Odd photo choice.
If they were highlighting soccer, poor choice.
If they were highlighting the equality issue, poor choice.
If they were highlighting HER, poor choice. It doesn't even look like her.

For a cover? Wow. Poor.

My guess, they wanted to highlight athletic prowess over sweet abs and a hot body. Also I like that she's putting on a good fight for equal pay. Great representative of Cal; stellar ability, beauty and brains.

Yeah, this was more of an activist angle.

Great to have Alex making headlines, but as far as her cause is concerned, the pay gap in soccer between men and women is entirely justified by the differential in the level of commercial interest and athletic prowess between the men and women.

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

That gap is a lot smaller in tennis or gymnastics, where the gender earnings gap is conversely a lot smaller. And it's wider in basketball, also commensurate with the enormous gap in public interest between the NBA and WNBA.

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

Another Bear said:

---

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

---

By that same merit token, that Dallas U-15 boys team that crushed the USWNT should be paid at least as much as the USWNT, based on the results on the field...


The USMNT doesn't "suck", it has to play in a far more competitive international environment. By comparison, the world champion USWNT only have to contend with a half dozen other countries that play at a similarly competitive level. And once again, that level is vastly inferior to the men's, unlike in sports like tennis, volleyball or gymnastics, where the women are nearly as technically proficient as the men. Not the case in women's soccer, where the gap with the men is as much about technique as it is about physical strength.

As well, the players from that handful of countries that play high-level women's soccer (Japan, England, Sweden, Canada) come from leagues where many or most players are only part time pros or outright amateurs. Furthermore, the women's game is already heavily subsidized at the college, pro and international level through public funds and revenues from the men's game.

Also, the USWNT draws from a player pool that totally dwarfs that of the rest of the field, that pool is bigger than that of all of Europe combined.

I would guess Alex Morgan already outearns the entire rosters of most teams playing in the upcoming women's world cup, so she doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on in terms of pay equity, perhaps she could consider pitching in part of her salary in order to level that playing field...

Whatever

Yeah, it might not be politically correct to point out that the notion of a gender gap in international soccer is grossly overblown, or to dare poke holes in the feelgood headlines and narratives with basic rational arguments, but what the hell.

Indeed...what the hell. Screw everyone. Merit pay is a joke. My god, isn't there a way to make the USWNT work triple time...because you know, they don't win enough for American tastes.

Another Bear said:

---

Indeed...what the hell. Screw everyone. Merit pay is a joke. My god, isn't there a way to make the USWNT work triple time...because you know, they don't win enough for American tastes.

---

Agreed. What's wrong with women today? Don't they know their place? "Equal pay for equal work" - they'll take .75 on the $1.00 and like it. Better than barefoot and pregnant, amirite?
/s

Another Bear said:

---

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

---

Wins nor gender should dictate pay level.
Ticket sales, tv audience, jerseys and concessions.

How do the women compare to the men on that front?
Do the men get part of the overall FIFA World Cup TV revenue deal, which no doubt is immensely greater than the women's WC?
It will make for an interesting case study. How do you fairly allocate various revenue streams that the national soccer organization collects?

The weakest arguments I've heard from the players is when they highlight how they win and the men don't.

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

---

Wins nor gender should dictate pay level.
Ticket sales, tv audience, jerseys and concessions.

How do the women compare to the men on that front?
Do the men get part of the overall FIFA World Cup TV revenue deal, which no doubt is immensely greater than the women's WC?
It will make for an interesting case study. How do you fairly allocate various revenue streams that the national soccer organization collects?

The weakest arguments I've heard from the players is when they highlight how they win and the men don't.

---

Do you really want to get into a full critique of media coverage and bias?

In any case call me old school...I believe in paying WINNERS WHO WIN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL...and that ain't the USMNT.

Paying winners is about as American as it gets. All other talk is gibberish and cover for inequity, yes basic GOP doubletalk. In any case ask your kids how they feel about it.

Concordtom's take is quite sensible.

The whole notion of gender pay gap is pretty dubious, there is no gender gap for men and women with the same level of experience and professional background. But here in the case of women's soccer it's all the more blatant, the notion of "merit" and equal pay really doesn't hold much water.

There is no comparison between the level of competition and economic value of the World Cup, the world's most important athletic trophy, and the women's world cup. Do you really think the winners of the Women's Professional Football League deserve to be paid as much a the NFL champions?

This is just another case where a liberal mindset interferes with a rational examination of the factors involved (not that conservatives aren't prone to their own irrational dogmas). It's not about how your kids feel about it AB, it's about looking rationally at the factors here.

I think it's ridiculous that the BEST and highest paid ping pong player in the world makes only six figures while the top 25 tennis players of each gender make millions. SARCASM.

The market is determined by opportunity cost. I can play for x or I can make incredible money playing for y. That is how it works. There is no incredible money playing for y in women's soccer because nobody cares about it, except for the Olympics, in which case, some people do.

Paying winners isn't liberal BS...it's Darwinian rewards. Rewarding the victors is as old as time. Corruption and inequity is as well. Me, I'll take rewarding victors. It's a very simple idea.

i just won a game of scattergories on my smartphone. could you please pay me 500k? i won.

concordtom has it right. If TV/spectators pay for it, there is money to pay the players, men or women.

There do not need to be rules.

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

---

Wins nor gender should dictate pay level.
Ticket sales, tv audience, jerseys and concessions.

How do the women compare to the men on that front?
Do the men get part of the overall FIFA World Cup TV revenue deal, which no doubt is immensely greater than the women's WC?
It will make for an interesting case study. How do you fairly allocate various revenue streams that the national soccer organization collects?

The weakest arguments I've heard from the players is when they highlight how they win and the men don't.

---

Do you really want to get into a full critique of media coverage and bias?

In any case call me old school...I believe in paying WINNERS WHO WIN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL...and that ain't the USMNT.

Paying winners is about as American as it gets. All other talk is gibberish and cover for inequity, yes basic GOP doubletalk. In any case ask your kids how they feel about it.

---

I'm really good at checkers, undefeated actually. 10 straight world championships.
Pay me $10M please.

(If there's no revenue stream for something, you can't force pay for it.)

Look, AB, I have five daughters and have. Isched 20 girls soccer teams over the past 22 years. You don't have to argue equality with me, but just like it's not right for Cal football re e ur todo subsidize the golf team, it wouldn't be right for usmnt revenue (which is rightfully theirs) to subsidize uswnt.


The interesting debate is in tallying up the revenue that is to be assigned to each team.

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

---

Wins nor gender should dictate pay level.
Ticket sales, tv audience, jerseys and concessions.

How do the women compare to the men on that front?
Do the men get part of the overall FIFA World Cup TV revenue deal, which no doubt is immensely greater than the women's WC?
It will make for an interesting case study. How do you fairly allocate various revenue streams that the national soccer organization collects?

The weakest arguments I've heard from the players is when they highlight how they win and the men don't.

---

Do you really want to get into a full critique of media coverage and bias?

In any case call me old school...I believe in paying WINNERS WHO WIN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL...and that ain't the USMNT.

Paying winners is about as American as it gets. All other talk is gibberish and cover for inequity, yes basic GOP doubletalk. In any case ask your kids how they feel about it.

---

I'm really good at checkers, undefeated actually. 10 straight world championships.
Pay me $10M please.

(If there's no revenue stream for something, you can't force pay for it.)

Look, AB, I have five daughters and have. Isched 20 girls soccer teams over the past 22 years. You don't have to argue equality with me, but just like it's not right for Cal football re e ur todo subsidize the golf team, it wouldn't be right for usmnt revenue (which is rightfully theirs) to subsidize uswnt.


The interesting debate is in tallying up the revenue that is to be assigned to each team.

---

I'm going to leave this to discuss with your soccer playing kids. No doubt they're fine with women getting paid less even if they're wining more.

Lol. I just read the other comments above, which I only echoed.
Scattergories? Ping pong?
Ha!

I'll offer this: very poor of the World Cup 4 years ago not being able to plan for good grass fields, just like would be required for the men. That's an easy obvious one.

And, i love watching the uswnt. I'm sure I've watched and read about them better than anyone here. I've got several former (female) players now on scholarship in college.

But it's unfair to demand equal pay when we don't know US Soccer's financial books are for the men's and women's side of things.

I certainly am on the side of the women here! I hope they get their pay upped! But I'd have to see the books before I rule a verdict. And just saying they win more so should be paid more? That dog don't hunt.

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Considering the success of the USWNT...they would be paid equally as the men based on merit. Screw the market rate crap because this is NATIONAL soccer in international competition, not a league.

The USMNT sucks and the fact the USWNT out-performs them by a huge margin says things are broken. Merit pay for the USWNT seems more than fair given the success.

---

Wins nor gender should dictate pay level.
Ticket sales, tv audience, jerseys and concessions.

How do the women compare to the men on that front?
Do the men get part of the overall FIFA World Cup TV revenue deal, which no doubt is immensely greater than the women's WC?
It will make for an interesting case study. How do you fairly allocate various revenue streams that the national soccer organization collects?

The weakest arguments I've heard from the players is when they highlight how they win and the men don't.

---

Do you really want to get into a full critique of media coverage and bias?

In any case call me old school...I believe in paying WINNERS WHO WIN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL...and that ain't the USMNT.

Paying winners is about as American as it gets. All other talk is gibberish and cover for inequity, yes basic GOP doubletalk. In any case ask your kids how they feel about it.

---

I'm really good at checkers, undefeated actually. 10 straight world championships.
Pay me $10M please.

(If there's no revenue stream for something, you can't force pay for it.)

Look, AB, I have five daughters and have. Isched 20 girls soccer teams over the past 22 years. You don't have to argue equality with me, but just like it's not right for Cal football re e ur todo subsidize the golf team, it wouldn't be right for usmnt revenue (which is rightfully theirs) to subsidize uswnt.


The interesting debate is in tallying up the revenue that is to be assigned to each team.

---

I'm going to leave this to discuss with your soccer playing kids. No doubt they're fine with women getting paid less even if they're wining more.

---

Dude. It's the exact same conversation I'd have with them over employment decisions. You can make bank if you go into Investment Management. Or you can make less as a teacher. Because the money is not there in teaching (sadly!).

It's moot for us to debate this further without knowing the financial bookkeeping. Of course I'm for equal pay. But is the revenue stream there to support it??

And why do you think it's proper for women to be subsidized by men, if men draw 10x the fans and revenue than women?

It's not like the women's game is being shut out. They have the opportunity to grow their sport, as they are doing.

Maybe Kareem Abdul Jabber should demand some of Lebton's Laker paycheck. Kareem helped build up the franchise, the sport, the league. Unfair?

If you believe women are being subsidized by men, I believe you should be talking to a woman about this. Good luck.

I have no idea if women are being subsidized, and don't put words in my mouth.
I said I'd have to see and be educated about the books. I said that it wouldn't be right for group A to subsidize group B.

I do not understand how the men get paid so much more, because the women sell plenty of tickets in even more home games than the men play. But I do not know all the various revenue streams for both squads. I'd like to be placed on the jury for a future court case here.

The TV rights for the FIFA World Cup dwarf that of the Women's World Cup, though it might not be easy to determine by what factor because broadcasting rights might be sold as a bundle by FIFA. For European or Latin American markets, I would guess that the rights to the men's World Cup are well over 10x higher, as is the global sponsorship package.

Average attendance for USWNT friendlies are around 14k/game, roughly half of the USMNT's, which has hovered around the mid/high 30ks in World Cup years down to the mid-20ks recently. I would also guess that tix for the men's games are more expensive.

But all these facts are moot, because in an argument between basic economics and the feelings of your wife or young daughters, the latter will always get the upper hand...

The USWNT has won and won BIG and has won consistently. I simply believe in rewarding success, especially if it's defined as EQUAL pay as the USMNT, who frankly suck big hairy donkey balls.

All the free-market and TV revenue stuff is a smoke screen for plain old fashion sexism.

If you lads disagree, so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree but really, tell your side to your daughters and wives. They will absolutely love you for it and will do anything you say after that. Really they will!

I agree with everything you've said politically on the other threads. Here, I think you are thinking wrong.

The post right above you discussed some of the $ revenue factors. I don't know how you get around that.

Maybe you have bill gates money and are wondering where to mail in your donation to top off the women's salaries.

It sucks. But if people don't watch the women as much as the men, or as much as ping pong, scattergories, or checkers, where are you proposing the differential amount of money come from?

They are separate teams, with separate budgets. Why is that not acceptable?
You want to run them under one equal combined accounting?

Football subsidizing golf.
Not right.

The USWNT doesn't deserve equal pay because it doesn't generate equal revenue.

Brevity, conciseness, is a virtue!

Women are up 1-0 against Mexico 35 minutes into the match. it started at 9 AM. It is on ESPN for those interested.

Wow, the Mexico goalie passed it to a defender that was not looking, rolled past her, straight to Heath for a point blank shot.

dajo9 said:

---

The USWNT doesn't deserve equal pay because it doesn't generate equal revenue.

---

Almost certainly true. A remaining open question is just how much the pay gap should be. It's possible they do deserve more than they get now.

No goals for Baby Horse.