FIFA Women's World Cup

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
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.
The UConn men turn a larger profit than the women. By your logic, UConn should not pay Auriemma a comparable salary to Hurley. They’re doing it anyway. You can call it idealism or whatever you like, but if UConn wants to continue dominating women’s hoops, then they have to continue paying Auriemma as if he’s a men’s coach.
 

orangehomer

All Conference
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
3,992
Like
4,060
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.
so you think that the national teams exist to generate revenue?
 

sutomcat

Former Iggy Winner. I used to be somebody special
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
12,769
Like
46,506
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.
According to this article, while the team has a fanbase, the UConn women’s team did not make money, at least not in 2018. They didn’t lose as much money as the men’s basketball team did though...

 
Last edited:

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
According to this article, while the team has a fanbase, the UConn women’s team did not make money, at least not in 2018. They didn’t lose as much money as the men’s basketball team did though...

Let’s see with the travel costs going from the American to the Big East what happens.
Women’s basketball lost 3.1 million and men’s basketball lost 5 million.
Hurley makes 2.75 million and Auriemma makes 1.5 million.
The UConn women’s program generates revenue.

The comparison in this discussion to Soccer is not close.
The men’s national team for soccer generates x10 the revenue the women’s team generates.

The American TV contract is not that high and 80% of that TV revenue comes from football and not men’s basketball. SNY was paying UConn money to broadcast their women’s games. Thus that program was bringing revenue to pay Auriemma and his staff.

Auriemma salary isn’t the same as Hurley. When the UConn women have been more successful. Under this soccer argument how is that possible.

This call for equal pay ignores the fact the women’s soccer team gets a higher percentage of their pie than the men’s team gets.
The fact is the men’s pie is a heck of a lot bigger.
If the men’s and women’s soccer teams brought in the same revenue the women would get more money from the USSF because the women’s team is more successful.
 
Last edited:

sutomcat

Former Iggy Winner. I used to be somebody special
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
12,769
Like
46,506
Let’s see with the travel costs going from the American to the Big East what happens.
Women’s basketball lost 3.1 million and men’s basketball lost 5 million.
Hurley makes 2.75 million and Auriemma makes 1.5 million.
The UConn women’s program generates revenue.

The comparison in this discussion to Soccer is not close.
The men’s national team for soccer generates x10 the revenue the women’s team generates.

The American TV contract is not that high and 80% of that TV revenue comes from football and not men’s basketball. SNY was paying UConn money to broadcast their women’s games. Thus that program was bringing revenue to pay Auriemma and his staff.

Auriemma salary isn’t the same as Hurley. When the UConn women have been more successful. Under this soccer argument how is that possible.

This call for equal pay ignores the fact the women’s soccer team gets a higher percentage of their pie than the men’s team gets.
The fact is the men’s pie is a heck of a lot bigger.
If the men’s and women’s soccer teams brought in the same revenue the women would get more money from the USSF because the women’s team is more successful.
I am not involved in the discussion of pay for female soccer players. Just wanted to correct the conception that the UConn women's team makes money. It does not.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
16,313
Like
17,820
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.
The men's team doesn't doesn't earn the money. It is theirs by virtue of the US being a member of the association.
What the men's team earns in commercial is what they get from tv ad revenue for their appearances, as well as gate and appearal.
I would guess the women's team beats them on those scores.
 

Day2

WE WANT CHIMICHANGAS!!!
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
8,621
Like
10,651
Let’s see with the travel costs going from the American to the Big East what happens.
Women’s basketball lost 3.1 million and men’s basketball lost 5 million.
Hurley makes 2.75 million and Auriemma makes 1.5 million.
The UConn women’s program generates revenue.

The comparison in this discussion to Soccer is not close.
The men’s national team for soccer generates x10 the revenue the women’s team generates.

The American TV contract is not that high and 80% of that TV revenue comes from football and not men’s basketball. SNY was paying UConn money to broadcast their women’s games. Thus that program was bringing revenue to pay Auriemma and his staff.

Auriemma salary isn’t the same as Hurley. When the UConn women have been more successful. Under this soccer argument how is that possible.

This call for equal pay ignores the fact the women’s soccer team gets a higher percentage of their pie than the men’s team gets.
The fact is the men’s pie is a heck of a lot bigger.
If the men’s and women’s soccer teams brought in the same revenue the women would get more money from the USSF because the women’s team is more successful.
Auriemma makes $2.4 million, not $1.5 million.
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
The men's team doesn't doesn't earn the money. It is theirs by virtue of the US being a member of the association.
What the men's team earns in commercial is what they get from tv ad revenue for their appearances, as well as gate and appearal.
I would guess the women's team beats them on those scores.
This is like saying Syracuse lacrosse and Syracuse football are equal in earning the ACC TV money.
 

Ghost

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
12,622
Like
12,505
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.

First sentence, great.
Last sentence, meh. Who cares about success?
 

DeGrozz

All Conference
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
3,046
Like
4,653
The issue with determining compensation for the USWNT is that the majority of their games are international friendlies played in front of 10-17K fans with little to no TV audience (basically open practices), then for 4 weeks every world cup and 2 weeks every summer olympics the nation pays attention to them again.

To be honest, they are probably compensated too little for winning the World Cup and too much for most of their other games.

What my thoughts don't take into account though is how the USWNT supports the mission of the USSF, which is to grow the game in the country -- especially to underserved demographics. The USWNT probably supports that mission better than anyone, but I would have no idea how to quantify that.

Either way, I hope they all become old, rich, and weighed down by all of the medals that they win.
 
Last edited:

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
The issue with determining compensation for the USWNT is that the majority of their games are international friendlies played in front of 10-17K fans with little to no TV audience (basically open practices), then for 4 weeks every world cup and 2 weeks every summer olympics the nation pays attention to them again.

To be honest, they are probably compensated too little for winning the World Cup and too much for most of their other games.

What my thoughts don't take into account though is how the USWNT supports the mission of the USSF, which is to grow the game in the country -- especially to underserved demographics. The USWNT probably supports that mission better than anyone, but I would have no idea how to quantify that.

Either way, I hope they all become old, rich, and weighed down by all of the medals that they win.
You nailed it.

Women’s team played 18 home matches 253,151 people attended an average of 14,064 in WCQ year.


Men played 7 home matches 169,141 people attended an average of 24,183.
These don’t include the Mexican and Brazilian fans in the crowd.


These links show the attendance for the last 4 years.
This argument is completely made up.
The USWNT need to negotiate a better CBA. The equal pay only happens when their revenue generates it like any sport or business.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,564
Like
9,231
the margin for error for the Woman has gone down.. once they were the dominate team of a pool of 3-4 who had a chance to win.. now they are the best team of about 10-12 who can win. Who on this team that will be the alpha dog 4 yrs from now to lead them? Rapino/LLyod will be gone. Morgan will be 34+ they still are pretty deep but do they have an elite stud coming up? I dont think they had the best player on the field 3-4 of the Cup games but they had the deepest talent pool. Press/Pugh/Heath are nice pieces but not sure they scare anyone and if Morgan doesnt have to be marked that makes it harder for every one else.


the Mens team has been just avg for yrs and still draws better,, what happens if the US team becomes just one of a crowd?
 

DeGrozz

All Conference
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
3,046
Like
4,653
the margin for error for the Woman has gone down.. once they were the dominate team of a pool of 3-4 who had a chance to win.. now they are the best team of about 10-12 who can win. Who on this team that will be the alpha dog 4 yrs from now to lead them? Rapino/LLyod will be gone. Morgan will be 34+ they still are pretty deep but do they have an elite stud coming up? I dont think they had the best player on the field 3-4 of the Cup games but they had the deepest talent pool. Press/Pugh/Heath are nice pieces but not sure they scare anyone and if Morgan doesnt have to be marked that makes it harder for every one else.


the Mens team has been just avg for yrs and still draws better,, what happens if the US team becomes just one of a crowd?
How does Mallory Pugh not "scare" anyone? She forced her way onto the greatest women's team ever assembled at 18, had something like 50 caps and 15 goals before she could even buy a beer, and is being touted as the greatest US Soccer prospect ever. A lot of analysts think she could be the best player in the world by the next world cup.

I think we might be okay.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,564
Like
9,231
maybe, we will know in a few yrs.. but its a ton easier to look good when you are the 3-4-5 best option and not the number one.. morgan is pretty good and struggles alot too when they get physical. Pugh has talent, is she a clear #1 world talent?
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
maybe, we will know in a few yrs.. but its a ton easier to look good when you are the 3-4-5 best option and not the number one.. morgan is pretty good and struggles alot too when they get physical. Pugh has talent, is she a clear #1 world talent?
Our women’s team is beyond deep.
We will be fine. The pool for the women’s team is akin to the pool of players for the Brazilian men’s team

Christen Press didn’t start on this team except the England game. She can be a number 9 for the national team.
 

IthacaMatt

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,419
Like
14,006
The comparison in this discussion to Soccer is not close.
The men’s national team for soccer generates x10 the revenue the women’s team generates.
This article says that in the last few years, the revenues they are each generating are about even.

 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
This article says that in the last few years, the revenues they are each generating are about even.

That chart leaves out the 4th year which is a WC year for the men.

That chart is for 3 years.
The men’s team also doesn’t play as many home games as the women. The women have a CBA which guarantees them revenue from the USSF the men get paid per game. The equal argument ignores the fact that the men’s team by affiliation of the revenue generated from their World Cup bring in more revenue.

This equal pay argument is a shell game. If the women’s team generated the revenue then they would get paid.
 

CanadianSU

All American
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
6,903
Like
4,999

This senator is halting all money towards the 2026 World Cup in attempt for equal pay. Pandering politics at its finest.
 

IthacaMatt

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,419
Like
14,006
That chart leaves out the 4th year which is a WC year for the men.

That chart is for 3 years.
The men’s team also doesn’t play as many home games as the women. The women have a CBA which guarantees them revenue from the USSF the men get paid per game. The equal argument ignores the fact that the men’s team by affiliation of the revenue generated from their World Cup bring in more revenue.

This equal pay argument is a shell game. If the women’s team generated the revenue then they would get paid.

The Men missed the World Cup, remember?
 

Alsacs

I know that I know nothing. Too bad though
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
42,064
Like
47,269
The Men missed the World Cup, remember?
The USSF also got a share of the revenue from the men’s WC.
Which is 45x more revenue than the women’s WC.
The US women got paid for winning their WC.
The men didn’t get anything for their WC.

This equal pay argument completely ignores the fact the men’s team due to the men’s World Cup bringing a chit load of revenue bring in more revenue.
The women’s team doesn’t bring in the same amount of revenue.
 

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
251
Total visitors
311

Top Bottom