• 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

GreatNews2night

GreatNews2night

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
8,761
Reaction score
3,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
Last edited:
I think for sports the biggest issue regarding pay should be the horrible way university athletes in the US are treated. I don't think the pay gap argument between men's and women's sports is not the big issue as it is currently presented. Could there be issues not being addressed with such a broad stroke, probably.
 
Men’s football/soccer has been a top attraction for over 100 years. I think it is probably the world’s most popular sport, in interest and revenue. The women’s game has only been on the world stage for about 30 years.

Yes the USWNT has performed better than the men’s team in the way of championships. As the OP states the income generated by the two different leagues is disproportionate on the surface. Where do the ladies think that the money will come from to pay them the same as the men’s team? There are already cretins on this board that believe that the US taxpayer is on the hook for US Soccer. FIFA is more corrupt than the US government ever thought about being! Good Luck, ladies!
 
19 of the 20 Democrat presidential candidates have promise free soccer.
 
It's all about supply and demand. The demand for women's soccer just isn't there.
 
Rexedgar said:
Oh, but hockey, amirite?


:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It is a few hours of watching some people run around a field. Hockey is the same with skating but at least there is a lot more violence in hockey to keep things interesting. I only watch it if it is a big patriotic event like the Olympics.

And both are leagues better than the "sport" of football, it is 99% standing around and then they might run for a few seconds, and the fact that is actually not very much of an exaggeration is the ridiculous part. I know, they can change the name to micro-sprinting.
 
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...

Its going to be a moot point when transmen start playing soccer.

Regarding pay, where does the money come from?
 
Carjosse said:
I think for sports the biggest issue regarding pay should be the horrible way university athletes in the US are treated. I don't think the pay gap argument between men's and women's sports is not the big issue as it is currently presented. Could there be issues not being addressed with such a broad stroke, probably.
Click to expand...

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???
 
Carjosse said:
It is a few hours of watching some people run around a field. Hockey is the same with skating but at least there is a lot more violence in hockey to keep things interesting. I only watch it if it is a big patriotic event like the Olympics.

And both are leagues better than the "sport" of football, it is 99% standing around and then they might run for a few seconds, and the fact that is actually not very much of an exaggeration is the ridiculous part. I know, they can change the name to micro-sprinting.
Click to expand...

That's a very distorted and stereotypical view of soccer. Their athletes run constantly, for miles, and don't benefit from all the dead time of other American sports. And I say so, while being a fan of American Football, my absolutely #1 sport. Still, I do recognize the value of soccer, and I don't ridicule it. It's a fine sport, and very exciting when played at a high level. There is a reason why it's the most popular sport in the world: it's because when it's well-played, it's rather exciting.

Personally I find American Football more exciting, but I won't put down someone who finds soccer to be more exciting.
 
Carjosse said:
It is a few hours of watching some people run around a field. Hockey is the same with skating but at least there is a lot more violence in hockey to keep things interesting. I only watch it if it is a big patriotic event like the Olympics.

And both are leagues better than the "sport" of football, it is 99% standing around and then they might run for a few seconds, and the fact that is actually not very much of an exaggeration is the ridiculous part.
Click to expand...


You need to watch football/soccer from a different viewpoint. The skill in ball handling by foot is something to behold. Ice hockey is soccer on skates with a smaller field and goal. The hockey players are also highly skilled with the stick and puck placement.

American football has seen it’s zenith, imo. I look in now and then. At least the professional soccer/football leagues openly “sell” their players. The NFL trades......
 
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...



NCAA sports is a game of “musical chairs,” imo. NCAA is a toothless body and everyone in a position is trying to collect while the getting is good.
 
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...

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.
 
Mycroft said:
It's all about supply and demand. The demand for women's soccer just isn't there.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

People need to understand where the money comes from and why.

A lot of it comes from international advertising. Leagues like La Liga in Spain, the Premier League in England get loads of money thrown at them because they're considered the best. The US league players will be earning a lot less, unless it's the star players like Rooney, Ibrahimovic etc. When it comes to international football, some national teams don't really get paid at all, their wages go to charity or something like that, others do get paid. But then again it's all about how much they can make in advertising.
 
GreatNews2night said:
That's a very distorted and stereotypical view of soccer. Their athletes run constantly, for miles, and don't benefit from all the dead time of other American sports. And I say so, while being a fan of American Football, my absolutely #1 sport. Still, I do recognize the value of soccer, and I don't ridicule it. It's a fine sport, and very exciting when played at a high level. There is a reason why it's the most popular sport in the world: it's because when it's well-played, it's rather exciting.

Personally I find American Football more exciting, but I won't put down someone who finds soccer to be more exciting.
Click to expand...

I find almost all sports boring American football just stands to me as it is objectively boring. In an average 3-hour football game there is only actual gameplay for only 6.1% of the time.
 
Rexedgar said:
You need to watch football/soccer from a different viewpoint. The skill in ball handling by foot is something to behold. Ice hockey is soccer on skates with a smaller field and goal. The hockey players are also highly skilled with the stick and puck placement.

American football has seen it’s zenith, imo. I look in now and then. At least the professional soccer/football leagues openly “sell” their players. The NFL trades......
Click to expand...

Not really, I could not care less about that. Ken Burns documentaries are more interesting than most sports to me and I would rather die than watch them, and Ken Burns managed to make WWII boring.
 
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...


These are not jobs of "function", sports is entertainment, and entertainers' pay is ultimately derived from the size of the audience. An entertainer is a commodity, subject to laws of supply and demand.

It's the same reason male porn actors get far less than female porn actors.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
I find almost all sports boring American football just stands to me as it is objectively boring. In an average 3-hour football game there is only actual gameplay for only 6.1% of the time.
Click to expand...

It's a snorefest. 10 seconds of game play followed by 2 1/2 minutes spent deciding what to do in the next 10 seconds. Repeat 3 times, kick, break for 5 or 6 commercials then do it all over again going the other way.
Like you said, 3 or 3 1/2 hours spent watching to get 60 minutes of game action.
 
Grand Mal said:
It's a snorefest. 10 seconds of game play followed by 2 1/2 minutes spent deciding what to do in the next 10 seconds. Repeat 3 times, kick, break for 5 or 6 commercials then do it all over again going the other way.
Like you said, 3 or 3 1/2 hours spent watching to get 60 minutes of game action.
Click to expand...

60 minutes! The average is only 11 minutes in a 3-hour game.
 
FIFA set aside $30 million for women in this year's tournament and $400 million for the 2018 Cup.
 
Parrish said:
FIFA set aside $30 million for women in this year's tournament and $400 million for the 2018 Cup.
Click to expand...

$29 million and $390 million respectively went to line the pockets of corrupt local officials and FIFA executives.
 
Carjosse said:
60 minutes! The average is only 11 minutes in a 3-hour game.
Click to expand...

That's right, I forgot that the clock runs during a huddle unless the ball went out-of-bounds on the previous play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom