I mean the economics of men and women's soccer aren't really remotely similar. The men's World Cup generates way more revenue and has way higher TV ratings than the woman's World Cup. Now I would be in favor of taking some of the money from the men's World Cup as a subsidy to the women's game both to equalize the prize money and to try to grow women's soccer more broadly internationally. That's because I think it's important that we invest and try to grow women's soccer. But it's just not true that the economics of the two are the same. Even most of the surplus US Soccer has was driven by the Copa America that we hosted in 2016. There is a women's Copa America but it doesn't generate the same level of revenue and the US doesn't participate (but we should). None of this means that US Soccer shouldn't invest in the USWNT and try to equalize pay to the extent practicable. The main hold up in my eyes is the FIFA prize money, which US Soccer simply can't afford to pay. Now I think FIFA should equalize it because they can afford to, but I also don't see that happening.
If the negotiated to pay that way, then they did. Men and women should be paid equally for the same job, dont you agree?
Ok, once more, slowly. Men’s and women’s *national team* economics are at worst at parity *FOR USSF*. That is ALL that matters here. no one cares what France earns for winning the men’s world cup of how the Mongolian thrid division is doing. Not relevant here. World Cup TV rights acrue to FIFA, not USSF. Also, not repevant. The ONLY question that is relevant here are USSF revenues and expenditures
Except rightly or wrongly that's not quite true. Were the US men to win the World Cup it would generate dramatically more revenue for US Soccer than the women did after they won the World Cup. It's not really debatable. The highest rated US Men's World Cup game, when accounting for Spanish language TV, drew more than any Women's World Cup Final. How do you think those numbers would compare if the men made the final? The only reason the women's revenue numbers were more was because the men failed to qualify for the World Cup in historical and unprecedented fashion. Similarly, the economics of the prize money (which is clearly the largest hold up from a settlement) is not the same. FIFA pays the men's winner more than the women's winner. Something that is not within the control of US Soccer but which directly effects their revenue. The US men also have the Gold Cup, World Cup Qualifiers, and the occasional Copa America, while the women don't really have anything comparable. They have a bunch of friendlies and tournaments that are organized by US Soccer and which are not as lucrative. The US women also have the Olympics but as far as I know that doesn't generate much in terms of revenue for US Soccer, and the women are actually paid for participating while the men are not. We should make sure the teams are treated equally and compensated the same, but it's not because the economics are the same, it's because it's the right thing to do. For the same reason we have Title IX, even though all college sports revenue is driven by football and men's basketball.
The dat show that the women generated more revenues than the men from 2015-2019. Also, TV revenues go to FIFA, not USSF. In any event the argument than the men should get paid more because they bring in more doesn't hold water because they don't bring in more revenue. That is the point. (Also, please post your data sources on viewership. I have seen this mentioned but all the data I have seem say the reverse is true in other words, there are serious disputed facts here and a long way to go in this lawsuit.
That's probably because all you look at is tweets from interested parties that leave out the substantial Spanish language numbers from the men's side.
Not if it violates US law. That is axiomatic. A corporation can’t violate US law through contract. Extremely telling you don’t just answer “yes.”
Except there are no disputed facts here. It's all a question of applying the law. It is a true fact that the women generated more money and were paid more during the 2015-2019 time frame. This is because the men failed to qualify for the World Cup, which led to less revenue and to them getting paid less. Had they qualified they would have generated more revenue and I assume been paid more. This is what I mean when I say the economics are different. There is just more money in the men's game and the only time that hasn't been the case for US Soccer is when the men failed to qualfy. FIFA also provides prize money to all teams in the World Cup based on how they finish which is the primary source of World Cup revenue. FIFA pays way more on the mens side, something that is not in the control of US Soccer and which is a huge contributor of the economics not being equal. This is also the main hold stopping both sides from settling. The highest rated women's game ever is the 2019 World Cup final. For the men it is the 2014 USA-Portugal group-stage game which drew higher ratings once you take into account Spanish-language viewership. More broadly the TV ratings are higher for the men except for years in which the USWNT plays in the World Cup. The key though is the facts aren't really in dispute. Both sides have cherry-picked the facts most favorable to them, but the question for this appeal is whether given the facts, if the judge's approach to determining whether there had been an equal pay violation is correct. I'm not an expert on the case law so I have no idea, but most legal experts I've read seem to think its unlikely to be overturned on appeal.
The disputed facts include whether they were paid at an equivalent rate. Also, the women earned more in each of those years including when there was no world cup for either team. The analyses I have seen by actual labor lawyers suggest that this is likely to be overturned. For example Prof Paul. Casell at Volokh Conspiracy (you wont have heard of this blog if you arent a lawyer, but this is a lawyers legal blog.). https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/0...ent-grant-against-the-u-s-womens-soccer-team/ also, at issue is what terms the women were offered in negotiations and whether there was disparate pressures brought to bear as is noted in some other analyses that state at the same time they say overturning is unlikely which is ridiculous
You didn’t either. I think the women should be paid equitably. That may mean more than the men. From 2015-2019 it did. I’d rather they not cry sexism when they are just simply asking for more money. I think they are worth more than they are paid and instead they collectively bargained for the security of individuals. Mal Pugh advertises 17 different kinds of air freshener on IG because she isn’t in contract and is making jackshit money. We currently don’t have any youth programs running because the USSF is paying for lawyers. Non-USWNT NWSL players have 2 side jobs. But you don’t care about the nuances or the consequences. You’re just projecting out of self-righteousness.
I dunno. When things get ideological, for many people, facts don’t matter. Look at how many Republican politicians are responding to COVID, for example.
Sorry but this isnt a very strong argument. People argue that if you do not support the women you are sexist, Just because people argue doesn't mean it's an actual arguement though.
I just report you to the moderator for abusing other forum member just because he has a different view than yours.
That $66 million is the most asinine mess of nonsense, in regards to the US Soccer federation asked to cover costs. How in the world could you get an organization to pay for money held and distributed by another organization? The thing about this is, the women had a huge window of opportunity with the men not qualifying for the World Cup. They benefitted from the down cycle of the men in a landscape which punishes you for such a slide, which is way more forgiving on the women's side. The likelihood of the men failing to do so again is small and the men are on a distinct upswing, which will push them past the women again in terms of interest and income. This is their opportunity to catch the disparity at its most favorable for them and get more. I don't have much of a problem with this, but the arguments straining credibility, at best, make the indifference a little more difficult.
USSF is planning to pay the women more than the men. USSF can't pay the women more than USSF itself makes. All they can do is lobby FIFA for equal pay, which they say they're doing.
Yet at the same time it is indisputable that when no soccer games are allowed as during the pandemic that the women were paid and the men weren't.
When has there ever been a friendly against Martinique? If you see Martinique in the Men's schedule it's because it was a competitive game. I doubt that the women will argue much in this direction because it's more problematic for them. The women's schedule has many more friendlies than the men's due to the fact that their World Cup qualifiers and regional championship are one single event every four years and has only eight participants. The men have a round robin qualifying tournament with 6 participants and a regional championship every two years with 16 participants. The men's qualifiers, in particular, are starkly different from anything the women ever experience. Even in a cycle that the men don't qualify for the world cup they have more competitive games than the women.
If so then the women are receiving a higher rate then the men. Why? Because they get a hundred percent of the tournament prize money and the men don't. The solution would then be to award the men all tournament prize money they were involved in and the federation can wash their hands clean of this issue. At that point it's not their revenue or expenditure.