WNT: "equal pay" & "fair pay"?

[Walter White.sixpack]

What should they be paid?

I see a lot of tweets and articles saying the soccer women need to be paid more because they win more. But the big push back is that the women's leagues and tournaments do not generate as much, therefore it's simple economics. The it turns into a "sexist thing".

What's your take?

 

[dawgstudent]

It's economics. They should get a larger percentage than the men based on performance but the size of the bucket is the size of the bucket.

 

[missouridawg]

It's economics. They should get a larger percentage than the men based on performance but the size of the bucket is the size of the bucket.

Yep. Hell - I’m all for making payments based on where you finish in the World Cup plus a ton of other incentives on the smaller tournaments. The women deserve a larger portion of the pie, but as DS said “I love pie but the pie is the pie and you have to order more pie to get more pie”. Direct quote.

 

[aTotal360]

Boycott Nike for not sponsoring enough money to be able to give equal pay. #woke

 

[8dog]

There is now evidence that they produce more revenue than the men

 

[ronpolk]

What should they be paid?

I see a lot of tweets and articles saying the soccer women need to be paid more because they win more. But the big push back is that the women's leagues and tournaments do not generate as much, therefore it's simple economics. The it turns into a "sexist thing".

What's your take?

I complete understand their argument, given how successful they have been. But the way things work is you get paid based on how much revenue you generate, it’s generally that way in anything in life. It’s not always “fair” I guess but you don’t get paid a lot of memory just because you’re successful. For example, Vic is paid nicely I’m sure but he’s probably not the highest paid coach on our campus.

 

[Nunya.sixpack]

well lets see, all the fun ruth buzzies want to use last year as an example. the women out drew the men (the men failed to make the world cup)

lower the men's pay. give it to the agenda chicks. be done with it. stop wasting the resources on arguing over it, no other country does.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Professional salaries should be paid the market rate, while national team salaries should be the same, because the national team is a side gig they do for patriotism and the fans. It's not their main job.

 

[57stratdawg]

I think that’s their point. The women’s team generates more $ than the men do.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/06/19...enue-than-mens.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[dawgstudent]

From what I read last night, the bucket is determined by FIFA - not by the US.

 

[00Dawg]

I started off by thinking...

if I was the governing body I'd tied it directly to the proportion of money the Women's World Cup earns compared to the Men's. Right now, the ladies make 38% of what the men do.
Unfortunately, the Men's World Cup appears to make roughly 45 times what the Women's World Cup does.

Now, you can make an argument they're not 38% as good as the men based on the scores when they take on male teams anywhere close to their age and qualifications, but they are the best of their gender, and they represent our country on the international stage, so obviously 2-3% is right out.

So, my next default is the pay-for-performance mentioned by other posters. I just don't know how you arrive at an objective number that will still satisfy the players. I tend towards round numbers, and would default to $500k per player for the title, plus something for the staff. That would probably triple your current championship payout from $4 million to $12 million.

ETA: If you want to make this a USA-only discussion, you can.

 

[af102]

There are 2 distinct pots of money that are being talked about, but most people don't know the difference.

The first is the amount of money in the FIFA prize pool. The men's tournament in Russia last year had a total prize pool of $400 million for 32 teams. The women's tournament this year had a total prize pool of $30 million for 24 teams. That's literally an order of magnitude difference on a per team basis ($12.5m v $1.25m). There were reports last week that FIFA wanted to double the prize pool for the next WWC ($60m) while also adding another $40m to the men's pool for 2022. Doubling the pool sounds great until you realize that leaves them even further behind because the men had an extra $10 million added.

If you combine this with all the other things FIFA has done over the years (forcing the 2015 WWC to be played on turf as an experiment, president of FIFA suggesting the women should wear shorter shorts to get bigger ratings, 24 team WC while the men are expanding to 48 soon, letting the men's Gold Cup and Copa America finals be scheduled on the same day as the WWC final just to name a few), it is fairly obvious that FIFA isn't treating the women's game even close to an equal. I saw a soccer writer tweet that the finals stadium was completely out of tournament gear before kickoff because FIFA didn't order enough. There were other reports that games in the tournament wan out of gear/beer, so it is actually hard to know how much the WWC could generate because FIFA is leaving money on the table because they just don't care.

The second pot of money is the one the USWNT players can actually influence the most- the money coming from US Soccer Federation. In general, the women are paid less on a per game basis compared to the men for appearances with the national team, but the women play more national team games. A lot of that is because the club game is where the men really make their money, but the national team is a way for women's players to make money to supplement pretty low club wages. Another wrinkle in this discussion is USSF currently still subsidizes some top player salaries in the women's league (NWSL) while they don't for the men (MLS). In general, the men are treated better than the women by USSF, but the differences aren't as stark as what FIFA has done. I think we'll see a big change in things during the next round of CBA negotiations, but some things won't change until there is a dramatic shift within the internal governance of USSF.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

Mutt....I know you’re reading this. And I know it’s killing you that you can’t resoond.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

So, should WNBA players get the same amount as NBA players?

No one has ever made that argument. Professional teams and national teams are totally separate things.

 

[Hypnodawg]

Sounds like it should be base pay + bonus based on how far they go in the tournament. Men and women should get the same percentage of their prize pool for bonus. Obviously that means then men have the potential to make more but that also means the women would have made more than the men the last few years

 

[missouridawg]

There are 2 distinct pots of money that are being talked about, but most people don't know the difference.

The first is the amount of money in the FIFA prize pool. The men's tournament in Russia last year had a total prize pool of $400 million for 32 teams. The women's tournament this year had a total prize pool of $30 million for 24 teams. That's literally an order of magnitude difference on a per team basis ($12.5m v $1.25m). There were reports last week that FIFA wanted to double the prize pool for the next WWC ($60m) while also adding another $40m to the men's pool for 2022. Doubling the pool sounds great until you realize that leaves them even further behind because the men had an extra $10 million added.

If you combine this with all the other things FIFA has done over the years (forcing the 2015 WWC to be played on turf as an experiment, president of FIFA suggesting the women should wear shorter shorts to get bigger ratings, 24 team WC while the men are expanding to 48 soon, letting the men's Gold Cup and Copa America finals be scheduled on the same day as the WWC final just to name a few), it is fairly obvious that FIFA isn't treating the women's game even close to an equal. I saw a soccer writer tweet that the finals stadium was completely out of tournament gear before kickoff because FIFA didn't order enough. There were other reports that games in the tournament wan out of gear/beer, so it is actually hard to know how much the WWC could generate because FIFA is leaving money on the table because they just don't care.

The second pot of money is the one the USWNT players can actually influence the most- the money coming from US Soccer Federation. In general, the women are paid less on a per game basis compared to the men for appearances with the national team, but the women play more national team games. A lot of that is because the club game is where the men really make their money, but the national team is a way for women's players to make money to supplement pretty low club wages. Another wrinkle in this discussion is USSF currently still subsidizes some top player salaries in the women's league (NWSL) while they don't for the men (MLS). In general, the men are treated better than the women by USSF, but the differences aren't as stark as what FIFA has done. I think we'll see a big change in things during the next round of CBA negotiations, but some things won't change until there is a dramatic shift within the internal governance of USSF.

Sounds like the women should spend more time boycotting FIFA instead of a White House visit.

 

[Go Budaw]

I think the entire argument is about the second pot of money. USWNT has no avenue to sue FIFA. The USSF is a different story. People keep defaulting back to the World Cup, which is a big deal but is still only 1 month of soccer over a 4 year period. What they get paid for and how much revenue they generate during the other 3 years and 11 months is a substantial portion of their income. Especially considering they don’t get club / MLS compensation like the men.

 

[PBRME]

Saw this on Reddit.

View attachment 13403

 

[johnson86-1]

I think that’s their point. The women’s team generates more $ than the men do.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/06/19...enue-than-mens.html?__twitter_impression=true

Maybe. They have generated slightly more revenue from ticket sales. Their TV rights are bundled. In most situations you would think ticket sales would be indicative of the value of the tv rights. Not sure that's the case here. I think there are people that would go to a woman's match b/c they are champs and there's some cachet there, even for non-soccer fans. On the flip side, I would think there are soccer fans that would watch men's matches b/c they are soccer fans, even if they wouldn't actually go to the game.

And then there is the issue of money coming from FIFA. I'd be curious to see how much money the organization gets from a men's team qualifying for the world cup compared to how much they get from a woman's team winning the world cup. Even playing once every four years, there is a significant enough difference in prize money available that could skew the numbers, depending on whether they split the pool fairly evenly or whether it's more heavily weighted towards teams that advance.

 

[GhostOfJackie]

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's (she's) going to ask for a glass of milk.

 

[Go Budaw]

Saw this on Reddit.

View attachment 13403

See above. None of this discussion is about the World Cup revenue.

 

[StarkVegas Steve]

The problem is that by and large the women's game isn't cared about for 3 years and 11 months around the world and in this country. They'll get a parade and play a few exhibition games that will be well attended, but then what? The same thing happened after the 2011 WC and the 2015 WC, people forgot about the women's game for 2 years. I do agree that they are grossly underpaid for what they provide, but I've seen no one come up with a viable solution to the problem. Other than pay them the same as the men without explaining where that money is going to come from. I believe US Soccer has plenty of money to do it, and after last night's Gold Cup I'd just assume give the women the men's money. It's an absolute embarrassment we still let Michael Bradley on the team.

 

[8dog]

That stat needs way more
context but if our men got a nickel for the 2018 world cup
they were way overpaid

 

[L4Dawg]

They are way OVERPAID compared to the men if you look at the revenue produced by the tournament. It's not close really. There just isn't much interest in women's soccer. Want it to change ladies? You are going to have to see your sport equal the interest in the men's side. Good luck.

 

[johnson86-1]

I think the entire argument is about the second pot of money. USWNT has no avenue to sue FIFA. The USSF is a different story. People keep defaulting back to the World Cup, which is a big deal but is still only 1 month of soccer over a 4 year period. What they get paid for and how much revenue they generate during the other 3 years and 11 months is a substantial portion of their income. Especially considering they don’t get club / MLS compensation like the men.

I don't think FIFA pays the players directly. I think that money goes to the national organization.

 

[johnson86-1]

See above. None of this discussion is about the World Cup revenue.

It makes no sense to exclude WOrld Cup revenue. That is revenue that the federation makes, just like sponsorships and gate money.

 

[L4Dawg]

Revenue for the entire 4 year cycle for the women's world cup, WORLD WIDE, is around $170,000,000. The latest revenue figure I could find for one of the big English clubs, Liverpool, was around $455,000,000. That is for ONE year. That year was 2017. They do MUCH better than that now. Heck the players on that team cost more than the entire four year cycle for the Women's World Cup generates. We are just talking about the cost of Liverpool buying their contracts. That does NOT include what the players are actually payed. That is just one club. There is not much money in women's soccer and they are payed accordingly.

 

[Go Budaw]

It makes no sense to exclude WOrld Cup revenue. That is revenue that the federation makes, just like sponsorships and gate money.

I’m not talking about excluding it. I’m talking about not making it part of the pay structure for the players for the other 3 years and 11 months of the year (or, in the men’s case, maybe 7 years and 11 months?). You make the World Cup, you get to share in the revenue as a bonus of sorts to your base pay. But the men DIDN’T EVEN MAKE the last World Cup while the women won it, and the women are making 40% of what the men are. There is no way to break it down in a way that it makes sense.

 

[Go Budaw]

They are way OVERPAID compared to the men if you look at the revenue produced by the tournament. It's not close really. There just isn't much interest in women's soccer. Want it to change ladies? You are going to have to see your sport equal the interest in the men's side. Good luck.

They are overpaid compared to the men? Based on the revenue of the tournament that the men didn’t even play in the last time it was held? Have you still not figured this out?

 

[L4Dawg]

They are overpaid compared to the men? Based on the revenue of the tournament that the men didn’t even play in the last time it was held? Have you still not figured this out?

There isn't much money in women's soccer period. We get money from the SEC for things we don't play in too. It's all about the amount of revenue involved. This isn't some Title IX NCAA utopia. It's a business. Men's soccer is GIGANTIC money wise. Women's isn't. Men's soccer is GIGANTIC interest wise. Women's soccer isn't even a blip really.

 

[patdog]

Quote from a Fox TV exec from the article:

"I don't know how you quantify that," David Neal, vice president of production and executive producer of FIFA World Cup on Fox, tells the Journal. "But right now the shining star of U.S. Soccer is the U.S. women's national team. These women are heroes and I think that carries great value."

 

[johnson86-1]

I’m not talking about excluding it. I’m talking about not making it part of the pay structure for the players for the other 3 years and 11 months of the year (or, in the men’s case, maybe 7 years and 11 months?). You make the World Cup, you get to share in the revenue as a bonus of sorts to your base pay. But the men DIDN’T EVEN MAKE the last World Cup while the women won it, and the women are making 40% of what the men are. There is no way to break it down in a way that it makes sense.

The women aren't making 40% of what the men make. It's hard to direclty compare because they negotiated for different structures (with the men's being practically 100% performance pay and the women's having a $100k base salary), but they arguably were paid about 40% of what the men were paid under the previous agreements. The gap is not nearly as big now. The men's team didn't make the most recent world cup, but if you look at the previous four year cycle that include a men's world cup, the men brought in about $10.8M more revenue than the women's team. SO basically, the pay is doing just what it should. The men were paid a lot more when they made a lot more. They were also paid more in exchange for taking more risk, which worked out for them (at least prior to this last world cup). As the woman's team has become a bigger deal, their pay has caught up. Depending on number of matches played and results, they could end up making more than the men.

Maybe it could be fairer, but it's not obviously disproportionate.

At this point, they should just offer both the men's and women's team a percentage of net revenue excluding player compensation. The women would probably reject it (and they arguably should b/c they should want a different compensation structure in light of the money or lack thereof in their professional leagues compared to the men), but at least it would resolve the issue as far as disparity between the men's and woman's team.

 

[Bulldogg31]

The truth is this edition of the USWNT managed to do a couple of things that are extremely difficult to pull off.

They figured out a way to make people who couldn’t care less about women’s soccer actually care less about women’s soccer, and they managed to make millions of patriotic Americans completely ambivalent about a world title for the red, white, and blue.

 

[Nunya.sixpack]

well he's not all that smart. they aren't heroes. they are soccer players. period. if he'd like them to get more money, he should pony up more for them. seems odd that someone in charge of buying that sport to turn it as a profit is trying to hook them up with more money without actually paying them more money.

 

[dorndawg]

So you cared so little you decided to chime in?

And you don't cheer for America? In the words of the late, great Lewis Grizzard: "Don't believe I'da told that, brother."

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

From the Washington Post fact checkers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.06a5178a40ec)

The USWNT did make more in bonuses and salary than the USMNT in fiscal 2018, according to our estimates, but it’s worth noting they also played almost double the number of games and won significantly more often.

“The male players are paid when they play, but not when they sit,” [Michael] McCann [, a Sports Illustrated writer and University of New Hampshire law professor] said. “USMNT players must thus be on the roster to be pay eligible. USWNT players, in contrast, are guaranteed pay.”

Interesting that the women put in a pay structure that has more guaranteed pay, but a lower potential max payout.

It's also an apples and oranges comparison to complain about the maximum pay discrepancy as a problem when only one team is performing near to that level. If the US men won the World Cup, men's soccer would be on fire in the US as a sport and a USMNT in the WC final would draw ratings at least 2 times that of last weekend's game.

One thing women's soccer in America has going for it is that it tends to grab top tier athletes. Only golf and tennis seem to be ahead of it in how profitable a career can be, compared to men's soccer that has baseball, football, golf, hockey, tennis, and basketball ahead of it.

 

[Bulldogg31]

So you cared so little you decided to chime in?

And you don't cheer for America? In the words of the late, great Lewis Grizzard: "Don't believe I'da told that, brother."

I don’t think I gave any of my opinions in that post.

 

[Go Budaw]

There isn't much money in women's soccer period. We get money from the SEC for things we don't play in too. It's all about the amount of revenue involved. This isn't some Title IX NCAA utopia. It's a business. Men's soccer is GIGANTIC money wise. Women's isn't. Men's soccer is GIGANTIC interest wise. Women's soccer isn't even a blip really.

This is a laughable argument. FIFA doesn’t give the USSF anything if the men’s team doesn’t make the World Cup, other than whatever paltry amount was generated from the qualifying matches. By your logic, we should just be able to throw any group of jabronis together for the men’s team, watch them go 0-for-the century in WC qualifying, and STILL be able to give them millions from people actually watching other teams play for the grand prize. That’s ridiculous.

As for the SEC, we get our share of TV revenue because we play in the SEC. We play in the games that generate the revenue. It’s just a downright silly comparison.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Revenue for the entire 4 year cycle for the women's world cup, WORLD WIDE, is around $170,000,000. The latest revenue figure I could find for one of the big English clubs, Liverpool, was around $455,000,000. That is for ONE year. That year was 2017. They do MUCH better than that now. Heck the players on that team cost more than the entire four year cycle for the Women's World Cup generates. We are just talking about the cost of Liverpool buying their contracts. That does NOT include what the players are actually payed. That is just one club. There is not much money in women's soccer and they are payed accordingly.

Again, you're mixing professional teams and national teams.

National teams are a funsie side gig that the professional teams would destroy if they could get away with it. Because it's just a side gig to stir up patriotic good feelings in the countries (well maybe not this year because some Americans apparently learned for the first time that sometimes athletes have different political views than them), they ought to be paid the same because they're out there doing the same job, representing America on the World Stage.

 

[patdog]

There isn't much money in women's soccer period.

And yet, Nike's biggest selling soccer jersey in their history is a women's team jersey.
Link