Social US Women's National Team Just Want To Be Treated Fairly - The Men's Can't Even Qualify For World Cup

It seems the interest level just isn't very high. Also, the prospect building seems to be awful compared to the common European method. However, even that is not much of an excuse because countries like Iceland, with a very limited talent pool, are fielding decent teams, merely because of strategy.

I'd look at the coaching first of all, in Canadian and American soccer teams. You don't really need great players to play good soccer, you just need disciplined players who can execute a strategy, and a good coach who can put such a team together. You do need great players to actually win the tournaments, but you can hang in there with just a good, solid team that works together, without straying away from the plan.

Sweden, Denmark and Finland are tiny nations by comparison, but ultimately you're only putting 11 men on the field. 11 men out of tens of thousands of players, are going to be very good. In the US or Canada, they might have more options to choose from, but if they're not producing top-level talent, that advantage is not truly going to matter. If Americans or Canadians mostly take up soccer as a hobby, while the Swedes or the Danes see it as a serious career option, the sheer size of the talent pool won't matter if the culture around the sport is very lax and casual.
The US were able to set aside their national ego after some disappointing results in hockey in the not-so-distant past, if I recall they more or less copied what we were doing here in Canada, and became a very similar type of team, and subsequently had success.

You'd think the US/Canada could figure something out. I've always heard that one issue in both countries is the sheer size prohibiting the best of the best from playing with/against one another. We've made major changes in Canadian soccer in the past couple of years from what I gather (I'll admit I don't follow extremely close) and seem to be on the right track at the moment. I think our plan has been to get younger and adopt a more aggressive, attacking approach. Attempt to score by sheer creation of chances against inferior opposition.

We've got some youth in our squad, including a guy who is 16 I think. The US are getting there with some more younger 20's players.

The culture thing would be an interesting discussion, but not one I am inclined to get into much detail on at 3am, haha.
 
The US were able to set aside their national ego after some disappointing results in hockey in the not-so-distant past, if I recall they more or less copied what we were doing here in Canada, and became a very similar type of team, and subsequently had success.

You'd think the US/Canada could figure something out. I've always heard that one issue in both countries is the sheer size prohibiting the best of the best from playing with/against one another. We've made major changes in Canadian soccer in the past couple of years from what I gather (I'll admit I don't follow extremely close) and seem to be on the right track at the moment. I think our plan has been to get younger and adopt a more aggressive, attacking approach. Attempt to score by sheer creation of chances against inferior opposition.

We've got some youth in our squad, including a guy who is 16 I think. The US are getting there with some more younger 20's players.

The culture thing would be an interesting discussion, but not one I am inclined to get into much detail on at 3am, haha.

In what way did the US copy the type of team Canada had in hockey?
 
The sad thing is, they still have to fight tooth and nail for that "empty gesture". That's how pathetic the entire situation is.

For now, I would just be happy to see a World Cup-winning, profit-generating U.S National Team getting pay on the same scale as the World Cup-eliminated, money-losing U.S National Team, and get to represent their country on an actual grass field rather than the skin-burning, bone-bruising plastic turf that they have to play on right now.

What the defending World Cup Champions are asking for is completely fair, and it baffles the mind to see how many people here are against that, even AFTER the U.S Men's National Team got their asses handed to them in the World Cup elimination round by a tiny island that most Sherdoggers can't even find on the world map.

Getting a payday is fine, but in order to work towards an actually equal sport of women's soccer, these people should be trying to rally the women to actually regularly watch the soccer events, instead of only the most important event of all, once in every 4 years.

The men's U.S. soccer team might not have a rabid fanbase, but men's soccer does have a massive, rabid, dedicated fanbase world-wide, and therefore so does also the men's World cup of soccer. The U.S. men's team are leeching off of that prestige and popularity.

It's like taking part in a massively popular TV or movie series. It's going to be a well-paid gig even if you're just a supporting actor, and not the actual draw. Having team America around is important to the promoters of international soccer even if the team itself sucks. They need that massive potential market to be represented.

Comparatively, the women's tournament is nowhere near as massive in scale. It's like comparing a kickboxing card to a UFC event. The main eventer in kickboxing is probably not going to make anywhere near as much as some of the undercarders in the UFC. Even if those undercarders don't really add much to the product, or generate any revenue. The scale of the promotion is just way bigger.
 
Last edited:
For market principles, it shouldn't be about how good they are when it comes to getting paid, it should be how much money they generate.

Agreed. Joking aside, if they are bringing in as much, or more, cash as they men's team, they deserve higher wages.
 
Hope Solo is a psycho bitch who benefits from female privilege
 
Agreed. Joking aside, if they are bringing in as much, or more, cash as they men's team, they deserve higher wages.

Agreed. Lold at wnba players who wanted equal salaries though. I legit thought it went defunct after the first season or so.

Like 10 years later i was shocked to discover it was still a 'thing'
 
In what way did the US copy the type of team Canada had in hockey?
I'd have to do some digging for sources that I don't really want to do, but I've always heard (on TV, radio, etc) here that after some bad results the US looked to how we were developing players here, and the style of game played, and essentially made their own system from that.

I think the play style on the ice speaks for itself. Canada and the US play a very different game from the European teams, but Canada too had to adapt at one point, where we incorporated more of the European skills focus. It's a long discussion, probably not best for this thread specifically.

It wasn't meant as a dig at the US, but rather a compliment that they acknowledged something wasn't working and have righted it since.
 
I'd have to do some digging for sources that I don't really want to do, but I've always heard (on TV, radio, etc) here that after some bad results the US looked to how we were developing players here, and the style of game played, and essentially made their own system from that.

I think the play style on the ice speaks for itself. Canada and the US play a very different game from the European teams, but Canada too had to adapt at one point, where we incorporated more of the European skills focus. It's a long discussion, probably not best for this thread specifically.

It wasn't meant as a dig at the US, but rather a compliment that they acknowledged something wasn't working and have righted it since.

I don't know if the US ever really played a different game than Canadians, Europeans surely did and do.

The differences generally noted between North American hockey and European Hockey are often attributed to the different size ice surfaces.

North Americans play much more of a dump and chase game, which is heavily dependent on fore-checking and cycling. Europeans tend to play more of a possession game.
 
The sad thing is, they still have to fight tooth and nail for that "empty gesture". That's how pathetic the entire situation is.

For now, I would just be happy to see a World Cup-winning, profit-generating U.S National Team getting pay on the same scale as the World Cup-eliminated, money-losing U.S National Team, and get to represent their country on an actual grass field rather than the skin-burning, bone-bruising plastic turf that they have to play on right now.

What the defending World Cup Champions are asking for is completely fair, and it baffles the mind to see how many people here are against that, even AFTER the U.S Men's National Team got their asses handed to them in the World Cup elimination round by a tiny island that most Sherdoggers can't even find on the world map.

I agree with that, but you act like that's on USSF and not FIFA where it's not about USMNT vs USWNT and who has been more successful but Men's World Cup vs Women's World Cup as a whole
 
You clearly have no idea how the sport works. The US women dominate a sport that is not very big to begin with, women's soccer doesn't not have the resources and revenue as mens, that is a fact. Men's soccer is the #1 sport in the world and is a massive money maker so when the men play, they generate more money then the big womens game. and FFS read the OP and the thread, the whole "women make more than the men" angle has already been discussed

Uuuuumm OK, can you at least admit that this situation is pretty messed up?
 
I don't know if the US ever really played a different game than Canadians, Europeans surely did and do.

The differences generally noted between North American hockey and European Hockey are often attributed to the different size ice surfaces.

North Americans play much more of a dump and chase game, which is heavily dependent on fore-checking and cycling. Europeans tend to play more of a possession game.
The US teams of the 90's relied heavily on superstar players like Roenick, Modano, Amonte, etc. More individualistic. The changes I think they adopted were to become more centralized, and more focused. Like I said, I'd have to do some digging to find what changes were made exactly, but the results speak for themselves at the Junior (U20) level. The US U20 team was mostly a non-factor, and now they are regularly a Gold Medal threat. First gold medal was in 04.

The latter part there...I'm not sure how much you follow hockey, nor specifically the past Olympics in Russia, but since the NHL has adopted less clutch-and-grab rules, the games are more similar than ever, perhaps. With that said, I think you are spot on about the physicality, but the "dump-and-chase" isn't really a thing anymore. Canada absolutely ruined the last Olympics by complete and utter puck domination.

I think nowadays, the North American teams have adopted large portions of the Euro game (skill, speed, possession) while the European's are now beginning to adopt the more physical game that is played here.

I always like this discussions about international hockey, but I don't want to derail A2K's excellent thread any further with puck talk. Cheers
 
The US teams of the 90's relied heavily on superstar players like Roenick, Modano, Amonte, etc. More individualistic. The changes I think they adopted were to become more centralized, and more focused. Like I said, I'd have to do some digging to find what changes were made exactly, but the results speak for themselves at the Junior (U20) level. The US U20 team was mostly a non-factor, and now they are regularly a Gold Medal threat. First gold medal was in 04.

The latter part there...I'm not sure how much you follow hockey, nor specifically the past Olympics in Russia, but since the NHL has adopted less clutch-and-grab rules, the games are more similar than ever, perhaps. With that said, I think you are spot on about the physicality, but the "dump-and-chase" isn't really a thing anymore. Canada absolutely ruined the last Olympics by complete and utter puck domination.

I think nowadays, the North American teams have adopted large portions of the Euro game (skill, speed, possession) while the European's are now beginning to adopt the more physical game that is played here.

I always like this discussions about international hockey, but I don't want to derail A2K's excellent thread any further with puck talk. Cheers

Dump and chase isn't a thing anymore?


Lol, do you watch the nhl?

Gain the red line, dump the puck, go bang on the defenseman and get it.........this happens a trillion times every single nhl game.

It's a common criticism about the NHL.

Your comment that "dump and chase isn't a thing anymore" is absolutely mind boggling.

Truly, how can you possibly believe that?
 
US women’s soccer games now generate more revenue than men’s—but the players still earn less
By Abigail Hess | Jun 19 2019

105975176-1560882058978carlilloydofusawomen.jpg

Carli Lloyd of USA Women during the World Cup Women match between USA v Chile at the Parc des Princes on June 16, 2019 in Paris, France


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.

The Journal report notes that the “ability of the women’s team to generate gate revenues that equals or exceeds the men’s team is an important battleground,” and central to an ongoing lawsuit filed against the USSF by 28 members of the U.S. women’s national soccer team in March.


105975163-1560881613484france2019womensworldcup.jpg

The lawsuit states if the men’s and women’s teams won each of the 20 non-tournament games they are contractually required to play, women’s team players would earn a maximum of $99,000 ($4,950 per game), while men’s team players would earn $263,320 ($13,166 per game). The suit also states that from 2013 to 2016 women players earned $15,000 for making the national team while the men earned $55,000 in 2014 and $68,750 in 2018.

The formal response to the lawsuit by the USSF claims that any differences in pay are “based on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex.”

According to The Journal, this difference can largely be attributed to ticket sales. The USSF sells broadcast and sponsorship rights for the men’s and women’s teams together, and as a result, it can be difficult to determine the exact broadcast value of the two teams.

“I don’t know how you quantify that,” David Neal, vice president of production and executive producer of FIFA World Cup on Fox, tells the Journal. “But right now the shining star of U.S. Soccer is the U.S. women’s national team. These women are heroes and I think that carries great value.”

According to the lawsuit, the Women’s National Team Player’s Association (WNTPA) has proposed a revenue-sharing model to “test the USSF’s ‘market realities’ theory,” describing a proposal that would tie player compensation to revenue generated by the women’s national team for USSF.

The men’s national team has issued a statement of support for the women’s team lawsuit against the USSF and for this revenue-sharing model.

“The United States National Soccer Team Players Association fully supports the efforts of the US Women’s National Team Players to achieve equal pay,” reads the statement. “Specifically, we are committed to the concept of a revenue-sharing model to address the US Soccer Federation’s ‘market realities’ and find a way towards fair compensation.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
 
This is such an artificial discussion once you look past the US.

The men's WC final was seen by 1.12 billion people.

Conversely, almost 59 million people watched Brazil's last-16 game against hosts France, making it the most watched women's football match of all time.

The cake is not even in the same galaxy.
 
Imagine getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a job that children can easily outperform you at and still whining that it isn't good enough. The USA women's team come across as a very unlikeable bunch of entitled brats.
 
Last edited:
Imagine getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a job that children can easily outperform you in and still whining that it isn't good enough. The USA women's team come across as a very unlikeable bunch of entitled brats.
<mma4>
This is my one gripe with them and their "quest" for equal pay, there is not one player on the world cup winning team that was better than me when I was 14, and millions of guys all over the world could say the same
 
From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games.​


That's comparing a short term period that includes a year the women went on a victory tour of extra games after their 2015 WC win with the men in a transition period which led to them missing the 2018 WC and it is still virtually equal. That makes it pretty clear that the long term averages for each still aren't equal, its the worst of one and the best of the other and still almost identical​
 
Back
Top