2019 Women's World Cup

764dak

Carcharodon wrote: »

The male players obviously earn a lot more at club levwhy would they even care if women got the same on the international level.

T he men don't care. It's between the women and the federation. The women agreed to the current CBA a few years ago.

Carcharodon

764dak wrote: »

T he men don't care. It's between the women and the federation. The women agreed to the current CBA a few years ago.

I live in the states and as great as an achievement it is, you won’t hear about women’s soccer for another 4 years. Maybe give them a bonus for winning, they will make a ton of money off advertising for the next few months

FatherTed

Carcharodon wrote: »

Iam honestly confused by the whole equal pay thing. Are there any good articles out there about it ?
They basically want to get paid the same as the men’s but how much do international players receive ? It surely can’t be that much, is it based on income generated, this can surely be easily looked at.
The male players obviously earn a lot more at club level so why would they even care if women got the same on the international level.
One could make many arguments either way but the whole thing seems very muddled right now.

The US womens team gets paid way less than the US mens team for World Cup appearances(+bonuses etc) despite actually winning the WC and their games in the US are attended probably as much if not higher than the under-performing mens team in the last few years. The counter argument to that is the mens WC generates way more revenue than the womens WC.

It's also further complicated as the USSF(US Soccer Federation) pays the US Womens Team members(e.g. maybe 40 players) their salary for the clubs they play for in the NWSL which is typically higher than the max player salary in that league.

I agree with the women to a certain extent but my problem with them is they complained about this after the last WC and then signed an agreement with the USSF for the current pay rates in 2017. If they weren't happy with the agreement back then they shouldn't have signed it.

Detailed article if you want to get into it: https://www.sbnation.com/2019/6/7/18653950/uswnt-pay-equality-lawsuit-gender-discrimination-us-soccer

BTW Ireland is playing the US at the Rose Bowl in California on August 3rd.

Blinky Plebum

FatherTed wrote: »

The US womens team gets paid way less than the US mens team for World Cup appearances(+bonuses etc) despite actually winning the WC and their games in the US are attended probably as much if not higher than the under-performing mens team in the last few years. The counter argument to that is the mens WC generates way more revenue than the womens WC.

It's also further complicated as the USSF(US Soccer Federation) pays the US Womens Team members(e.g. maybe 40 players) their salary for the clubs they play for in the NWSL which is typically higher than the max player salary in that league.

I agree with the women to a certain extent but my problem with them is they complained about this after the last WC and then signed an agreement with the USSF for the current pay rates in 2017. If they weren't happy with the agreement back then they shouldn't have signed it.

Detailed article if you want to get into it: https://www.sbnation.com/2019/6/7/18653950/uswnt-pay-equality-lawsuit-gender-discrimination-us-soccer

BTW Ireland is playing the US at the Rose Bowl in California on August 3rd.

Another point that never seems to get mentioned but is key is that the women have a much weaker bargaining position than the men.

The men don't need to play for the USA to earn a good living as they can earn good money in MLS and massive money playing in europe.The female players need US soccer to make anything serious from the game.

~Rebel~

FatherTed wrote: »

The US womens team gets paid way less than the US mens team for World Cup appearances(+bonuses etc) despite actually winning the WC and their games in the US are attended probably as much if not higher than the under-performing mens team in the last few years. The counter argument to that is the mens WC generates way more revenue than the womens WC.

It's also further complicated as the USSF(US Soccer Federation) pays the US Womens Team members(e.g. maybe 40 players) their salary for the clubs they play for in the NWSL which is typically higher than the max player salary in that league.

I agree with the women to a certain extent but my problem with them is they complained about this after the last WC and then signed an agreement with the USSF for the current pay rates in 2017. If they weren't happy with the agreement back then they shouldn't have signed it.

Detailed article if you want to get into it: https://www.sbnation.com/2019/6/7/18653950/uswnt-pay-equality-lawsuit-gender-discrimination-us-soccer

BTW Ireland is playing the US at the Rose Bowl in California on August 3rd.

The men's world cup as a tournament generates more money than the women's world cup, but the US Women's team actually generates slightly more money than the US Men's team.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html wrote:

U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years.

That’s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women’s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men’s games. From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games.

Guy:Incognito

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The men's world cup as a tournament generates more money than the women's world cup, but the US Women's team actually generates slightly more money than the US Men's team.

Thats 2 different arguments though and all the eejits on twitter have no understanding of the situation beyond a head line and sticking "pay them more" on their tweet.

Huge amounts of winging about FIFA gong on.

The equal pay discussion is between the US federation and its players, for playing international games in general.

The money they receive from FIFA for playing in the WC is different altogether and as a percentage, the women get more than the mens teams for playing in a WC. It's just basic economics after that in that the mens WC generates vastly more than the womens, so the men get more actual money but its a lower percentage of the actual amount generated by the tournament.

The blindingly obvious tell tale that the people havnt a clue what they are on about and are jumping on a twitter campaign they dont know anything about and dont seem interested in actually reading about is the comments that the womens team are better than the men team and would beat them. As well as the direct comparison of tournaments won between the 2, as if its of equal quality and if the US womens team had entered the mens WC that theyd have won 4 tournaments in the last 20 odd years.

~Rebel~

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats 2 different arguments though and all the eejits on twitter have no understanding of the situation beyond a head line and sticking "pay them more" on their tweet.

Huge amounts of winging about FIFA gong on.

The equal pay discussion is between the US federation and its players, for playing international games in general.

The money they receive from FIFA for playing in the WC is different altogether and as a percentage, the women get more than the mens teams for playing in a WC. It's just basic economics after that in that the mens WC generates vastly more than the womens, so the men get more actual money but its a lower percentage of the actual amount generated by the tournament.

The blindingly obvious tell tale that the people havnt a clue what they are on about and are jumping on a twitter campaign they dont know anything about and dont seem interested in actually reading about is the comments that the womens team are better than the men team and would beat them. As well as the direct comparison of tournaments won between the 2, as if its of equal quality and if the US womens team had entered the mens WC that theyd have won 4 tournaments in the last 20 odd years.

This seems the most important bit, and it's what makes it look like the women are being underpaid. The men's WC of course pulls in much higher revenue than the women's, but as far as the US is concerned, that's sort of irrelevant, since the men couldn't even manage to qualify for it. So over the past 4 year cycle, the women have generated more money than the men, but are still being paid significantly less. They're about the only women's team in the world that deserves something close to parity with their male equivalents, on merit and actual financial production.

You're right though that it has feck all to do with Fifa, and is all about the US football association.

764dak

The men played 49 games over 3 years (2016 to 2018) and generated revenue of $49.9 million. The women played 61 games and generated $50.8 million. So the men are more productive?

~Rebel~

764dak wrote: »

The men played 49 games over 3 years (2016 to 2018) and generated revenue of $49.9 million. The women played 61 games and generated $50.8 million. So the men are more productive?

I mean, per game they would have been bringing in more, but as you said, the women did more work and so generated more income as a result... I'm sure the women would be quite happy to play more games per calendar year than the lads, but get a somewhat similar annual pay for generating a similar revenue figure.

764dak

FatherTed wrote: »

their games in the US are attended probably as much if not higher than the under-performing mens team in the last few years.

Home games for men in 2018 (all friendlies) averaged 24,163:
https://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/12/12/usmnt-average-attendance-2018-worst-since-2006/
The high

Home games for women in 2018 (friendlies, SheBelieves Cup, Tournament of Nations, CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying) averaged 14,064:
http://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/12/13/uswnt-average-attendance-declines-22-percent-in-2018/

764dak

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af214f2cf878

A contract player on the women’s team makes a base salary and can earn performance-based bonuses. (Players without a contract have a different pay schedule.)

On the men’s team, players earn only bonuses.

“The male players are paid when they play, but not when they sit,” McCann said. “USMNT players must thus be on the roster to be pay eligible. USWNT players, in contrast, are guaranteed pay.”

The Fact Checker obtained the new agreement, which took effect in April 2017. Using the same 20-game scenario, we calculated the player on the women’s team would earn $28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player. If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount. That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary.

Leroy42

But would the women winning the world cup have no crossover to the men's game?

The issue with basing it on revenue generated is that it firstly take mo account of the costs involved (PR etc.) but importantly the women have no option. They can't decide to leave the wowens team and get better paid in the men's team, regardless of their ability.

They are representing their country and should be treated the same. Either the men get less or the federations will have to focus the same amount across them both.

Take the Irish team for example. Only recently they didn't even get the same level of gear. That has nothing to do with revenue and purely down to the seriousness it is taken by the FAI.

is_that_so

Leroy42 wrote: »

But would the women winning the world cup have no crossover to the men's game?

The issue with basing it on revenue generated is that it firstly take mo account of the costs involved (PR etc.) but importantly the women have no option. They can't decide to leave the wowens team and get better paid in the men's team, regardless of their ability.

They are representing their country and should be treated the same. Either the men get less or the federations will have to focus the same amount across them both.

Take the Irish team for example. Only recently they didn't even get the same level of gear. That has nothing to do with revenue and purely down to the seriousness it is taken by the FAI.

The US scenario is not matching like with like. There's no denying that the women earn a lot less per match and that needs to be addressed but the US men don't actually cost the federation anything when they are not playing. What is needed on top of a change to what they get per match is more league clubs who will pay their basic salary.

764dak

is_that_so wrote: »

The US scenario is not matching like with like. There's no denying that the women earn a lot less per match and that needs to be addressed but the US men don't actually cost the federation anything when they are not playing. What is needed on top of a change to what they get per match is more league clubs who will pay their basic salary.

League clubs from where?

Guy:Incognito

764dak wrote: »

League clubs from where?

America. A proper league structure , the same as the mens where the club is your employer and you represent your country for essentially expenses (and bonuses) .

Look at the amount of caps the women regularly rack up. More than plenty of men manage in the league.

Just had a quick look at there are 33 womens with more caps than the top capped man. The top capped woman has nearly twice the caps of the top man.

If you look at their club careers, the women have vastly less games played. Its sporadic. 10 or 15 games a year here and there.

The problem is funding and sustainability for a league though.

764dak

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

America. A proper league structure , the same as the mens where the club is your employer and you represent your country for essentially expenses (and bonuses) .

Look at the amount of caps the women regularly rack up. More than plenty of men manage in the league.

Just had a quick look at there are 33 womens with more caps than the top capped man. The top capped woman has nearly twice the caps of the top man.

They tried running women's leagues like MLS before and they fold after a few years. They can earn more money if they play for teams in England, France, Germany, etc. but the coach won't select them for the national team so they play in NWSL.

The US women's programme host many training camps and matches so in some years will only play around 10-14 league games for their club teams. The season lasts at least 24 games.

is_that_so

764dak wrote: »

They tried running women's leagues like MLS before and they fold after a few years. They can earn more money if they play for teams in England, France, Germany, etc. but the coach won't select them for the national team so they play in NWSL.

The US women's programme host many training camps and matches so in some years will only play around 10-14 league games for their club teams. The season lasts at least 24 games.

They still need a competitive league and as legacy is now the buzzword it's a good time to do it. In fact they need it to filter through new stars and it has been acknowledged. Other teams are no longer also-rans and some of them have superior skills to the US. With a drive to improve or expand leagues, especially in Europe, it really won't be very long before this centralised US approach is shown up.

FatherTed

is_that_so wrote: »

The US scenario is not matching like with like. There's no denying that the women earn a lot less per match and that needs to be addressed but the US men don't actually cost the federation anything when they are not playing. What is needed on top of a change to what they get per match is more league clubs who will pay their basic salary.

USSF actually pay's it's USWNT player's club salaries in the NWSL league.

USSF helps subsidize salary costs for NWSL by paying the salaries of allocated USWNT players. This helps keep roster costs down in the league and gives the WNT players incentives to stay in the US league instead of seeking bigger paychecks abroad.

https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2019/3/4/18250201/ussf-22-allocated-uswnt-players-nwsl-2019

patmac

Carcharodon wrote: »

I live in the states and as great as an achievement it is, you won’t hear about women’s soccer for another 4 years. Maybe give them a bonus for winning, they will make a ton of money off advertising for the next few months

I think that will be the same for the average soccer fan, dress it up all you want but when the European leagues kick off the women’s game will fade into the background again.

eagle eye

In fairness to them they draw decent crowds to some games, there been a few games with over 20k at them. Average attendance is about 6k. Portland average over 15k fans per home game.

bucketybuck

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you look at their club careers, the women have vastly less games played. Its sporadic. 10 or 15 games a year here and there.

The problem is funding and sustainability for a league though.

Alex Morgan has 107 international goals and 169 caps.

She only has 59 club goals in an entire club career of 130 games.

I don't know where else you would see a backwards stat like that.

764dak

bucketybuck wrote: »

Alex Morgan has 107 international goals and 169 caps.

She only has 59 club goals in an entire club career of 130 games.

I don't know where else you would see a backwards stat like that.

I found these on her Wiki:
"Due to her national team commitments and preparation for the 2012 Summer Olympics,Morgan made three regular season appearances for the club."

"During the 2015 season, Morgan made four appearances for the Thorns due to her national team commitments for the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup in Vancouver, Canada."

The NWSL has a Best XI and a Best Second XI. The US national players struggle to make these teams.

Leroy42

It's the same type of setup that Ireland uses in rugby, England for cricket and to a lessor extend county teams in GAA.

Centralised contracts and the International team being the main focus, with clubs playing a supporting role.

But regardless, what is the justification of players getting paid different amounts for the same job based on gender?

MrKingsley

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's the same type of setup that Ireland uses in rugby, England for cricket and to a lessor extend county teams in GAA.

Centralised contracts and the International team being the main focus, with clubs playing a supporting role.

But regardless, what is the justification of players getting paid different amounts for the same job based on gender?

It is not based solely on gender though.

Leroy42

MrKingsley wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's the same type of setup that Ireland uses in rugby, England for cricket and to a lessor extend county teams in GAA.

Centralised contracts and the International team being the main focus, with clubs playing a supporting role.

But regardless, what is the justification of players getting paid different amounts for the same job based on gender?

It is not based solely on gender though.

It really is. Lots of other nonsense and 'reasons' are given but the fact of the matter is that women are not allowed play for the men's team but are asked to play the same amount of time, follow the same rules, wear the same uniforms.

In most organisations results would be what mattered, but in this case results are secondary to revenue.

osarusan

Leroy42 wrote: »

But regardless, what is the justification of players getting paid different amounts for the same job based on gender?

It's not the same job though.

The men join the US squad for what, 10-12 matches a year? Their main job is playing for their clubs.

The women are employed them 52 weeks a year. Their main job is playing for their country.

It doesn't seem that strange to me that they get a smaller match fee, seeing as they are already being paid by the association.

Leroy42

osarusan wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

But regardless, what is the justification of players getting paid different amounts for the same job based on gender?

It's not the same job though.

The men join the US squad for what, 10-12 matches a year? Their main job is playing for their clubs.

The women are employed them 52 weeks a year. Their main job is playing for their country.

It doesn't seem that strange to me that they get a smaller match fee, seeing as they are already being paid by the association.

So your argument is that the women actually do more and thus should be paid less?

What they earn elsewhere is irrelevant. But even by your own logic women should still be paid the same whilst on international duty.

We have seen all this before. Suits get 1st class whilst players get coach. This is exactly the same. It is based on the value one places on a player.

is_that_so

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your argument is that the women actually do more and thus should be paid less?

What they earn elsewhere is irrelevant. But even by your own logic women should still be paid the same whilst on international duty.

We have seen all this before. Suits get 1st class whilst players get coach. This is exactly the same. It is based on the value one places on a player.

I don't think there is too much disagreement that they should not be paid the same as the national men's team but they need to sort out a league which will take the hit on most of the salaries. They will need it into the future for talent anyway. The current model is not really viable long-term.

osarusan

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your argument is that the women actually do more and thus should be paid less?

We can do without the strawman arguments I hope.


You said it's the same job. I pointed out that it's not.


If you want to argue that on top of whatever yearly salary they earn, the women's international match fees should be just the same as the men's, I don't really have any problem with that.


But I also don't really have any problem with them being different. Because the conditions of employment are very different.

citytillidie

Say you had two performing acts one costs £200 to see and brings in 1000 people and other cost £100 to see and bring in 500 people who would you pay more?

Leroy42

It's not a strawman. The job is exactly the same. Play football for your country. Explain how a man kicking a ball with a US Jersey on is a different job than when a woman does it?

What conditions are different? Same rules, same pitches, same ball. It's the same game. The US women just won the WC, whilst the men are beaten by Trinidad & Tobago!


Citi, that is fine but how much money is spent on generating the hype around both acts? How much money is pumped into the game? How much state funds are being used to help the sport?

citytillidie

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not a strawman. The job is exactly the same. Play football for your country. Explain how a man kicking a ball with a US Jersey on is a different job than when a woman does it?

What conditions are different? Same rules, same pitches, same ball. It's the same game. The US women just won the WC, whilst the men are beaten by Trinidad & Tobago!


Citi, that is fine but how much money is spent on generating the hype around both acts? How much money is pumped into the game? How much state funds are being used to help the sport?

When were the US men beat by Trinidad & Tobago? On the same day the US Women were their World Cup the US Men were beat by Mexico the top team in North America not a big surprise of a result.

There is only on major difference between the men and women's game and that is revenue generated.

TV Companies will pay more for the men's game than the women's game as the women's game gets better they might get better tv deals.

It costs more to attend the men's game and they still pull in the more attendance. So you can see why they would be paid more. But the men's game is in a world of its own money wise.

bucketybuck

Leroy42 wrote: »

but the fact of the matter is that women are not allowed play for the men's team

Is that fact? Who is stopping them, beyond that fact that physiologically they cannot compete?

Are men allowed to play for the womens team? I bet there are lots of college players that would love one of those guaranteed contracts.

Blinky Plebum

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not a strawman. The job is exactly the same. Play football for your country. Explain how a man kicking a ball with a US Jersey on is a different job than when a woman does it?

What conditions are different? Same rules, same pitches, same ball. It's the same game. The US women just won the WC, whilst the men are beaten by Trinidad & Tobago!


Citi, that is fine but how much money is spent on generating the hype around both acts? How much money is pumped into the game? How much state funds are being used to help the sport?

It isn't.

The jobs are gender based so therefore are not the same.You are disqualified from having a chance of having one or the other job based on your gender.

Niall_76

Leroy42 wrote: »

It really is. Lots of other nonsense and 'reasons' are given but the fact of the matter is that women are not allowed play for the men's team but are asked to play the same amount of time, follow the same rules, wear the same uniforms.

In most organisations results would be what mattered, but in this case results are secondary to revenue.

Why can’t women play for the “men’s” team?

givyjoe

Niall_76 wrote: »

Why can’t women play for the “men’s” team?

If there was no gender segregation, there simply wouldn't be any women playing at any World Cups. If you want to allow female players play for men's teams, you've got to let the opposite happen, which is of course a ludicrous proposition.

Blinky Plebum

Perugia wanted to sign Birgit Prinz in the early 2000's although she turned down the chance as she wasn't stupid enough to think it was anything other than a publicity stunt.

Niall_76

givyjoe wrote: »

If there was no gender segregation, there simply wouldn't be any women playing at any World Cups. If you want to allow female players play for men's teams, you've got to let the opposite happen, which is of course a ludicrous proposition.

Yeah, I get that. But the post said they aren’t allowed play. So I am wondering is there a rule I am not aware of stopping them?

Guy:Incognito

Leroy42 wrote: »

but the fact of the matter is that women are not allowed play for the men's team .

Who says they're not?

The fact is none would make a mens team. If there was a woman good enough , they'd have played for a mens team at some stage.

Edit. Too slow.

Silentcorner

Is there any sport where women's sport actually stands alone, in terms of viability and offer contracts and pay to their members, if not what is stopping them....I mean if they feel they are being screwed by the men, then go alone, surely?

Silentcorner

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not a strawman. The job is exactly the same. Play football for your country. Explain how a man kicking a ball with a US Jersey on is a different job than when a woman does it?

What conditions are different? Same rules, same pitches, same ball. It's the same game. The US women just won the WC, whilst the men are beaten by Trinidad & Tobago!


Citi, that is fine but how much money is spent on generating the hype around both acts? How much money is pumped into the game? How much state funds are being used to help the sport?

It is very simple.

The women in the current edition of Love Island, a cheesy tv reality show, will earn multiples of what the men on the very same show will earn...in fact, they will earn multiples of what the women who performed in the World Cup earned...for the same reason there is no male version of a Kardashian and no female version of Ronaldo.

If women watched sport at the same rate as men, female footballers would be paid more than male footballers.

Blinky Plebum

Silentcorner wrote: »

Is there any sport where women's sport actually stands alone, in terms of viability and offer contracts and pay to their members, if not what is stopping them....I mean if they feel they are being screwed by the men, then go alone, surely?

It's not professional but Ladies Gaelic Football and Camogie are separate from the GAA and it's been the best thing for both sports.They are the main sport in each of their own organisations and therefore can't accuse the administrators of ignoring them , and they've been a lot more progressive than the GAA have been by introducing different competition structures and rules when they were needed instead of being held back by tradition like the GAA has.

Womens golf seems to benefit from not being attached to the mens sport as and they are really positive about the promotion of their sport rather than expecting the men to prop them up they go about their own business their own way.Prize money in the LPGA tour has doubled in the last 20 years.

Silentcorner

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

It's not professional but Ladies Gaelic Football and Camogie are separate from the GAA and it's been the best thing for both sports.They are the main sport in each of their own organisations and therefore can't accuse the administrators of ignoring them , and they've been a lot more progressive than the GAA have been by introducing different competition structures and rules when they were needed instead of being held back by tradition like the GAA has.

Womens golf seems to benefit from not being attached to the mens sport as and they are really positive about the promotion of their sport rather than expecting the men to prop them up they go about their own business their own way.Prize money in the LPGA tour has doubled in the last 20 years.

It's probably easier to achieve if it is the sport of the individual, team sports are a different story.

is_that_so

OK Infantino has been threatening to do this but I honestly can't see the benefit of more minnows to be humiliated, never mind stretching the competition to about 7 weeks!

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49184181

Guy:Incognito

is_that_so wrote: »

, never mind stretching the competition to about 7 weeks!
]

Why would it take any longer than the mens tournament?