• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Equal pay women vs men in soccer

It only appears to be unequal pay when looked at from a currency point of view. When looked at from a percentage of team revenue perspective, it is equal pay. A male soccer team earns considerably more revenue than a female soccer team. However, if the players are paid an equal percentage of the team's revenue, then they are being equally paid in proportion to their team's earnings. Even though women would be taking home less for playing the same game.
 
Grand Mal said:
You sure it's a supply and demand issue? Far as I know it's about allocation of taxpayer money. I'd have to look into it but that's what I understand, that the American governing bodies that oversee these amateur athletes pays female amateur athletes a fraction of what it pays men.
If that's true there's no way to defend it. None. Women are entitled to as big a slice of the public pie as men. But as I said, I need to look into it.
Or you could tell me. You sound like you know the issue. Are we talking here about what the public is willing to pay for at the gate for professional sports or are we talking about whether the government spends as much money on women's national team athletes ('national' being a key word) as they do on mens?
Click to expand...

Actually, I know very little about soccer, but I understand economics.

It's all about the money and there just isn't much there.
 
Glitch said:
It only appears to be unequal pay when looked at from a currency point of view. When looked at from a percentage of team revenue perspective, it is equal pay. A male soccer team earns considerably more revenue than a female soccer team. However, if the players are paid an equal percentage of the team's revenue, then they are being equally paid in proportion to their team's earnings. Even though women would be taking home less for playing the same game.
Click to expand...

The mens us soccer team doesnt earn more than the womens.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, I know very little about soccer, but I understand economics.

It's all about the money and there just isn't much there.
Click to expand...

No, pay attention. This isn't about soccer or economics. It's about disbursement of government money, and the government giving 'way more money to men than women. If I've got it right. So you tell me- where does the money paid to amateur athletes on the mens national team and the women's national team come from?
You said it was supply and demand- can you show me why that's true? Can you tell me why the American governing body should pay more taxpayer money to men than to women? See, I'm having trouble understanding why women are entitled to less taxpayers money for doing the same thing men do.
If I'm right. You sound like you know the subject, is that the issue? Government money, and much, much more being disbursed to men than women?
 
Glitch said:
It only appears to be unequal pay when looked at from a currency point of view. When looked at from a percentage of team revenue perspective, it is equal pay. A male soccer team earns considerably more revenue than a female soccer team. However, if the players are paid an equal percentage of the team's revenue, then they are being equally paid in proportion to their team's earnings. Even though women would be taking home less for playing the same game.
Click to expand...

We're talking about how much the government pays to players on the national teams, right? Am I misunderstanding? How much the US governing body pays to amateur athletes to compensate them for the time they spend training for the national team. Not how revenues of a professional sport are disbursed. Is that right?
 
Grand Mal said:
No, pay attention. This isn't about soccer or economics. It's about disbursement of government money, and the government giving 'way more money to men than women. If I've got it right. So you tell me- where does the money paid to amateur athletes on the mens national team and the women's national team come from?
You said it was supply and demand- can you show me why that's true? Can you tell me why the American governing body should pay more taxpayer money to men than to women? See, I'm having trouble understanding why women are entitled to less taxpayers money for doing the same thing men do.
If I'm right. You sound like you know the subject, is that the issue? Government money, and much, much more being disbursed to men than women?
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't be paying any athlete any money. Let them sink or swim on their own.
 
Grand Mal said:
We're talking about how much the government pays to players on the national teams, right? Am I misunderstanding? How much the US governing body pays to amateur athletes to compensate them for the time they spend training for the national team. Not how revenues of a professional sport are disbursed. Is that right?
Click to expand...
There is a similar uncomfortable feeling about the FIFA World Cup, as it relates to the U.S. women’s and men’s national teams. We see a lopsided compensation structure, in which the men are paid considerably more than the women. This seems especially heinous, since the women’s team has a far-superior winning record.

In the midst of all the frustration over the financial remuneration, some basic facts are left out of the discussion. The sponsorships, television rights, merchandise and other monies, which are generated for the prize money, is much greater for the men’s team compared to the women’s team.*The prize money for the women’s 2019 World Cup was about $30 million, of which the winner takes home about $4 million. The prize money for the men’s 2018 World Cup was roughly $400 million and the champions took home $38 million.*The men’s World Cup tournament generated over $6 billion in revenue for 2018. The women are estimated to have brought in $131 million in 2019
Click to expand...

Link: Why The U.S. Women's National Soccer Team Earns Less Than The Men's -- And How It Will Change
 
GreatNews2night said:
The men's league, MLS, brings in at least ten times more money than the women's league. Probably more; I haven't looked at the numbers.

So, is it normal for the men to make more money? Sure, and IT'S NOT A GENDER ISSUE!!! It's merely an issue of talent, competition, and income generation.

When it's truly the same job, all parameters considered, sure, pay the same.

When it's not the same level of difficulty and quality and competition, then, no, equal pay doesn't apply.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

I clipped a lot of that for brevity - hope that's OK.

Talent has nothing to do with it. Men will always be better athletes than women, but when you're talking about pay, what matters is the money. If some braindead pop star brings in $1 billion, she'll make 1000 times one of the world's best opera singers with FAR more singing talent.

Everything I've seen shows that the women's world cup teams bring in at least as much as the men, probably more. The sponsorship and endorsement and TV money that pays the players is IMO how to determine pay for those players.

You bring up the MLS, but this has nothing to do with MLS, at least not the current controversy, but with world cup national teams. So the proposals by the women are to base pay on the money flows, and if it shows the women bringing in half or close, pay them equally to the men, who are creating the same value, wealth, as the women.

We had this argument for years when Pat Summit coached the UT Lady Vols. At her prime, the Lady Vols were a perennial top 5 team, won the SEC consistently, 10 national championships, many more final fours, etc. The men have never been to a final four, ever. And the men's coach always made double or more than Pat Summit, but based on how much the teams brought in and what was at stake, that was fair. You couldn't do the numbers in a way that it made sense to pay Pat Summit the same, and the Lady Vols had their own female athletic director, and she never was paid equally. Pat was fine with that because it was just business...
 
GreatNews2night said:
I won't post this to the Sports area because it's a rather political issue. The Governor of New York, the President of the United States, House representatives and Senators have all talked about it. It's political.

First of all, let me say this: I'm absolutely for equal pay for men and women who do the same job. Truly, the same job.

But in the case of sports, there is a hierarchy of leagues and quality, and it affects how people are compensated. It's not really a gender issue.

Think of it. Major League Baseball players get paid more than Triple A players. They both play the game of baseball, but obviously, the MLB stars are more valuable to the entertainment industry (given that they generate more revenue) than the Triple A guys, therefore they get compensated with higher salaries. These are all males.

If we took the equal job, equal pay to this situation, should the Triple A guys get the same salary as the MLB guys just because they play the same game of baseball?

No, it's not the same job. It's the same game, but the job is different. The MLB guys play against a much higher level of competition. They have to excel a lot more. They need to be much more talented.

Talent counts. Is a very talented and experienced medical doctor, with 3 decades of experience, the author of a textbook and 100 scientific papers, a full professor... paid the same as another medical doctor who is a recent graduate, a trainee resident, this unknown quantity who hasn't done anything at all, other than graduating? No. The more talented, more proven, more experienced doctor is paid a much higher salary than the inexperienced trainee. Well, is it the same job? Superficially, yes; they are both doctors. They both see patients and write prescriptions. They are both licensed by the Medical Board. However, it's a no-brainer that the more talented and more accomplished doctor is paid more, including because the job is not really the same; the more experienced doctor has more responsibilities. Also, the more experienced doctor generates a lot more income. He/she writes grants, gets original research to be sponsored, brings in millions of dollars to the organization, while the young resident brings nothing. So, yes, the older doctor makes more money. Normal.

Is this a gender issue? No. A female experienced doctor will make more than a male inexperienced doctor. The issue is one of talent, experience, and income generation for the employer. NOT gender.

So, let's think again of the US Women's National Soccer Team, and the US Men's National Soccer Team, and their pay differential.

The women have won the World Cup while the men have won nothing; recently lost to Mexico in the Gold Cup final (so, placed second).

However, the USWNT played against one of the under-15 boys team (13 and 14 year old boys) and lost 5-2. Think of it. High school boys, a regular team. They beat the top of the top women's team 5-2.

The USMNT faces much bigger competition. If they were to play against the USWNT they'd likely win by something like 20-0. If the women's team were to play in the Gold Cup, they'd be dead last (unlike the men's second place). If they played in the Men's FIFA World Cup, they'd be dead last. New Zealand would beat them 10-0.

The men's league, MLS, brings in at least ten times more money than the women's league. Probably more; I haven't looked at the numbers.

So, is it normal for the men to make more money? Sure, and IT'S NOT A GENDER ISSUE!!! It's merely an issue of talent, competition, and income generation.

When it's truly the same job, all parameters considered, sure, pay the same.

When it's not the same level of difficulty and quality and competition, then, no, equal pay doesn't apply.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Actually you are dead wrong. The women actually brings in more money and their TV ratings are much higher. Yes men are bigger and stronger, but what the hell does that have to do with anything. Maybe you think men in the workplace should get paid more for doing the same work as women because they are bigger and stronger. And the Women's team has won and done so consistently, while the men's team, to put it plain sucks. Our men's team has actually gotten worse over the years. And the competition in the women's game today is what makes the women's tournament so popular.
 
independentusa said:
Actually you are dead wrong. The women actually brings in more money and their TV ratings are much higher. Yes men are bigger and stronger, but what the hell does that have to do with anything. Maybe you think men in the workplace should get paid more for doing the same work as women because they are bigger and stronger. And the Women's team has won and done so consistently, while the men's team, to put it plain sucks. Our men's team has actually gotten worse over the years. And the competition in the women's game today is what makes the women's tournament so popular.
Click to expand...

well said:
The men’s World Cup tournament generated over $6 billion in revenue for 2018. The women are estimated to have brought in $131 million in 2019.
Click to expand...

The girls have a bit of catching up to do.
 
Nap said:
Link: Why The U.S. Women's National Soccer Team Earns Less Than The Men's -- And How It Will Change
Click to expand...

What's missing from the article is how much of that big pot of worldwide money from men's and women's world cup teams comes into the U.S. national team's coffers, and I've seen estimates that it's roughly equal.

Could be I've seen some biased articles, but when he talks about the 'winning pot' when some years the men don't even QUALIFY and get drummed out other years in the early rounds, it's not relevant. Might as well talk about prize money for the winners of Wimbledon, and compare Serena Willians to the best men's entry who is ranked 58th and loses in the 2nd round. How much of that $400 million in prize money did the men's World Cup team claim in 2018? Oh, yeah, the men didn't qualify, so that would be $0!
 
chuckiechan said:
The girls have a bit of catching up to do.
Click to expand...

The U.S. men didn't have a team in the 2018 World Cup, so how much did they earn from their non-qualifying spot watching it on TV at home? :confused:
 
JasperL said:
The U.S. men didn't have a team in the 2018 World Cup, so how much did they earn from their non-qualifying spot watching it on TV at home? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, it could be pointed out that even though they didn't qualify for the WC in 2018, they were paid more money for thier time in the 4 year qualifying process than the women were for thiers.

The women only make up the difference by actually being better than the men when it comes to performance. If they sucked as bad as the guys, the disparity would be even bigger.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Well, it could be pointed out that even though they didn't qualify for the WC in 2018, they were paid more money for thier time in the 4 year qualifying process than the women were for thiers.

The women only make up the difference by actually being better than the men when it comes to performance. If they sucked as bad as the guys, the disparity would be even bigger.
Click to expand...

If you've seen the figures that show that, I'd love to see your link. What I've seen is that the women DO make up the difference, because they're actually a consistently elite team, and the men are relatively terrible, so why should the women be paid less?
 
chuckiechan said:
The girls have a bit of catching up to do.
Click to expand...

The women are the champions in a tournament the men couldn't qualify for. The US men generated not one dime of World Cup revenue but still got paid more.
This makes sense to you?
 
Carjosse said:
Student lawyers are paid, when they get internships or article and most of the those things you listed are paid as well. It is part of their education, not in place of. For most college athletes they cannot take advantage of the education, the school will not let them, they have to take bull**** classes and get a bull**** degree because they have to spend every waking hour training not studying. Those who do not go on to the big leagues because they do not get picked or they get injured/burned out end up with nothing. They are treated like employees so they should be considered employees. It is nothing but exploitation.
Click to expand...

Student lawyers are paid??? Funny, my son graduated from a very prestigious law school, did all these things, and was never paid a cent. Much the opposite. He had to get student loans to get by. Summer internships, sure, he got paid, but that's not the school. He got paid by the firm where he was an intern. This was during his school vacation.

Student athletes are not always forced to take bogus courses. Some schools take the education seriously. At Duke University, for example, student athletes earn real degrees and get a real education (for free).
 
independentusa said:
Actually you are dead wrong. The women actually brings in more money and their TV ratings are much higher. Yes men are bigger and stronger, but what the hell does that have to do with anything. Maybe you think men in the workplace should get paid more for doing the same work as women because they are bigger and stronger. And the Women's team has won and done so consistently, while the men's team, to put it plain sucks. Our men's team has actually gotten worse over the years. And the competition in the women's game today is what makes the women's tournament so popular.
Click to expand...

How did you get the bold part from my OP? I said the opposite. It's not a question of bigger and stronger.

So, I said an experienced female doctor makes more than a fresh-from-school male doctor. Is she bigger and stronger???
 
Grand Mal said:
The women are the champions in a tournament the men couldn't qualify for. The US men generated not one dime of World Cup revenue but still got paid more.
This makes sense to you?
Click to expand...

It's not the same tournament. The women would NEVER qualify for the men's World Cup if both genders were allowed to compete for it. Actually like I said the women would finish dead last in the qualifiers, since when they play against a high school under 15 boys team, they lose 5-2.

If the men were allowed to play against the women in the women's World Cup, they'd win all games by a minimum of 10 goals and would be the perennial champions.
 
Grand Mal said:
So the women won about $4M for winning their world cup and the men failed to qualify for theirs but got paid more anyway.
So much for the pay scale being dependant on revenue generated.
Click to expand...

If anything the men should be complaining.

Men's league generated several billion yet the champions brought home 38 million, Women's league generated a little over a 100 million and the champions bring home 4 million. Seems like the women have a much better deal in percentage of revenue.
 
JasperL said:
The U.S. men didn't have a team in the 2018 World Cup, so how much did they earn from their non-qualifying spot watching it on TV at home? :confused:
Click to expand...

That's one tournament. They qualified for many others, and did well in some of them.

Yes, in 2018, thanks to the idiotic coach Jürgen Klinsmann, they didn't qualify. It happens.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Yes, from one standpoint, college athletes are treated unfairly. They bring in millions and millions of dollars to the schools, and are paid nothing.

But the issue is complex. They are also given a free education with full scholarship. Many don't take advantage of it, but it's there, in case they do want to get the education and graduate. Also, they are playing in order to be noticed by the major leagues. The best ones among them go on to hugely lucrative deals with the major leagues. So, it's a sort of showcase. They wouldn't get the same exposition and the same opportunities for huge contracts, if they weren't playing college sports. They use the school athletic program's facilities, coaching, and resources in order to better their game and get noticed.

There is also the amateur, Olympic spirit. The college leagues are supposed to be there for the betterment of young men and young women through sports, as part of their global educational experience.

Maybe something should be done about a sort of fund so that college athletes would earn a percentage of the revenue they generate for the school, in the form of say, a retirement fund. I'm not sure if they should be directly paid. It defeats the spirit of amateur athletics for the betterment of one's mind and body.

Again, if we think of it more broadly and compare to other situations, it's not so far-fetched.

Think of a Law School student. The student is not getting paid. Actually, the student pays tuition to the school. In the case of the nation's top law schools, the very accomplished student body will generate resources for the school, in the form of research grants, student clinics, articles published in the Law Journal that sells subscriptions, prestige that generates resources and donations from non-governmental organizations, and donations from their families or from themselves after they graduate and are grateful to the school. But it's only after they graduate from the prestigious school and get top jobs, that they get paid top money; not while they are students.

So, why should student athletes be paid, while student lawyers are not paid???
Click to expand...

You don't say where you live, but I live in Knoxville, TN, home of the Vols. There is no amateur spirit in SEC college football. It's just a massive, revenue generating business. Everybody but the players is making big money and every decision about football is based on money. And this year of about 100 players including walk-ons, maybe 2 or 3 will go to the NFL.

The problem is there is this HUGE divide between the power sports - football and basketball - and within those sports there's a huge divide between the big conferences like the ACC and SEC and the many smaller ones. In the big time conferences, football and basketball are professional sports, with unpaid players. It's the only realistic way to view what happens.

So, yeah, when a team is run as a business and generates maybe $50 million in revenue per year, and when the only people involved who are NOT paid are the players, there's a bit of a problem IMO.

To be fair, what football and basketball should have is a viable minor league system, so we'd have players who want to get paid never set foot in a place like UT or Alabama or KY for basketball. They'd go pro out of HS like they do with baseball. But IMO it's exploitation of those elite athletes at the big schools to get nothing in exchange for generating $millions for their schools, and everyone else involved in this huge business enterprise. That's why I don't blame players for accepting what are payoffs, bribes, for coming to places like UT. The rules prevent them from signing endorsement deals, or other means of cashing in on being one of the best players in football or basketball, generating $millions for ESPN, CBS, the SEC, UT, and others, so they're just getting what they've actually EARNED. It's illegal in the eyes of the NCAA of course, but not immoral as I see it from the player's perspective. Grab the money - everyone else is, with both hands.
 
GreatNews2night said:
That's one tournament. They qualified for many others, and did well in some of them.

Yes, in 2018, thanks to the idiotic coach Jürgen Klinsmann, they didn't qualify. It happens.
Click to expand...

OK, so the women won their tournament. Why shouldn't their pay be based on RESULTS? Do you think the men are somehow owed more as failed losers sitting at home.

What the women want is simple - be paid based on the revenue generated per team, in a given cycle. What do you think is unfair about that? It's how the rest of the world works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom