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

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by McSkillz, Aug 1, 2019.

  1. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not commenting on the overall subject, which I think is much more complicated than the arguments I've read so far. But, the above statement is not a good contribution to the discussion. It simply isn't valid to compare call ups by a team in the 12 months before a World Cup to call ups by a team a year after a World Cup (and, especially, a World Cup for which the team didn't qualify).
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  2. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In France during the WWC, we met a Brazilian mother and daughter/soccer player (12-13 years old) and had a conversation about women's soccer in Brazil. They are from Rio. The mother advised me that there is virtually no girls club soccer in Brazil. Her daughter's only opportunity to play on a team is with boys -- with whom she's apparently competitive at some level.

    This doesn't sound like a prescription for a long term more competitive field. They simply aren't casting their nets wide enough.
     
  3. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    This is the most direct solution. It should absolutely be done. The problem is that the contract with SUM lumps the WNT and the MNT in together. And, SUM just got another no big deal. So, it seems like it not realistic for a long while.

    BUT, if the women believed what they are preaching, they'd be fighting tooth an nail for a separate Fed, or if that's not allowed b/c of some FIFA bylaw, separate books within the Fed. Women's side, Men's side. They could share some admin and split the cost of that. But, other wise, make both sides self-supporting. Like I said, if the women believed what they're saying, they'd be fighting for this tooth and nail.
     
  4. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    I skeptical that FIFA would "ban" the United States. But, the workaround is easy. Two entities under the same Federation umbrella.
     
  5. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    Ya, that's after Abby said that he shouldn't be on the MNT because he's not a "real American." F*ck Abby. Jones can mock her for whatever he wants. What's worse, being a xenophobe, are a persion who after being attacked out of xenophobia, criticizes the attacker for irresponsibly putting peoples' lives at risk?
     
    Auriaprottu and Namdynamo repped this.
  6. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    Qualifying in a federation where all of your opponents have professional leagues vs. qualifying in a federation where *none* of your opponents have professional leagues.

    I'd say that's apples to apples. :rolleyes:
     
  7. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    So, you're just a frontrunner? When Euro teams start kicking the WNT's asses (which they will, because their leagues are going to be *much* more financially sound that the NWSL and whatever it's successor(s) will be) you'll jump ship to some Euro team?
     
  8. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    Ya, Carli Lloyd said she should be paid the same as Messi.

    All the women should be looking to Mia Hamm. She voices her support for equal pay. But, did she invest in a women's team? Nope. LAFC. Ok, is LAFC fielding a women's team? Nope. She said they would wait a few years "to see if a Women's team would be viable." What the actual ********? She's advocating for equal pay, and she's not even willing to field a team? And, if LAFC ever does field a women's team, let's see if Mia pays the star as much as Vela is getting.
     
    Namdynamo and Number007 repped this.
  9. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    It's not complicated. Why does there exist a separate competition for women at all? Why doesn't everyone compete against each other, regardless of gender? Is the OP's point.
     
  10. zdravstvuyte

    zdravstvuyte Member

    Aston Villa
    United States
    Jul 26, 2018
    Back on tour !!!
    Football isn’t car racing.
    The idea is a straw man argument
     
  11. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    This objection has been brought up before. It would be halfway valid if this wasn't already a pattern.
     
  12. sheilman94

    sheilman94 Member

    Pittsburgh Spirit
    United States
    Jul 12, 2019
    It is valid to compare call ups, because it explains the difference s in how the men's and women's programs work.
    The men have a much larger pool to draw from, for various reasons. Euro- based players aren't always available. The manager might want to look at domestic players, etc. This means that the bonuses don't go to the same players. E.G. Christian Pulisic doesn't receive every available US men's bonus.
    The women, because of their salary structure, use largely the same base of players, with fewer changes. Salary and bonuses are concentrated among the same players. Morgan and Rapinoe receive virtually all available payouts in their CBA they signed, barring injury.
     
  13. Semblance17

    Semblance17 Member+

    United States
    Apr 27, 2013
    Lighthouse Point, FL
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #138 Semblance17, Aug 6, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
    Sometimes I just can't resist an opportunity for a one-liner. :D

    I'm well aware that it's not an apples to apples comparison, as I've clarified in several comments since, including one just after the one you quoted.

    To be fair, this one got buried in one of my every-so-often essay-length posts:

    Even acknowledging that Jones raised some valid points, there seems to be a consensus here that he didn't convey them in the most articulate or professional manner. I was just reciprocating the low-key sass of the quote I was replying to.
     
  14. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    Yep, I didn't read the whole thread, before I posted. I'd been w/o internet for 5 days and was just shotgun replying to everything I saw. Peace!
     
    Semblance17 repped this.
  15. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    1) we're talking about the roster now, not the barriers from 30 years ago. Nobody on the USWNT is getting harassed to play the sport they love. Other teams sure, but that leads us to...

    2) the barriers the USWNT face relative to their competition absolutely matters. Because it informs the competitive landscape of the game and puts into better context the comparative achievements of making a WC, vs. getting to knockouts or any other level for the men and the women.

    Take a look at non-traditional soccer countries with a certain degree of wealth and gender inclusion in sports: USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, and China. Median women's ranking: 9.5. Median men's ranking: 58.5.

    Why the difference? In large part because the men's field is 6-7x bigger where it matters. Paying someone 2 million rather than 500K annually won't make them a better soccer player. But paying them a living wage vs. 15K will. Because they can focus on training, nutrition, recovery, etc. Not waiting tables to make ends meet. There's about a dozen women's teams in the world that can create a starting XI and core subs who can earn a living playing soccer. There are 75 to 100 men's teams in that group.

    That's not the core of the pay gap argument, but it does put into context the achievement. Take gender out of it. Is it a bigger deal to be a top 8 men's hockey team or a top 8 men's soccer team? The soccer pool of full time pros is 4-5x bigger than the hockey pool.

    Now add the relative infrastructure advantages (men's/boy's game in US vs. UEFA compared to women/girl's game in USA vs. UEFA). These things need to be considered when we discuss "great" vs. "suck", the value of a given result, etc the same way being valedictorian...in a class of 10...does.
     
  16. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    #141 Chicago76, Aug 6, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
    They could allocate the revenues fairly easily though: TV ratings for the broadcasting side, gate for matches and merchandising separately. Both sides cover their own branding and match/travel/training expenses and pay pro rata for cobranding.

    And the women would probably lose out, because:

    -WC ratings for the women to the finals more or less equals the men to R16.
    -they have no real revenues to counter Gold Cup...or a Copa if that becomes a “thing”. Olympics don’t do that because it’s IOC/USOC controlled.
    -gate, net of costs to put on a match, are in all likelihood no better than the men—and probably substantially worse—because attendance and prices are lower
    -they’d need to find a way to cover their league salaries
    -they’d probably need to strike some form of concessions with their USWNT pool to create a sustainable women’s league environment. No such problem with MLS.

    The only positive might be merch, and that’s not gonna cover all of those other very significant differences.

    No way the women would take that type of a deal.
     
    jnielsen and Number007 repped this.
  17. Chastaen

    Chastaen Member+

    Alavés
    Jul 9, 2004
    Winnipeg
    Club:
    Aston Villa FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That scenario most likely tanks interest in the US womens team. The league isn't self sufficient right now. Players either live off soccer or get additional jobs to support themselves. Less play time would likely impact quality of players.
     
    Chicago76 repped this.
  18. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    Most likely. The core WNT players would go to Europe. The league here wouldn't be able to market off those players. The new "headliners" would probably only be able to pull 30K and people outside the XI + 3-4 key subs would be lucky to get 8 or 9K.

    And the WNT would not make as much as they do today.
     
  19. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    If they wouldn't take a split federation, then they're just blowing smoke.
     
  20. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    Of course they are. It’s PR smoke where they are picking and choosing points of contention that work in their favor while ignoring those that work against them. That’s negotiating 101. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

    The goal all along was to create a narrative for the casual public to turn this into a PR exercise for US Soccer, because:

    1) US Soccer doesn’t want to disclose granular financials in a trial. Because that opens them up to attack that they aren’t doing X for the grassroots or Y for this or Z for that, or OMG look at the salaries of the administrators and their lavish receptions, and

    2) from a PR angle US Soccer loses if they go to court...even if they win. And they would win.

    The WNT is counting on US Soccer making concessions while not slashing the fixed salary structure, because US Soccer has a long term interest in the financial viability of women’s soccer. They kill the subsidy and the league implodes and it reduces the cash flows coming from the USWNT in the long run. The current players have no real financial interest in the long term future of the women’s game. Even the youngest players are only interested in the next 2 cycles. They are advocating for themselves. Not an 11 year old girl who might worship them and aspire to play in WWC 2031.
     
  21. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    2014 - a year which, in theory, the USMNT should have the fewest callups due to squad stability heading into and after a World Cup.

    Number of players NAMED TO GAMEDAY SQUADS: 58 (this does not include any camp attendees not used or on a gameday roster)

    2014 - a year which, in theory, should be full of experimentation for the USWNT, in addition to having a coach sacked (allegedly for "tinkering") and new übertrainer Jill Ellis coming in midway.

    Number of players: 33.
    Number of new players evaluated by Ellis: 4

    Games in 2014: 15 for the men, 24 for the women.

    @cpthomas , does this work for you?
     
    Namdynamo, Auriaprottu and Chicago76 repped this.
  22. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    Just to add to what Timon posted a moment ago:

    We can take a pretty good stab at how deep the player pool legitimately is
    for the women and men:

    Women: no women playing abroad. No real dual young dual national prospects to be called in. Only a 9 team domestic league. You really have only have 3-4 seasoned players per team + 1-2 younger players per team to even consider. Plus maybe 1-2 college standouts. Call it 48 players, and they’re not going to call all 48 in. That’s it. It’s very easy to assess the pool when they are only competing across 9 teams in the same league.

    Men: only limiting this to 3 players (seasoned and young per MLS squad) + players abroad + dual nationals abroad, there’s roughly 100 players. And you’re not going to call all 100 in, but you’ll certainly see 60-70% of them in 12-18 months. It’s very difficult to assess guys playing in MLS, Mexico, top flight reserve sides, 2nd tier Championship sides, etc.

    And the pool is much, much deeper. Because someone just hitting their stride at 24-25 isn’t stuck making 18 grand a year considering getting into teaching.
     
  23. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    I disagree. The vast majority of people are swallowing their sh*t, hook line and sinker. Including cr@pping on the MNT at every opportunity. Look at this thread for example.

    Soccer is still in its adolescence in the U.S. The women and men should be compadres in building the sport here.

    Aside from that, what they are doing is lying to the public.
     
    Namdynamo and Number007 repped this.
  24. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    There's nothing wrong with it in that this is precisely what happens in every litigation case. Someone brings in an expert and asks them to only consider XYZ (scope limitation). The expert says, the damage/loss/disparity is A. The other side brings in an expert and asks them to consider only DEF. The other expert says, "No way. There is no damage here".

    Then the material facts/considerations of the case are litigated. Then the experts more or less agree on the settlement figures because they are now operating with a similar set of facts.

    Disclosure: I formerly was one of those experts. The experts themselves are generally honest brokers. But we can only consider what we've been permitted to consider and caveat what is out of scope in a report. We don't advocate, but the attorneys do. This dance happens in everything. Divorce cases. Tax cases. Product liability claims. Environmental claims. Contractual disputes. Everything.

    We have an adversarial legal system. It's a foundation of the system that this sort of fact pattern X vs. fact pattern Y leads to universal set of facts Z thing happens.
     
  25. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    I wonder about this. The contracts handcuff NWSL in a few ways. The league can't create new stars as the large platform is dominated by contracted players. These players who are supposed to be the main draw are gone for long periods of the season. If the pool were opened, could that benefit NWSL? Put another way, if NWSL is clearly not the priority for the players, why should it be a priority for the fans?
     
    Number007 repped this.

Share This Page