USSF shows it’s sexism & Carlos quits

[Unregistered]

This “global market value” you’re talking about gets wildly distorted by a lot of “isms” - sexism, racism, nationalism, etc. It has no real predictive value, just like most economists can’t figure how to get rich looking at past data. You could talk about slavery the same way with this antiquated thinking. In the 1800’s there was a school of thought that blacks deserved to be enslaved because they had no value outside of agricultural farming. They were viewed as beasts and their value was assigned like livestock. It’s how white people justified what they were doing to other human beings. How are comments about women different? We all know women have been discouraged from doing things outside the home for hundreds of years. And now they want to equal men in sports - gasp how dare they? You are just spouting more sexist drivel, like some old chauvinistic dinosaur.

Cristiano Ronaldo has over 200 million followers on Instagram, Rapinoe has 2.2. There is no ism distorting that popularity, individuals choose who they want to follow and he is 100 times more popular on a platform where women dominate. 82 million viewers globally watched the women’s World Cup final versus 1.1 billion for the men. Women are better than men in many aspects of life, Soccer is not one of them.

[Unregistered]

I’ll leave it to your expertise on male strippers, but never heard of rich female strippers even though they seem to hang out with a lot of CEOs and politicians. There is virtue to be signaled in this case. It isn’t right that an organization that represents the USA treats women like this.

So thank you for acknowledging that this IS about “virtue to be signaled”.
I completely agree with you that USSF should have seized opportunity to position themselves as leaders in gender equality and figured out ways to capitalize on that. The only thing i deeply disagree with is that pro sports are “equal pay for equal work” thing. This is entertainment business and compensation is based on revenues generated not work effort.

Clearly there are many other athletes on US National teams in other sports that don't make as much as USWNT players. Why is that?

[Unregistered]

You have obviously never picked up a history book or studied history in any depth. First off, slavery has been the norm since the beginning of the written word in ancient societies 5000+ yeas ago. Egyption, Roman, Chinese, Muslim, Norse, Native American, Inca, etc all had slaves. Lets also recognize that throughout history, it wasn’t just “white” people who utilized slaves. Slavery has been a part of human civilization longer than it hasn’t. The fact that people are so ill-educated and think this was a “white” thing or limited to the United States shows the gaps in liberal education.

As to the whole equal pay for women thing, where women can do the same work, they should be compensated accordingly. Let’s be honest however in that assessment: while the women’s national team is the best in the world, the women’s world cup doesn’t generate nearly as mich money as the men, women’s professional sports doesn’t generate anywhere near the revenue or interest as men’s pro sports and that, at the end of the day, is why they don’t get paid “equally”. I don’t condone the legal argument used by USSF, but there is also a reason why the WNT plays men’s high school DA teams and college or pro teams. Lets not forget there are physical differences between men and women and that is reality, regardless of what some woke millenial or militant feminist would like to think.

One of the dumbest posts ever on TS. OP was talking about how slavery in the US devalued blacks is similar to the arguments against USWNT are sexist and devalue women. So how does this idiot respond? By defending slavery as a common and historical practice and that white people have nothing to feel guilty over because of it. What an moron!

And pay doesn’t follow revenues in the entertainment industry or any other. It’s not like there is some “fairness” fairy handing out money to people based on the revenue in their business. You have multi-billion $ businesses were the CEO makes $50 million a year and the workers make minimum wage. People are more because they FIGHT for it. We have things like minimum wage, benefits, etc. because people demand, strike, unionize and sue. That’s true in the entertainment industry that is highly unionized. You must be a sheepie who just takes what they get.

Hope these USWNT players win and get the millions they deserve.

[Unregistered]

You tell them Bernie!

[Unregistered]

One of the dumbest posts ever on TS. OP was talking about how slavery in the US devalued blacks is similar to the arguments against USWNT are sexist and devalue women. So how does this idiot respond? By defending slavery as a common and historical practice and that white people have nothing to feel guilty over because of it. What an moron!

And pay doesn’t follow revenues in the entertainment industry or any other. It’s not like there is some “fairness” fairy handing out money to people based on the revenue in their business. You have multi-billion $ businesses were the CEO makes $50 million a year and the workers make minimum wage. People are more because they FIGHT for it. We have things like minimum wage, benefits, etc. because people demand, strike, unionize and sue. That’s true in the entertainment industry that is highly unionized. You must be a sheepie who just takes what they get.

Hope these USWNT players win and get the millions they deserve.

Where are these millions of dollars going to come from? USSF will have to jack up the coaching course prices even further because that’s the only source of revenue outside of what the teams bring in from ticket sales, tv revenue, and what fifa allocates from World Cup earnings.

[Unregistered]

Where are these millions of dollars going to come from? USSF will have to jack up the coaching course prices even further because that’s the only source of revenue outside of what the teams bring in from ticket sales, tv revenue, and what fifa allocates from World Cup earnings.

https://cdn.ussoccer.com/-/media/pro...2D47F4112FFB4B

^^^According to their audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, USSF has $145 million in net assets, mostly cash and investments. Sure that would be a good place to start.

[Unregistered]

https://cdn.ussoccer.com/-/media/pro...2D47F4112FFB4B

^^^According to their audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, USSF has $145 million in net assets, mostly cash and investments. Sure that would be a good place to start.

And in this same link revenues earned for MNT events was 29.3 million while the WNT events brought in 24.5 million. Page 12

[Unregistered]

And in this same link revenues earned for MNT events was 29.3 million while the WNT events brought in 24.5 million. Page 12

From April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 (which matches the period in the financials):

USMNT played 9 matches and won 2 and lost 4 with the remainder being draws. Their expenses were $15 million on page 20.

USWNT played 19 matches and won the majority and didn’t lose any. This was also during qualifying tournaments for WC when they receive bonuses for advancement. Their expenses were $20 million on page 20.

Since the women played twice as many games as the men, travel costs were probably part of the of that $5 million difference in expenses. Given that pay is largely the biggest part of the expenses, how are the USWNT playing twice the games, winning all their matches, receiving bonuses for advancing to the WC and yet their pay isn’t at least double what the men cost?

[Unregistered]

From April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 (which matches the period in the financials):

USMNT played 9 matches and won 2 and lost 4 with the remainder being draws. Their expenses were $15 million on page 20.

USWNT played 19 matches and won the majority and didn’t lose any. This was also during qualifying tournaments for WC when they receive bonuses for advancement. Their expenses were $20 million on page 20.

Since the women played twice as many games as the men, travel costs were probably part of the of that $5 million difference in expenses. Given that pay is largely the biggest part of the expenses, how are the USWNT playing twice the games, winning all their matches, receiving bonuses for advancing to the WC and yet their pay isn’t at least double what the men cost?

But them men while playing LESS games and having LESS expenses, brought in MORE money. That is the monumental hurdle that WNT must overcome.

[Unregistered]

...the men. Not them men. Sorry

[Unregistered]

And in this same link revenues earned for MNT events was 29.3 million while the WNT events brought in 24.5 million. Page 12

Exactly. Men played less, cost less and generated more. The numbers tell the story.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. Men played less, cost less and generated more. The numbers tell the story.

The lawsuit itself is sexist. Suggesting they can play less, cost more, generate less.. yet earn the same. Foudy fought against men’s and women’s ncaa soccer having equal scholarships. The proposal would’ve increased men’s scholarships to match the women, and women’s scholarships would have remained unaffected. She was the driving force that caused the proposal to fail.

None of this is about money, it’s about pride.

[Unregistered]

But them men while playing LESS games and having LESS expenses, brought in MORE money. That is the monumental hurdle that WNT must overcome.

The USWNT players contract isn’t a revenue sharing agreement per se. It’s not like if the revenue doubled or dropped in half that they get paid according to that (doubt most people’s pay works that way). They get paid a salary for NWSL from USSF and then per game fees for NT duty plus bonuses for performance metrics like advancing in tournaments, etc. The women players’ issue is that matched to what the men get paid for playing, they get far less.

What also isn’t getting split out between the USMNT and USWNT is the revenue from the TV rights, sponsorships, etc. You can see that’s on a separate line in the financials. In that period, you had heavy promotion of the USWNT with the lead up to the WC and they played more than twice the number of games the men played. The lion’s share of that media revenue was coming from the USWNT as shown during the lawsuit discovery. And that’s been a consistent thing since the USWNT has been winning and drawing more media interest than the men over the last 20 years.

Finally, that revenue for the NT is mainly gate and concession revenue, but the fans are NOT coming to see the USMNT, they are often there to see the opposing team. I’ve been to many USMNT games and often here in the USA it’s a 60/40 or worse split of opposing team fans versus US fans and overseas you might see 10-30% rooting for the USMNT depending on the match. That’s not the cases with the USWNT where 80-90% of the fans at home are paying to see them and 30-80% are rooting for them abroad.

[Unregistered]

The lawsuit itself is sexist. Suggesting they can play less, cost more, generate less.. yet earn the same. Foudy fought against men’s and women’s ncaa soccer having equal scholarships. The proposal would’ve increased men’s scholarships to match the women, and women’s scholarships would have remained unaffected. She was the driving force that caused the proposal to fail.

None of this is about money, it’s about pride.

If it was not about money, they would have settled. It is about pride AND money. But mostly money.
Guarantee there is a non disclosure part of their settlement so unless a verdict, we won't know specifics.

[Unregistered]

The USWNT players contract isn’t a revenue sharing agreement per se. It’s not like if the revenue doubled or dropped in half that they get paid according to that (doubt most people’s pay works that way). They get paid a salary for NWSL from USSF and then per game fees for NT duty plus bonuses for performance metrics like advancing in tournaments, etc. The women players’ issue is that matched to what the men get paid for playing, they get far less.

What also isn’t getting split out between the USMNT and USWNT is the revenue from the TV rights, sponsorships, etc. You can see that’s on a separate line in the financials. In that period, you had heavy promotion of the USWNT with the lead up to the WC and they played more than twice the number of games the men played. The lion’s share of that media revenue was coming from the USWNT as shown during the lawsuit discovery. And that’s been a consistent thing since the USWNT has been winning and drawing more media interest than the men over the last 20 years.

Finally, that revenue for the NT is mainly gate and concession revenue, but the fans are NOT coming to see the USMNT, they are often there to see the opposing team. I’ve been to many USMNT games and often here in the USA it’s a 60/40 or worse split of opposing team fans versus US fans and overseas you might see 10-30% rooting for the USMNT depending on the match. That’s not the cases with the USWNT where 80-90% of the fans at home are paying to see them and 30-80% are rooting for them abroad.

I understand that the allocated players in NWSL are being paid by USSF instead of the private club owners. They should be thrilled about that. Not being funny but many before them, uswnt players, were paid by their clubs and not very much.

And as far as fan base, i have supported both teams (men's and women's, including NWSL). I traveled to the game in philadelphia when a fan raced out of the stands onto the field to bow down to Messi.

Getting a large turn out of fans at some games (nearly no one at Concacaf though) and not at many (some nwsl games at not well attended), is the problem.

The men even at Concacaf sell out.

And media revenue disclosed in discovery?? Did you see the responses? I ask because most times, I can't find women's soccer games including wnt. Sometimes on fox, sometimes on fox 2, sometimes espn,sometimes on espn 2. The concacaf games were hard to find and advertising was next to non existent.
Let's not get into NWSL going from utube to yahoo to another social media streaming channel to lifetime to espn and now cbs. Most times the lifetime and espn streaming covered 1 game per day. The others were streamed through internet not covered on television. Horrible.

And since USSF oversees NWSL, likely most of the nwsl media revenue goes to ussf instead of to the clubs. I don't think mls shares its media revenue with ussf. If it does, it is probably very little.

Clubs also pay into the USSF treasure chest (DA and GDA).