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

The female players get about 20 percent of the revenue the women’s World Cup generates. Men’s players get 7 percent of the revenue their World Cup generates. The reason the men make more is that they generate well over four times as much. If anything, the women are overpaid.


To be clear, the women's soccer players have specifically complained about the "gender pay gap" in the FIFA prize money. They want equal pay to the men, even though the men's World Cup earns 50 or 60 times the amount in revenue. We're talking 6 billion vs 100 some million.


With the US teams the pay gap has actually closed in recent years:


According to figures provided by U.S. Soccer, since 2008 it has paid 12 players at least $1 million. Six of those players were men, and six were women. And the women hold their own near the top of the pay scale; the best-paid woman made about $1.2 million from 2008 to 2015, while the top man made $1.4 million in the same period. Some women in the top 10 even made more than their male counterparts over those years.

"The really significant pay gap, and the one that gets most of the press, is in the World Cup payouts. FIFA, the international soccer organization, will give about $400 million to male players in the World Cup, while female players will make around $30 million. When you hear that male players make 10 times what female players make, this is the figure that justifies the claim.


They want it internationally, where the pay is definitely not close to equal. But that inequality, as Forbes explains, is entirely due to the astronomical disparity in revenue.


As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.

So that is $6 billion v. $131 million. The women aren't even in the same universe, in terms of revenue. If the women were paid the same total as the men — $400 million — they would be making nearly four times more than they generate. The men make 7% of their revenue. The women apparently want 400% of theirs. That's absurd, obviously, to say the least.


Megan Rapinoe, humble as always, will settle for just a meager quadrupling of their prize money. But $30 million quadrupled is $120 million. That would be close to 100 percent of their revenue. Again: The men only make 7%. Already, the women are earning around 20%. Indeed, if we want to be "fair" and "equal," we must conclude that the women are overpaid. Or else the men are underpaid. Either way, on an international scale, if there is a gender pay gap, women are the beneficiaries of it. "

This is a nice copy pasta and all, but the US men's team isn't the reason the FIFA World Cup generates $6 billion, whereas at this point the US Women's team is the primary reason for the interest in the women's league at all. Most of the time the US men's team doesn't even qualify for the tournament, let alone win the entire event.

This is an incredibly disingenuous extrapolation of the data.
 
They would most certainly have to be. It's like the folks who watch summer league. You best believe you're hardcore if you're paying attention to that shit.

That still doesn't address your claim that the WNBA reaches people that the NBA doesn't.

Obviously it reaches more women and girls aspiring to be players in a way the NBA doesn't.
 
Not obvious at all. Those women are still watching the NBA.

Watching basketball isn't the same as playing basketball. If there is no league for them to aspire to they're not going to play very seriously.

The NBA wants everyone playing basketball. They don't give a fuck they just want you to buy more basketballs.
 
if men bring in more money to the sport then women how does it make sense women get paid the same? where would the money come from? i can understand sponsorship's but would it make sense for companies to endorse an athlete that dont have many viewers/fans. Call it sexiest but the fact is women dont support female athletes and blame men for watching mainly male athletes. anybody who wants to explain this feel free. also lets stay on topic.
 
Here's my take:

* The USWNT is for sure far more successful than the men's side and that is inarguable. (Fwiw, I personally think they're great).

* The USWNT draw in a larger audience domestically while the USMNT draw in a larger audience internationally despite their mediocre success.

* Why? Because mens tournaments are substantially more popular and consequentially profitable than the women's equivalent (ie: $70m profit and 750m viewers for Womens World Cup vs $4b profit and 3.4b viewers for Mens World Cup etc)

* In addition to that and the most important reason: Outside of the World Cup (every 4 yrs) and the Olympics (every 2 yrs), nobody watches the women.

* They bring in far less money annually due to the gigantic popularity gap in the domestic leagues. MLS (which relative to other countries, is a second rate soccer league) consistently draws in big crowds and money while nobody watches the NWSL (National Womens Soccer League).

And that is the crux of this issue. Athlete pay is based on revenue and commercial appeal (spectators and corporate investments), and as long as the NWSL maintains their meager viewership #s then their pay will continue to reflect that regardless of their national team success or whether or not we think these gals deserve it.
 
Do you mean the World Cup women, or girls your age at the time? I think one thing people don’t understand is that watching these players on tv is nothing at all like playing against them. They have impressive pace and strength, and are making very quick decisions against the best (female) competition in the world. It looks sloppy at times, but you have to factor in the level of competition and the pressure of the tournament.
soccer is the most popular sport in the world. millions of the most talented kids, boys, play all over the world. I bet there are tens of thousands at least of high school boys that could completely outclass all the women at the women's world cup. but that's not the point, they dont generate as much interest so less money. imho they are already earning more than enough
 
Other (and that is the majority) people do see it as disrespectful to America and Americans especially service people and vets.

I will always vote against and never support a law making it or the act of burning a flag against the law. However people that burn the flag are shit heads and I see it as spitting on the graves of the vets and I will treat them as such.

There are veterans who also support the other side, i.e. supporting people who take a knee when the anthem is played and the flag displayed.

A nation's flag can represent good things but as it is also inseparable from nationalism and government authority, it is going to get used in protests. One can't expect or demand other people view the flag as representing the troops, because there is no government statue stating the flag exclusively represents the troops.
 
There are veterans who also support the other side, i.e. supporting people who take a knee when the anthem is played and the flag displayed.

A nation's flag can represent good things but as it is also inseparable from nationalism and government authority, it is going to get used in protests. One can't expect or demand other people view the flag as representing the troops, because there is no government statue stating the flag exclusively represents the troops.

If you read my post I said I would never support any law preventing this. I think all most all vets feel that way.

Sure a few vets support the disrespect to the flag and that’s their right. The majority don’t support that form of protest and find it disrespectful and don’t like it.

Other people can view it how they want and that’s their right. Just like it’s the right of people not to like it and not to support it with their money.
 
The WNBA loses money every year, women need to support women, like men support their teams. Equality involves action, you can’t do nothing and expect the same outcome.

This will never happen, and they will still complain, even though shows about baking and fixing up houses are almost always on for most women
 
women suck at sports which makes sense because women don't actually give a shit about sports, therefore get paid less for sports
 
This is a nice copy pasta and all, but the US men's team isn't the reason the FIFA World Cup generates $6 billion, whereas at this point the US Women's team is the primary reason for the interest in the women's league at all. Most of the time the US men's team doesn't even qualify for the tournament, let alone win the entire event.

This is an incredibly disingenuous extrapolation of the data.
2018 was the first time the men failed to qualify since 1986.
 
More people watched 1, yes 1, men’s game than watched, get this, the WHOLE women’s tournament combined. Rolando makes more than the whole women’s league combined, because people watch men’s soccer, the only folks with women’s soccer on are sports bars and Buffalo Wild Wings. It takes eyes to make money

<FookIsThatGuy>
 
soccer is the most popular sport in the world. millions of the most talented kids, boys, play all over the world. I bet there are tens of thousands at least of high school boys that could completely outclass all the women at the women's world cup. but that's not the point, they dont generate as much interest so less money. imho they are already earning more than enough
I don’t disagree so I’m not sure why you quoted me. I took issue with a claim another poster made that he and millions of other 14 year olds were superior to the USWNT.
 
Here's my take:

* The USWNT is for sure far more successful than the men's side and that is inarguable. (Fwiw, I personally think they're great).

* The USWNT draw in a larger audience domestically while the USMNT draw in a larger audience internationally despite their mediocre success.

* Why? Because mens tournaments are substantially more popular and consequentially profitable than the women's equivalent (ie: $70m profit and 750m viewers for Womens World Cup vs $4b profit and 3.4b viewers for Mens World Cup etc)

* In addition to that and the most important reason: Outside of the World Cup (every 4 yrs) and the Olympics (every 2 yrs), nobody watches the women.

* They bring in far less money annually due to the gigantic popularity gap in the domestic leagues. MLS (which relative to other countries, is a second rate soccer league) consistently draws in big crowds and money while nobody watches the NWSL (National Womens Soccer League).

And that is the crux of this issue. Athlete pay is based on revenue and commercial appeal (spectators and corporate investments), and as long as the NWSL maintains their meager viewership #s then their pay will continue to reflect that regardless of their national team success or whether or not we think these gals deserve it.
Excellent points.
 
The players on the WNT take subtle shots at the MNT with comments to the press. If I were a player on the MNT, I’d be tempted to issue a challenge for the right to get paid more. Spot the WNT 3 goals and say if they hold the men off, they get their salary for a year, and continue the tradition every year.

But then again, if any guy said that, they’d be lambasted by the press.
3? You would need to spot the men 20+ for even odds, maybe 30+ if you could guarantee they tried 100%.
 
Here's my take:

* The USWNT is for sure far more successful than the men's side and that is inarguable. (Fwiw, I personally think they're great).

* The USWNT draw in a larger audience domestically while the USMNT draw in a larger audience internationally despite their mediocre success.

* Why? Because mens tournaments are substantially more popular and consequentially profitable than the women's equivalent (ie: $70m profit and 750m viewers for Womens World Cup vs $4b profit and 3.4b viewers for Mens World Cup etc)

* In addition to that and the most important reason: Outside of the World Cup (every 4 yrs) and the Olympics (every 2 yrs), nobody watches the women.

* They bring in far less money annually due to the gigantic popularity gap in the domestic leagues. MLS (which relative to other countries, is a second rate soccer league) consistently draws in big crowds and money while nobody watches the NWSL (National Womens Soccer League).

And that is the crux of this issue. Athlete pay is based on revenue and commercial appeal (spectators and corporate investments), and as long as the NWSL maintains their meager viewership #s then their pay will continue to reflect that regardless of their national team success or whether or not we think these gals deserve it.

This pretty much nails it. Case Closed.


women suck at sports which makes sense because women don't actually give a shit about sports, therefore get paid less for sports

Ouch.

Blunt but true.
 
WWC = $73 million in revenue
MWC = $6 billion in revenue

<Fedor23>
 
Back
Top