|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Jun 27, 2021 19:13:31 GMT -5
Facts are stubborn things. And so, Rapinoe and her teammates argued that, even though they received more money than their male counterparts, they were, nevertheless, victims of discrimination. Why? Because they would have earned even more had they been paid under the men’s pay structure, which offers higher bonuses. It turns out, the Women’s National Team earned approximately $24 million overall; the Men’s National Team earned only $18 million. The average take per game was $220,747 for the women’s team, compared to $212,639 for the men’s team. And while the individual female plaintiffs made an average of $11,356 to $17,416 per game, the four highest-paid male players made an average of $10,360 to $13,964 per game. www.zerohedge.com/political/rapinoe-no-victim-us-womens-soccer-team-earned-more-mens-teamNever let the truth get in the way of a good narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by soccermaxx72 on Jun 27, 2021 20:42:54 GMT -5
Facts are stubborn things. And so, Rapinoe and her teammates argued that, even though they received more money than their male counterparts, they were, nevertheless, victims of discrimination. Why? Because they would have earned even more had they been paid under the men’s pay structure, which offers higher bonuses. It turns out, the Women’s National Team earned approximately $24 million overall; the Men’s National Team earned only $18 million. The average take per game was $220,747 for the women’s team, compared to $212,639 for the men’s team. And while the individual female plaintiffs made an average of $11,356 to $17,416 per game, the four highest-paid male players made an average of $10,360 to $13,964 per game. www.zerohedge.com/political/rapinoe-no-victim-us-womens-soccer-team-earned-more-mens-teamNever let the truth get in the way of a good narrative. So very true but as a famous author I once said: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Post by BubbleDad on Jun 28, 2021 0:11:39 GMT -5
Look what they had to go through for them to make more than the men and from the numbers you posted ... they should be making double what the men make due to their success.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Jun 28, 2021 11:20:26 GMT -5
Look what they had to go through for them to make more than the men and from the numbers you posted ... they should be making double what the men make due to their success. 1. you didn't read the article 2. you don't acknowledge the history (women had a chance to take the same deal as men in 2017, they declined) 3. you don't understand basic economics: revenue generation matters >> success on the pitch But thanks for commenting. |
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 11:43:02 GMT -5
An overaged Millionaire player that has a guaranteed contract complaining for more from a league that doesn’t generate the same venue as the men’s league.. doesn’t the men’s have an age restriction where women don’t?
|
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Jun 28, 2021 11:46:56 GMT -5
The biggest issue seems to be FIFA payouts for men's world cup v. women's world cup. Bad men's teams receive a lot more money from the prize pool than the winning women's team but that is based on advertising revenue and TV contracts being much bigger for the men's game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jun 28, 2021 11:58:55 GMT -5
Wondering if that 2017 deal that was supposedly the same as the mens, is just like how the NCAA treat men’s and women’s sports like basketball as the “same and equal”.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 12:38:32 GMT -5
So u saying the men’s FIFA World Cup generated more venue and had a larger team for bonus money payout based on % to the women’s smaller pool of teams and lower generated funds for % bonus money ? Hmmm, I wonder what the judges ruling on that was..🧐🤔. So back to who generates more funds, men’s, women or equal ? What’s the split of bonus money… is the % greater or less than for the women? If greater in % than the discussion is muted.. FIFA has already mentioned increasing team pool from 24 to 32 and nearly doubling the pay money up to 60m from 30m.. assuming the men’s payout will be increased also since 2026 is moving to 16 grouping = 48 finalists teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogan on Jun 28, 2021 12:41:38 GMT -5
Must be summer time…
|
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 13:00:44 GMT -5
Men’s BB March madness far exceeds the women’s tournament in venue… w/o researching, worst case, the men’s NIT tournament probably generates more for the mens side..
back to who generates more venue and sponsorship in soccer .. If it’s about equality of outcome concerning bonus money from generated funds from viewership and sponsorships, easy, join the men’s and women’s WC and compete in an unisex tournament for the same % of bonus money.
Everything circles back to generated venue and sponsorship..
|
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Jun 28, 2021 13:13:55 GMT -5
So u saying the men’s FIFA World Cup generated more venue and had a larger team for bonus money payout based on % to the women’s smaller pool of teams and lower generated funds for % bonus money ? Hmmm, I wonder what the judges ruling on that was..🧐🤔. So back to who generates more funds, men’s, women or equal ? What’s the split of bonus money… is the % greater or less than for the women? If greater in % than the discussion is muted.. FIFA has already mentioned increasing team pool from 24 to 32 and nearly doubling the pay money up to 60m from 30m.. assuming the men’s payout will be increased also since 2026 is moving to 16 grouping = 48 finalists teams. For 2018 world cup, I am seeing different figures but men prize pool was between $400 and $791 million. |
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jun 28, 2021 13:34:54 GMT -5
Men’s BB March madness far exceeds the women’s tournament in venue… w/o researching, worst case, the men’s NIT tournament probably generates more for the mens side.. back to who generates more venue and sponsorship in soccer .. If it’s about equality of outcome concerning bonus money from generated funds from viewership and sponsorships, easy, join the men’s and women’s WC and compete in an unisex tournament for the same % of bonus money. Everything circles back to generated venue and sponsorship.. That’s the issue. It shouldn’t circle back to who generates more money. These aren’t businesses. They are all performing the same job. This is why the ncaa will fold in the next decade because a bunch greedy old men don’t want to share and don’t respect women as equals. |
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 14:24:21 GMT -5
It’s all about business and the bottom dollar being generated from entertainment value, government funding, merchandising to name a few with professional sports…. Again, back to revenue being generated for profit sharing for men and women sports..
FIFA and US Soccer are supposedly non profit so a net zero income would bankrupt the whole system. Doesn’t the men and women play under signed CBAs with US soccer? Hmm..,
Based on an article dated 2019, men’s WC generated 6B and profit shared 7% to the teams and women’s WC generated 131m and 20% profit shared to the teams.. last checked, 20 is larger than 7 and 6 billion is a larger pot than 131 million.. Not even close ..
Even in 2015, female teams profit sharing was 13% compared to men’s 9% and revenue difference was 73M to 4B..
|
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 14:36:21 GMT -5
Playing the same sport. true, a sport played under different budget constraints, different leagues, rules and restrictions and world wide talent pool , etc.. if it’s about equal share of the profits .. combine both pots of revenue and play equally on the field for greater share of bonus pay outs..
|
|
|
|
Post by fridge on Jun 28, 2021 14:44:15 GMT -5
It’s all about business and the bottom dollar being generated from entertainment value, government funding, merchandising to name a few with professional sports…. Again, back to revenue being generated for profit sharing for men and women sports.. FIFA and US Soccer are supposedly non profit so a net zero income would bankrupt the whole system. Doesn’t the men and women play under signed CBAs with US soccer? Hmm.., Based on an article dated 2019, men’s WC generated 6B and profit shared 7% to the teams and women’s WC generated 131m and 20% profit shared to the teams.. last checked, 20 is larger than 7 and 6 billion is a larger pot than 131 million.. Not even close .. Even in 2015, female teams profit sharing was 13% compared to men’s 9% and revenue difference was 73M to 4B.. The $6,000,000,000 Billion v. $131,000,000 Million is a 45X difference on the revenue side (and that's just for TV--as the men likely sold many more and higher priced tickets as well). On the expense side, I suspect the overhead numbers are relatively close (since both had to rent stadiums, etc.) and not 45X difference like the revenue side. Stated differently, the men's tournament w/ that TV revenue had to be incredibly profitable (lets say 20% which is $1.2 BILLION where the woman's tournament likely was much less profitable say 10% which is $13 MILLION). The math just doesn't work. That is, if you care about the math that .... |
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Jun 28, 2021 16:12:48 GMT -5
It’s all about business and the bottom dollar being generated from entertainment value, government funding, merchandising to name a few with professional sports…. Again, back to revenue being generated for profit sharing for men and women sports.. FIFA and US Soccer are supposedly non profit so a net zero income would bankrupt the whole system. Doesn’t the men and women play under signed CBAs with US soccer? Hmm.., Based on an article dated 2019, men’s WC generated 6B and profit shared 7% to the teams and women’s WC generated 131m and 20% profit shared to the teams.. last checked, 20 is larger than 7 and 6 billion is a larger pot than 131 million.. Not even close .. Even in 2015, female teams profit sharing was 13% compared to men’s 9% and revenue difference was 73M to 4B.. The $6,000,000,000 Billion v. $131,000,000 Million is a 45X difference on the revenue side (and that's just for TV--as the men likely sold many more and higher priced tickets as well). On the expense side, I suspect the overhead numbers are relatively close (since both had to rent stadiums, etc.) and not 45X difference like the revenue side. Stated differently, the men's tournament w/ that TV revenue had to be incredibly profitable (lets say 20% which is $1.2 BILLION where the woman's tournament likely was much less profitable say 10% which is $13 MILLION). The math just doesn't work. That is, if you care about the math that .... It's not about facts, it's about feelings... |
|
|
|
Post by ball2futbol on Jun 28, 2021 16:58:16 GMT -5
It’s all about business and the bottom dollar being generated from entertainment value, government funding, merchandising to name a few with professional sports…. Again, back to revenue being generated for profit sharing for men and women sports.. FIFA and US Soccer are supposedly non profit so a net zero income would bankrupt the whole system. Doesn’t the men and women play under signed CBAs with US soccer? Hmm.., Based on an article dated 2019, men’s WC generated 6B and profit shared 7% to the teams and women’s WC generated 131m and 20% profit shared to the teams.. last checked, 20 is larger than 7 and 6 billion is a larger pot than 131 million.. Not even close .. Even in 2015, female teams profit sharing was 13% compared to men’s 9% and revenue difference was 73M to 4B.. This entire statement brought back bad memories of a similar convo, were people on this blog threw around data and used it incorrectly to justify their beliefs. I think those particular convos took place in the summertime as well. |
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 18:04:06 GMT -5
How’s the data being used incorrectly?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldboy on Jun 28, 2021 20:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Jun 28, 2021 20:26:33 GMT -5
Behind a paywall. Care to summarize? |
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 28, 2021 21:53:49 GMT -5
Good thang your link to the WSJ doesn’t require a subscription but here’s the free ESPN link: www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usaw/story/4410491/us-soccer-president-on-equal-pay-making-up-difference-in-fifa-money-untenableSporting news: www.sportingnews.com/ca/soccer/news/womens-world-cup-prize-money-how-much-winners-make-2019-purse-payouts/n3ex8w6kd2zt1siy06hkff3p1Money: money.com/world-cup-2019-womens-soccer-salary-prize-money/Goal: www.goal.com/en/news/what-is-fifas-prize-money-for-the-womens-world-cup-2019-how-does-/1prr3je0vxxyk193owz0eijhj4The solid argument that FIFA has is the stark difference in men and women's World Cup prize money totals is that there is greater interest in the men's game, resulting in far higher revenues. The Women's World Cup in 2015 reportedly raked in $73m (£57m) in revenues, including $17m (£13m) in television commercials alone in the United States. But these are just fractions of the $6b (£4b) of revenue that the 2018 Men's World Cup brought in in Russia. WP: www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/05/01/judge-rules-against-us-womens-national-soccer-team-equal-pay-lawsuit/“The history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT [women's national team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [men's national team], and the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players,” Klausner wrote in his opinion. The men’s team is paid for individual performances in a pay-for-play model, while the women CBA opted for a pay structure that includes more security in the form of negotiated annual salaries, maternity and child-care benefits, and severance pay when they are no longer on the team. ...in ruling in favor of U.S. Soccer on the pay issue, the judge noted that the women’s national team had rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-for-play model as the men, instead opting for more guaranteed money. The court found the women’s team could not, then, retroactively claim that its collective bargaining agreement was inferior to that of the men’s. It also noted the difficulty of quantifying the added job security that the women’s contracts guaranteed, unlike the men. Full circle back to the difference in revenue generated on the worldwide scale is different in the finical investment… it comes down to the willingness to equal the $$ investments into the gender sports… higher the interest in market shares worldwide, higher the profit-sharing bonus payouts. If the bonus sharing % is larger than the men’s for winning or placing, then the discussion is muted; it is the size of the money pot making the difference and nothing to do with equal pay for equal work. Its like comparing the NBA to WNBA gobal worth ... same sport, men and women players supposely playing the same game BUT... which WNBA player carrries the same market value as Lebron, Kobe, or MJ? The solution is simple for equal pay for equal work: abolish women’s soccer and open up men’s soccer to women. Now we can compare, person to person, position to position, and how well each player performs and teams can be composed of the best players, both men and women resulting equal share of bonues. |
|
|
|
Post by BubbleDad on Jun 28, 2021 23:58:22 GMT -5
Look what they had to go through for them to make more than the men and from the numbers you posted ... they should be making double what the men make due to their success. 1. you didn't read the article 2. you don't acknowledge the history (women had a chance to take the same deal as men in 2017, they declined) 3. you don't understand basic economics: revenue generation matters >> success on the pitch But thanks for commenting. I don't need to read the article. Yes to #3 ... Men's national team is generating more $? |
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Jun 29, 2021 19:17:30 GMT -5
One of the problems with having MLS/SUM/USSF joined at the hip(yes, still) and with shady/opaque accounting is, who knows what the expenses are. MLS is a black hole, per owners. So they are lying, or are taking funds from elsewhere.
What we'll probably find out(duh) is that MLS/USSF/SUM are taking funds that should be (could be, at least) going to players on the USWNT AND USMNT.
Remember also, the USSF is a non-profit whose mission is to grow the game. Revenue is supposed to be spread to the areas that need to grow, contrary to the points made above.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacoach on Jun 29, 2021 21:43:25 GMT -5
Still missing the point of men’s soccer generates more revenue, have more world wide presence(teams), and larger world wide appeal($$) plus the women’s bonus % payout is more then the men’s for some time now..
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Jun 30, 2021 5:15:26 GMT -5
A revelation that I learned from this post:
The men’s game is more popular and makes more money.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogan on Jun 30, 2021 5:30:24 GMT -5
A revelation that I learned from this post: The men’s game is more popular and makes more money. Hang around a while-you’ll learn a lot. Rumor has it, some of it may even be true |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jun 30, 2021 12:45:47 GMT -5
That’s the issue. It shouldn’t circle back to who generates more money. These aren’t businesses. They are all performing the same job. This is why the ncaa will fold in the next decade because a bunch greedy old men don’t want to share and don’t respect women as equals.
These aren't businesses?  What planet do you think you're on? Is there not transacted money (aka business) happening? But the same job? Really? An accountant for a small town accounting firm and one for JP Morgan Chase in NYC are doing the same job...yet they aren't paid the same. Same career, different jobs. Should an actor in an independent film be paid as much as a Hollywood blockbuster actor? Again, same job.
I think the answer to all of this is either women compete in the same leagues as men or figure out how to generate equal revenue. Either they're the same or they're not, period. Can't have it both ways.
There are unfairness-es within the US Federation, and some of those will be rectified, but its also a CBA the women agreed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Jun 30, 2021 19:27:09 GMT -5
That’s the issue. It shouldn’t circle back to who generates more money. These aren’t businesses. They are all performing the same job. This is why the ncaa will fold in the next decade because a bunch greedy old men don’t want to share and don’t respect women as equals.
These aren't businesses? What planet do you think you're on? Is there not transacted money (aka business) happening? But the same job? Really? An accountant for a small town accounting firm and one for JP Morgan Chase in NYC are doing the same job...yet they aren't paid the same. Same career, different jobs. Should an actor in an independent film be paid as much as a Hollywood blockbuster actor? Again, same job.
I think the answer to all of this is either women compete in the same leagues as men or figure out how to generate equal revenue. Either they're the same or they're not, period. Can't have it both ways.
There are unfairness-es within the US Federation, and some of those will be rectified, but its also a CBA the women agreed to.
Not sure what you are confused about. While the USSF is a corporation, its designation as a 501c3 by the IRS means that is a charitable organization that must adhere to its stated charitable mission. I quote from the USSF: "To promote and govern soccer in the United States in order to make it the preeminent sport recognized for excellence in participation, spectator appeal, international competitions and gender equality" So. Please get your facts straight if you want to discuss usmnt and uswnt on this message board. |
|
|
|
Post by hotspur1 on Jun 30, 2021 20:20:55 GMT -5
These aren't businesses? What planet do you think you're on? Is there not transacted money (aka business) happening? But the same job? Really? An accountant for a small town accounting firm and one for JP Morgan Chase in NYC are doing the same job...yet they aren't paid the same. Same career, different jobs. Should an actor in an independent film be paid as much as a Hollywood blockbuster actor? Again, same job.
I think the answer to all of this is either women compete in the same leagues as men or figure out how to generate equal revenue. Either they're the same or they're not, period. Can't have it both ways.
There are unfairness-es within the US Federation, and some of those will be rectified, but its also a CBA the women agreed to.
Not sure what you are confused about. While the USSF is a corporation, its designation as a 501c3 by the IRS means that is a charitable organization that must adhere to its stated charitable mission. I quote from the USSF: "To promote and govern soccer in the United States in order to make it the preeminent sport recognized for excellence in participation, spectator appeal, international competitions and gender equality" So. Please get your facts straight if you want to discuss usmnt and uswnt on this message board. And they do this by paying the men more since it drives more revenue. Not sure the argument you are making footy. Charitable organizations and non profits are still businesses. They must increase revenue to stay operational. |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jun 30, 2021 20:37:23 GMT -5
Not sure what you are confused about. While the USSF is a corporation, its designation as a 501c3 by the IRS means that is a charitable organization that must adhere to its stated charitable mission. I quote from the USSF: "To promote and govern soccer in the United States in order to make it the preeminent sport recognized for excellence in participation, spectator appeal, international competitions and gender equality" So. Please get your facts straight if you want to discuss usmnt and uswnt on this message board. And they do this by paying the men more since it drives more revenue. Not sure the argument you are making footy. Charitable organizations and non profits are still businesses. They must increase revenue to stay operational. I think the point is that their mission is to promote the sport. The women's team and having girls play the sport will help make it the preeminent sport. Money spent on the women helps promote the sport which is part of the mission. It is not about World Cup money which the men did not qualify for so is pretty irrelevant. It is about exposing more people to the sport so they will watch it. Midge Purce made a great statement about investing in women's sports. You have to lay out the cash initially if you want it to succeed. She said it very eloquently and it makes sense. |
|
What planet do you think you're on? Is there not transacted money (aka business) happening?
