U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

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

Players on the U.S. women's national soccer team say they are being discriminated against because they are paid less than members of the men's team.
"The women's team does the identical work as the men's team, except they have outperformed in every way," said Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer who represents the women. "The U.S. Soccer Federation made a profit of $16 million on the women's team last year. It had a loss on men's team."

(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.

Beaudreaux · Mar 31, 2016

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.

joG · Mar 31, 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.

Considering how much less they make and how much more elegantly they play.....

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

joG said:
Considering how much less they make and how much more elegantly they play.....

But against whom?

After the top 4-5 teams in the world, there is a massive drop-off in talent. It would be like the New England Patriots playing against four NFL teams, followed by the WAC. Men's soccer has a lot more depth.

Erod · Mar 31, 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.

Why? The world interest in women's soccer is infinitesimally smaller than men's soccer except for a small window every four years. And the top players on the women's team do very well in endorsements.

This is basic economics.

soot · Mar 31, 2016

If you don't like your job - quit.

joG · Mar 31, 2016

Erod said:
But against whom?

After the top 4-5 teams in the world, there is a massive drop-off in talent. It would be like the New England Patriots playing against four NFL teams, followed by the WAC. Men's soccer has a lot more depth.

They've only been at it for a few years. It's like US male soccer took a long time to develop the breadth and depth. Considering that I find women are exceptionally good.

Fletch · Mar 31, 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.

Why do you say that? Should WNBA players make the same as NBA players too?

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

joG said:
They've only been at it for a few years. It's like US male soccer took a long time to develop the breadth and depth. Considering that I find women are exceptionally good.

Actually, that's not true. The US has had high level select girls soccer since the 70s.

The problem is that Europe has virtually zero interest in women's soccer. The MLS is trying to get a parallel women's division to go alongside the men's league, which is finally taking solid root. So far, there are eight women's teams up and running, with a few more in the works. Carli Lloyd plays for the Houston Dynamo, in fact. There's even a Development Academy in the works beyond the ECNL leagues that cater to the top girls in the nation.

That's all big stuff, but until you have reasonably full stadiums for pro women's teams, the US national players don't have the leverage to demand higher salaries, except for a few.

Women's tennis is a prime example that this isn't a gender thing. This is about interest, not gender.

Fishking · Mar 31, 2016

"The women's team does the identical work as the men's team, except they have outperformed in every way," said Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer who represents the women.

I'll bite. Have the women's team play the men's team head-to-head and then their paychecks and be a % distribution reflective of score spread.

lenski7 · Mar 31, 2016

To be fair if they don't like their pay, they could most likely easily find a job somewhere else, it is more of a matter of interest, now seeing as how the men's team isn't making as much they should expect their pay to be cut next contract. Why would I give someone a raise, who I can pay less to, and will keep playing. The only reason I can see them giving out raises is to prevent them from leaving the team, and finding greener pastures (maybe on another national team >_>)

joG · Mar 31, 2016

Erod said:
Actually, that's not true. The US has had high level select girls soccer since the 70s.

The problem is that Europe has virtually zero interest in women's soccer. The MLS is trying to get a parallel women's division to go alongside the men's league, which is finally taking solid root. So far, there are eight women's teams up and running, with a few more in the works. Carli Lloyd plays for the Houston Dynamo, in fact. There's even a Development Academy in the works beyond the ECNL leagues that cater to the top girls in the nation.

That's all big stuff, but until you have reasonably full stadiums for pro women's teams, the US national players don't have the leverage to demand higher salaries, except for a few.

Women's tennis is a prime example that this isn't a gender thing. This is about interest, not gender.

Of course it is an interest thing. That is, what it often is. Why watch the girls, when the men do it better? Same thing in Hollywood.

Anthony60 · Mar 31, 2016

This has nothing to do with gender. If the women's game took in more money and was more valuable than the men's game, then they would make more money.

Why isn't there an uprising for male models to get the same pay as female models? They do the exact same job.

jonny5 · Mar 31, 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.

I agree with the male player quoted

"Both #USMNT and #USWNT should be paid commensurate w/ the revenues they produce, not based upon what the other makes"

Im guessing that means the men would be paid more. Which match are advertisers more likely to buy slots during, womens or mens soccer? Which merchandise sells more, men or women? Which sells more tickets?

If you look at the charts, mens events bring in twice as much revenue per event (higher attendance), but woman play twice as many events, so they make more total.
Ticket prices are higher at mens events.
Mens world cup revenue was 14 million. Womens was 3 million.
Mens events made 45 million in last 3 years. Womens 15 million.

The womens real problem is that there are more male FANS, who value male teams higher. And so spend more money on mens team events. Maybe the women should start their own organization and pay themselves as much as the men.

Ikari · Mar 31, 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.

First off, people don't really watch soccer in the US anyway. Secondly, even of those who do, how many watch women's soccer?

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

Ikari said:
First off, people don't really watch soccer in the US anyway. Secondly, even of those who do, how many watch women's soccer?

Actually, that's quite wrong. The EPL matches shown on Saturday and Sunday mornings on NBC Sports routinely get better TV ratings than NBA, NHL, and MLB national broadcasts. It's not even close.

And the US national team games - men and women - get very good ratings, far better than what the NBA, NCAA basketball, NHL or MLB national games get.

Ikari · Mar 31, 2016

Erod said:
Actually, that's quite wrong. The EPL matches shown on Saturday and Sunday mornings on NBC Sports routinely get better TV ratings than NBA, NHL, and MLB national broadcasts. It's not even close.

And the US national team games - men and women - get very good ratings, far better than what the NBA, NCAA basketball, NHL or MLB national games get.

Hard to believe, but OK. Well they should be paid proportionally to the amount of money they can draw in and if woman's and men's soccer is the same, their pay should be the same.

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

Ikari said:
Hard to believe, but OK. Well they should be paid proportionally to the amount of money they can draw in and if woman's and men's soccer is the same, their pay should be the same.

The men draw far more money in, but the men's team has much higher logistical costs because their players play all over the world, and a few are highly compensated and require a higher salary. So the interest favors the men, but the overhead and profits favor the women.

The women are far more successful on the field, but the competition is far less challenging overall.

The two are impossible to compare really.

Aunt Spiker · Mar 31, 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.

From your quote of the article:

"The U.S. Soccer Federation made a profit of $16 million on the women's team last year. It had a loss on men's team."

The men NETTED A LOSS.

???

So how does your point stand against the 'They made 16million on the women's teams - but HAD A REVENUE LOSS on the men's teams'?
If there's a supportive balance of supply and demand the men would still NET A PROFIT, not A LOSS.

In truth - it sounds like the men are OVERPAID, since they came in AT A LOSS.
And the women could actually stay where they are, pay wise, and maybe even get a bump-up because they do seem to be quite popular:

"It also drew more viewers than some other top-flight men's sporting events such as the World Series and NBA finals."

and the men:

"The U.S. men's team finished 11th in its own World Cup competition in 2015."

and this:

"The complaint lays out some compelling numbers. Men earn as much as $17,625 for an exhibition match against a top opponent, according to the court document, and get no less than $5,000 even if the team loses.
But women are paid a maximum of $4,950 even if they win every game. And they're only paid for the first 20 exhibition games they play each year -- they aren't paid anything for any games beyond that. Men get paid for each game, no matter how many exhibition games they play."

So the women WIN a game and get paid LESS than the men are paid to play and LOSE a game.

Blow me . . . pay the WINNING women more or the LOSING men less.

Ikari · Mar 31, 2016

Erod said:
The men draw far more money in, but the men's team has much higher logistical costs because their players play all over the world, and a few are highly compensated and require a higher salary. So the interest favors the men, but the overhead and profits favor the women.

The women are far more successful on the field, but the competition is far less challenging overall.

The two are impossible to compare really.

Ok, I'm not well versed enough to make much of a call, other than to poke fun at soccer.

gdgyva · Mar 31, 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.

so then this is what will happen

you cant raise the women up, so you will have to lower the men's numbers if equality is the end game (unless we want the soccer teams to cost us millions upon millions of dollars each year)

and when you lower the men's numbers, you will have a number of the best players quietly leave the program

what you will be left with, is college rank players, who while giving it their best, will be decimated by the men's teams from the other countries of the world

this is what pay equality will bring you.....sad but true

just how much do we want to spend on the national teams is the question?

because as the OP said....our best players are making big bucks playing in the big leagues in europe and south america

if we do not compensate most of them, they will not play....

Henrin · Mar 31, 2016

You would have to look at the popularity of the sports in question to answer this question. Regardless, I'm not open to these kind of discussions since pay is a matter of choice of the employer. No one should be obligated to agree to certain terms in a contract.

Aunt Spiker · Mar 31, 2016

Erod said:
The men draw far more money in, but the men's team has much higher logistical costs because their players play all over the world, and a few are highly compensated and require a higher salary. So the interest favors the men, but the overhead and profits favor the women.

The women are far more successful on the field, but the competition is far less challenging overall.

The two are impossible to compare really.

The military employs a standard formula which is based on cost-of-living / travel / distance-to-base and other such things when determining pay for individuals.

If 'they travel worldwide' is the issue then it would be simply to come up with a formula that's designed to give compensation per 'location afar' or 'hours booked in travel' (etc). Thus it would be logical rather than 'oh but . . . we're men. We might lose a hell of a lot and the women are champs but... we're men!'

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

Ikari said:
Ok, I'm not well versed enough to make much of a call, other than to poke fun at soccer.

I'm a big sports fan, and there's room for soccer. Pick a decent EPL team and follow them for a season. Before long, you'll start to really like it. The traditions and pageantry is fantastic, and the games are far faster and fun to watch than what you see in World Cup games.

Erod · Mar 31, 2016

Aunt Spiker said:
The military employs a standard formula which is based on cost-of-living / travel / distance-to-base and other such things when determining pay for individuals.

If 'they travel worldwide' is the issue then it would be simply to come up with a formula that's designed to give compensation per 'location afar' or 'hours booked in travel' (etc). Thus it would be logical rather than 'oh but . . . we're men. We might lose a hell of a lot and the women are champs but... we're men!'

That's not it at all. There's no "formula" for negotiation. Tim Howard makes millions as a great keeper for Everton overseas. Yes, he wants to play for the US, but he's not risking injury and spending what little free time he has playing for our national team for just some formulaic amount of money. You have to pay him. Same for a few others. Soccer careers are often short.

Women's tennis doesn't have any problem whatsoever paying at or above the men because the interest is there.

U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination

Erod

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

joG

Erod

Erod

soot

joG

Fletch

Erod

Fishking

lenski7

Active member

joG

Anthony60

jonny5

Ikari

Erod

Ikari

Erod

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

Ikari

gdgyva

Henrin

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

Erod

Erod