FIFA Women's World Cup

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
16,313
Like
17,820
The editorial is just flat wrong.
The Men’s World Cup generates more Revenue.
The comparisons of revenue are cherry picked to make the argument.
Compare the revenue the USMNT generates in a World Cup year versus the revenue the USWNT generates in a World Cup year.
Not a non-Tournament year for the men versus a World Cup year for the women.
Also the women get a salary from the federation in the CBA. The men just get paid per game.

FIFA should increase the payouts for the women but equal pay is just an argument spewed to score political points. They don’t generate the same revenue.
If the women’s World Cup generates 4 billion dollars like the men’s World Cup they would get the same payouts.

Should WNBA players get the same payouts as the NBA players?

Of course, in the interest of gender equality, just eliminate gender based sports: best players play. Separate but equal us inherently unequal.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
You’re comparing the USMNT to the NBA?
When it comes to revenue earned its the same argument.
The USMNT earns more because FIFA makes the more money from the men’s WC.

Just like the NBA TV contract for NBA and WNBA.

The women get a higher percentage of the revenue from their WC than the men do from their WC.
It’s just the men’s WC generates x10 the revenue.
 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,827
Like
17,696
You are using the men’s World Cup high earnings as a reason to pay the men’s team higher despite not even qualifying as being among the top 32 teams? How much revenue have the American men themselves earned in the World Cup? So because other men from other countries compete, qualify and play for the World Cup, the US men should be paid exorbitantly by the US and entitled just because of their s e x not by performance? The US soccer federation alone governs US soccer for both males and females headed by a male president and a male CEO. Where should the ‘smart’ money be spent for US soccer - rewarding highly compensated US male teams who despite all the support they receive, haven’t succeeded in international competition? It certainly don’t appear that money has been a motivator for the US men’s teams and their coaches to perform and excel yet they get highly compensated and rewarded for losing in international competition and that’s fine and fair to you? They aren’t asking for more despite their great performances just equal. What successful business enterprise rewards poor performance and ignores exceptional performance?

 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,827
Like
17,696
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
You are using the men’s World Cup high earnings as a reason to pay the men’s team higher despite not even qualifying as being among the top 32 teams? How much revenue have the American men themselves earned in the World Cup? So because other men from other countries compete, qualify and play for the World Cup, the US men should be paid exorbitantly by the US and entitled just because of their s e x not by performance? The US soccer federation alone governs US soccer for both males and females headed by a male president and a male CEO. Where should the ‘smart’ money be spent for US soccer - rewarding highly compensated US male teams who despite all the support they receive, haven’t succeeded in international competition? It certainly don’t appear that money has been a motivator for the US men’s teams and their coaches to perform and excel yet they get highly compensated and rewarded for losing in international competition and that’s fine and fair to you? They aren’t asking for more despite their great performances just equal. What successful business enterprise rewards poor performance and ignores exceptional performance?

The men’s performance has nothing to do with this discussion.
They aren’t as successful as the women nobody in their right mind would question that.
The men didn’t qualify for the 2018 World Cup but the men still earned more money for the federation because each federation still gets a cut of all the revenue from the World Cup.
You want to pay the women the same as the men. That would happen if the men and women brought in the same revenue.
You can’t cherry pick the argument and ignore the fact the men’s team generates more revenue for the USSF.

If the women’s team generated more revenue than the men they would get more money than the men.

If performance is the argument then realize the US women make more than the team that finishes 2nd in the WWC or teams that lose earlier.
 

ForCuseSake

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,569
Like
8,093
What successful business enterprise rewards poor performance and ignores exceptional performance?
What successful business invests the same amount in a $30M market that they do in a $440M?

The financial facts don’t favor this argument.

I would argue that the rest of the world is catching up to our women’s national team, especially traditional European powers, despite the relative pittance they’ve spent on women's soccer.

The US dominated this WWC but other countries have made huge strides in a short period with less money spent.

Hopefully the US continues to lead the world in dollars invested in our women’s national team to maintain their dominance.
 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,827
Like
17,696
The men’s performance has nothing to do with this discussion.
They aren’t as successful as the women nobody in their right mind would question that.
The men didn’t qualify for the 2018 World Cup but the men still earned more money for the federation because each federation still gets a cut of all the revenue from the World Cup.
You want to pay the women the same as the men. That would happen if the men and women brought in the same revenue.
You can’t cherry pick the argument and ignore the fact the men’s team generates more revenue for the USSF.

If the women’s team generated more revenue than the men they would get more money than the men.

If performance is the argument then realize the US women make more than the team that finishes 2nd in the WWC or teams that lose earlier.
What you are saying is that US men are paid more money by the US soccer federation by FIFA for the World Cup because other men generated the revenue and pay the US men because of it. FIFA pays each country’s individual soccer federation, like the US Soccer Federation, and leaves it up to them how much to compensate players , how much to keep to run the federation etc.

 

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
When it comes to revenue earned its the same argument.
The USMNT earns more because FIFA makes the more money from the men’s WC.

Just like the NBA TV contract for NBA and WNBA.

The women get a higher percentage of the revenue from their WC than the men do from their WC.
It’s just the men’s WC generates x10 the revenue.
If the men even qualify.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
If the men even qualify.
You realize each federation gets a cut of the men’s WC pie even if they don’t qualify.
Each confederation earns more as their teams advance and those players get more as a result.
The USSF made more from the 2018 WC even though the men didn’t qualify than it will from the USWNT national team winning the World Cup.
It’s a fact.
The 2018 WC generated 6 billion dollars profit for FIFA to divide up all the confederations.
The 2019 WWC is projected to turn a profit of 4 million dollars.

The women should get more as FIFA should give them more to call for equal compensation ignores the revenues aren’t close to equal. It’s a straw man.

In golf the men’s US Open champion gets more than the women’s US Open champion. Why? Because the USGA makes more in revenue from the men’s tournament than the women’s tournament.

Tennis pays equal because the tournaments run during the same time and each brings in the same audience. Thus it makes sense the attendance and revenue is the same, then pay them equal.
 
Last edited:

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
You realize each federation gets a cut of the men’s WC pie even if they don’t qualify.
Each confederation earns more as their teams advance and those players get more as a result.
The USSF made more from the 2018 WC even though the men didn’t qualify than it will from the USWNT national team winning the World Cup.
It’s a fact.
The 2018 WC generated 6 billion dollars profit for FIFA to divide up all the confederations.
The 2019 WWC is projected to turn a profit of 4 million dollars.

The women should get more as FIFA should give them more to call for equal compensation ignores the revenues aren’t close to equal. It’s a straw man.

In golf the men’s US Open champion gets more than the women’s US Open champion. Why? Because the USGA makes more in revenue from the men’s tournament than the women’s tournament.

Tennis pays equal because the tournaments run during the same time and each brings in the same audience. Thus it makes sense the attendance and revenue is the same, then pay them equal.
Tennis wasn’t always that way. Check out “Battle of the s e xes” if you haven’t already.

It’s at the USSF’s discretion what to compensate the players. They could pool the money together and pay the athletes equally. That’s all we’re saying. It’s not like they can’t afford it.
 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,827
Like
17,696
Tennis pays equal because the tournaments run during the same time and each brings in the same audience. Thus it makes sense the attendance and revenue is the same, then pay them equal.

You do realize they only did it in 2007 after 123 years of women at Wimbledon, not because of revenue, changes in the tournament, nor attendance but because players like Billy Jean King, the William’s sisters etc had fought hard for it. As a result of Venus Williams essay in the Times on the eve of 2006’s Wimbledon Tournament, Tony Blair and members of UK’s parliament publicly endorsed her stance for equal pay. Thus Wimbledon and the French Open agreed to it in 2007.

Soccer is just another slow fight.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
Tennis wasn’t always that way. Check out “Battle of the s e xes” if you haven’t already.

It’s at the USSF’s discretion what to compensate the players. They could pool the money together and pay the athletes equally. That’s all we’re saying. It’s not like they can’t afford it.
So basically you want revenue earned from the men’s WC go to the women players. It’s your opinion and that is fine.
It’s just this equal pay narrative ignores the revenues completely.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
Tennis pays equal because the tournaments run during the same time and each brings in the same audience. Thus it makes sense the attendance and revenue is the same, then pay them equal.

You do realize they only did it in 2007 after 123 years of women at Wimbledon, not because of revenue, changes in the tournament, nor attendance but because players like Billy Jean King, the William’s sisters etc had fought hard for it. As a result of Venus Williams essay in the Times on the eve of 2006’s Wimbledon Tournament, Tony Blair and members of UK’s parliament publicly endorsed her stance for equal pay. Thus Wimbledon and the French Open agreed to it in 2007.

Soccer is just another slow fight.
Tennis is not soccer.
The soccer tournaments don’t run concurrently. Tennis does.
Why does golf not pay equally?

The equal pay argument ignores revenues.
In tennis majors you are paying to watch both men and women during the same session. Thus their should be no issue at all with equal pay. Since each tournament is being run at the same time the attendance is the same.

The soccer argument is not even close to the same as tennis.
The attendance for the WWC this year was 1.131 million and an average of 21,000 per match.
The attendance for the 2018 Men’s World Cup was 3.03 million and an average of 47,371 per match.

The 2018 tournament generated 6 billion dollars in profit.
The 2019 tournament is projected to turn a 4 million profit.

I think our USWNT is by far the best in the world and they should negotiate for more from the USSF but to call for equal pay is basically saying pay them revenue they don’t bring in.
 

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
Tennis is not soccer.
The soccer tournaments don’t run concurrently. Tennis does.
Why does golf not pay equally?

The equal pay argument ignores revenues.
In tennis majors you are paying to watch both men and women during the same session. Thus their should be no issue at all with equal pay. Since each tournament is being run at the same time the attendance is the same.

The soccer argument is not even close to the same as tennis.
The attendance for the WWC this year was 1.131 million and an average of 21,000 per match.
The attendance for the 2018 Men’s World Cup was 3.03 million and an average of 47,371 per match.

The 2018 tournament generated 6 billion dollars in profit.
The 2019 tournament is projected to turn a 4 million profit.

I think our USWNT is by far the best in the world and they should negotiate for more from the USSF but to call for equal pay is basically saying pay them revenue they don’t bring in.
If you’re only looking at revenue, sure.
 

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
Now do the WNBA and NBA with this argument.
I’m not only looking at revenue.

Do you think the men deserve the compensation they’re getting if they don’t even qualify? Do you think they deserve compensation at all?

Do you want the women to continue dominating? Do you think that’s at risk if the current pay structure stays the same?
 

djcon57

All American
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
7,009
Like
9,702
What successful business invests the same amount in a $30M market that they do in a $440M?

The financial facts don’t favor this argument.

I would argue that the rest of the world is catching up to our women’s national team, especially traditional European powers, despite the relative pittance they’ve spent on women's soccer.

The US dominated this WWC but other countries have made huge strides in a short period with less money spent.

Hopefully the US continues to lead the world in dollars invested in our women’s national team to maintain their dominance.
I read a tweet today that said “the us women’s team deserves as many endorsements as the men’s players”

Deserves.

They want companies to pay them to peddle their products because they deserve it.

2019.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
I’m not only looking at revenue.

Do you think the men deserve the compensation they’re getting if they don’t even qualify? Do you think they deserve compensation at all?

Do you want the women to continue dominating? Do you think that’s at risk if the current pay structure stays the same?
The men get less percentage of the income they generate than the women.
The men didn’t get bonuses from the WC because they didn’t qualify. The women earned 250k each for winning the WC.

The women get a salary from the USSF the men get paid per appearance they make for the national team.

The women can negotiate more money in their next CBA. If they want equal pay then the women’s game needs to generate more revenue that is equal to what the men get.
The argument has nothing to do with the men’s pay. The men get their money per appearance from a bigger pie overall.
It’s not an apples to apples argument.
The women get more of their pie than the men do and they should because they are more successful.

 

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
The men get less percentage of the income they generate than the women.
The men didn’t get bonuses from the WC because they didn’t qualify. The women earned 250k each for winning the WC.

The women get a salary from the USSF the men get paid per appearance they make for the national team.

The women can negotiate more money in their next CBA. If they want equal pay then the women’s game needs to generate more revenue that is equal to what the men get.
The argument has nothing to do with the men’s pay. The men get their money per appearance from a bigger pie overall.
It’s not an apples to apples argument.
The women get more of their pie than the men do and they should because they are more successful.

I understand the revenue argument. Now let’s discuss the retention argument. If the USSF wants to continue dominating the WWC, they might want to give in to the players’ demands.
 

storange

All Conference
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,738
Like
3,802
Great work by the US Women. They dominated with excellent defense, smart offense and terrific conditioning and athleticism. They worked their feet like a good boxer works the jab.

And the go ahead goal was scored by a US player going one-on-one with the goalie in front of that big, bad goal! (But on a penalty kick.) The Dutch goalie was very good, though.

I was surprised that TOP was only 53%-47%. It seemed a lot more one-sided than that. The story of the game, as it usually is, was shots on goal: 17-5. The Dutch got one shot off every 19 minutes of play. That makes it kind of hard to win.

Even if US Soccer doesn't pay them for what they are worth, they can always go to the White House for Big Macs.
View attachment 167487
In the words of Mega Rapinoe “No fing way”
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
I understand the revenue argument. Now let’s discuss the retention argument. If the USSF wants to continue dominating the WWC, they might want to give in to the players’ demands.
What demands?
I think should get all the charter planes they want.
I think they should get only grass fields to play and train on.
They can ask for all the money the USSF generates from the women’s game and demand more of that pie.
The rest of the world needs to invest like the USSF does for the women’s game to grow more revenue.

That isn’t the USSF’s responsibility that is FIFA’s job.

Pay the ladies as much revenue as they generate. I think a smart negotiation would be to ask for all the revenue they generate and then use money the men generate to cover their bills but to ask for the same pay as the men is basically saying take money the men generate and give to the women.
 

orangehomer

All Conference
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
3,992
Like
4,060
When it comes to revenue earned its the same argument.
The USMNT earns more because FIFA makes the more money from the men’s WC.

Just like the NBA TV contract for NBA and WNBA.

The women get a higher percentage of the revenue from their WC than the men do from their WC.
It’s just the men’s WC generates x10 the revenue.
so these posts are just flatly chauvinistic and bad. why are you conflating the idea of national teams with making money? are you implying that we as a public use tax dollars to fund Olympic sports as a way to make money? whatever some independent sports body decides is the prize for hosting a tournament should have no bearing whatsoever on our commitment to athletes that are good enough to represent our country in these highly visible events. there is ZERO correlation between how professional sports leagues like the NBA or WNBA should compensate their players compared to how national teams to should be funded and how the players should be paid regardless of s e x, assuming that there is a equally arduous commitment made by either, arguably more arduous on the women's side because they are actually good. there is no good faith argument to be made on behalf of citing FIFA payouts as a reason for how American athletes should be compensated for their service.
 

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
What demands?
I think should get all the charter planes they want.
I think they should get only grass fields to play and train on.
They can ask for all the money the USSF generates from the women’s game and demand more of that pie.
The rest of the world needs to invest like the USSF does for the women’s game to grow more revenue.

That isn’t the USSF’s responsibility that is FIFA’s job.

Pay the ladies as much revenue as they generate. I think a smart negotiation would be to ask for all the revenue they generate and then use money the men generate to cover their bills but to ask for the same pay as the men is basically saying take money the men generate and give to the women.
This isn’t about FIFA. The compensation is entirely at the discretion of the USSF. If the women want to be paid equally and that’s what it takes to keep young girls from considering other sports, then the USSF should pay them equally.

Auriemma and Hurley are paid comparable salaries, even though the men’s team still generates more revenue. That’s the cost of doing business if UConn doesn’t want to lose Auriemma.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
This isn’t about FIFA. The compensation is entirely at the discretion of the USSF. If the women want to be paid equally and that’s what it takes to keep young girls from considering other sports, then the USSF should pay them equally.

Auriemma and Hurley are paid comparable salaries, even though the men’s team still generates more revenue. That’s the cost of doing business if UConn doesn’t want to lose Auriemma.
UConn women turn a profit. The women’s fan base for UConn is large and Geno and the ladies deserves credit for that.

The rest of your argument is all idealism and not realism. You change your mind which is fine. I have laid out of my positions above. The ladies need to negotiate for more revenue but to just call for equal revenue isn’t a fair argument when one side generates a hell of lot more revenue than the other.
If both teams generated the same revenue then of course pay them the same.
 

Online statistics

Members online
48
Guests online
244
Total visitors
292

Top Bottom