Yes because when no network would touch the MLS TV deal with a 10-foot pole, that deal was packaged together with the much more successful MNT and WNT. While NWSL is left to struggle on their own.
The 2015 - 2022 deal does not include the WNT. Together Fox and Espy pay 75million a year. Univision will also pay 15 million a year. the MLS is getting 90mil in Tv revenue now, it doesn't have anything to do with the WNT.
I wonder if the suit is part of an attempt to simply greatly raise the payouts under the CBAs, including for '16, than to change the nature of the CBA to one similar to the MNT. In the end, the union can claim over the life a CBA the combinations of higher base salaries and bonuses would be similar to what the men under their contract would possibly earn from USSF. Remember, the She Believe Cup has replaced going to the Algarve. Near the end of the NY Times article on the suit is the statement: "... If the E.E.O.C. rules for the players, it could seek relief on behalf of the entire women’s national team in the form of a negotiated settlement or side with the players in federal court, Kessler said. If the case is successful, it could force U.S. Soccer to surrender millions of dollars in back pay." Assuming all the WNT players support the suit, I wonder if that is a reason for the support of the older ones or those on the bubble, who would not benefit much, if any, under a changed pay system.
"CHICAGO (May 12, 2014) – U.S. Soccer and Major League Soccer have signed new television and media rights partnerships with ESPN, FOX Sports and Univision Deportes, which will televise U.S. Men’s and Women’s National Team, and MLS matches through the end of 2022. The announcement was made today in New York by U.S. Soccer CEO/General Secretary Dan Flynn, MLS Commissioner Don Garber, ESPN, Inc. President and Disney Media Networks Co-Chairman John Skipper, FOX Sports 1 and FOX Sports 2 General Manager and Chief Operating Officer David Nathanson and Univision Deportes President Juan Carlos Rodriguez. All three networks will televise both U.S. Men’s and Women’s National Team matches. ESPN and FOX Sports 1 will split the English-language Men’s National Team broadcast package of approximately 10 games per year, and will likewise share the schedule of Women’s National Team games. Univision Deportes is the exclusive Spanish language home of U.S. Soccer and will broadcast all of the U.S. Men’s National Team games, plus a minimum of four Women’s National Team matches each year throughout the duration of the deal. " http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/05/12/12/01/140512-ussoccer-mls-tv-deal
right, it's not exclusive rights of WNT, it's sharing..and only 4 matches. which was probably negotiated via the Fed as this is a huge benefit for the WNT. I don't think in the network was negotiating for this, rather it was packaged by the Fed to continue the growth of the WNT. Networks are not rushing to get rights to WNT friendlies. She believe cup had how many matches on TV? The MNT matches always play in large stadiums and get way more in sponsorship money with out WC victories. It's much safer economic bet than the WNT or NWSL. Regardless of WC play the men they will make money. Look what happened in the 07 WC....The WNT seems to have set a standard of needing to win to make money, which is a liability in sports and and business.
So many misinformation I'm not sure where to start. 1. FOX, ESPN and Univision have exclusive rights to the USWNT the same as with the men, and these 3 networks have to share the broadcast with some minumum number or matches gaurantee for each network so I'm not sure where you are getting that figure of only 4 matches from. 2. The notion that no network wants to broadcast the WNT is a myth. Quite the opposite actually as it is a money maker. Just ask FOX. 3. The She Believes cup was not on TV for the same reason we are here today: SUM which is responsible for selling the rights could not be arsed to do their job. They will rather spend time selling MLS instead. Even with the lack of promotion the tournament still out performed projections and is slated to be a money maker in the next couple of years. 4. As for NWSL, you yourself made my argument for me. You can't claim NWSL doesn't make money when no money is invested in it. That's the job of USSF and SUM. There are NWSL teams that do make money because ...shocker, their owners do invest in promoting the team.
The women's teams doesn't bring in the same revenue as the men's team, so it's not surprising. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt here and assume they know that, which means is probably about something bigger.
Let me clarify, so you understand what i'm saying and rebut your misinformation. 1 Yes, the 3 networks have the rights to WNT. I didn't think it was exclusive, my bad. The networks want to broadcast EVERY single MNT matches, where it was negotiated to broadcast at least 4 WNT. So it's safe to say the women were bundled with the men. The networks want to air every single MNT match, if it were profitable for the networks to air every single WNT match, they absolutely would. It's economics 101. "All U.S. Soccer Men’s National Team matches, including a minimum of four U.S. Women’s National Team matches each year over the duration of the deal." 2. Yes, Fox made money broadcasting the WWC, which is not the same as a friendly. You can't compare the two. 3. Do you think individuals where too lazy to sell the rights? to do their job?? I'm confused. Again, if there is money to be made, the fed will make it. Please prove that the SheBelieve cup, which had 4 of the top 5 teams in the world wasn't broadcasted because "SUM couldn't be asked to do their jobs." That's an insane assumption. 4. Not sure what argument you think i'm making. The NWSL doesn't make money people the general public aren't interested in professional league soccer. Historically, the country like the WNT in global events and as the past has proved, it doesn't matter how much $$$ is put in the a professional league, it's very hard to keep afloat. *please see last 2 folded leagues as proof* which put a lot of money in marketing.
Agreed, but apparently some people here think the WNT doesn't bring in the same revenue because of the Fed, which I disagree. And while these women know the revenue information, it's not what they are presenting in the the news. So, when you say the is about something bigger, what is that? A general discussion on women being paid less than men for the same corporate work? General equality? This is sport$ though, nobody is worth the same. Not on your own team, not compared to men for this sport, not compared to the prettiest one on the team.
The discussion of revenue is irrelevant in a debate about the equality of pay from a non profit organization in a closed market with no alternatives. In that kind of environment, you cannot use revenue generation as a reasoning for unequal pay. What the USSF is doing is more less like the Red Cross, in a tornado disaster, investing more supplies and providing more relief to neighborhoods that have a higher donation return. Revenue means nothing in this argument, and the next person to say "well the MNT makes more" is going to get shot by my gun over the internet.
Women's soccer is simply isn't as popular. More exposure may increase their popularity a bit, but it would still be miles behind the men. What you'd have to do is basically subsidize the women's team with the men's until they became self-sufficient, if that day ever came. Argue it all you want, the economics of an organization do not change just because they're considered "non-profit". The NFL is non-profit, but if they started a WNFL, the women wouldn't make millions. The same dynamic is at work with the NBA/WNBA. At the end of the day, the math and money have to make sense.
1. Re-read the full article again and come back to me. The part you are selective quoting is referring to only Univision Deportes which will broadcast all the us men matches IN SPANISH as well as at least 4 women's matches. Again this only refers to Univision and not fox and ESPN which have the English language broadcasting rights. 2. Whether it's the World Cup or friendlies, the wnt do deliver the ratings for fox comparable to the men. 3. For the She believes cup, if you are telling me that in 2016 ussf can not get ANYONE to sponsor a tournament featuring the top 5 teams in the world than we may as well just stop this conversation now. Time and time again ussf have been reactionary when it comes to the women. They continue to undervalue and under sell them and when those expectations are exceeded and their hands are basically forced, they want to claim the glory. 4. As for the NWSL, my point is that you can't claim the product doesn't make money if you don't invest in it. Do you think it's a coincidence that Portland and Orlando are making money? These are teams that have the full night of the marketing arm of the men's team promoting them so of course they are seeing the results.
The reason for the tournaments lack of television exposure was due to the march madness schedule, which is a known event that is planned for years in advance, and the limited amount of time the She Believes Cup was organized. Although, SUM deserves to be bashed for many things, I don't think they're at fault in this case, since they're contractually obligated to ESPN and FOX for the national teams' television rights. While FOX and ESPN have negotiated television contracts with several basketball conferences to televise said conferences' basketball tournaments.
I too don't put too much stock in what happen with that tournament THIS year due to the short time it took to organize. What I do disagree with is using that unique situation this year as an indictment on women soccer as a whole to prove that it's not marketable.
International Soccer is in a closed market. NFL, NBA, NBA, heck even the NWSL is not. You have choices in each and every scenario except as an international soccer play for the US of A. There is no where else for Alex Morgan to go play... she is cap tied to the United States & as such she can only ever play for them. Thus the USSF, by law, is now obligated to ensure Alex Morgan is paid fairly regardless of sex, race, religion, or anything else, because she has no other alternative. er . . . actually the economics of an organization DO change because they're "non-profit" . . . that's kind of the point. It would be one thing if the NPO was losing money & they had to make cuts... but the USSF, like FIFA, have pretty big cash surpluses that they are supposed to turn around and put back into the business. If they do so by giving more money to the men & not the women ... well that's considered discrimination. I'm wondering if there is somebody here with knowledge about the USSF's relationship with the United States as a member of the International Olympic Committee. Doesn't the IOC have rules regarding its members? Lets talk about how much revenue is generated by the two teams at the Olympics. . . oh wait, we can't . . . the men haven't been to 3 of the last 4.
No one is forcing them to play international soccer. And regardless of that, it is still a money game for FIFA, CONCACAF, and USSoccer. If they paid the women like they do the men, it's possible they'd have to pluck the funds from the revenues of the men. That isn't fair. So, in order for the pay to make sense for the women's side, they must be paid less. We could argue all day about exact figures but the philosophy is correct: the women bring in less and are thus paid less. Like I said, math doesn't change. Non-profits aren't communist organizations, and despite the name, they do pursue profit. I'm curious, when did fair and equal become synonymous?
Depending on how the networks and basketball conferences have created their television packages, I don't know how much television the She Believes Cup will get next year. Maybe the networks can move some of the games earlier in the day to accommodate for the SBC.
Because it was SUM doing the bundling and not USSF. Back when no network would touch MLS, SUM bought the rights to the 2002 and 2006 WC and then used that as leverage to get MLS games on TV. NWSL is being left out in the cold because they don't go through SUM to sell their media rights and they aren't really in a position to buy the rights to NT games out from under SUM. Now, it is an entirely fair argument that USSF is leaving money on the table by contracting out to SUM and that they should be selling sponsorships and media rights in house, but I'm not sure NWSL being left out of the most recent TV deal is particularly nefarious. Well, other than NWSL being a competitor for MLS and MLS not having much reason to go to bat for them...
WNT friends do not compare to MNT friendlies, differences are in millions, which equals a lot of money. WC matches are comparable in audience numbers for americans, but as a whole not even close sponsorship money or ticket sales. The WNT usually gets below a .5 which is not good numbers for networks. here are some friendly examples from 2015: WNT: USA Women’s Soccer Earns Top Audience of Year Last Saturday’s United States/South Korea women’s soccer friendly earned a 0.6 final rating and 998,000 viewers on ESPN, easily the largest audience for the U.S. women’s national team this year. The previous high was 457,000 for USA/Mexico on Fox Sports 1 May 17, and none of the eight other pre-World Cup matches managed to hit the 400,000 mark. Soft Numbers For USA Women’s Soccer Victory Tour Last Sunday’s United States/Costa Rica women’s soccer friendly, the first USA match since the Women’s World Cup, earned 315,000 viewers on Fox Sports 1 — ranking fourth out of the 11 USWNT friendlies televised this year. Wednesday’s rematch scored 274,000 on ESPN2, ranking 6th out of the 11 telecasts. Neither match was competitive MNT: USA/Mexico Viewership Lowest Since 2005 Last week’s USA/Mexico soccer friendly was the least-watched meeting between the sides in at least a decade. Last Wednesday’s United States/Mexico men’s soccer friendly earned a combined audience of 3.6 million viewers across UniMás, Univision Deportes Network and Fox Sports 1, down 27% from the rivals’ lone match last year, which aired on UniMás and ESPN (4.9M). USMNT World Cup Qualifiers Surge on ESPN While Major League Soccer has struggled this season, the USA Men’s National Team has been a strong draw on ESPN. ESPN has averaged an 0.8 U.S. rating and 1.3 million viewers for eight USA World Cup qualifiers this year
According to the article published yesterday, USSF is responsible for commercializations of NWSL and since this is contracted to SUM, they are responsible for the NWSL
I agree. I think this is more about getting other things like the same field conditions, same flight class, etc than actually thinking they deserve equal pay.
Ah. Okay. I just fired up the find and notice that I missed that. Thanks! Although, it might be worth noting that you may have missed this: So even if they were left out of the cold in the initial deal, it sounds like Fox is stepping up now? It could have also be that the networks weren't interested in airing NWSL games prior to the ratings bonanza that was the WWC and SUM didn't have an incentive to press them to include NWSL as part of the package like they did the MLS games. I seem to recall that it wasn't until during the WWC that Fox announced they'd be airing the game of the week. Although, the next section of that paragraph is troubling: