LeHab
Registered User
- Aug 31, 2005
- 15,957
- 6,259
3. As a world leader in equality and freedom, the women should be paid the same as the men because it’s the right thing to do.
Why on Earth would you call USA "a world leader in equality and freedom"?
Are you trying to say that USA is a "world leader in equality and freedom"? A country that's ranked 51st in gender equality way behind places like Iceland, Norway and Finland, a country where socioeconomic mobility is very low compared to those same Nordic countries, and a country where the incarceration rate is through the roof thanks to the amazing power of the private prison industry? USA has 655 people incarcerated per 100,000 inhabitants. Iceland has 37. Why on Earth would you call USA "a world leader in equality and freedom"? Because they invest more on women's soccer than real footballing nations? I don't think that's an awfully relevant metric.
Ah yes, the typical Nordic smugness rearing its head again
Maybe because the USA still is a leader in equality and freedom? All that despite the horrific statistics you mention. I'm sorry, but the world exists beyond (north-) western European democracies of under 10 million people.
You can compare USA to the European Union (population 513 million) if you so choose. And it's still behind in equality and freedom.
I support the USWNT and am kind of neutral on this "pay equity" thing.
I just wonder what the attendance for the women's games would be when the ticket prices are the same as the men's games...
I wonder what the attendance would be for usmnt games without the massive amount of fans from the visiting teams in the building. I’ve been to a us/mexico game. 50/50 crowd.I just wonder what the attendance for the women's games would be when the ticket prices are the same as the men's games...
I went to one of the qualifiers last October in Cary with my wife and daughter. I think the tickets were $35-40. If the games were played in a larger venue and charged the same price as a men’s qualifier, we would not have gone.That's part of the women's argument. They claim the lack of equal promotion and the booking of women's games in smaller venues is actually keeping their revenues lower.
If you look at the women's attendance, it's like 20,000 vs 23,000 compared to the men for friendlies. The women's friendlies are actually the most valuable games because in friendlies they can play top 5 clubs from Europe. The men's biggest crowds are WCQ because it means something. Women's WCQ doesn't mean anything. The group play of the Gold Cup IS WCQ for the women. Well, the women won three games by a total of 19-0. That earned them their WWC bid, and the knockout round was for the CONCACAF championship. It's boring because we're going to romp to another title, qualify easily, and those games were among the worst promoted and worst attended games the women play.
I went to one of the qualifiers last October in Cary with my wife and daughter. I think the tickets were $35-40. If the games were played in a larger venue and charged the same price as a men’s qualifier, we would not have gone.
I seriously doubt if they charged the $80-100 the men get for qualifying games, the women would get 2,000 attendance.
And the point made below is well taken. Many of the games against Mexico and Central American teams are attended by (being PC - fans of those teams.). That’s not going to happen with the women’s games.
The game we went to vs Panama, Mexico played T & T in the second game. We stayed until halftime. There may have been 500 people left.
Over the past decade, U.S. Soccer has paid our Women’s National Team more than our Men’s National Team. From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million—not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.
US soccer president side of the story.
Open Letter July 29, 2019 - Finding Common Ground
In the end both have different pay structures making any comparison challenging.
What entitlement by the women's team.
Nobody cares about women's sports. People just watch it in the way that people watch their little kids play. Its cute but everyone knows if you actually care about sports you watch the best play the best. That is why women's sports make nothing in comparison to the men's leagues. The fact that the women's teams don't recognize this is because of the failed logic of liberalism and making everyone feel "equal" instead of the realization of gender roles that God created from the foundation of this world. Gone are the days of traditionalism that brought greatness into civilization.
THANK YOU. I saw this two days ago and have just been waiting for someone to post it to this thread.
The US Soccer Federation has responded by claiming it paid the women $7.7 million more than the men over an 8-year period.
That pay period includes 158 men's games.... and THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO women's games. (more than double).
Per player, per game, that's:
MEN: $7,551.49
WOMEN: $4,465.69
That's not equitable.
Which is exactly what the women's world cup is.... the best women's players from each country going head to head.What entitlement by the women's team.
Nobody cares about women's sports. People just watch it in the way that people watch their little kids play. Its cute but everyone knows if you actually care about sports you watch the best play the best. That is why women's sports make nothing in comparison to the men's leagues. The fact that the women's teams don't recognize this is because of the failed logic of liberalism and making everyone feel "equal" instead of the realization of gender roles that God created from the foundation of this world. Gone are the days of traditionalism that brought greatness into civilization.
Once again you can't compare it this way as both have different pay/compensation structure. Women chose to go lower risk hence lower reward by opting for more guaranteed money vs bonuses and to have other benefits. This means success and more games wont necessarily translate into more income but poor play wont have much negative impact either. When negotiating CBA women were offered the same bonus based higher risk structure as men but turned it down.
It does make sense for women to be more risk averse as they don't have the same opportunities for income from other streams (men leagues) but there is a price to pay for this comfort.
The mission of the U.S. Soccer Foundation is to enhance, assist and grow the sport of soccer in the United States, with a special emphasis on underserved communities.
The salary thing is misleading, though. Because it’s only covering 20 of 42 games over a four-year period, which translates to $25,000 a year (less than a liveable wage. US Soccer is based in DC where the minimum wage equals $29,120 per year!). I could type a lot more on that, but I’ll skip to the wrap-up:
You’re doing a great job of EXPLAINING why the pay isn’t equal, but that isn’t JUSTIFICATION for why it SHOULD NOT be equal. What you describe is basically this:
Women’s Compensation + Funding of otherwise non-existent Women’s Infrastructure = Men’s Compensation.
My intention was not to justify pay should not be equal. Simply pointing existing differences in total compensation structures making apples-to-apples comparison challenging.
Not sure why you are referring to infrastructure.
On a related note, USNTPA issued a statement countering some of recent Prez claims.
USNSTPA statement in response to 7/29/2019 Carlos Cordeiro letter
Men are right in the middle of negotiations of their own CBA. Latest proposal apparently contains equal pay provision between USMNT and USWNT. Could both PAs join forces in a single union if both would be happy with equal pay?
In addition to San Jose...Anaheim, Arizona, Buffalo, Calgary, Carolina, Dallas, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Montreal, New Jersey, both the Islanders and Rangers, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg own their AHL teams NHL Affiliations: AHL and ECHL - Arena DigestThat provides them what US women’s soccer doesn’t have (All the North American pro clubs are independent, one-team operations with really only the San Jose Sharks / San Jose Barracuda as a possible exception).
In addition to San Jose...Anaheim, Arizona, Buffalo, Calgary, Carolina, Dallas, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Montreal, New Jersey, both the Islanders and Rangers, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg own their AHL teams NHL Affiliations