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

Yup, and long-term this is going to bite the USWMNT in the butt. Advantaging the club of popular girls is going to lead to stagnation in the program.

 

I would like to add to this, that is why Lloyd went AWOL from her NWSL team for a month after the Olympics with zero penalty. She is a USSF employee not NWSL. Could any male player just leave their club for a month?

 

Any foreign-based player would immediately find himself on the U-21s/reserves with a long road back to the senior team, at best.

Any MLS-based player would probably be traded or end up on a USL affiliate for 6 months or more. Again, at best.

 

But the NWSL doesn't have any real power. The league is probably not viable without the USSF subsidies. The NWSL clearly plays second fiddle to the USWNT. If there is a future for women's professional soccer, it needs to be one where the league isn't so beholden to the federation.

 

At the very least, I think the amount over NWSL maximum should count as WNT compensation. IIRC, the Federation Players are being paid $73k to play in the NWSL, and the league maximum salary for other players is $41k. The excess $32k is money the USWNT players wouldn't be able to get if they weren't USWNT players.

 

This is not a WNT player getting an extra 50K from USSF for, for example, playing for PSG, in addition to PSG's wages. The USSF pays the entire salary. Therefore, it seems illogical to say "Oh, but it only counts for the difference between the max club salary and the USWNT's artificial 'USSF-NWSL' salary".

Who knows where the WNT players would end up if they weren't in NWSL? What does it matter? The fact is, they are paid (by the USSF, not NWSL) to play for the WNT and to be in the NWSL. If they leave to play for PSG, they lose their USSF above-max "NWSL" salary. Therefore, the entire amount counts.

 

I agree with you.

The sad reality is the interest in Women's soccer isn't enough to float the NWSL. Possibly not to float any women's professional league at a level 'equality; dictates. The USWNT players are the draw for NWSL but it still isnt enough to keep the league going without help.

The thought that the US is dominant in the sport partially because the interest isnt there around the world right now also is reflected in a lack of interest in non-USWNT games in the US.

 

Of course, the USWNT players who are the main draw for the NWSL also happen to be missing all the time, which isn't helping the NWSL...

 

Today from The Atlantic:

What the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Needs More Than Equal Pay

 

A couple of initial thoughts. First, the idea that the Victory Tour will add to the WWC profits is at best an assumption that USSF profited from the WWC (it is possible that USSF is in the black from WWC if merchandising was included, but based on history, we will never know how much of the merchandise is directly related to the WWC). The Victory Tour is what allows USSF to make a profit from winning the WWC.

Secondly, the ticket prices thing keeps coming up and it is an odd one to me. The USMNT has historically had higher attendances than the USWNT, which would seem like the market dictates that the USWNT tickets should be cheaper - supply and demand and all that jazz. Then, Alex Morgan complains that ticket prices for tonight are too high, and what does she cite, the economics of venue size and price. I will say that in one of the friendlies leading up to the WWC, I didn't attend because ticket prices were too high. I got cheaper tickets to a USMNT Gold Cup match, and had I purchased tickets for the final in advance, could have had those tickets cheaper than the USWNT friendly as well.

 

The problem is that the USSF is expected to subsidize FIFA's lack of pay and the NWSL's lack of pay along which is where the inequality is between men and women.

 

I still think USSF and NWSL missed huge opportunities by not playing the VT matches as double headers with NWSL matches in big football stadiums. Put this match in NRG Stadium in Houston and help drive fans to the Dash matches. If that doesn't work, then you really know it's time to get out of Houston.

 

Just an observation: no MNT in the world would ever be able to hold a victory tour after winning the World Cup. They'd simply have no chance of getting all the World Cup winning players released from clubs.

Meanwhile, every week the USWNT Victory Tour goes on is a week the NWSL is deprived of its most popular players.

 

Ergo, no regular USWNT members can sign in Europe because of all these friendlies they get called in for

 

Jermaine Jones keeping it real

https://sports.yahoo.com/former-usm...ens-soccer-and-equal-pay-fight-164822436.html

I guess the new revisionist history is that the USWNT scrimmages against the FCD U-15 and US U-17 teams were completely non competitive and even "for the benefit of developing the boys squad". I guess the magnanimous humanitarians on the USWNT selflessly threw those games for the sake of their opponents' self esteem even knowing the results would be used against them in the court of public opinion. Such magnanimity.

The media is disgusting.

 

It's an indication of relative ability.

Is it any dumber an argument than the people who seriously argue that the USWNT could beat the USMNT? Yes, the argument still gets made.

 

Except it's a direct answer to a factually terrible argument. I don't see how it's invalid for the purpose.

 

An oft-repeated argument is that the "work" of both teams is the same. If the work is the same, then the players and teams are effectively interchangeable. If I'm making widget A, and my job and work is the same as someone making widget B, then I should be able to make widget B just about as well as I make widget A.

But, one team could not even hope to remotely compete within the confines of the other team. And since we never see head-to-head Senior matchups, we need to rely on teenagers beating teams in scrimmages as facsimiles.

Hence Australia losing to Newcastle Jets U15 7-0, WNT losing to US U17 8-2, and Sweden losing 3-0 to AIK U17 (AIK played down a man at the request of Sundhage).

Why do these things keep getting thrown out over and over? Because if you're not going to accept that in entertainment money flows independently of how hard/much you "work" for something, then the argument that the "work" is the same is farcical.

A guy builds a house with legos. Not the same as someone building it out of wood. Both houses, both radically different.

...I hope at least one of these metaphors lands...

 

Please re-read my post.

1. The "work" is not the same. Rhonda Rousey would get obliterated in the Men's UFC. A trans man absolutely blew through most of the female ranks despite not being a good fighter. Her victories are not interchangeable with victories on the Men's circuit.

2. Effort has never had anything to do with it. I could spend all my days at the gym, nobody gives me any money.

3. The point is that both houses are not the same house. You could sell cars or computers. Both involve selling. Both are also very different. And if someone can sell computers, but can't sell cars, you can't say that the two jobs are equivalent.

 

Well, it's a response to you asking "Who cares who wins in a scrimmage?"

We care because it highlights that the "job" of the respective teams is different, therefore, an argument for pay based on success as if their jobs were the same, and the only difference was that the WNT win more, is refuted.