U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination

Henrin · Apr 1, 2016

JumpinJack said:
Make up your mind. Most of the men say it's not about the money.

They have shown their worth. They made $16M for the investors. The male teams lost money. But when the women's matches in tennis made less money, the suits then argued the women's pay should be less because they made less money for the investors.

The powers that be just make up excuses, whatever excuse fits the bill that day.

But YES....when we have a group of people in a sport, it's the right thing to do to pay them according to merit, and equally, without regard to race or gender. That is what America is about.

In the old days men had to fight to get paid compensatory wages to the huge bucks their work brought to investors. It's not an easy thing to do...ruffle feathers. But it must be done.

Equality is a stupid standard, sorry. If women or men aren't making as much money then they don't deserve as much. Also, according to the data men actually make more per game, which means generally speaking they are worth more.

ludin · Apr 1, 2016

Cephus said:
I think that for the exact same value, they should earn the exact same salary. Do they have the exact same value all the time or is this just one year out of many where they do not. If their employers want to give them a bonus for winning the World Cup, good for them.

the men get paid more for doing the same job regardless of their value.
you can't say they should be paid more just because their guys.

they do get a bonus it is 3k dollar less than the guys.

Cephus · Apr 1, 2016

ludin said:
the men get paid more for doing the same job regardless of their value.
you can't say they should be paid more just because their guys.

they do get a bonus it is 3k dollar less than the guys.

The men's team get paid the same as a team, just like the women's team gets paid as a team. The men's team brings in, traditionally, more per game, more than twice as much in fact, than the women's team does, traditionally. This is a singular year for the women's team, just because they won the World Cup. They are getting more people in the stands because of it. Is that going to be the case next year? Who knows. Or will they go back to making less than half as much as the men's team does, per game? That's the question that is being asked. Should they get a raise this year if their earnings are going to go back down next year? Their income ought to be based on how much income they make for their employers, not on what's between their legs. And I'd say the exact same thing if the men's team was getting paid less because they were bringing in less profit the majority of the time.

ludin · Apr 1, 2016

Cephus said:
The men's team get paid the same as a team, just like the women's team gets paid as a team. The men's team brings in, traditionally, more per game, more than twice as much in fact, than the women's team does, traditionally. This is a singular year for the women's team, just because they won the World Cup. They are getting more people in the stands because of it. Is that going to be the case next year? Who knows. Or will they go back to making less than half as much as the men's team does, per game? That's the question that is being asked. Should they get a raise this year if their earnings are going to go back down next year? Their income ought to be based on how much income they make for their employers, not on what's between their legs. And I'd say the exact same thing if the men's team was getting paid less because they were bringing in less profit the majority of the time.

do they work the same hours? do they have the same skill sets needed to play professional sports?
do they make money for their teams? both are yes.

evidently it does matter what is between their legs. they are making thousands less for the same set of skills.
they will win their suit.

the women's team has won at least 2 or 3 world cups.
the men can barely make the 1st round.

Cephus · Apr 1, 2016

ludin said:
do they work the same hours? do they have the same skill sets needed to play professional sports?
do they make money for their teams? both are yes.

evidently it does matter what is between their legs. they are making thousands less for the same set of skills.
they will win their suit.

the women's team has won at least 2 or 3 world cups.
the men can barely make the 1st round.

So the hell what? It's all about income. The women's team, World Cups or no, simply does not earn the same amount of money over the majority of the years, as the men's team. They just don't. But the asshole feminists come out whining about gender when it demonstrably has nothing at all to do with gender, it has to do with money. It's because feminists are unable to see the world through anything but a gender-based lens. It's why they fail so miserably.

austrianecon · Apr 1, 2016

JumpinJack said:
The women do not get equal pay. They are paid from 28% to over 60% less.

No, they get paid and benefits in what they agreed to in their current CBA. By law they are under contract. These are some of the benefits they get.

So you understand, men do not get healthcare, vision care, dental care or even child care. On top of that, they don't paternity leave either. Don't see you arguing for men to get those rights. After all.. that would be equal right?

JumpinJack said:
Paying all sports athletes equally is the right thing to do. The women's teams made over $16M while the men's teams lost money for their investors. If it's about the money, then it follows that the women should be paid far more than the men. But the women are merely asking for equal pay.

No, not all sports athletes are the same. You sure as hell aren't gonna pay guy who averages 10 homer runs a year the same as the guy who hits 40 HRs a year. Thus it's an argument full of fallacy.

It's also another fallacy argument about USWNT earnings. In 2015 (March 2014 to March 2015) they made $3m. The USMNT made $26m. In 2016 (March 2015 to March 2016) the women are projected to make more (projected revenue).. because they will have played 29 games in that period. Men on the other hand will have played 14 of which required longer travel costs. USWNT has very little travel overhead as they RARELY play outside of the US. USMNT has high travel over head because they travel all over the world and the Men can't sit on their asses 7 months of the year and get paid by the Federation (Women have shorter leagues). Men get about 1 month a year off between club and national team duties.

JumpinJack said:
If it's about the money...then men who don't play on the teams that make more money should get paid less than the men who play on teams that make more money. That's not the case, though.

What? You have to explain this to me.

JumpinJack said:
I can't believe that some men have a problem with that. It's not like it takes money from the men.

It actually does.

JumpinJack said:
It's very brave to ruffle feathers and ask for equal pay. It's a last resort thing. It's a shame they had to do this, and the suits didn't just pay them equally to begin with.

But they are bitching about the wrong group. US Soccer has no control over prize money. FIFA does and that's where the "gap" comes from. Prize money.

Beaudreaux · Apr 1, 2016

VanceMack said:
Paid by whom, out of what funds?

It's a National Team - paid for through funds raised as the funds are raised that are used to pay to the men.

Chainsaw · Apr 1, 2016

Erod said:
U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination - Mar. 31, 2016

(Qualifier: I have three very competitive daughters that play highly competitive soccer.)

There's such a painfully poor understanding on display here of the supply-and-demand economics of matters such as this.

Compensation has to do with VALUE, not revenue. Sure, they can be interlinked, but there's also the component of OPTIONS that play into salary. Men's team players have them. Women's team players do not. What else are these women's players going to do? There isn't a professional league that draws enough interest to generate big salaries, so what leverage do they have? For the men, there are professional sacrifices made to play on the national team, and that has to be compensated. For the women, it's the best opportunity available.

Keep in mind, Alex Morgan is making a killing off of being on the US national team. Carli Lloyd is, too, as did Mia Hamm and as will Julie Johnston. Abby Wambach will not, just like Michelle Akers didn't. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out why. The range of endorsement opportunities are far greater for the attractive female athlete.

Simply put, you have to pay the men very well to play on the national team. For the women, you really don't. So the fact that the pay is roughly the same is a credit to the women's program. You're not getting Tim Howard to play for the US men for a favor when he's making millions at Everton. And I don't hear these women acknowledging the fact that their endorsement opportunities are far greater for some of them than any of the men.

Money is not a reward, it is a reflection of value, rarity, supply, and demand. If the women ever develop a professional league that generates the kind of interest of men's leagues - like womens' tennis has, for example - then the economics will change.

Fans are NOT sexist, they pay for quality of product and performance. Let the Championship woman's team play the Championship men's team. If the women can beat the men ONCE in a best of seven them maybe they have a complaint. Until them, shut-up!

VanceMack · Apr 1, 2016

Beaudreaux said:
It's a National Team - paid for through funds raised as the funds are raised that are used to pay to the men.

U.S. Soccer officials pushed back forcefully on the players’ claims in a conference call Thursday night, citing figures that the federation said showed the men’s national team produced revenue and attendance about double that of the women’s team, and television ratings that were “a multiple” of what the women attract, according to Sunil Gulati, the U.S. Soccer president. A federation spokesman, Neil Buethe, called some of the revenue figures in the players’ complaint “inaccurate, misleading or both.”

Like it or not...womens teams just dont draw as much. They dont make as much. Its universal.

Erod · Apr 3, 2016

The loudest complainer, Abby Wambach, was arrested for DUI last night.

Oops.

Slyfox696 · Apr 4, 2016

Citizen.Seven said:
Of course it does, they aren't doing equal work.

No, it literally doesn't make any sense.

austrianecon said:
This lawyer is known for taking long shots. 9 out of 10 years USMNT earns more money.

Source?

USSF current calculations (remember this is presumed) is that they are gonna see gains of $17m from the WNT this year and do you know how they come up with that number? By assuming the USWNT is gonna win the Olympics this year and have a 10 game victory tour like they did last year. That's $8m of it's $17m projection.

Source? And how much are the men going to get?

No, it's not likely. USMNT draws more revenue every year based on it's schedule. USMNT will play 11 games this year and bring in $21m, that would be about $1.9m per game. the USWNT will be playing 29 games to make $24m which is $827,000 per game. So that means the men bring in revenue wise between 2x to 3x per game then women.

Do you realize you said it wasn't likely and then proceed to say exactly what I did? Reading really isn't difficult, I promise.

If the men played 13 games this year, they'd bring in more revenue then women and still play 16 games less then them.

So you're saying the men will play 16 less games, but the women aren't doing equal work? Really?

Until the women bring in the revenue per game the men do.

Revenue =/= profits. That's important for you to know.

Funny thing is.. they do get equal pay. They choose their benefits in a different way then the men.

Given how terrible the rest of your post has been (false, unsourced speculation and contradictions), you'll forgive me if I don't believe you here.

austrianecon · Apr 4, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
Source?

McNeil v NFL and he represent Oscar Pistorious and Castor Semanaya against the IAAF. But you have no clue what those cases are.

Slyfox696 said:
Source? And how much are the men going to get?

Page 58 gives both

1) USMNT can't play in the Olympics. US Men's program can only legally send what is the U-23 team so revenue is counted towards U-23 team. Women on the other hand can send their full national team squad (over 23). So it's quiet a huge difference.

2) USMNT is in a qualify period for the World Cup and have Copa America this year. They don't have the option of playing 10 friendlies. In fact they never have the option because this is their schedule for tourney years. 2016: Copa America, 2017: Gold Cup, 2018: World Cup, 2019: Gold Cup.

3) USWNT has 19 home games this year. USMNT has 7.

4) the USWNT projections are based on a 10 game victory tour.. which requires winning the Olympics which they haven't done yet.

Slyfox696 said:
So you're saying the men will play 16 less games, but the women aren't doing equal work? Really?

No, they aren't doing equal work. They are planning on playing 18 friendlies. Friendlies are showing up and giving a "show" to the fans. It actually means nothing. While the men's team will be playing World Cup qualifiers and Copa America which isn't even in the US Soccer report.

Slyfox696 said:
Revenue =/= profits. That's important for you to know.

Yes, but how that revenue is gained is important as well. What the press doesn't tell you... is USMNT tv rights sell 4x higher then the womens.

Slyfox696 said:
Given how terrible the rest of your post has been (false, unsourced speculation and contradictions), you'll forgive me if I don't believe you here.

I've never contradicted myself and I highly sourced what I put down. You just don't like what it tell you.

Gaztopian · Apr 4, 2016

It's no one's fault that female sports largely suck.

Gaztopian · Apr 4, 2016

Erod said:
The loudest complainer, Abby Wambach, was arrested for DUI last night.

Oops.

She needed the alcohol to take the edge off of so much whining.

ajn678 · Apr 4, 2016

Most people in this thread clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Let me sum up this "story" since I actually know vastly about the sport and the way things work. The men's national team has bonuses that largely exceed the women's team because FIFA pays out much more for the men's game because they make way more. Germany won 35 million for winning the last World Cup compared to the 2 million that the women won. This should obviously show you that our national team's men would make more since the winners of the tournaments are awarded vastly more than the winners of the women's game. The US federation does not decide how much FIFA gives. FIFA does. Furthermore, the women are actually paid twice by the national team, as long as they are playing in America. I believe all of them are now. The Women's Federation not only pays for the national team but also for the league in the United States. The men play for clubs who pay them weekly for appearences and have a bunch of bonuses and things in their own contracts. If we bring down the payments to the men's players to where the women's pay is, the men will simply not play for the national team. Their club teams pay them way more money than showing up for qualifiers or generally even world cup games. A player such as Dempsey would have no reason to play for his country when he can make tons more money resting for international breaks.

If you raise the women's salary to men's levels, you remove all of their revenue because FIFA is not going to pay out the difference, the US federation would need to do that. Not to mention, the women's game is less competative, less of a money maker, and is watched by less people globally and within the United States. Don't link the original article that says the Women's Final was watched more than any of the men's game in history. TV viewership for these tournaments tends to go up every year, and I would expect more people to tune in for a final than a semi or quaters. Compare how many people watch the World Cup final globally vs how many watch the Women's World Cup final globally.

Then we also deal with the fact that the women's game just simply isn't as in demand as the men's game. Women play less, they play worse, and the game is much easier. Injuries are far worse on the men's side of the game. The men's game is much more competative as well. We have thousands of men coming through the ranks so obviously if you get on that team they should be paid more. The women's game is less exciting, slower, lacking technical ability, as well as athletic ability.

The last thing I will state is this. Yes, this is a gender issue. Before people freak out let me explain. Men are better at sports than women. That is basic biology. There is a reason people want to watch men's sports more than women's. Because they are simply better at what they do. If you want true equality, let Altidore bully a few of the US women's center backs and see how they cover him. Dude would look like Ibrahimovic. The US U-17 team played the women's national team and demolished them. Stop acting like sports should be equal. They shouldn't.

Erod · Apr 4, 2016

Gaztopian said:
It's no one's fault that female sports largely suck.

Women's soccer is actually pretty good to watch, if you view it as a somewhat different sport than the men's.

Conversely, women's basketball is painfully difficult to watch altogether.

This argument over money is ridiculous though. The women are still trying to get their sport going on a large scale. The youth program in the United States is incredibly strong, so the US will dominate for years to come. And it is translating into interest....once every four years. Otherwise, there's no league drawing enough interest to even compare it to the men's side.

Slyfox696 · Apr 4, 2016

austrianecon said:
McNeil v NFL and he represent Oscar Pistorious and Castor Semanaya against the IAAF. But you have no clue what those cases are.

And I don't care because I was asking for your source about the 9 years out of 10 the men's team profits more. So please source that. Thanks

Page 58 gives both

Your link doesn't work.

1) USMNT can't play in the Olympics. US Men's program can only legally send what is the U-23 team so revenue is counted towards U-23 team. Women on the other hand can send their full national team squad (over 23). So it's quiet a huge difference.

So the women are doing more work then?

2) USMNT is in a qualify period for the World Cup and have Copa America this year. They don't have the option of playing 10 friendlies. In fact they never have the option because this is their schedule for tourney years. 2016: Copa America, 2017: Gold Cup, 2018: World Cup, 2019: Gold Cup.

Okay...what is the relevance of this statement? Not being a smartass, I just don't understand why you're bringing it up.

3) USWNT has 19 home games this year. USMNT has 7.

So the women are working more?

4) the USWNT projections are based on a 10 game victory tour.. which requires winning the Olympics which they haven't done yet.

Are you talking about the source from this thread which stated the women profited $16 million and the men lost money? It's hard to know since the source you linked to wasn't linked right.

Again, not trying to be a smartass, genuine questions.

No, they aren't doing equal work. They are planning on playing 18 friendlies. Friendlies are showing up and giving a "show" to the fans. It actually means nothing. While the men's team will be playing World Cup qualifiers and Copa America which isn't even in the US Soccer report.

So it's not more work because you have arbitrarily decided they don't count?

Umm, that's not how the world works.

Yes, but how that revenue is gained is important as well. What the press doesn't tell you... is USMNT tv rights sell 4x higher then the womens.

Irrelevant in this discussion if the men are losing money and the women are making it.

I've never contradicted myself and I highly sourced what I put down. You just don't like what it tell you.

You've only sourced one thing (which wasn't linked correctly) and didn't source another thing I asked. Furthermore, you're claiming that, despite playing more often, the women aren't working as much.

I'm not saying anything you've provided here is wrong, but it certainly hasn't been right.

Hicup · Apr 4, 2016

Beaudreaux said:
I remember the ladies talking about this during the last women's World Cup, and my opinion hasn't changed since then - the ladies should be paid just as much, if not more, than the men. This fact should be seen as a shameful error that needs correcting.

If they would only play in their underwear, then yes, if not, then no, the game, although entertaining, is nowhere near the level of play and interest the mens leagues generate. Not even close.

Tim-

austrianecon · Apr 4, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
And I don't care because I was asking for your source about the 9 years out of 10 the men's team profits more. So please source that. Thanks

Go to US Soccer website.

Slyfox696 said:
Your link doesn't work.

Women's 10 game victory tour on a tourny that hasn't been played yet.

Slyfox696 said:
So the women are doing more work then?

No, they aren't. All they are doing is playing more games in the US. USMNT doesn't have the ability to qualify for Olympics or World Cup by exclusively playing in the US. But this how the Women's team qualifies. USWNT played all their games in Texas to qualify for 2016 Olympics.

Slyfox696 said:
Okay...what is the relevance of this statement? Not being a smartass, I just don't understand why you're bringing it up.

This only shows you understand very little of the topic and taking a knee jerk position. All national teams when playing at home for friendlies (be it Germany, US, Finland, Poland, England and so on) keep 100% of revenue - fees such as to get other team to come play and paying players. That means if I can load up on 18 home games and get revenue of $800,000 per game - fees of $500,000, I'll end up making $300,000 per game. So from that $300,000 x 18.. that will bring in $5.4m free and clear and this is what the USWNT does. They go on "victory" tours after winning something to boost their revenue. Since they had a jump greater then they have had anytime before in World Cup and projected jump because of the the Olympics.. they claim they've brought in more revenue. Doesn't mean it's true.

USMNT and all men's national teams (the one that plays in the World Cup) don't compete in the Olympics due to Olympic rules. In fact the Olympics favor women soccer. So because of this difference the USMNT cycle is every 2 and 4 years years for major tourneys. For USMNT it's World Cup and Gold Cup. USMNT qualifying process for the World Cup takes almost 2 years (Nov 2015-Oct 2017 for 2018 World Cup). So there isn't alot of free slots to play friendlies.

Slyfox696 said:
So the women are working more?

No, they aren't, they have less games that matter (qualifying or tourneys) so they have more time for friendlies.

Slyfox696 said:
Are you talking about the source from this thread which stated the women profited $16 million and the men lost money? It's hard to know since the source you linked to wasn't linked right.

Yes, it's a projected profit based on an assumption that the women's team will win the Olympics this year. Fun fact.. USWNT has never won a World Cup and Olympics back to back.

Slyfox696 said:
So it's not more work because you have arbitrarily decided they don't count?

No, FIFA says they don't count. They don't count towards rankings. Does Spring Training in baseball count? How about NFL preseason games? No.

Slyfox696 said:
Irrelevant in this discussion if the men are losing money and the women are making it. :shrug:

You've only sourced one thing (which wasn't linked correctly) and didn't source another thing I asked. Furthermore, you're claiming that, despite playing more often, the women aren't working as much.

I'm not saying anything you've provided here is wrong, but it certainly hasn't been right.

The men aren't losing money. The budget put out only includes revenue - fee (cost). It doesn't include the tv rights money and sales (kit and crap).

Gaztopian · Apr 5, 2016

Erod said:
Women's soccer is actually pretty good to watch, if you view it as a somewhat different sport than the men's.

Conversely, women's basketball is painfully difficult to watch altogether.

This argument over money is ridiculous though. The women are still trying to get their sport going on a large scale. The youth program in the United States is incredibly strong, so the US will dominate for years to come. And it is translating into interest....once every four years. Otherwise, there's no league drawing enough interest to even compare it to the men's side.

I haven't watched enough women's football to pass an entirely objective judgement, but as sports in general rely on physical strength, women's sports are bound to be inferior, and as there's no shortage of the superior product, men's sports, I see no reason to consider the inferior product, women's sports.

Now, that's not to say women's sports shouldn't exist - I'm sure there are many fans out there - but the market alone should determine their value. It's not discrimination that men's sports have a higher market value, as they appeal to more people and are superior to their women's counterparts. Such gratuitous protestations self-defeat feminism and ridicule it.

Slyfox696 · Apr 5, 2016

austrianecon said:
Go to US Soccer website.

Been there, didn't see the breakdown between the individual teams. Please give me page numbers, thanks.

Women's 10 game victory tour on a tourny that hasn't been played yet.

Your link doesn't show the revenue or profit from the men's side. In order to compare, I need both. Please source both, thank you. This link did work.

No, they aren't. All they are doing is playing more games in the US.

They are playing more games, but not doing more work...please explain how that makes sense to you.

Going back to our previous hypothetical, if you service 10 air conditioners and the boss's nephew services 3, did he do more work than you?

This only shows you understand very little of the topic and taking a knee jerk position.

No, it shows I'm looking for the relevance of your post.

All national teams when playing at home for friendlies (be it Germany, US, Finland, Poland, England and so on) keep 100% of revenue [condensed] Doesn't mean it's true.

So...because the women's team is good and they can capitalize on their success, then that revenue/profit doesn't count?

I'm not following your logic. You say playing more games means they work less and that being able to make money only counts based on what allows them to make that money. Being good apparently is not a valid way to make money. That sees to be what you're saying.

I understand what you're trying to say about a "victory tour", but are they going to not play those games if they don't win the Olympics? Is there anything preventing them from playing those games? Are they only allowed to play money making friendlies if they win the tournament?

USMNT and all men's national teams (the one that plays in the World Cup) don't compete in the Olympics due to Olympic rules. In fact the Olympics favor women soccer. So because of this difference the USMNT cycle is every 2 and 4 years years for major tourneys. For USMNT it's World Cup and Gold Cup. USMNT qualifying process for the World Cup takes almost 2 years (Nov 2015-Oct 2017 for 2018 World Cup). So there isn't alot of free slots to play friendlies.

How is that relevant? Why do you keep bringing up HOW they make the money, as if one way to make money is inherently better than another. If the women make the money or the men make the money, all that matters is the money they are making. Whether they make that money in victory tour friendlies or on a Nike shoe deal, we're only concerning ourselves with the money they bring in.

Furthermore, if the women bring in more profits because they are doing more work, then how exactly can you claim they don't deserve to be paid better than where they are, if not comparably with the men?

No, they aren't, they have less games that matter (qualifying or tourneys) so they have more time for friendlies.

Whether you are replacing an A/C coil or cleaning it, you're still doing work. Just because the perceived relevance is less doesn't mean the work is less. That logic is absolutely false.

Yes, it's a projected profit based on an assumption that the women's team will win the Olympics this year. Fun fact.. USWNT has never won a World Cup and Olympics back to back.

No, the $16 million was based off last year, not projections for this year. It's right there in the OP article. So what you seem to be saying is that they profited more last year and are projected to profit more this year as well.

So that seems like it's two years in a row they will have greater profits, if your assessment of the projections turn out correct.

No, FIFA says they don't count.

Who cares? The women get paid by the national team. That's like saying baseball players in AAA aren't working at all because they are not getting paid by MLB.

Who cares if they count in rankings, it doesn't change the fact the women are working and drawing money.

Does Spring Training in baseball count? How about NFL preseason games? No.

They don't count in the official standings, but it doesn't change the fact the players who play in them are working. :shrug:

The men aren't losing money. The budget put out only includes revenue - fee (cost). It doesn't include the tv rights money and sales (kit and crap).

Well, you'll have to take your argument to the lawyer who claimed they were. That's the only information I've seen about it.

Also, I'm still waiting on you to post a link to the men's projected revenue for this year. In fact, you can just post a link to the site or the pdf and I'll find it there.

Erod · Apr 5, 2016

Gaztopian said:
I haven't watched enough women's football to pass an entirely objective judgement, but as sports in general rely on physical strength, women's sports are bound to be inferior, and as there's no shortage of the superior product, men's sports, I see no reason to consider the inferior product, women's sports.

Now, that's not to say women's sports shouldn't exist - I'm sure there are many fans out there - but the market alone should determine their value. It's not discrimination that men's sports have a higher market value, as they appeal to more people and are superior to their women's counterparts. Such gratuitous protestations self-defeat feminism and ridicule it.

I agree, but the women's game, at least in soccer, still is very skilled and physical. It translates differently, but it's still a very good game.

Basketball and softball are awful to watch on the women's side, even the UConn women. It just looks too high schoolish.

U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination

Henrin

ludin

Cephus

ludin

Cephus

austrianecon

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Chainsaw

Well-known member

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Erod

Slyfox696

austrianecon

Gaztopian

Gaztopian

ajn678

Erod

Slyfox696

Hicup

austrianecon

Gaztopian

Slyfox696

Erod