US women soccer players want equal pay to US men's team.

Ah, so play both concurrently, got it.

The "reason" is that people like to get good value for their purchases. The WC sponsors want to capitalize on the 3.572 billion people that watched the World Cup.

(https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cup)

If I'm a sponsor, I'm going to have to figure out the marginal increase in viewership by playing both tournaments simultaneously. Then I'm going to have to figure out how much more I'll be willing to pay for it. And how much more it's going to cost. And considering the attitudes towards Women's soccer in some parts of the world, they'll have to consider what kinds of new, negative issues they'll have to deal with, because changing the format of a tournament like the World Cup in such a way is going to be controversial.

You double the teams, so double the cost of the tournament, because you need twice as many stadiums, etc. Are you going to double the viewership? Doubtful. I'd say it's even unclear as to whether or not you'd see an increase in profit from such a tournament, but I'd like to see a serious prospectus done before I lock onto that conclusion.

 

Why does that matter?

 

Not too sure, but eliminating outliers sure seems like a good idea, so what are the numbers for the whole tournament in each case?

 

I think the number of unique viewers would be the key statistic.

 

Sure. But until that becomes available...

 

The problem with looking at and using World Cup viewership statistics (either men or women) is that USSF doesn't monetize the TV rights for the World Cup, FIFA does. Yes, the USWNT has the highest rated individual game in US Soccer history, but USSF didn't make money off of that, so using that as part of the reason you deserve more money from USSF is illogical.

 

I'm not questioning the idea that men's soccer is far superior to women's.

I am questioning the assumption that the men generate more revenue.

Obviously if there's a major men's tourney in the US the revenue will be huge.

But in an average year like 2018, not so sure.

 

Somebody proposed that the women’s World Cup should be combined with the men’s World Cup. In support of that comment, you post a statistic stating that in one country, the viewership for the womens World Cup was higher. But you don’t think overall global viewership matters when discussing that proposal.

In other words....you weren’t trying to further the discussion. Got it.

 

My comments were in regard to the subject of the thread.

 

Not the World Cup, only the final match. But yeah, pretty weak.

 

Wouldn't there be as much coverage of WWC and wouldn't ad rates be the same if the interest was the same?
In a "combined" WC, what would prevent media outlets from not showing all the women's games or showing them delayed or showing them on lower profile channels?
Another note that says something about the popularity of the women's game: I bought Cat 4 tickets to group games at this year's WWC from US Soccer for $19 each. Pretty sure I paid more than that for group game tickets at the 1998 WC in France.

 

Seriously?

Look at what happens in the Olympics? Both male and female events are shown live. There is an equivalent media cover...

What would you have a WC with male 48 teams, so you can watch a world classic of Montenegro vs Czech Republic (poor technical game) or a 24 WC (same as we are used to) and a Women competition of the best women national teams.

China vs US, France vs Norway or England vs Germany

I rather see good games and in my book, top 12 women team games are better than any games of teams that can't qualify to a 24 WC

 

Montenegro and Czech are leaps and bounds ahead of any two women's national teams in history from a technical standpoint though. If you're trying to say the match is more interesting to you because a top 12 women's team match at the WC is more meaningful than a couple of also-rans in the men's side, I can see that.

Running the tournaments at the same time as a package isn't going to create a surge of interest though. With the Olympics, we're talking about pretty obscure sports that almost no one watches outside of the Olympics or a world championship. We don't have "gymnastics bars" people go to at 7am to watch the finest gymnastics clubs in the world competing, do we?

A more direct example would be women's basketball. The NCAA women's tournament runs concurrent with the men's tournament. Do we see a large audience for the women's tournament? Nope. The reason why WWC viewership in the US is as high as it is can be attributed to one thing: we like winners. The talent pool in the women's game is shallow. Our women can use collegiate soccer as a platform in a way that doesn't fly in the men's game, so they will always be a prime contender...until the game catches up at least.

I can't imagine a scenario in which they'd get more eyes on the games if WWC and MWC were played at the same time. If anything, I'd imagine it would have the opposite effect because a lot of people (in the US at least) watch both. I can't speak for everyone, but fatigue would set in for me. I watch all of the US games in both. And I watch most of the other men's matches, but none of the women's outside of maybe a SF/F without the US in it. With both on at the same time, I'd probably only watch the US women's knockouts and the final on the women's side.

 

This is the correct analysis. The women's WC is better off having its own, independent dates, which encourage even hard core fans of the men's game to tune in and support.

 

I was guessing that the poster was born since 2005 and is sleeping thru a lot of middle school history classes, but apparently not. So what are the historical advantages to being a woman?

 

you've got to be kidding me. right? you seriously cannot acknowledge that being a woman comes with its advantages??????????? yes being a woman comes with disadvantages SURE....but just because there are disadvantages to being in a certain category/demographic doesnt mean that there are no advantages with being in that category as well...USE your mind - don't let it be a prison!

there are disadvantages to being a super model. there are disadvantages to being a celebrity. there are disadvantages to being a rich white male. etc etc

I realize how hard it is in this era of information distortion and special agendas to see things clearly....but here are some nuggets for you to chew on.........

1. getting off the titanic first - dicaprio died in the movie, remember?
2. don't have to go to war/be a soldier
3. women live longer than men - and it is not an accident
4. men generally are given more dangerous and hazardous work than women
5. In 2015, for example, there were 4,836 workplace deaths, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of those, 4,492 were men, and 344 were women. In other words, men suffered 93% of workplace fatalities that year. This wasn't some aberration. From 2011 through 2015, men accounted for 92.5% of all workplace deaths.
6. suicide is 3.5 times higher in men than women (though the rate is rising faster in women at the moment)...not an accident, either
7. women can cry their way out of trouble - men can't
8. free dinner free movies free everything
9. cheaper car insurance
10. far less likely to be considered a perv/have a harrassment charge or to be looked at suspiciously for smiling at the opposite sex
11. unemployed women are not labeled "losers"

maybe i did sleep my way through middle school - but it was because what they were teaching was too rudimentary - you, on the other hand, likely slept your way through college.

which, by the way, using attractiveness to get to the top is an avenue much more open to women than men (but that is just my opinion so i didn't list it)

 

Reminds me of that comedy set by Bill Burr.
I recommend everyone to YouTube "BILL BURR: WHY MEN MAKE MORE THAN WOMEN"
And hear the cold hard truths that no one can deny

 

Women, for a period, had it worse. But you're burying your head in the sand if you think that's still the case and they didn't always have some individual advantages.

Unless you were suspected of being a witch or in crazy hysterias like that, women had much less criminal accountability. That's true today still, i.e.: under no circumstances do you hit a woman, like they're children, and can't make a decision + have no ability to do damage even with weapons, so males shouldn't have reasonable self defense rights. Which conflicts with messages about women using better discretion and having competitive physical capability.

This has been taken advantage to the point that, in spite of the reality of men being more aggressive biologically, which has its negatives and positives (modern feminism just focuses on negatives), that per recent CDC surveys male and female domestic abuse stats are very comparable - 60% lesser violence committed by women, 40% of severe violence, and mid 50's in terms of verbal abuse.

One is being punished for these types of behavior to the point the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world by far, and the other is not (although obviously men legitimately do commit substantially more crime overall). That is evidenced by a study conducted by a (female) University of Michigan Law Professor who found that women get 63% shorter sentences (6 times race gap) and were half as likely to go to jail under same crime + prior circumstances.

That is due to differences in sympathy, but when it comes to making money in corporatistic America, men have always made better slaves too. Fake progressive and leading democratic party presidential candidate Kamala Harris' office on her behalf multiple times asked to keep people in prison for their cheap labor.

Men are used for their bodies by the military-industrial complex, currently comprising 97% of the deaths in our 9 wars and counting. Men have always been asked to take the risks to gather resources going back to hunter-gathererer days, as reflected by there being twice as many women back then (now there are 7 more million in US). Women weren't oppressed then. The genders took on different duties to maximize survival for the family and species.

The same is true about women having considerably less financial accountability in yesteryear, and it applies today to significant degree as well. Women had limited opportunity, but still built-in security. Now they want both, and equal outcome somehow. Men are 97% of alimony payers in spite of making more in relationships "only" 1/3 of the time now. That's an 11 times gap prima facie. Doesn't tell the whole story, not factoring in child-bearing/rearing and marriage, but doesn't remotely explain a gulf like that, and lawyers in the system confirm men do indeed get destroyed. Child-bearing/rearing and marriage are the main explanations for the "wage" gap, which doesn't 1:1 factor in hrs, flexibility, and career choice. Single, childless women make 95% of men. And the aforementioned biological factors, as well as women incentivizing men more than vice versa, as was demonstrated in a 26k UCLA study, very much play the part. At the end, the differences are marginal at best. We see this in the PEW research, where 25% of people who run for office are women, while 24% of congress are, and women are more apt to be involved in local politics so they have more flexibility to take care of children if need be. The arguments that female athletes and actresses with collective bargaining and agents are grossly underpaid is the height of this madness.

Not to mention social accountability or consideration of women (and children) first still exists. For example, abortion but no euthanasia, when the arguments of own body and choice apply exponentially better to the latter. Also, breast cancer is the most over-funded type by far per the NIH and they argue those resources should be reallocated because it's leading to other types like stomach cancer with equal need being under-funded.

Again, this is not to pretend like things overall weren't poor for women, but to claim women haven't always had some advantages is burying your head in the sand, and same is the case to pretend like women don't have things equal or better now. But modern feminists are being narcissistic. They want everything and to use junk science/logic to feign being hard done to get it. Get placated by a crumbling empire, using divide and conquer to maintain its tenuous hold. I'd rather focus very little on these usually contrived identity issues, but many fall into the trap, so unfortunately we have to.

 

WOW - so well put!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 really amazing ...bravo.

 

lets not forget that woman have a right to choose to be a parent .men dont

 

well this isn't entirely true at all...well actually its not true anyway you put it.

 

Can we please not take the discussion surrounding Men/Women's compensation in soccer to an identity-laden "who has/had it worse" discussion?

It seeps into absolutely every discussion involving gender, race, or sexuality. I don't really think it's relevant. What's relevant is what the role of the USSF is, what the metrics should be for MNT/WNT pay, and what the WNT should earn with their play.

 

Yeah, that was a strange post.