World Cup: 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup - III (USA wins 4th Womens World Cup)

[robertmac43]

This debate randomly came up on the Leafs board as well this past week. People were much more outwardly sexist and overall just idiots. Here is the thread, News Article: - Leafs, Flames come together to help out CWHL players.

Pages 4-6 for anyone interested in taking on idiots lol :p

 

[phisherman]

This is part of it. But people are mistaking this for even a global men vs woman thing.

This isn't a men's vs women's pay on a global scale thing. This is literally how US SOCCER operates. That's it. Not how the Norwegian FA operates, or FIFA, or the English FA, or how tv ratings are in Brazil for two WCs. It's none of that.

This is way more important BECAUSE of the difference in interest, money and success of men's and women's games. It's more important for them than the USMNT. This pay is the majority of their pay. US Men play for pride b/c they already have a healthy income stream from their clubs. The women don't - they don't make **** at the club level. So while they play for pride, they literally need to play for income. International is their best chance at making money.

How would this trickle down to the women that don't make it to the national team?

 

[Gecklund]

What, you too lazy to google them yourself?

I found this in like 10 seconds:

What critics get wrong about the U.S. women's soccer pay debate

Again I’m going to say something I’ve said since my first post. If that’s the case then yes they should be paid equal. It will be interesting if the US men’s make the World Cup what the revenue would be.

 

[MXD]

Again I’m going to say something I’ve said since my first post. If that’s the case then yes they should be paid equal. It will be interesting if the US men’s make the World Cup what the revenue would be.

Actually, Men and Women who represent their Country in Sport Y should get equal compensation, because they're litterally accomplishing the same thing. The money they're both bringing has nothing to do with this. And everyone on each team should get the same compensation, whether it's the top striker or a sub ending up playing 14 minutes during a whole tournament.

I mean, it's not like State Employees are paid according to the money they're bringing, so I don't see why it would work like this in Sports.

 

[Gecklund]

Actually, Men and Women who represent their Country in Sport Y should get equal compensation, because they're litterally accomplishing the same thing. The money they're both bringing has nothing to do with this. And everyone on each team should get the same compensation, whether it's the top striker or a sub ending up playing 14 minutes during a whole tournament.

I mean, it's not like State Employees are paid according to the money they're bringing, so I don't see why it would work like this in Sports.

The money they are bringing in is definitely important. The US federation is still a business. If they are paying players from Team A and B $50 each per game and Team A is bringing in $50,000 but Team B is bringing in $25,000, why would they pay Team B the same as A when they are not bringing in the same product?

 

[MXD]

The money they are bringing in is definitely important. The US federation is still a business. If they are paying players from Team A and B $50 each per game and Team A is bringing in $50,000 but Team B is bringing in $25,000, why would they pay Team B the same as A when they are not bringing in the same product?

Because the players are representing their Country?

I mean, the same logic applies to the NCAA. Players all get the same compensation (which takes the form of free tution + free training + whatever) for representing their University, despite the university not making the same kind of money in each discipline.

And Universities are obviously a business.

 

[East Coast Bias]

It will be interesting if the US men’s make the World Cup what the revenue would be.

This isn't the same thing though. I see the argument "well if the Men won -they'd have huge revenue numbers too!"

They don't though. They suck.

Not to mention they charge massive amounts of money to play in friendlies in stadiums dominated by opposing fans. We're supposed to reward that behavior?

 

[Gecklund]

Because the players are representing their Country?
I mean, the same logic applies to the NCAA. Players all get the same compensation (which takes the form of free tution + free training + whatever) for representing their University, despite the university not making the same kind of money in each discipline.

And Universities are obviously a business.

Player don't all get the same compensation in the NCAA. The stars get free everything, the role players get free some things, and the benchwarmers don't get anything. You are using examples that aren't relevant. It doesn't matter that they are representing the same country, it matters which team they are on. The team that brings in more money should get more money (whether that's the womens, mens, shit if it's the damn kids pay them). You really think the NCAA spends the same amount of money on say men's basketball and women's basketball or men's football and men's tennis. It's not the same because they are not the same team.

This isn't the same thing though. I see the argument "well if the Men won -they'd have huge revenue numbers too!"

They don't though. They suck.

Not to mention they charge massive amounts of money to play in friendlies in stadiums dominated by opposing fans. We're supposed to reward that behavior?

I'm just curious not saying that they would win. I didn't mean that as a counter point.

I've watched pretty close to every home USMNT game (most on TV, some in person). The only team that I've seen EVER have close to the number of US fans is Mexico.

 

[MXD]

...So you'd be okay with Star Players making much, much more money than Role Players on National Teams?

 

[Gecklund]

...So you'd be okay with Star Players making much, much more money than Role Players on National Teams?

Actually yes I would. That wasn't the point of saying that though. Just that your example of the NCAA was flawed.

 

[Burner Account]

This isn't the same thing though. I see the argument "well if the Men won -they'd have huge revenue numbers too!"

They don't though. They suck.

Not to mention they charge massive amounts of money to play in friendlies in stadiums dominated by opposing fans. We're supposed to reward that behavior?

This is an interesting read.
It is more expensive to watch the US than world champions France. Why?

 

[Uncle Rotter]

The women sell:
- 5 WCQ/Gold Cup games, maybe (CONCACAF slice, OR CONCACAF may fear this is a money loser and put it all on the host. I don’t know)

Games that haven't involved the U.S. (not counting U.S. doubleheaders) usually don't even release their attendance figures. So I'd say "money loser".

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Soccer! USWNT is the greatest program in soccer history, men’s or women’s

Trigger warning

No need for the warning, the article title indicated how idiotic it was going to be.

 

[MXD]

Actually yes I would. That wasn't the point of saying that though. Just that your example of the NCAA was flawed.

Fair enough. We just happen to be disagreeing on principle for something that actually makes sense.

 

[Gecklund]

Fair enough. We just happen to be disagreeing on principle for something that actually makes sense.

I just don’t see how a player like Clint Dempsey or Landon Donovan would be paid the same as Alan Gordon.

 

[joe dirte]

Again I’m going to say something I’ve said since my first post. If that’s the case then yes they should be paid equal. It will be interesting if the US men’s make the World Cup what the revenue would be.

If, from the US national program perspective, the women generate more money, then quite frankly, the woman should be getting paid more, not equal.

 

[Gecklund]

If, from the US national program perspective, the women generate more money, then quite frankly, the woman should be getting paid more, not equal.

Agreed. Equal percentages of the revenue they bring in. Should have clarified.

 

[MXD]

I just don’t see how a player like Clint Dempsey or Landon Donovan would be paid the same as Alan Gordon.

With their pro team? Sure.
With their nat team? That's where I'm disagreeing.

 

[East Coast Bias]

This is an interesting read.
It is more expensive to watch the US than world champions France. Why?

Good read. It's ironic in that a lot of the major issues with US Soccer come from blindly making decisions to make more money. The pay to play structure of youth clubs doesn't do the talent pool any favors. Makes a lot of people a lot of money though. A goal of winning and a goal of making the most money aren't the same thing, and I think people lost sight of that.

If you look purely at profit, you're not growing the men's side into a better program. It's a compounded mistake that's made over and over. There's a better understanding around the world about investment in development, to the good of the long run, rather than here when everything is about money. Down to u10 teams putting the fastest kid up top and having everyone kick it downfield for him to grab it and score, all so they win tourneys and can charge more to play.

And here we are, with the success of the women's program, and people yelling about capitalism. Which is fine if people want to take that avenue. but I really wouldn't use the men's program as a barometer for success. At all.

 

[Gecklund]

With their pro team? Sure.
With their nat team? That's where I'm disagreeing.

And I'm trying to understand why. You are just saying I disagree. Why? To me, Clint/LD/Pulisic puts butts in seats. They also are the ones that have carried the men's team to success whereas Gordon or whoever are there to fill roster spots.

 

[phisherman]

So with all the spotlight on the USWNT you would think some of them would use it as a platform to talk about the NWSL. But no we're concentrating on pay issues with the FA. If it's really about money they should try and promote the hell out of the NWSL before people forget about this team until the next WC.

 

[East Coast Bias]

How would this trickle down to the women that don't make it to the national team?

So with all the spotlight on the USWNT you would think some of them would use it as a platform to talk about the NWSL. But no we're concentrating on pay issues with the FA. If it's really about money they should try and promote the hell out of the NWSL before people forget about this team until the next WC.

Not to single you out but this has kinda been my issue in this thread. I'm fine if people don't care about this at all. It's not for everyone, I get it. Nothing wrong with not watching the NWSL and not caring - completely fine. Or even being someone in another country that doesn't really want to be bothered by a debate btw US Soccer and female players. I get it. But just stay out of it then. Run along.

But your replies are just shitposting. It's throwing shit at an argument just to derail it. Why not this? Why not that?
You're completely misrepresenting the crux of the issue, and then setting an arbitrary bar that should be met for your debate. Using the fact that not all American women soccer players would get paid even if adjustments are made is incredibly disingenuous. The NWSL comment is even weaker. Because they didn't speak about the NWSL (spoiler- they did) their argument re revenue is wrong?

 

[kingsboy11]

So with all the spotlight on the USWNT you would think some of them would use it as a platform to talk about the NWSL. But no we're concentrating on pay issues with the FA. If it's really about money they should try and promote the hell out of the NWSL before people forget about this team until the next WC.

*cough* *cough*

 

[phisherman]

Not to single you out but this has kinda been my issue in this thread. I'm fine if people don't care about this at all. It's not for everyone, I get it. Nothing wrong with not watching the NWSL and not caring - completely fine. Or even being someone in another country that doesn't really want to be bothered by a debate btw US Soccer and female players. I get it. But just stay out of it then. Run along.

But your replies are just ****posting. It's throwing **** at an argument just to derail it. Why not this? Why not that?
You're completely misrepresenting the crux of the issue, and then setting an arbitrary bar that should be met for your debate. Using the fact that not all American women soccer players would get paid even if adjustments are made is incredibly disingenuous. The NWSL comment is even weaker. Because they didn't speak about the NWSL (spoiler- they did) their argument re revenue is wrong?

That's exactly what I'm doing. Because you white knights come along and try to act like it's such an important issue to you but a month from now we will still see low ratings and poor attendances for the NWSL. At least posters like @Roman Fell and @kingsboy11 back their shit up and are dedicating their time and money to the women's game.

There are the rest that treat this like the ice bucket challenge and doing it to just feel good about yourselves.

Not you specifically but some of the posters that you don't see anymore in this thread because the WC is over.

*cough* *cough*

Was there any mention of the NWSL during the parade? Any mention of it in interviews after? Did they tell the viewers which teams they play on?

They should do more to spotlight the league because a month from now no one will care about these players until the next WC.

 

[KingLB]

Does anyone have actual income numbers? And not just revenue??

To take it to a hyper example, if USMNT took 1 game to make $500,000. And USWNT took 10 games to make $1,000,000. Yes the woman made more revenue but as a while they are significantly less profitable. This don’t “make as much”.