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

So it seems to be that the confusion is coming from the year to year comparisons which can be misleading because the more accurate comparisons over time would be to compare the 4 year cycles because of major events like the Olympics and the World Cup. Major events for the women's team and the men's team don't align and so its possible for one team to make much more than the other because they have a major event that year but then for the opposite to be true the next year or two years later.

And so my question is when comparing the two teams based on a 4 year cycle instead of an annual one which team is more profitable?
 
I'm typically skeptical when groups cry foul over women's rights. There's probably a good reason besides discrimination that the female soccer players make less money. Because in some professions the women make more for good reason.
 
If they're drawing more money, they deserve it.
 
I've posted this like 3 times.

Really? I've seen that the last 4 years usmnt made 78 million in revenue and women made 55. That is before tv contracts and sponsorships though. Maybe the women make it up in tv contracts and sponsorships but I doubt it. Where are you getting your numbers?

Again, you are looking at revenue ONLY, not revenue AND expenses. The number I got are from the fucking article in the OP.
http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/art...discrimination-action-vs-us-soccer-federation
"The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn."

"According to the federation's most recent annual report, it was projecting a loss for the combined national teams for fiscal year 2016, but as a result of the success of the women's team, it is now projecting $17.7 million in profit. This disparity continues in 2017, when the women's team is expected to net $5 million in profit, whereas the men's team will be $1 million in the red. The women make less in terms of travel and per diems."

fyi
For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2016 is:

  • 1st quarter: 1 October 2015 – 31 December 2015
  • 2nd quarter: 1 January 2016 – 31 March 2016
  • 3rd quarter: 1 April 2016 – 30 June 2016
  • 4th quarter: 1 July 2016 – 30 September 2016

OMG....Read the thread
I did, post your point. I already said the women are profitable, the men are not. Do something besides empty posting.
 
Last edited:
Again, you are looking at revenue ONLY, not revenue AND expenses. The number I got are from the fucking article in the OP.
http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/art...discrimination-action-vs-us-soccer-federation
"The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn."

"According to the federation's most recent annual report, it was projecting a loss for the combined national teams for fiscal year 2016, but as a result of the success of the women's team, it is now projecting $17.7 million in profit. This disparity continues in 2017, when the women's team is expected to net $5 million in profit, whereas the men's team will be $1 million in the red. The women make less in terms of travel and per diems."

fyi
For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2016 is:

  • 1st quarter: 1 October 2015 – 31 December 2015
  • 2nd quarter: 1 January 2016 – 31 March 2016
  • 3rd quarter: 1 April 2016 – 30 June 2016
  • 4th quarter: 1 July 2016 – 30 September 2016


I did, post your point. I already said the women are profitable, the men are not. Do something besides empty posting.



We already discussed this multiple times, the numbers for 2015 are misleading. Don't blame me because you are illiterate
 
They brought in more money and got paid less. Now they want more money. Shocking news.


They earned it with the gold medal. Shitbag men don't beat anyone good.
 
Really? I've seen that the last 4 years usmnt made 78 million in revenue and women made 55. That is before tv contracts and sponsorships though. Maybe the women make it up in tv contracts and sponsorships but I doubt it. Where are you getting your numbers?

Also the women just negotiated this in 2013. They didn't want their salaries to be based too much on percentages because it would fluctuate so drastically during wc and 3 non wc years. They protected themselves on the downside which means they hurt themselves on potential upside, and are now complaining when they don't get a big bump. It seems super disingenuous to me. Plus they have a union, they should be pissed at their union.

Well if thats true then there is not much else to argue for.
 
the women's pro soccer league here in the US shut down for a reason. The WNBA would've long ago too, but they're subsidized by the male league. nobody watches those games, nobody. it's boring as shit
 
the women's pro soccer league here in the US shut down for a reason. The WNBA would've long ago too, but they're subsidized by the male league. nobody watches those games, nobody. it's boring as shit
Women barely even follow most women's sports. My wife was a gifted athlete without even trying. She was naturally good at every sport she tried. And she liked sports. But she's not a die hard sports fan. But when she watches sports, she would rather watch the men's sports.

We are not soccer fans though.
 
Neither team should be paid anything for playing such a stupid game.
 
Again, you are looking at revenue ONLY, not revenue AND expenses. The number I got are from the fucking article in the OP.
http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/art...discrimination-action-vs-us-soccer-federation
"The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn."

"According to the federation's most recent annual report, it was projecting a loss for the combined national teams for fiscal year 2016, but as a result of the success of the women's team, it is now projecting $17.7 million in profit. This disparity continues in 2017, when the women's team is expected to net $5 million in profit, whereas the men's team will be $1 million in the red. The women make less in terms of travel and per diems."

fyi
For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2016 is:

  • 1st quarter: 1 October 2015 – 31 December 2015
  • 2nd quarter: 1 January 2016 – 31 March 2016
  • 3rd quarter: 1 April 2016 – 30 June 2016
  • 4th quarter: 1 July 2016 – 30 September 2016


I did, post your point. I already said the women are profitable, the men are not. Do something besides empty posting.
Yes, in a year the women win a world Cup and the men have no significant tournament the women will earn more. My numbers were average yearly for the last 4 years, which we've brought up over and over, like literally this entire thread has been about it.

And the women negotiated it so that they would have more even payments over 4 year periods and not huge payment in wc year and much less the other 3. It is disingenuous to be looking at it the way they want you too.

Now let's see if we can move the thread forward not just rehash the same argument over and over.
 
Men's diveball puts a lot more butts in the seats than the women. Life isn't fair.

 
US men are cans, US women are elite within their sport. Both draw about the same amount of money on their own probably.

The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less.

It's pretty messed up that they still make the women play on plastic turf with pebbles littered all around.

Those injuries from sliding/falling on fake grass looks pretty narly.
 
There is no way the women bring in more than the men, and U.S. soccer has stated the men bring in twice as much. IF the women made more this past year, it's likely solely due to it being a World Cup year and they benefitted from the revenue.

And sorry, but the Women's World Cup doesn't compare to the World Cup in terms of ratings, revenue, or level of competition. I agree that they should get appropriate travel accommodations and get to play on grass; but it appears from the U.S. Soccer response that the women bargained for their current deal that includes severance pay for being cut and maternity leave (for real?). The men's deal was agreed after, as well.

The women are the best in the world for women's soccer, but women's sports are just not on par with men's sports. I don't see how equal pay can even be contemplated. The women are not even as good as the U-17 boys squad. There is nothing keeping a talented woman from playing with the men and earning what they're looking for--except for, well, talent.
 
It's pretty messed up that they still make the women play on plastic turf with pebbles littered all around.

Those injuries from sliding/falling on fake grass looks pretty narly.
It's the worst. I slid on the turf in a Sunday league game and took the skin off the outside of my leg from the knee to the a few inches above my ankle. Took forever to heal, too.
 
Roast beef


maxresdefault.jpg
 
201602041821661166083-p2.vadapt.664.high.23.jpeg


Five members of the U.S. women's national soccer team -- including Hope Solo, Carli Lloyd and Alex Morgan -- have filed on behalf of the entire team a wage-discrimination action against the U.S. Soccer Federation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less.

"Recently, it has become clear that the Federation has no intention of providing us equal pay for equal work," Megan Rapinoe said in a news release, after also attaching her name to the filing along with Becky Sauerbrunn.

Tim Howard, the men's national team goalie, told ESPN's SportsCenter on Thursday that the men's team supports the women's team fight.

"We support the fact that the women should fight for their rights and fight for what they think is just compensation. We, on the men's side, have been fighting that battle for a long, long time," Howard told SportsCenter. "We certainly know what it feels like. We felt underpaid for a long time. We had to negotiate our way to a settlement."

Landon Donovan also chimed in on Twitter.



Among the numbers cited in the EEOC filing are that the women would earn $99,000 each if they won 20 friendlies, the minimum number they are required to play in a year. But the men would likely earn $263,320 each for the same feat, and would get $100,000 even if they lost all 20 games. Additionally, the women get paid nothing for playing more than 20 games, while the men get between $5,000 and $17,625 for each game played beyond 20.

"Every single day we sacrifice just as much as the men. We work just as much," Morgan told "Today." "We endure just as much physically and emotionally. Our fans really do appreciate us every day for that. We saw that with the high of last summer. We're really asking, and demanding now, that our federation, and our employer really, step up and appreciate us as well."

Also greatly disparate, according to the figures, is the pay for playing in the World Cup. The U.S. women received a team total of $2 million when it won the World Cup last year in Canada. Yet when the U.S. men played in the World Cup in Brazil in 2014, the team earned a total of $9 million despite going just 1-2-1 and being knocked out in the round of 16.

Many players on the national team have become increasingly vocal about gender equity in the sport, something that came to light in advance of last year's World Cup in Canada. A group of players led by Abby Wambach filed a complaint in Canada about the artificial turf playing surface, noting the men's World Cup is played on natural grass.

After the women won the World Cup with a 5-2 victory over Japan in the final, the turf issue arose again during a victory tour when a game in Hawaii was canceled because the artificial turf was deemed unsafe.


http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/art...discrimination-action-vs-us-soccer-federation


GOOD, I hope they get compensated. Nolw watch these pro trump conservawhiners complain about it being "TOO LIBERAL MULTIKULT" and "PC"

yes BASIC human rights is a bad idea (sarcasm)
 
That's impressive if they are really generating more than guys. I guess soccer is one of the main girl sports in the U.S. so it makes sense.
 
Back
Top