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

The problem is the federation is tasked to grow the sport in the country. As they pay a greater percentage there is less to use to 'invest' elsewhere. As an example, if the Men had this mindset in the past there might not ever be a Women's team, as the moneys to grow that did not come from the Women's game itself.

 

That isn't remotely how this works. It comes down to a simple question: is an employer paying women less or providing inferior facilities. It has zero to do with what fraction of some fraction of revenues. It has to do with how much employees or contractors get paid for the work. Period.

 

That's just because the women are Waaaaaaaay better at what they do than the men are. If it is more competitive for the men, that's largely because they aren't very good.

But sure, making the argument that a group stage match in a confederation championship that USSF cares so little about that it sends a D team is equivalent to the world cup final. Funny how I don't see *anyone* arguing that beating Martinique is as important a match as Italy beating England in the Euro Final. If you made that argument you'd get roasted, yet here you are making that argument.

Again, we see people bending over backwards to advance fantastically preposterous arguments to justify paying women less. That's pretty transparent.

 

And all of these are factual considerations to be raised at trial. Which is why they Summary Judgment was an error.

 

It didn't? USSF takes in revenue from both Men and Women among other sources, and where each dollar comes from isn't tracked. There's no basis for this statement.

 

But, by this logic, the upcoming Gold Cup Final is of equivalent significance as the Italy/England final.

 

It is a lot closer, for sure. People want to pretend that all matches are of equal significance the way the judge did And maybe for USSF, they are and the only thing the federation wants is participation trophies. That certainly would explain a lot.

 

I see you've regressed to a child's understanding of soccer. Good show.

 

You are a bit of a troll aren't you? First of all, I have never justified paying less to the WNT. That is a lie on your part. My view point is that the WNT are suing the wrong people.

Likewise, the rest is you trying to make a loss in to a win by using mirrors and smoke.

If the USWNT has not played against Martinique it is because their WNT has not qualified to Gold Cup. Likewise, the US has never faced Thailand in a competitive match simply because Thailand has never qualified to a Men's WC. Their is little more to be said about that argument. If you are picking against Martinique because they are a small island nation that is not good enough. Iceland, for example, has a population of 200 thousand yet has a very competitive team. This is common across all sports.

Besides ranking the only other thing that could possibly determine competitiveness is the competitors wages in the open market. This is where the WNT's competition gets killed. Martinique has five pro players in their squad who are certainly getting paid much more than most of the women's competition.

 

You keep saying stuff like this but then in the next post you start arguing that the judge looking at how the women were paid by game is wrong. You need to pick one method and apply it equally across the teams. Go ahead, I dare you to do that.

 

To paraphrase someone:

It comes down to a simple question: is an employer paying women less or providing inferior facilities. It has zero to do with what significance is assigned to trophies. It has to do with how much employees or contractors get paid for the work. Period.

 

According to CPC the women have been offered the same deal as the men plus I believe they'll get fringe benefits such as health insurance and maternity leave through USSF.

It depends which article you read. Most are muddled. It seems like because some NWSL players make $15k, we have to give a bunch of entitled millionaires $60 million.

 

Wouldn't it be better if the women started their "Copa America" and always be played in the US just like the GC? Not enough competition in CONCACAF for the USWNT and probably just Brazil from South America that can give them comp. They'll profit (all women's soccer from participating nations) from an event like that. Probably raise interest and hopefully all their supporters you see on social media but never watch a NWSL game or never attend a USWNT game can hopefully support them.

 

This would be smart. The USSF's number one goal for the men's national team should be securing inclusion in a permanent, expanded Copa America every four years; this would also be a useful 3rd tournament for the women's national teams in North America and South America as well.

If profits or costs are a concern for the women's teams, then the federations can just host it in the US and/or Canada every time (in the near future).

 

Do you know what a "competitive" match means? Hint: it doesn't mean one that's close.

 

In that case the statement is false. The women also have qualifying.except as reigning world champs they don't. That is true.

the problem remains that dividing total payments by total matches to establish a rate pretends that a friendly is the same weighr as a world cup final. The argument that the rate is the same depends ENTIRELY on this premise

 

They do, but as has been explained to you, it's apples and oranges. The women's World Cup qualifying is a small tournament, involving five or so games over a couple of weeks on a single site, which usually is in the United States. The men's World Cup qualifying, this time, involves 14 games on 14 different sites (many of which are in Central America) over a course of seven months. Not even remotely the same sort of thing.

 

No the claim was made that qualifying matches are not competitive. Qualifying matches for qualifying matches regardless of the number of them.

 

Yes, qualifying matches are always competitive matches. And, as I'm sure you realize, 14 competitive matches is more competitive matches than five competitive matches.

 

You are completely full of shit. The current champion most certainly DOES have to qualify. Only the hosts are automatic.

In the case of CONCACAF on the women's side, it's generally (with one notable exception) a foregone conclusion, happening in a short tournament format held in one location in front of some of the lowest attendances this side of the NWSL.

You don't have a grasp of the most basic of facts, and your credibility is in the shitter.

 

Sure, but that isnt particularly relevant here. If we are accounting for the *importance* or comepttiveness of matches, then the judge is wrong in his methodology.

 

The judge, to be fair, didn’t seem to really attempt to understand the economics of soccer.

But you seem to be saying that you do understand the economics of soccer, and you clearly don’t.

 

Seemingly, this cat doesn't understand much of ANYTHING about soccer.

 

I didn't get into this discussion worrying about the judge's methodology. I haven't even read what he said. I got into this discussion because of your statement that the men's matches were competitive because the men aren't very good. How close a game is has nothing to do with whether it was a competitive match.

 

If you read the original comment it was predictably dismissing the women’s game a “not competitive”. All of that in turn relates to the notion that the games the men plays are equivalent to those the women play, even though the women win world cups.

it occurs to me that Women don’t have qualifying because the Gold Cup effective substitutes. (Tournament played every other year in the US)