News: Jermaine Jones criticizes the USWNT equal pay and says Alex Morgan too outspoken

The problem with MLS in its early stages and NWSL today isn't that they overestimated the market. It's that they overestimated the ubiquity of the market. NWSL does that because they're chasing a the biggest slice of the pie. But they're doing it at the expense of the most obtainable slice of the pie. The people most likely to form the habit of going to games. The ones that build the culture/brand/viability roadmap.

@Auriaprottu The SOP you're talking about.

From its early planning stages through until the winds shifted in the mid 00s, MLS was the same way. Soccer moms was a newly coined phrase and the thought was if we could just get to the families of kids who play soccer, they'd get hooked and those kids would grow up to become adults who were hooked on MLS. Dumb on so many levels.

What do you need to become a regular MLS/NWSL attendee? You need money. You need to be open to soccer as an experience--even if a casual once every 4 year thing. And you need time.

I hated playing in band in 6th grade, so I quit after first semester. I still went to 40 or so concerts a year in my 20s-mid 30s. I've seen people pulled out of crowds at NBA games for shooting contests. I could tell just by form that these people are absolutely horrible at basketball and likely didn't play past 3rd grade, if at all. You don't need to find young soccer players. You need to find people willing (and able) to go to soccer games.

Until my mid 30s, I went to concerts, bars, sporting events all the time. I was a good little consumer. Lots of habits. I went to the same bar with my wife 5 days a week. A couple drinks, a salad with steak/chicken, time to see our neighbors and decompress after work. That was a social habit and a community and basically our living room. Then the habits died. Because I got kids. People who have kids who are really engaged in soccer are likely to want to go to games, but they're also likely to not have the time to go. Because Johnny or Susie is on a field 50 miles from home on Saturday afternoon. Or at practice on Thursday. And then there's the damn diorama that needs to get done by Wednesday and NWEA exams so the kids need to get to bed on time and Sally's violin and the grass that isn't going to cut itself and the scouts meeting and I've gotta go to this school session to figure out what the hell Singapore math is. Parents of kids tend to curb their consumption habits because they don't have time. Because children are parasites. So why in the hell are we marketing to these people?

The Portland Thorns don't have some super amazing stockpile of lesbian soccer fans to enlist. It's not about finding a queertopia to cater to, although the LGBTQ community doesn't have as many kids as us heteros. It's about honing in on people who have a) money b) time and c) who don't completely dismiss soccer. There will be kids and families at games but that's not the core audience. Money = household income/education. Time = no kids, high consumption adults. Core audience = people who at least casually appreciate soccer. That group skews under 45, Democrat and urban. Every major metro has these areas. They cater to people on an extended adolescence with some cash in their pocket. These people eat out and drink a lot. They go to "shows". People invent new crap for them to eat, like avocado toast. They do yoga and form stupid hipster kickball leagues and go to PechaKucha nights and throw axes because it's "edgy" and spend too much money on things like fixies.

And they're a big, growing group.

 

Lol! Thank you for making my point. What the ladies and their attorneys have done is completely inconsistent with the six steps you laid out. BTW, if I were to speculate, based upon your reaction, I’ve struck a nerve.

They ladies aren't cherry picking. They're basically lying. And, ya, I see this as being different than Monsanto defending itself against cancer claims, the asbestos industry defending itself, or whatever other "arms length" interaction you want to use as an exemplar. These are representatives of the national team. Imo, they should hold themselves to a higher standard. Absent that, my interest in them is kind of descending to the same interest I have in choosing to fill up at Arco or Shell, as that is how they are conducting themselves - like a corporate litigant.

I've said before, my #1 team for WC19 was France. Our ladies were 2nd.

But, that's just me. Their divisive, dishonest rhetoric is clearly not so off-putting to others.

 

It's not a matter of perhaps. I'm sorry if that isn't a large enough data set, but maybe you can meet me halfway. Digging through match reports is no fun, especially when many are difficult to locate. Every time the tally is made, one team calls in a shit-ton more than the other, and it's only in one direction.

Short answer: a little from column A, a little from column B.
Longer answer: it's relevant insofar as one of the chief arguments of the lawsuit rests on a hypothetical situation that will never ********ing happen on one side, period. Furthermore and related, the pool is so much larger for the men that no one player ends up making ALL that much. Indeed, the differential in number of matches exacerbates this condition: there are a lot more men competing for a lower raw number of chances to make money. Pointing out how many more players are chasing the same dollars provides a counter to the silliness of some mythical creatures who play in 20 friendlies a year.

I know I've posted variations of this in several places. Pretending I haven't isn't...very good of you.

Here we agree.

No, but they become necessary to counter the extraordinary amount and type of bullshit that becomes received wisdom in some corners. I wish it weren't so.

 

Shorts stints, like Morgan's, haven't hurt. But long-term, it has for some. For example, Horan didn't get regular call-ups until she came back to the US. She was basically told to come back if she wanted a chance to make the Olympic team. Mace probably won't get another real shot for the senior team while she remains in Sweden. Signing with overseas clubs, of course, was a fairly regular thing before the CBA required a certain number (a majority at least, if not all) of the WNT players to stay and play in the NWSL.

 

Pretty much agree, though some of your verbiage was hard to follow.

The way I see it is that the women's soccer leagues have failed (and we'll see if this one lasts) because they all tried to instantly be bigtime. There was/is no need for them to be playing in massive stadiums with the expense that entails and the bad optics it generates. I suppose the reason that they do that is that it's hard to sell investors on the idea that "this is going to be yuuuuuge" if you're playing in junior college football stadiums. But, the rent would be a lot cheaper.

And, I'm guessing that the ego's Julie Foudy (we're not going to let the men ride on our coattails), et al. played a role in going too big too early the first time around. They went on David Letterman. They saw they were the flavor of the week, and thought that was all permanent.

Before them, the U.S. Olympic Softball team had a similar moment in the sun. (Dot Richardson, anyone? Bueller?) Maybe not quite as big, but then, if the Olympic Softball tournament had been played in the U.S. ........? But, nobody was clamoring for a women's professional softball league.

 

But if 20 of them bolt because the subsidy dries up, the WNT selectors no longer have the luxury of tossing a couple players aside. That's the difference. They'll be playing with the same selection paramaters that men's teams (and many women's teams) play by all around the world: grab the best players you can find (more or less) across all leagues. If that takes you to France, Barca, Milan, Arsenal, Wolfsburg, or a mid table team in any of the better leagues, then that's what you do.

When someone calls into question my integrity and adherence to the law with zero evidence, you're damn right you struck a nerve.

Look at the legal brief and review their talking points. The individual points they make aren't lies. Each of them is truthful. We may not like that they have excluded points that are relevant to the discussion, but that's what attorneys and their clients do. Review any suit document filed by an attorney. Review any filings you have submitted. I guarantee you that you have "lied" in the same way you're coming down on the women. Consistently. Because attorneys don't issue bullet points that undermine their case.

This is the part where you justify the work of "lawyering" so as to somehow distinguish this particular disagreement from others. Maybe it makes you feel better about the work you've done in your career. I'm not saying you're breaking the law or being unethical here. Just that any attorney operating in these and similar spaces has done exactly what you have an issue with in this particular case. All. The. Time.

They're playing a game. With a crest on their shirt. They represent their country, but I don't care if their crest said Bob's Beer Barn. We're talking about women kicking a ball around for a living. If cherry picking facts and presenting them to the public via courts and the public is an evil here, any attorney who has done the same to defend a murderer or a company that has given people cancer may feel compelled to do a Greg Louganis into a wood chipper.

Not encouraging you or any other attorney to do this mind you. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in the justification.

 

Those aren't fans. They're plastics. Don't even think about them. Think instead of the Norwegian who supports SK Brann, or the Greek who supports Pana, or the Ghanian who supports Hearts Of Oak, or the American who supports Atlanta United. These are fans. They don't care what Messi did last week or what CRonaldo did this week. They care about their club. I haven't seen ten consecutive minutes of UEFA ball all told since March 2017. And I haven't missed anything, because it doesn't matter how great they play.

Gotcha. I didn't pay a lot of attention to MLS early on, because I didn't have a club to support and it didn't look like MLS was in any kind of hurry to help us get one. Now I have a club and MLS is wondering why they didn't push ATL earlier to find a potential owner.

All understood except the "extended adolescence" part. My adolescence ended at 20, same as anyone else's. I've been a grown man more than 30 years. But I own several bicycles and one of them is a track bike (a real one, tho vintage in design. It's not a "fixie") . Being child-free has made it possible for me to experience things that a lot of parents stop experiencing because the rabbit done died.

I said once on FB that the best gift any parent can give their kids is the knowledge that their life won't end when their offspring's begins.

 

Not true. I've not been involved in any case where I've been interviewed by the media. I'm sure the filings were competently prepared. The pastiche of rhetoric put forth by the players is not the filings. And, frankly, it is the rare case where the litigants, as opposed to their lawyers, are allowed to go rodeo in the media without their lawyers present.

That's just not true. As you know, lawyers (and experts) are accountable for every statement they make in the legal realm. These women are speaking outside of the court room. Two totally different things. And, as I said, this is super unorthodox for the litigants to basically have a perpetual open mike. Most lawyers would cringe at the thought.

Again, these are not lawyers at a press conference, or motions or pleadings. These are not opening or closing statements. These are litigants going rogue.

I'm getting to the same place. This WC, I was cheering for France when we played them. I was cheering for us against England, but more passionately not b/c "U.S.A.!" but because of the cynicism of the English players.

Against Netherlands. Ya, I was for us, but I liked the Dutch team and would have been fine if they'd won.

 

This isn't true in Portland, OR.

 

That is a very, very tiny dataset.

 

you can find pockets, but pockets are not the issue.

 

So far as Portland Thorns fans are concerned, some of this is right and some isn't. Something that I've particularly noticed is that the average age of Thorns fans is significantly higher than what I've seen elsewhere, including at the WWC level. There actually are a large number of fans in the 50 to 80 age group. This fits part of what you've described, in terms of having money and time -- and not completely dismissing soccer. And you're correct that most of these people never played soccer. They simply figured out that women's soccer is great to watch and the Thorns game atmosphere is fantastic, a great experience in itself. You're probably right they're largely Democrat and urban, but the last part from "going to shows" on doesn't seem to fit for this particular group.

 

Absolutely, and coming from me who loves large data sets. Portland presents interesting questions. Is it even relevant to the conversation since it's such a small dataset? Is it wise to disregard it completely simply beause its such a small data set? Potential new franchise owners come to Portland and check it out, asking exactly those questions.

 

The player's rhetoric is simply soundbites of the actual legal filings. 38 cents. We made more revenue than the men did. We get paid only a fraction of what the men do during friendlies. What the players...and the attorneys...are leaving out are things like the NWSL/USWNT player salaries, the fact the men were actually paid less than the women for the last two years, that World Cup bonus money is largely confined by the FIFA bonus pool, etc.. In other words, the players, and the attorneys are being equally truthful here. But again, it is a cherry picking of facts.

If you have a problem with the clients going to the media, I get that. Attorneys generally cringe when their clients make public statements. And for good reason. Because it will almost never help their client's case.

But the women (or their legal representation) going to the media and saying "38 cents" is no different than a murder suspect (or their legal representation) saying, "I was all the way across the country when so and so was murdered." Both could be true. But 38 cents is problematic for reasons we all understand. And "all the way across the country" is problematic because the defendant met with and paid a contract killer the week before they went "all the way across the country". Facts that neither group will bring up. Because it's not their job to do so.

Unfortunately, power in cases is often asymmetrical for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits. Corporations can crush me because they're corporations. They have more resources than I do. Unless I cast myself in a more sympathetic light. In this case, the women have a lot of sway because they're public faces going against a corporate entity.

 

What the USSF really should do is bow out of paying anyone --male or female-- anything but the stipend required to house and feed athletes while they're representing the fed. There's no other way to defend against someone who's operating deliberately in the court of public opinion. NT ball is the reward for performance on the club level. Everybody should be happy to do it.

 

However that would be the end of the USWNT as we know it. No league, no big bucks for the select few. It would go back to people trying to make a name again...but for what purpose?

Women aren't as supportive of sports. They will struggle to keep a league and most likely fail. Maybe a best case scenario puts them into the realm of indoor football like franchises where they make a little bit per game.

 

I didn't know USSoccer was involved in the NWSL. Now I do. So... the fed is quite literally propping up an insignificant league and a very successful national team. It may be worth it for them to continue doing so (I imagine that feds count World Cups the same way nations count gold medals, without regard for gender, and the USSF is now tied for third with Italy for third overall. That's pretty impressive), but at some point, somebody has to be able to make a go of it on their own in this subfield of entertainment. I don't know whether or how long the USMNT took fed money, or how long MLS took it, but I don't think that's still the case for either.

But why? That's what money can be spent finding out, so that can be changed thru education and upbringing. How long does that continue to happen?

And part of me wants to say that women DO support sports, but they don't support one another. Every soccer match I've ever been to has had a lot of women in the stands. If every woman who attended an MLS match had also attended an NWSL match, this wouldn't be a problem. The quality isn't there, but that's not important- this is a political issue. Women need to recognize it as such and buy NWSL tickets out of sheer activism if necessary.

 

Of course it's just going to be guesswork right now but here is my take..culture.

For my daughter I bought from a company called Goldiblox. They noted, or marketed, that a direct lack of certain types of toys for younger girls meant as they developed they had less interest in things like engineering, development, architecture etc. Boys got trucks, craned, building sets and girls got dolls, tea cups and dollhouses.

So Id guess that at some point in development many girls lose interest in sports at some level. Maybe they will go out with friends and watch a game, or go with a boyfriend...but their own personal interest is elsewhere.

As far as quality, I used to watch Indoor Football where the players made $150 a game and some scores would end up 86-16. I have no idea why women's sports has such a problem even if its quality isnt as good as the male counterpart.

 

Sorry so late... I Googled "goldieblox" and then a storm hit here. Sounds like a good thing to do.

G.I. Joe, Action Jackson, Big Jim/Jack, the Evel Knievel series... Boys got dolls, too, but they're called "action figures" and they came with cooler stuff, like guns and boats and jeeps. I had all that stuff coming up. It was noted by a woman who's the closest thing I have to a sister. She was not happy about the stuff I got v. the stuff she got.

 

It would be earning call ups at the club level just like everyone else. The purpose is equal pay for equal play.

 

The problem with any type of attendance comparison for a USMNT match and a USWNT match is that a large portion of the fans for the men's game will be there to see the other team.

You can't analyze "which team draws a larger crowd" when the crowd is not drawn there to see one of the teams.

 

By definition, the crowd is there to see both teams. Particularly here, and particularly within the Latin immigrant community, you see an increase in people who consider the US their 2nd team ( or 1a) attending. They are there to see both. It's not all visitors on holiday or hardline fresh-off-the-boat immigrants.

 

This is true. Devil's advocate here: but for the USMNT, no match would be played. And no opportunity given for fans of the other team to spend their money. Which is collected by US Soccer. It doesn't matter who is bringing what. If the USMNT was not on the field, the other team's fans wouldn't be spending their money either. I don't necessarily agree with that approach, but here's a better argument that refutes splitting the contributions between MNT and their opponent.

Let's assume for a moment that a "gate split" would need to be estimated. The easiest way to do that would be to look at the attendance figures for teams that don't pull a lot of fans playing in areas where dual nationals/immigrants aren't likely to be. So no huge sides. Exclude Honduras in DC. But Honduras in Seattle is fine. Then do a like comparison with WNT games in matches of similar importance/stature.

Here's an interesting data point: St. Vincent and Grenadines in the WC Qual round prior to the Hex. In St. Louis. 43,500 people showed up. They're not showing up for St V&G. This is a strange one, because the USMNT hardly ever goes to St. Louis so there is a lot of pent up demand. They don't go to STL because they like hitting big markets where there will be fans of both teams. Because US Soccer's motivation is gate maximization, not the USMNT's contribution to the gate. In other words, the choice of venues maximizes US Soccer coffers, but restricts the USMNT's contribution in a "gate split".

The WNT does not have this problem. So they're literally going wherever their contribution to the gate is greatest...because the other team isn't really contributing. So they're afforded more of these one off opportunities for a big gate in city X the USMNT doesn't have.

So it cuts both ways. The MNT revenues include money spent to watch the other team. But the WNT revenues include venue maximization for their share of the profit. I'd argue that because you can't disentangle the different features that go into match gates, you're best just taking the figures as they are.

 

Just wanted to add something regarding the profit split concept. If you wanna go down the economic rabbit hole, we shouldn’t be looking at total revenues/profits at all. We should be looking at marginal revenue impact of paying the elite pool of MNT and WNT players vs “replacement level”.

Some of that revenue will exist no matter who wears the crest for the men and women, so technically neither elite pool should be given credit for that revenue. The only women would likely qualify for the WC and possibly get out of their group if they just threw key NWSL level subs on the field. The men would probably wouldn’t even make a hex. The marginal revenue contribution of the elite pool men is arguably greater.

The profit split methodologies for opponent and “marginal elite pool contribution” really get into the weeds and are highly speculative. Which is why I’m the absence of really good real world data demonstrating these aspects experts and attorneys tend to shy away from those arguments and stick to the actual numbers.