are-fair-2015-7



I honestly cannot think of a single thing that could be more "american" than getting paid based on how much you are worth to those paying you.

---

Too much money? How can anyone make too much money? From a purely capitalistic standpoint. If you look at the ratio between male soccer players to female soccer players - for those players to win the FIFA World Cup, its $17.50. That is to say, for every $17.50 that Germany earned, the US Women got $1.00. US Women's Soccer got $2 million for winning the Cup. By comparison, the US Men's National Team earned $9 million for making it to the knock out round. Is that fair?

FIFA could make it more equitable by granting a greater portion of sponsorship dollars, broadcast revenue to the womens game overall. But since FIFA sponsors tournaments that have no funding at all, it seems unlikely they are going to do this. And....they are a little corrupt in and of themselves.

KoreAmBear;842612413 said:

---

Well people were ragging on Hawaii for inadequate field and what not. It's not the best, but it's not the worst. The Megan Rapinoe ACL tear at a grass field at UH during training, got the USWNT cranky and I think they were looking for ways to make a point to US Soccer. It's a very unfortunate situation.

---

No doubt. Very unfortunate for the fans. They are definitely making a statement which I think is probably warranted.

philly1121;842612416 said:

---

Too much money? How can anyone make too much money? From a purely capitalistic standpoint. If you look at the ratio between male soccer players to female soccer players - for those players to win the FIFA World Cup, its $17.50. That is to say, for every $17.50 that Germany earned, the US Women got $1.00. US Women's Soccer got $2 million for winning the Cup. By comparison, the US Men's National Team earned $9 million for making it to the knock out round. Is that fair?

---

It was almost as hard for the USMNT to get beyond group stage than for the women's team to win it all. It's almost as easy for the USNWT to win the WC as for the men's BB team to win the olympic gold medal. They are the 800lb gorilla in the competition. When you incorporate other factors, like the fact that the men's WC is the most important, most followed sport event in the world, the income discrepancy between what the USWNT got and what the USMNT and the German team got is to be expected. Attempts to adjust this discrepancy are more based on misplaced gender politics than on economic reality.

philly1121;842612416 said:

---

Too much money? How can anyone make too much money? From a purely capitalistic standpoint. If you look at the ratio between male soccer players to female soccer players - for those players to win the FIFA World Cup, its $17.50. That is to say, for every $17.50 that Germany earned, the US Women got $1.00. US Women's Soccer got $2 million for winning the Cup. By comparison, the US Men's National Team earned $9 million for making it to the knock out round. Is that fair?

FIFA could make it more equitable by granting a greater portion of sponsorship dollars, broadcast revenue to the womens game overall. But since FIFA sponsors tournaments that have no funding at all, it seems unlikely they are going to do this. And....they are a little corrupt in and of themselves.

---

I think you misunderstand:

The claim is that the women make "too little" compared to men. As a function of how much money there is to be made (income for the world cup, in this case), they made MORE than their male counterparts (11% of revenue, vs 6.6% for the men), As a function of money available, how is that too little compared to men? The "too much" is just playing of the "too little."

And yes, it is 100% "fair." The men's world cup brought in 31x the revenue. I posted the quote for christ sake. You think this money just gets paid to men because they are men and the world is sexist? It happens at EVERY level of sport when it is between the best level and the not best level. Do you think it is fair that the middle of the pack Premier league team makes more than the best Dutch team? Of course it is fair. The league makes more money. Is it fair that the best D1AA team sells less tickets than Cal and gets smaller TV contracts? Explain how it is unfair that North Dakota State has a smaller TV contract than Cal. They won a National Championship, while Cal won 36% of games against teams in their division.


Finally, sponsors are not paying into FIFA for the goodness of supporting soccer. They are paying for visibility. The visibility for women's soccer is not nearly as high as for mens (despite finals including the US doing well in the US).


The real issue with sexism and FIFA is that FIFA blocks women from playing on "mens" teams. Something the PGA, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, MLB doesn't do (despite it not coming up often). FIFA actually disallows clubs to sign contracts with women who could compete at the top level. Solo made a point about that, saying women who are at the top should be able to play against men. I agree 100%. The best athletes, men or women, should compete at the top level.


Regardless, the arguments that women should make more than they do are ridiculous. They earn less because their is less interest. It is as simple as that. A few people may like the sport, and a lot of Americans tune in for the finals when the US is involved, but aside from that, worldwide, the interest is tiny, and that is not debatable.

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#000066]From a purely capitalistic standpoint.

---

[/COLOR]Seriously? From a purely capitalist standpoint, they get paid what they are worth.

I get the stuff about sponsorship revenue being higher for the men. I can't and won't argue against that. As you guys have pointed out - it is what it is.

That said - the USWNT won the World Cup (a few plus a few Olympic gold), got a $2mil prize and given they're being paid at a 4-1 ratio lower than the men (who haven't won anything), the women should get paid at the same level - since they do the same amount of work. Interest in the game should not be the determining factor in pay rate. That's BS. Use the prize money. The logic is pretty easy - there would be no prize money if the USWNT didn't win it all. Reward positive outcomes. It's basic respect and it will go a long way in solidifying the US as a true power.

Reward the results, and given the women created the results, pay them some of the prize money.

Phantomfan;842612474 said:

---

The real issue with sexism and FIFA is that FIFA blocks women from playing on "mens" teams. Something the PGA, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, MLB doesn't do (despite it not coming up often). FIFA actually disallows clubs to sign contracts with women who could compete at the top level. Solo made a point about that, saying women who are at the top should be able to play against men. I agree 100%. The best athletes, men or women, should compete at the top level.

---

That's not a real issue. Physically, there is a gender gap in the sport, like in any sport, with men being bigger and faster, but unlike more mature women's sports like say tennis or volleyball, there is a gaping technical gap as well between men and women's soccer. The worst team from the last men's world cup would beat the USWNT by double digits. I don't think that Solo or Morgan could start in any decent men's league, not even in the MLS. They might be able to hang on to a lower division team, but they would be better off starring in a woman's league (as would the league and women's soccer.) As well, injury rates like ACL tears are already higher in the women's game, a top female player that isn't an Amy Wombach-like outlier in terms of size/build would not be able to survive the physical play of a men's league.

beelzebear;842612491 said:

---

I get the stuff about sponsorship revenue being higher for the men. I can't and won't argue against that. As you guys have pointed out - it is what it is.

That said - the USWNT won the World Cup (a few plus a few Olympic gold), got a $2mil prize and given they're being paid at a 4-1 ratio lower than the men (who haven't won anything), the women should get paid at the same level - since they do the same amount of work. Interest in the game should not be the determining factor in pay rate. That's BS. Use the prize money.

---

World Cup prize money isn't the only source of revenue for soccer. Take this hawaii exibition - I think I read they sold 50k seats. At $20/ ticket, that's a million dollars. What kind of cut do the promotersaloha stadium get? How much are the expenses? Would it fair to estimate US Soccer is likely walking away with 500k+? Then consider all the other Victory Tour games.... I'd guess the gate money dwarfs the world cup payouts. But these things are on a 4 year cycle, so it also has to last 4 years.

So then the next question is where does the money go? There is a lot of travel to smaller countries for WV qualifying and other friendlies. That can't be cheap. But does money go to development programs? Administration? Where else?

I'd guess the reason for all these turf fields during these tours is a straight cash grab. This money was not there 10-20 years ago as interest was lower. But now it is. The problem is there are not many grass surfaced soccer specific (or at least soccer sized) stadiums over 20k in the US. Of the major large soccer sized venues, many are booked for football in the fall. And football fields are often too narrow. So the choice is to play at a number of grass soccer specific MLS stadiums at 20k, or at bigger but worse venues. What wins? The CASH, right?

So again the question is should the players get extra $$$ for the risk? Maybe? As much as men? Definitely not - unless the gate revenue is actually greater. But the other thing to consider is whether the extra revenue is used by US Soccer to promote and develop the women's game at the lower levels, which is also a way to support women's athletics and may be more beneficial in the end that moderate pay raises for USWNT members.

I tried to find the revenue split between men and women on the USSF website, but while they break down expenses by gender, they do not do that for revenue. Total national team game revenue was $35 million last year. That's a huge portion of the yearly budget - typically around 50% for the last few years. So I think it's safe to say these games really do drive a lot of revenue. Which begs the question - if this big stadium revenue is necessary for USWNT operations and salaries, would the players be willing to take a pay cut, or forego other benefits, to play exclusively in much smaller grass stadiums?

Phantomfan;842612474 said:

---

I think you misunderstand:

The claim is that the women make "too little" compared to men. As a function of how much money there is to be made (income for the world cup, in this case), they made MORE than their male counterparts (11% of revenue, vs 6.6% for the men), As a function of money available, how is that too little compared to men? The "too much" is just playing of the "too little."

And yes, it is 100% "fair." The men's world cup brought in 31x the revenue. I posted the quote for christ sake. You think this money just gets paid to men because they are men and the world is sexist? It happens at EVERY level of sport when it is between the best level and the not best level. Do you think it is fair that the middle of the pack Premier league team makes more than the best Dutch team? Of course it is fair. The league makes more money. Is it fair that the best D1AA team sells less tickets than Cal and gets smaller TV contracts? Explain how it is unfair that North Dakota State has a smaller TV contract than Cal. They won a National Championship, while Cal won 36% of games against teams in their division.


Finally, sponsors are not paying into FIFA for the goodness of supporting soccer. They are paying for visibility. The visibility for women's soccer is not nearly as high as for mens (despite finals including the US doing well in the US).


The real issue with sexism and FIFA is that FIFA blocks women from playing on "mens" teams. Something the PGA, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, MLB doesn't do (despite it not coming up often). FIFA actually disallows clubs to sign contracts with women who could compete at the top level. Solo made a point about that, saying women who are at the top should be able to play against men. I agree 100%. The best athletes, men or women, should compete at the top level.


Regardless, the arguments that women should make more than they do are ridiculous. They earn less because their is less interest. It is as simple as that. A few people may like the sport, and a lot of Americans tune in for the finals when the US is involved, but aside from that, worldwide, the interest is tiny, and that is not debatable.




[/COLOR]Seriously? From a purely capitalist standpoint, they get paid what they are worth.

---

Where did I say that they should be paid more than men? As a function of revenue? Of course they would be paid "more". If that's what your argument is. You're comparing $579 million versus $15 million. And total revenue for the WC Brazil was close to $4 billion of which that gets distributed to the national teams, to club teams, to regional federations and to development programs.

You can post that stat all day long Phantom. What I am arguing for is that FIFA and US Soccer, as well as other national federations - take a closer look at how the money is distributed. I would credit Sepp Blatter for starting the Womens WC. However, I would end the credit there. By simply saying that the women "got more than the men" because the revenue was, as a percentage higher than the the men is ridiculous. Are you arguing that there is no wage inequality as it relates to gender? In sports or business? I don't want to start a wider discussion here but you keep posting that stat 11% to 6.6% and its just not comparable. What would be the better argument to take, which the article you cite addresses, is that for the sport to become more equitable the sport must grow and that will increase revenue. The only way that can happen is if the game is grown from FIFA and US Soccer - which means putting more money into it - and yes, that includes increasing payouts.

I am in no way suggesting that the womens national team players should get paid on the level of Messi, Rooney, Ronaldo or Tim Howard. Or even Dempsey or Bradley. But if they want to grow the game, they need to pay more. Having said that, I think the US Women were well within their right to boycott the game.

And with respect to sexism, when you have the head of FIFA saying that female players should wear tighter shorts to help promote the game, I think sexism in FIFA extends beyond simply blocking women from playing on mens teams. Or when you have FIFA spending $24 million on producing United Passions, spending 1.5 times what it paid the womens teams in Canada last summer - theres some underlying problems.

philly1121;842612543 said:

---

And with respect to sexism, when you have the head of FIFA saying that female players should wear tighter shorts to help promote the game, I think sexism in FIFA extends beyond simply blocking women from playing on mens teams. Or when you have FIFA spending $24 million on producing United Passions, spending 1.5 times what it paid the womens teams in Canada last summer - theres some underlying problems.

---

The ironic thing is that the WTA pretty much does push selling on sex appeal and that's the only sport with equal pay - at least at the major tournaments.

beelzebear;842612491 said:

---

I get the stuff about sponsorship revenue being higher for the men. I can't and won't argue against that. As you guys have pointed out - it is what it is.

That said - the USWNT won the World Cup (a few plus a few Olympic gold), got a $2mil prize and given they're being paid at a 4-1 ratio lower than the men (who haven't won anything), the women should get paid at the same level - since they do the same amount of work. Interest in the game should not be the determining factor in pay rate. That's BS. Use the prize money. The logic is pretty easy - there would be no prize money if the USWNT didn't win it all. Reward positive outcomes. It's basic respect and it will go a long way in solidifying the US as a true power.

Reward the results, and given the women created the results, pay them some of the prize money.

---

Ok, let's try this again. You can't reward results with money you don't have. The women's tournament makes substantially less money than the men's. Despite that, the winners of the women's tournament received a higher proportion of the sponsorship revenue than the winners of the men's tournament (i.e. FIFA made more money off the men not just in absolute numbers but as a percentage as well). If anything, one could argue that the men are being exploited more than the women.

What you're effectively arguing is that the men's tournament should subsidize payments to the women's teams. How, exactly, is that fair? We do it in college sports with Title IX because the institutions receive money from the federal government, which is legally obligated to ensure equal participation. FIFA, and its member confederations, are private enterprises with no such obligations. They pay proportionate to the revenue that is received (and, as above, pay the women's winner a higher proportion). I, and many others, don't see the problem with the compensation scheme.

sketchy9;842612570 said:

---

Ok, let's try this again. You can't reward results with money you don't have. The women's tournament makes substantially less money than the men's. Despite that, the winners of the women's tournament received a higher proportion of the sponsorship revenue than the winners of the men's tournament (i.e. FIFA made more money off the men not just in absolute numbers but as a percentage as well). If anything, one could argue that the men are being exploited more than the women.

What you're effectively arguing is that the men's tournament should subsidize payments to the women's teams. How, exactly, is that fair? We do it in college sports with Title IX because the institutions receive money from the federal government, which is legally obligated to ensure equal participation. FIFA, and its member confederations, are private enterprises with no such obligations. They pay proportionate to the revenue that is received (and, as above, pay the women's winner a higher proportion). I, and many others, don't see the problem with the compensation scheme.

---

I suggest to say that to your wife, GF, daughter and mom, with a straight face.

Any way, lets NOT TRY THIS AGAIN. What I'm arguing is the USWNT won the WC and $2mil in prize money - so pay them some of that prize money to level the 4-1 compensation gap. That's all I'm saying. If you disagree, fine. I'm of the mind that you REWARD WINNERS and the USWNT has won consistently. That's it.

What part of that don't you understand?

beelzebear;842612584 said:

---

Any way, lets NOT TRY THIS AGAIN. What I'm arguing is the USWNT won the WC and $2mil in prize money - so pay them some of that prize money to level the 4-1 compensation gap.

---

So how do you know they are not being paid out of that money?

The USSF has to put a budget together to account for a lot of different contingencies, and because the team is expected to do well, it's likely that the money was mostly already budgeted for operating expenses and salaries. It's also $2 million for something that happens every 4 years, so even if you are talking about raises, it would be $10-20k per year per player.... if not already committed.

beelzebear;842612584 said:

---

I suggest to say that to your wife, GF, daughter and mom, with a straight face.

Any way, lets NOT TRY THIS AGAIN. What I'm arguing is the USWNT won the WC and $2mil in prize money - so pay them some of that prize money to level the 4-1 compensation gap. That's all I'm saying. If you disagree, fine. I'm of the mind that you REWARD WINNERS and the USWNT has won consistently. That's it.

What part of that don't you understand?

---

What makes you think I haven't spoken to the women in my life about this? Almost all of them agree with me on this issue.

You keep bringing up the 4:1 pay discrepancy, but as far as I can see from the links you've provided that refers to the $9 mil from the men's tournament in 2014 for the round of 16 vs. the $2 mil from the women's tournament in 2015. Again, this is money from FIFA distributed to US Soccer. Those numbers will not change anytime soon (nor, I would argue, should they, as they reflect the revenue FIFA receives for the respective tournaments). Now, I can honestly say I have no idea how US Soccer distributes that money to the national teams, but if it's similar to other soccer federations there's probably a fair amount of graft/kickbacks/&c. with the players and team receiving a small fraction. I'd love to see the numbers of how US Soccer spends the money it receives from both the men's and the women's tournaments-- once those are analyzed you can identify areas that are unnecessary and possibly increase the money the team itself receives.

Until then (and frankly I'm too lazy to hunt down those numbers), I will assume US Soccer distributes the money more or less the same way to the two teams (as a percentage of FIFA distributions) so, in effect, you are back to the issue of the women's tournament simply not bringing in enough money. Or, another way to think about it: it is more lucrative to be mediocre in a large, wealthy sport than to be top dog in a smaller, less-funded sport.

sketchy9;842612616 said:

---

Until then (and frankly I'm too lazy to hunt down those numbers), I will assume US Soccer distributes the money more or less the same way to the two teams (as a percentage of FIFA distributions) so, in effect, you are back to the issue of the women's tournament simply not bringing in enough money. Or, another way to think about it: it is more lucrative to be mediocre in a large, wealthy sport than to be top dog in a smaller, less-funded sport.

---

I can't find anything about women's payouts, but this article goes into how men's team players are paid.

http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2014/05/20/world-cup-usa-usmnt-player-bonuses-money-ussf

For WC 2014, $76k bonus x 23 players = $1.75 million of the ~ $9 million the USSF gets for WC participation and making it out of the group stage.

For friendly games, players get performance based bonuses: just $4k for a loss and up to $15k for a win against top 10 opponent.

Would like to see a reporter do a real analysis of the USWNT salaries and revenues instead of just these headline grabbing fluff they are putting out.