USWNT and US Soccer Federation to federal mediation for pay imbalance

[Nino33]

I understand the ownership, and your list helps me add Winnipeg/Manitoba to the list, But that's not what I'm talking about. It's not OWNERSHIP that matters, it’s the OPERATIONS.

The Pegula's own the Sabres and the Rochester Americans. But they're an hour apart at different locations. Same organization, but two separate operations. However, the Sharks/Barracuda and Jets/Moose are like the European model: They have one "Campus" where two levels of teams practice and play. They have ONE Operation that covers both teams.

OK; if I realized this was your criteria I wouldn't have commented

 

[Uncle Rotter]

TV RATINGS:
The 2015 Women’s World Cup was watched by 764 million people, the 2014 men’s World Cup was watched by 3.2 billon.

That’s a men’s difference four times the women’s.
The FIFA men’s payouts are 13 times the women’s

And what's the average worldwide audience per tournament game, not just the final?

 

[KevFu]

And what's the average worldwide audience per tournament game, not just the final?

Who cares? The World isn't paying the US National Team. The USSF is paying the US National Team.

That's the major disconnect I see with HF posters: Tons of people bring up that "Women's Sports" aren't as popular/lucrative as men's sports. All that matters is the US Women vs the US Men. That's it. Everyone else is irrelevant.

It's like saying "Tom Hanks, the average movie in the world only makes $40 million, so you're not worth $30 million." Who cares what other movies make? Tom Hanks movies average $167 million box office. THAT'S what you're paying him for.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Who cares? The World isn't paying the US National Team. The USSF is paying the US National Team.

So what does that have to do with the worldwide numbers you quoted?

 

[KevFu]

So what does that have to do with the worldwide numbers you quoted?

OH! The world wide numbers was to show that the argument of "Money is divided based on popularity. Women aren't as popular, they get less money" could be valid, except the disparity in pay exceeds the disparity in popularity. And the US Women's team's popularity in the US has a much smaller gap than the rest of soccer around the world.


The argument that "The women deserve less compensation than the men because they are less popular and make less revenue" CAN be valid, but ONLY IF the difference in compensation is due to that gap and the same ratio/percentages of revenues applies to both. But the FIFA prize money is not divided in the same percentage (Women are 1/4th as popular, but get 1/13th the prize money; and the US Women raised more revenue than the men in the last four years and still get paid less).

 

[LadyStanley]

USWNT argues stars earned less than one-third what men would if number of games — and wins — are equal
The plaintiffs for the women's national team released earnings for Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd and Becky Sauerbrunn.

Claim they earned 1/3rd of men (if # of games, etc. equal).

 

[mouser]

USWNT argues stars earned less than one-third what men would if number of games — and wins — are equal
The plaintiffs for the women's national team released earnings for Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd and Becky Sauerbrunn.

Claim they earned 1/3rd of men (if # of games, etc. equal).

Fundamental problem with the suit boils down to a few things:

a) There are two separate CBA’s negotiated for the men and women’s teams.
b) The women’s team CBA pays base salaries while the men’s team CBA doesn’t.
c) The men’s team has a snowball’s chance in hell of being as successful as the women’s team. There is an equitable argument that the two CBA’s are biased towards reasonably expected performance by the respective teams.

The best thing going for the suit:
a) US Soccer combines most broadcast and sponsorship deals together for both the men’s and women’s teams. That leads to the possibility US Soccer is unfairly attributing revenues to one team or the other.