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

[Burner Account]

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.

On this note: the USWNT has a friendly against Ireland next month and the cheapest ticket is currently $175. Earlier today it was $100 and I'm pretty sure that was upper bowl.

 

[kingsboy11]

On this note: the USWNT has a friendly against Ireland next month and the cheapest ticket is currently $175. Earlier today it was $100 and I'm pretty sure that was upper bowl.

Their pre-sale that's going on right now has it at $40, but IMO that's still pretty high given the Rose Bowl is 90k seat stadium. When they played a friendly at LAFC's place last April it was pretty expensive too. The cheapest seat was to sit with the American Outlaws at like $54 which I didn't mind at all, but that's not for everyone. And its a problem for the men's team too. These friendlies are way over priced.

 

[Lepardi]

We live in an age of social media and hashtags which is stronger than it was 4 years ago. Hopefully this movement spurns change.

Do you also support the idea that the lower-ranked teams in the women's World Cup should get paid less because they're only tagging along for the ride of the US women's popularity? Or does this argument only work one way? My guess is your stance is the latter.

 

[Lepardi]

USA, Canada, Japan, and I’m assuming Norway and Sweden (but I admit ignorance on those two), have societies that have been open to women playing sports for decades, and the rest of the world is not like that.

You're not wrong about the Nordic countries. In fact they've even taken this gender equality thing so far that in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland women are expected to work for a living instead of just getting boobjobs and liposuctions to please their husbands. The American correspondent of Finland's largest newspaper said that her American female friends were shocked by how little effort she puts into removing her body hair.

Maybe this weird concept of women supporting themselves by their own work is why the Nordic countries are ranked top of the world in gender equality, whereas USA doesn't make the top-50.

 

[phisherman]

You're not wrong about the Nordic countries. In fact they've even taken this gender equality thing so far that in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland women are expected to work for a living instead of just getting boobjobs and liposuctions to please their husbands. The American correspondent of Finland's largest newspaper said that her American female friends were shocked by how little effort she puts into removing her body hair.

Maybe this weird concept of women supporting themselves by their own work is why the Nordic countries are ranked top of the world in gender equality, whereas USA doesn't make the top-50.

Whoa there. I'm all for gender equality but I still like my women to be feminine.

 

[Lepardi]

Whoa there. I'm all for gender equality but I still like my women to be feminine.

The problem was Laura Saarikoski had hair on her toes. Her friends told her that's not suitable for a lady.

 

[KevFu]

If they’re the real numbers no one would have a problem linking where they are from.

You could have gone to the parade Wednesday, they were literally throwing copies of it out the window as their contributions to the ticker-tape. Hahaha.

But seriously, because it’s a EEOC complaint, you can find a PDF here:


And here’s their appendix with the pay differences: It is a convoluted mess.

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.

I think the disconnect people are having, is what I said before about paying equal percentages is "equal pay" but different percentages is not. And everyone’s reply to that is basically what you just said: “Well, IF THAT’S TRUE, then yeah, BUT (Insert something about how the men make more money because GENERALLY SPEAKING with all revenue considered, men’s teams across the board do).

Using the pay chart from their Court Filing appendix, you can actually do the math!

I started to yesterday, but didn’t do that specific example. The math I did do was this:

Player playing all matches of 4-year WC cycle:
WOMAN (2016-19) $76,500 per year ($303k total)
> 39-1-2 in friendlies/non-WCQ. 5-0-0 WCQ; 7-0-0 World Cup.
(The women’s single-game WCQ pay is not listed, just the roster bonus, so it might be 5-games higher).

MEN (2011-14 with current pay structure: $148,000 per year, $585k total (roughly, did this person computer, am at work now and trying to remember).
> 12-9-12 in friendlies, 11-2-3 in WCQ; 1-2-1 World Cup.

IF THE WOMEN had the Men’s World Cup pay structure:
Playing every game with same result would be: $870,000 over four years.

Now, keep in mind that this is JUST pay from US Soccer. It does not include the FIFA prize money for winning the World Cup.

 

[Lepardi]

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.

Except they don't. USA has made the round of 16 four times in the last seven World Cups, and they've got one quarter-final appearance.

 

[sabremike]

You could have gone to the parade Wednesday, they were literally throwing copies of it out the window as their contributions to the ticker-tape. Hahaha.

But seriously, because it’s a EEOC complaint, you can find a PDF here:


And here’s their appendix with the pay differences: It is a convoluted mess.





I think the disconnect people are having, is what I said before about paying equal percentages is "equal pay" but different percentages is not. And everyone’s reply to that is basically what you just said: “Well, IF THAT’S TRUE, then yeah, BUT (Insert something about how the men make more money because GENERALLY SPEAKING with all revenue considered, men’s teams across the board do).

Using the pay chart from their Court Filing appendix, you can actually do the math!

I started to yesterday, but didn’t do that specific example. The math I did do was this:

Player playing all matches of 4-year WC cycle:
WOMAN (2016-19) $76,500 per year ($303k total)
> 39-1-2 in friendlies/non-WCQ. 5-0-0 WCQ; 7-0-0 World Cup.
(The women’s single-game WCQ pay is not listed, just the roster bonus, so it might be 5-games higher).

MEN (2011-14 with current pay structure: $148,000 per year, $585k total (roughly, did this person computer, am at work now and trying to remember).
> 12-9-12 in friendlies, 11-2-3 in WCQ; 1-2-1 World Cup.

IF THE WOMEN had the Men’s World Cup pay structure:
Playing every game with same result would be: $870,000 over four years.

Now, keep in mind that this is JUST pay from US Soccer. It does not include the FIFA prize money for winning the World Cup.

The thing people are ignoring is that the Women and their union agreed to a deal that featured the different pay structure because at that time getting players a salary and being paid even if they don't make the squad and getting health and other benefits was seen as better than the men's deal (which is per appearence and if you don't make the squad you don't get paid). Not to mention USSF is essentially propping up the pro women's league. On their next deal the women will be able to get the deal the men have if they wish because they have the leverage. The biggest problem I have with them overstating their case is that it leads to people overlooking USSF giving them worse travel, lodging, per diems ect. than the men. In that case USSF is absolutely guilty as hell and there is no defense.

 

[KevFu]

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”.

Unfortunately, no. But it’s not hard to extrapolate with a best guess:

We’ve got attendance data. We don’t have to worry about TV revenue because it’s bundled, so easier to exclude it rather than fight over it).
We don’t know the revenue sharing structure between WCQ/CONCACAF events, but can assess the totals and just assume some cut of that goes to CONCACAF.
And the rest would be merchandise, which we don’t know.

So we can take attendance, average ticket prices for friendlies and specific prices for CONCACAF (I found an article) and extrapolate:
- Men: $55 average, 23,000 attendance x 24 friendlies + 8 WCQ x 24,000 attendance x AVG price.
- Women: $30 average x 20,080 attendance x 53 friendlies* + 5 WCQ x 8000 attendance x AVG price.

I’m using 53 friendlies because of this:

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".

Great call. I initially counted those as “sellable games” in a previous post, but it looks like those tourneys are in fact doubleheaders. Ticket price might be higher because it’s a tournament though, so I’m going to call those “game and a half” to sell.

The total revenue over 4 years would be ridiculously close: $51 million and change for both teams, with women a half mil higher due to the disparity of games played.
Then the Men would lose some off the total from CONCACAF revenue sharing.

Those numbers are also VERY CLOSE to the lawsuits numbers for THREE YEARS. Which tells us that “merchandise is about 1/4 of ticket sales.” Which sounds very logical for non-WC years. The women's revenue should also be far higher if we included 2019 merchandise because it's been flying out of stock for three months.

 

[KevFu]

The thing people are ignoring is that the Women and their union agreed to a deal that featured the different pay structure because at that time getting players a salary and being paid even if they don't make the squad and getting health and other benefits was seen as better than the men's deal (which is per appearence and if you don't make the squad you don't get paid). Not to mention USSF is essentially propping up the pro women's league. On their next deal the women will be able to get the deal the men have if they wish because they have the leverage. The biggest problem I have with them overstating their case is that it leads to people overlooking USSF giving them worse travel, lodging, per diems ect. than the men. In that case USSF is absolutely guilty as hell and there is no defense.

I get the CBAs are different and bargained separately. And at the time they signed it, I'm sure it was a huge step forward.

And the fact is, the two "realities" are different. The way they have to set the pay structure to account for "paying players who appear in some, but not all games" absolutely MUST be broken down by category. And the breakdown of games by category are different for men and women.

The men are going to focus on WCQ pay, because they had 16 games of it, while the women only have five of those games. (Actually only THREE to qualify and the they won those games 18-0 combined last time. They play CONCACAF 4th, 5th and 8th, and if they don't lose two games, they make the WC; then the knockout round is for the CONCACAF title)

The women are going to focus on World Cup bonuses, because they've made the semis in 7 of 8, and the finals 5 times with 4 wins.
The men's WC bonuses are bigger dollars, because the federation can promise that and know they'll rarely have to pay it and if they do shell out big bucks for a deep run, their revenues will skyrocket anyway.


But at the same time, there's really no acceptable reason for "we brought in more revenue and get paid less."

The point about "Well, if it takes the women 50 games to bring in what the men bring in via 24 games, they aren't as profitable!" is "true." But it is misleading. That would only justify paying them less if they are both playing only 24 games. The women actually ARE playing the 50, PUTTING IN THE WORK to make up the difference.

 

[KevFu]

On this note: the USWNT has a friendly against Ireland next month and the cheapest ticket is currently $175. Earlier today it was $100 and I'm pretty sure that was upper bowl.

Their pre-sale that's going on right now has it at $40, but IMO that's still pretty high given the Rose Bowl is 90k seat stadium. When they played a friendly at LAFC's place last April it was pretty expensive too. The cheapest seat was to sit with the American Outlaws at like $54 which I didn't mind at all, but that's not for everyone. And its a problem for the men's team too. These friendlies are way over priced.

The women have an average ticket price of about $30 per Cycle. Of course, this is because in non-World Cup years, they’re averaging 10,000 fans at $15/$20 each; and in World Cup Years, they can average 25,000 for $50 before the World Cup, and 40,000+ at $100 a pop AFTER winning it.

The Victory Tour is the smartest thing US Soccer does for the women. The women absolutely get paid handsomely for it ($76,000). Of course, the problem is, they HAVE TO WIN for it to be that lucrative.

And when you look at revenue to compensation, selling out the Rose Bowl at $100 each would be $9 million in revenue (from ONE GAME).


That’s all the more staggering about the lawsuit: those revenue numbers they’re showing are THREE YEARS of Data, not a World Cup Year! If you add in 2019, when the men’s attendance has plummeted like a brick for missing the WC, and the women are raking in merchandise revenue and Victory Tour loot?

 

[KevFu]

A woman playing every game for US Soccer made $308,261 total by going 48 wins, 1 loss, 2 draws en route to the WWC win over four years (that’s $77,065.25 per year) this World Cup cycle.

1. The website “Glassdoor.com” has been compiling a database of jobs that exist by getting people to anonymously give their job title, brief description and salary range. A position for “U.S. Soccer Federation Senior Corporate Accountant” has an annual salary of $70,000 to $77,000.

The guy handling the sponsorship money for US Soccer is making ABOUT THE SAME as the players scoring goals and WINNING the freaking World Cup!

2. If they LOST to Netherlands, they’d be 47-2-2 in four years and make only $156,750 total ($39,187.50 per year).

 

[Lepardi]

The guy handling the sponsorship money for US Soccer is making ABOUT THE SAME as the players scoring goals and WINNING the freaking World Cup!

Is handling the sponsorship money a full-time job?

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

 

[Night Shift]

Delete..wrong thread

 

[Hammettf2b]

I demand equal pay for men!!!

 

[lilphildub]

Interesting reports

 

[spintheblackcircle]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...shed-world-cup-role-was-worst-time-of-my-life

Rather than the crowning achievement of her career, winning a second consecutive World Cup title marked the end of three years that Carli Lloyd hopes never to repeat.

"I'm not going to lie and sugarcoat it," Lloyd said. "It was absolutely the worst time of my life. It affected my relationship with my husband, with friends. It really was rock bottom of my entire career. But somehow, you see light at the end of the tunnel, and I can honestly say I'm having more fun now playing than I ever have in my career. I think I just learned a lot throughout it."

 

[kingsboy11]

Knowing Carli she's an incredibly prideful person so I get where she's coming from especially after her tremendous world cup in 2015. That being said she's 37 years old. She's had a tremendous career and should be proud of here achievements, but at the end of the day she's not the player she once was. And while she still brings it to training and the games its unfair to the younger players to give the majority of the playing time to a player who is not long for the team. Now I never was the biggest Jill Ellis fan, but I thought she handled Carli very well this World Cup so I think she's taking this way too personally.