Football has become too soft. Too much, diving, theatrics and drama. It's become a woman game really. Now I think these women are on to something here, as if they travel the world earning money for the family by playing soccer it would allow for the man to stay at home to find out who in the neighbourhood can throw heavy stones the farthest.
US Soccer: No equal pay “because men have more responsibility”
- Thread starter Carolina Red
- Start date
A couple of things:
1. Men and women don't even have the same pay structure. Men have no salary and are paid per game with higher bonuses. Women take a base salary with lower bonuses.
2. The cutoff time used is very convenient. If you include 2014 in the data, then the men's overall revenue blows the women's overall revenue out of the water.
It's laughable that you keep using the gate receipts argument like it proves anything
You've chosen a period specifically where the figures suit your agenda. What are they like if you expand the parameters?
For all intensive purposes and for all intents and purposes are exactly the same thing and interchangable, I'm not sure if you know that. Must be an American thing.
Well hell, if you go back to 1990, the women’s World Cup doesn’t even exist.
Considering it is 2020, and we’ve had World Cup cycles in the Men’s and Women’s games since then, the fact that women are out earning men, that the USWNT Jersey is the highest selling jersey on Nike.com ever, the fact that more people watch the USWNT on TV than the men, and the fact that the USWNT players are more well known than the USMNT should be enough to get women in US Soccer paid equally. That doesn’t even take into effect that they win, which is something the men’s team has never done consistently.
Americans don't really care about football because you're not very good at it. That's the big thing here. You only care about the women because they happen to be one of if not the best teams.
I’ve chosen it? US Soccer released it in a financial filing FFS.It's laughable that you keep using the gate receipts argument like it proves anything
You've chosen a period specifically where the figures suit your agenda. What are they like if you expand the parameters?
For all intensive purposes and for all intents and purposes are exactly the same thing and interchangable, I'm not sure if you know that. Must be an American thing.
It’s funny that you can’t get it through that the USWNT is bigger than the USMNT.
I may be misreading this because it's late but with all due respect to the author the World cup purse is determined by the amount of revenue and views worldwide not TV ratings in USA alone. The Men's world cup being a billion dollar event. A slice of a billion is more than two slices of a hundred million. Now if it's true domestic women's football in the USA makes more money they should absolutely earn more on domestic competitions
Last edited:
I don't care. Nobody does man
None of this actually matters, especially not the bold part which is completely irrelevant.
USWNT and USMNT are two separate entities that have separate pay structures.
They get paid relative to their sport. Men's football is bigger. Men get more. What about that don't you understand?
“I could care less”I don't care. Nobody does man
(Since you love your fecked up idioms)
Not in the United States. And since we are talking about US Soccer paying US national teams in the United States...
What are you even going on about?
Are they both under the US Soccer umbrella?
Are they both in the US, and therefore required to adhere to the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act?
“For all intensive purposes” is the same as saying “I could care less”. It isn’t interchangeable, it is screwing up the idiom. “Must be a [condescendingly insert your nationality here] thing”What are you even going on about?
"For all intensive purposes" is a nonstandard (plain wrong, if you like) version of "for all intents and purposes" based on phonetic similarity.
In other words, no - they're not the same thing. One is correct English, the other isn't.
Trump must be putting something in the water over there I guess
Wow @Chesterlestreet - I guess you’ve got the “Trump water” too!
Yes, but the fact that the US women win more is irrelevant because they play in a different competition.
And the articles that claim the US women generate more revenue all have a cutoff point of 2015, which is extremely convenient. You could call it manipulating data.
Okay, I was grammatically incorrect, don't shoot me! I know you guys like to do that sort of thing
Well yeah, that’s why I put it last and said “that doesn’t even take into effect...” after having said all the stuff about how they’re making more money and are more popular within the US than the men.
I wouldn’t waste the bulletOkay, I was grammatically incorrect, don't shoot me! I know you guys like to do that sort of thing
What is the actual issue here? Because I see a lot of conflicting arguments; and I think clarification is quite pertinent. Is the issue that USWNT is asking for more money from USSF to bring them in line with what USSF pays the men? Or are they arguing for prize money to be greater for women's international tournaments? A directive issued by FIFA. What is the flow of money here? I really don't suppose there is much that can be done about the amount of prize money for the Women's world cup because it's already 30% of commercial revenue, but if the USSF are paying women lower appearance fees, lower bonuses, lower travel stipends etc., than the USMNT, then that is clearly wrong. Primarily because the Women's team is more commercially successful for the USSF than the men's team. And revenue generation, and commercial success are the only viable metrics for determining a gender pay difference.
Given the hundreds of billions of pounds at stake in men's football, and consequently the cost of insurance, and the financial impact of injury to key players for clubs while on international duty, not to mention the vast revenue generated from Men's international tournaments; it is practical that Men's international football - for many nations - will both cost more and pay more. USSF cannot really argue this is the case for their Men's and Women's teams. There are very few bonafide stars in the men's team on lucrative contracts - a small handful - and the women's team outsell the men's in tickets, viewers, and shirt sales. Sounds like a winning argument for equal or greater pay on behalf of USWNT.
Some people just want to see Women footballers paid less "because it's shit and no-one cares about it"; and while that may be true to some extent, the latter part of that statement is certainly not true when it comes to USWNT. The only sensible and dispassionate argument to be had here, not least so you don't look like a sexist, ignorant prat and also...you know....support good decisions, is to look at the inherent economics (costs and revenues) of the respective operations. It is also worth considering that if the women's game is going to grow, it is going to require some subsidization from the vast revenues in the men's game. People will balk at this, but the Men's game came to prominence in a domain with little incumbent competition at a time when women weren't expected or allowed to play sports in the same way. Now the rise of the women's game faces the huge juggernaut that is the Men's game, and competing for eyeballs in a market dominant by widely adopted, entrenched, and mature incumbents.
I want my daughter to have the same opportunities as afforded boys, and for this to happen we have to (a) equally reward the success of women in whatever field they occupy (and USWNT has had equal or greater commercial and sporting success than USMNT), and (b) invest in pathways to expand opportunities as a correction and recognition of the gender inequities of the past.
Given the hundreds of billions of pounds at stake in men's football, and consequently the cost of insurance, and the financial impact of injury to key players for clubs while on international duty, not to mention the vast revenue generated from Men's international tournaments; it is practical that Men's international football - for many nations - will both cost more and pay more. USSF cannot really argue this is the case for their Men's and Women's teams. There are very few bonafide stars in the men's team on lucrative contracts - a small handful - and the women's team outsell the men's in tickets, viewers, and shirt sales. Sounds like a winning argument for equal or greater pay on behalf of USWNT.
Some people just want to see Women footballers paid less "because it's shit and no-one cares about it"; and while that may be true to some extent, the latter part of that statement is certainly not true when it comes to USWNT. The only sensible and dispassionate argument to be had here, not least so you don't look like a sexist, ignorant prat and also...you know....support good decisions, is to look at the inherent economics (costs and revenues) of the respective operations. It is also worth considering that if the women's game is going to grow, it is going to require some subsidization from the vast revenues in the men's game. People will balk at this, but the Men's game came to prominence in a domain with little incumbent competition at a time when women weren't expected or allowed to play sports in the same way. Now the rise of the women's game faces the huge juggernaut that is the Men's game, and competing for eyeballs in a market dominant by widely adopted, entrenched, and mature incumbents.
I want my daughter to have the same opportunities as afforded boys, and for this to happen we have to (a) equally reward the success of women in whatever field they occupy (and USWNT has had equal or greater commercial and sporting success than USMNT), and (b) invest in pathways to expand opportunities as a correction and recognition of the gender inequities of the past.
Yep. I likes to wash down my eggcorns with a nice bottle of Trump water.
All this boils down to really is Americans having an inferiority complex. The men's team is trash so you want nothing to do with them. Meanwhile, the women are having a spell of dominance so you're all jumping on the women's football bandwagon and patting yourselves on the back congratulating yourselves on how great you are.I wouldn’t waste the bullet
When the men qualify for a world cup and become relevant again arguments like these will cease because the men will return to earning more than the women.
Is that like a Waldorf salad?
If they want equal paym then it should be based on equal footing and being up to the same standard as the men, ie play against or with the mens fottball teams, and see how they fair, if they can be a match for the men, you can think about equalling those certain players salries to match men, if not then they dont deserve equal pay, simple as
You’re an idiot.
Wait till you hear what tennis did...
I'm clearly joking at this point, you need to relax
What should happen in all seriousness is that the pay should be relative to performance IMO. That is only if we are talking about bonuses, appearance fees, etc. If the women do well then they should get their fair share. Exactly the same with the men. If the women keep outperforming the men then fair enough they deserve more.
You suggesting that because of a specific period in history where the women have earned more in gate receipts than the men due to multiple contributing factors is short-sighted.
Posted (from WSJ quoting USSF) because you suggested they weren’t as popular.
Well, it tastes very much like Waldorf salad - but it isn't actually Waldorf salad.
Sort of.
Seriously, though - it's a thing: "eggcorn" sounds like "acorn".
Should of = should have
Old-timer's disease = Alzheimer's disease
Biting one's time = biding one's time
...and so on.
Is that untrue?
What would the men's team earn in prize money for making the last 16 of the world cup? What would the women's team make for winning it?
I could be wrong but I'd be amazed if winning the women's world cup earned more prize money.
Tennis is a terrible example. Men's tennis is about 1000 times the game that women's tennis is.
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic is what brings people to the game.
And the ITF only equaled the prize money under pressure, but admitted that the money the generate comes for an overwhelming majority from the men's game.
Men even play best of 5 while women play best of 3, because people generally just don't want to watch more of the women's game. Meaning they actually work less for the same money if you think of it...
Now if women's football brings in as much as men's football, then yes, pay should be equal.
But I'm seeing mixed statistics regarding this topic, which is totally politically driven in the first place, so I just don't know. I believe women generated more in 2019, due to it being a women's world cup year. But during a men's world cup men generate probably heaps and heaps more.
I'm not doubting the credibility of the source. I believe exactly what it says.
You posted that because it supports your argument being from specifically 2015 onwards or whatever it was. I'm willing to bet that if you expand the parameters then the figures/financials would tell a different story.
Like I mentioned previously the USWNT may be more popular right now but that is pure because the USMNT has had one of it's worst periods recently so nobody is interested in them. Naturally, popularity during that time will decrease and with the USWNT winning all the time their popularity is at an all-time high.
What does FIFA awarded prize money got to do with an athlete’s “responsibility”?
They’re both teams representing the United States in an international tournament. They have equal responsibility.
Right. Damn Wimbledon and Roland Garros for paying those wimminfolk!
I mean, technically the men are dealing with much more exposure and pressure due to the bigger numbers involved in the men's side of the game.
I imagine that how the lawyers will be trying to spin the argument.