Billdo
Registered User
So in total if everything is broken down like a lot of you guys have done, men's soccer in total has more value than women's, correct?
OT: The Soccer Football Thread (USA, RBNY, PL, etc.)
- Thread starter New Jersey
- Start date
And were in the actual World cup finals.
So yeah, they should be considered too.
Billdo
Registered User
I am, yes. Shouldn't whoever produces the most revenue have the highest pay? I guess that's all I'm thinking about. It seems pretty cut and dry to me but I think I'm looking at this too simplistically.
I agree and the US women generate more then the US men.
If this were a debate between any national power house mens team vs the women, say Brazil, or Germany, or Spain or Italy, then the women would have no grounds.
But in this case of US women vs USSF the women are the champs and the men are non qualifiers. More people pay to see the US women play, more people watch the US women on TV. The one thing the men have is they would get a slice of a much bigger world cup pie if they were to qualify, but they didn't in 2018.
As I said earlier, at this point in time, a 50-50 split is still underselling the women.
BenedictGomez
Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
There's no way to say they're "out-generating" men for the last 3 years, at best if you want to make the argument that' it's "equal" in that time-frame, a big leap IMO since the only "equal" data we have is the 25% of revenue ticket sales, then the obvious response is the USWNT should have signed a contract making their pay tied-to-revenue rather than the guaranteed contract they signed. But they didn't. In fact, the USMNT actually SUPPORTS basing the pay off of total revenue. That should probably tell you something about how short-lived the USMNT folk likely think this phenomena is. My 2¢.
Yes, but if not for the goaltender and some significant luck, they probably should have lost about 5-0 rather than 2-0. Competitively it was not a close game.
Last edited:
BenedictGomez
Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
One other thing that should be noted as it's never pointed out.
You keep hearing how, "over the last 3 years the women earned slightly more in gate" than the men, which is true, but 2 of those 3 years the men earned more. Getting back to my media bias point, that odd phrasing de facto points to bias. You can point out the fact that the men & women earned about the same in that time-period while simultaneously noting that the men earned more in 2 of those 3 years.
But the more obvious bias is in the "cherry picking" of that very 3 year time-frame!
Q) Why do we repeatedly only keep hearing about those 3 years in the media? Seems odd right? Such a repeated focus on only this very specific 3 year time-frame in story after story.
A) Because in the preceding few years before that, the men made WAY, WAY more money than the women.
Again, I hate to pee in anyone's Cheerios, but I loathe media bias and always try to figure out the truth for myself. And the "truth" is, the media is getting very crafty trying to push this "pay equality" narrative.
You keep hearing how, "over the last 3 years the women earned slightly more in gate" than the men, which is true, but 2 of those 3 years the men earned more. Getting back to my media bias point, that odd phrasing de facto points to bias. You can point out the fact that the men & women earned about the same in that time-period while simultaneously noting that the men earned more in 2 of those 3 years.
But the more obvious bias is in the "cherry picking" of that very 3 year time-frame!
Q) Why do we repeatedly only keep hearing about those 3 years in the media? Seems odd right? Such a repeated focus on only this very specific 3 year time-frame in story after story.
A) Because in the preceding few years before that, the men made WAY, WAY more money than the women.
Again, I hate to pee in anyone's Cheerios, but I loathe media bias and always try to figure out the truth for myself. And the "truth" is, the media is getting very crafty trying to push this "pay equality" narrative.
Why would we not place more relevance on the most recent 3 years? OK 20 years ago men made more $$$, wasn't AOL huge 20 years ago too?
More recently did the men make WAY more $$$ 4 years ago? When the women were generating 25 point TV ratings while winning the World cup in Vancouver? That doesn't sound right. To go from WAY less, to even. Do you have anything to back that up?
Maybe the women were showing some foresight when they brought their case to court, or maybe it was just coincidence, but since that time the trend has seen the women gain more prominence while the men have lost ground.
The media bias argument rings hollow when you have posted certain facts, like recent world cup revenue's, or the difficulty in qualifying for the respective tournaments, which turn out to be irrelevant to the argument.
BenedictGomez
Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Yes. Many millions of dollars more in fact!
Kind of odd how that year specifically gets repeatedly left off various media outlet's analysis isn't it? FYI, the year before that the men also made many millions of dollars more as well.
What about the fact the women receive a guaranteed annual salary and the men dont. Do you think that's "fair" treatment?
This comment suggests you dont understand the world cup math & how it works.
Again, there are many claiming men and women should be paid the same at the world cup level as well, when the women's cup brought in a bit over 100 million, and the men's world cup brought in 6 BILLION, and player payment is directly linked to revenue. Anyone who understands that and yet STILL claims men & women should be paid the same, can only be pushing a disingenuous agenda.
it's great that you can find a couple people saying globally it should be equal. But there are certainly not many. The debate is US women vs US men.
Edit: and some actual #'s pertaining to 4-5-6 years ago would be helpful.
BenedictGomez
Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
I mean, you know you can look that up for yourself? In 2015 the men brought in $12M more than the women, and 2014 the men brought in $8M more than the women.
Golly, that seems like it might be significant on a 23 person squad.
But yeah, there's nothing "biased" at all about every flippin' American media outlet saying, "over the last 3 years the women brought in more". Especially when "more" was really basically a tie, but I digress. Nope, no clear & obvious media narrative being pushed at all. lol
Aight here's something from the evil main stream media(the worst of them all, the NYT's
)
Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated
There is a graph in there, the data of which came from US soccer. It's doesn't give specifics, but it gives a general idea.
So oddly, in 2015, the year in which the womens team won in Vancouver, and as noted earned huge TV ratings they generated maybe $3 million while the men generated $14. Huge gap, but again odd, is this because the women were in the world cup and not playing games otherwise? These #'s also makes one want to unbundle the marketing and sponsorship $$'s, but I digress.
The year prior the gap was closer, $7 mil for the women, $15 mil for the men, but still a big gap. 2013 was pretty close at about $11 mi for the men and $9 mil for the women.
Also note the women took over in 2016, and is on a 3 year run. Given they won the cup again in 2019 do we assume that streak goes to 4 straight years? And if so, does 4 years of out generating the men give them enough grounds? If not then how many? 5 years? 10?
)Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated
There is a graph in there, the data of which came from US soccer. It's doesn't give specifics, but it gives a general idea.
So oddly, in 2015, the year in which the womens team won in Vancouver, and as noted earned huge TV ratings they generated maybe $3 million while the men generated $14. Huge gap, but again odd, is this because the women were in the world cup and not playing games otherwise? These #'s also makes one want to unbundle the marketing and sponsorship $$'s, but I digress.
The year prior the gap was closer, $7 mil for the women, $15 mil for the men, but still a big gap. 2013 was pretty close at about $11 mi for the men and $9 mil for the women.
Also note the women took over in 2016, and is on a 3 year run. Given they won the cup again in 2019 do we assume that streak goes to 4 straight years? And if so, does 4 years of out generating the men give them enough grounds? If not then how many? 5 years? 10?
Ha, I used the same phrase above.
But as I ask above, how many years do the women have to out generate the men before their argument becomes legitimate in your eyes? 3 is apparently laughable. Is 5 years enough?
Devils731
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2008
- 12,336
- 16,448
Do you think the women would trade their current situation in to have non-guaranteed money and earn the same ratio of payout as the men? If yes, then it wouldn’t matter the timeframes.
Would the women give up guaranteed money to make more money overall? I'd say yes.
Not sure how that makes the time frame inconsequential though.
interesting note from the above NYT's article.
"Sponsorships and television revenue are not counted in game revenue calculations; Nike, Fox Sports and ESPN, for example, are “buying the crest,” in U.S. Soccer vernacular, not the rights to a single team"
Given the women dominate the men in TV ratings, the bundling of sponsorship $$$ is some book keeping that tilts heavily against the women.
"Sponsorships and television revenue are not counted in game revenue calculations; Nike, Fox Sports and ESPN, for example, are “buying the crest,” in U.S. Soccer vernacular, not the rights to a single team"
Given the women dominate the men in TV ratings, the bundling of sponsorship $$$ is some book keeping that tilts heavily against the women.
Devils731
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2008
- 12,336
- 16,448
If they’re willing to take the same percentage as the men then the difference in total revenue between the 2 won’t matter, they’ll be earning the same as the men no matter what.
Historically, they would be giving up money under this system but it would be a bet on themselves going forward.
NJDevs26
Once upon a time...
- Mar 21, 2007
- 67,391
- 31,692
They do? When are the women ever ON TV other than the World Cup? The men get a lot more TV time than the women in general, both national team wise and league-wise. And what were the men's ratings when they were in the World Cup last?
All the time, I've been watching all their games for years now. They show the friendlies and other tournaments like the she believes cup. Majority of the games are either on one of the Fox channels or ESPN channels .
The game on August 3rd vs Ireland at the Rose Bowl is going to be on ESPN 2.
sabremike
Friend To All Giraffes And Lindy Ruff
These are the two things about the women pushing the whole pay discrimination angle that bother me:
1) It was their union who agreed to this deal, which at the time was favorable to them in that players got a guaranteed salary even if they didn't make the squad and very few could make a living on a club team. Next time if they ask for the same deal as the men problem solved. Unfortunately that would cause quite a few players to lose their main source of income (the salary).
2) It distracts from things where they have a completely legit gripe over inferior lodging, per diems, field conditions, travel ect. That's what they should be focusing on because that is totally unacceptable and total BS by USSF.
BenedictGomez
Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
You pretty much nailed it, only thing you could have done better is gone into the actual disparity of ALL-IN (key point) revenues & noted the disparity. But your point #1 should be so obvious to any educated person that it truly makes you realize that some are pushing an agenda, and the "facts" wont stop them from getting their way.
New Jersey
(pacmanghost x) sad again
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Victoriaville Tigres @ Drummondville Voltigeurs - Game 1Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Belleville Senators @ Toronto Marlies -Belleville Senators leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $440.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 1 W-B/Scranton Penguins @ Lehigh Valley Phantoms - Lehigh Valley Phantoms leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $180.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
