Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
Amen. No matter how much certain people want the women's game to be better, it's not. It's a snooze fest. That's reality. -
Use your brains. How many World Cup championships and gold medals for the US men's and women's teams? Go ahead, use your brain and move on.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
So winning multiple championships in a rec league means you get paid more than simply competing in the top league in the world?Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Apples to Oranges. You are the Daddy who pounds his chest for wins in Park and Rec. winning a championship in park and rec is nice, but still park and rec.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Please. Use. Brain. It's simple to understand.Comment
-
This is America people. Capitalistic America. Decisions are revenue based. Period.
Everyone is paid the LEAST amount necessary to keep the employees happy. Let the women complain and strike. If they are successful, they will be paid more. If they are not, they will have to lessen their demands.
It would be the same argument if MLS players complained that they are not paid as much as NFL or NBA players. They can complain and strike all they want. The bottom line is for the owners to decide if it is worth it or not. The owners will either pay, or find other players.Comment
-
Representing the USA and winning world cups and gold medals is Rec league? Boy, you people are dumb.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Russia's women Syncronized swim team..a 4 time Olympic Gold winning Team is also suing for more pay.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
All the best.Comment
-
Well we know how that will end. Putin doesn't like it when anyone stands up and complains. They'll get slapped around and forced to take more steroids/performance enhancing drugs like all their other athletes areOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
-
It's a complex issue that is not very well addressed on a message board.
A couple general points to think about:
1. The only revenue and expenses that matter in the discussion are what pass through, or are under the control of, the USSF. So, for example, the only World Cup dollars the USSF gets are expense, participation, and and prize money payments. TV rights are sold by FIFA not the USSF.
2. The USSF has, for many years, tied its tv and sponsorship rights to a related company that takes a 30 percent cut. The same company does the same stuff for MLS. The revenue that is, or should be generated by the women's team is not separated out. Internally that may be the case but not in the public financials. This broadcast and marketing deal generates about $18M for the USSF a year.
3. The USSF also has a deal with Nike. The deal was extended last year. The new terms were not disclosed in the most recent financials which cover the period through 3/15. The old deal was not very lucrative. It was generating about $17M a year in cash and product contributions
4. The game revenue and expenses are also combined figures in the financials. There was a budget disclosure that was written about in an article in early 2015 that the average profit for a home men's game was $640K and about $280K for the women. But that is pre women's World Cup. And, per the same article, the USSF lost between $300K and $350K for every men's away game. Women's team losses for away games were about 100K. The women play very fee away friendliest.
5. The USSF is not a for profit business. Part of its It is mission is promoting the growth of soccer here in the us. It is not a bad thing to put more money into growing the women's game even if that results in an uneven share based on revenue generation.
6. The USSF (and Fifa) has funded the men's game to a great extent. FIFA put $50M into the USSF following the World Cup held in the US to jump start the MLS. For a decade the USSF put millions more into working to get the MLS under way as a viable league. Remember, the MLS is not the first professional league that the USSF put money into. So while the USSF has put money into women's leagues, they have a very long way to go make things anywhere close to even. Per the 3/15 financials the USSF put $1.4M into the Nwsl. The year before it was 670K. Over that same two year period the USSF put about $6M into the boys academy. The USSF has spent millions more on the boys academy program than it has put into all the women's professional leagues combined.
7. In my view the women need a viable professional league. The foundation is there now. Use it. It needs a big time commitment from the USSF so the players can make a living wage and focus on playing and coaching. The national team revenues can help here. With an established league in place you can then convert the national team wage structure to a pay for play like the men and make those payments quite lucrative. But until then, it does not grow the women's game to focus on just 25 players.Comment
-
If reading comprehension was a skill, you would have seen through very post I made, that even I agree the men's PROFESSIONAL leagues can justify the pay disparity. Men's professional leagues do generate more revenue AND is more popular globally.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
The thread title and ALL my responses, strictly addressed the pay disparity between the men's and women's US National Teams. I would like to see the justification for paying World Cup and Olympic champions less than their male counterparts, especially in light of the information put forth by in the suit.Comment
-
I agree 100%. Pro sports is a different animal as is revenue and advertising dollars from pro leagues. Representing your country should be equitable if the work/demands are equitable. For a country that is supposed to be fair and offering opportunities we look like fools not treating the WNT the same as the men. What kind of message does it send that the multi-time world champs are treated so poorly?Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Even at World Cup and Olympic times, the men's teams bring in way more revenue than do the women. The women's team is even more of a drain because USSF has to support the "pro" league they play in just to keep it alive. If people wanted to pay good money to watch women's soccer, there would be lots of money for salaries.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
-
The message it sends is that no one is willing to pay to watch women's soccer. Once women's soccer is high enough quality then that might happen and salaries might start to go up. Until then, not a chance.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment