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

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by SUDano, Mar 31, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    New Jersey
    The 23rd best female likely won’t make the team as her spot will be taken by a washed up contract player.



    ok…I wrote that to sound whitty….then realized I have no idea if the new collective bargaining agreement did away with the two tiered structure on the womens side that was the real inequity in all of this.
     
  2. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...ns/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

    you have folks on here acting like it is a pass-through sole proprietorship or business corporation that can revenue share with employees. it's not only non-profit, it's a charity. i am sure this is why historically players were paid a per diem or per game salary. they work for the USSF to play the games. if you look at the Olympics that is also non-profit and what happens is what USOC gets goes in a pool for them, and you instead get a lesser, set reward as a medal bonus. say, $25k for a gold. given how many sports are low revenue for the athletes, athletes perhaps combining side work, coaching, a training stipend, and winnings, the gold bonus is a godsend. that reflects international amateur sports, which is kind of where USSF originally sat. in the past USSF would have been trying to keep the men afloat to stay in the sport. the sport has taken off and USSF and the men are now flush. USSF and the unions are struggling to transition to pro athletes in an amateur setup. USSF is not MLS, it's not a business, the goal is not supposed to be to make a bunch of money and pay the players millions.

    i do not know if this is the case for the women yet. some, perhaps. i bet there are some playing for NWSL teacher salaries. a little more money encourages them to stick with it and not do the mommy track or go abroad chasing money where they aren't as available for games. also encourages girls and women to stay in the sport, in general. either in hope to join the team, or just because the sport looks more exciting and attractive. which is if anyone cares part of the stated purpose. the stated purpose is not to make money. it's not a business. it's the national governing body and responsible for promoting the sport to both sexes. one sex right now is very well compensated and joining major league sports here and the level of elite abroad leagues. the other side is roughly where the men were c. the start of MLS. work remains to be done.

    to be blunt i think salaries for games are more in the spirit of a charity than the bonuses, period. even, uneven, high, low, whatever. bonuses sound like revenue sharing which is illegal for a charity, can result in the charity losing its charter and getting treated as a business for taxes. i think the olympic model is closer to the spirit of a charity. they support the athletes best they can within their individual sporting federations and their budgets. if you win or medal, you get a bonus. it's a nice amount, not huge, and it's just an affordable amount with no direct linkage to how much USSF makes from the world cup prizes itself. we want to promote and encourage soccer here. if we win the world cup, x. either sex. the minute you start listening to the capitalist minded economics or MBA types on here, you have wandered off the way a charity is supposed to work. charities have employees who make salaries to promote the charitable purpose. if they start paying charity employees for how much they bring in to the charity that's not quite a charity anymore.
     
  3. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    i don't think they would see it as "paying the price." they get money in 2023 if the women do well, that they didn't specifically earn. it becomes their turn. second, you ignore that for the men, they are going to have players like CP making $7m/yr in CFC salary alone. many of them can afford to say, ok, let's rejigger this added world cup bonus money to get the women more money. it's gravy to them. to the women it's closer to their primary income. playing for the WNT is their real job. playing for portland is their side job and likely doesn't pay incredibly. they may have teammates back in the "pickens world," the DC GK who used to have another job selling mortgages at the bank. back when we had $10k reserve deals.

    third, in doing so, they protect the golden goose. if this gets tied up in courts who gets paid anything and when. odd the MBA types on here don't get settling for a small amount to avoid something uglier, like the end of bonuses at all, court litigation costs, being ordered to pay the women some lump sum for the old stuff plus some amount they couldn't bargain going forward.
     
  4. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    if you thought the women came out worse from the PR battle you live in a bubble. the USSF president got fired and replaced by a woman, a former player. that woman then controlled whether the lawsuit continued as well as the terms of the next CBA. that all was resolved favorable to the women. this is reality. anything else is rhetoric. judged by that, who won the PR war. exactly. thanks for playing.

    setting aside Fox News doesn't speak for the country as a whole, they clearly won the battle to control the Fed. are you imagining something they said was worse than what got cordeiro canned? seriously?

    more pointedly, in the general court of public opinion, i can't remember what you're talking about. it couldn't have been that bad. i can remember what got cordeiro fired.
     
  5. SUDano

    SUDano Member+

    Jan 18, 2003
    Rochester, NY
    Please stop over using the word charity to mislead what USSF truly is. It is no more a charity than Scientology or the Trump or Clinton Foundations. More accurately it's a not for profit organization. It's not helping the poor, the weak, nor the dismissed. It exists to promote soccer and more accurately since the last contract it exists to substantially and significantly financially support the union members it negotiated with. It's not the people on here that need to be scolded, but rather the people in power at USSF along with one significant voting block with in that organization. It's not the amateur players, disabled athletes, children benefiting from the organization it's the men and women professional soccer players via the full national teams that are benefiting so much more that a logical argument could be made that they fall under excess benefit transactions.
     
    dred, majspike, jaykoz3 and 1 other person repped this.
  6. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    re the list of societal problems, yes, not high on the list, but we are still at the point where a professional male athlete in the sport can make somewhere between a comfortable middle class salary and a world class athlete salary, and have little reason to second guess their professional choice, while the women's league is under a cap that generally results in teacher's salaries or worse, and likely players having to decide how bad they want to be pro soccer players, or if they want to go to med school, law school, MBA, get a good salary. i know the economics are different, but setting aside the green lampshades, how many people watch women's pro sports could be called its own problem, as well as the ability of women compared to men to dedicate themselves to their sport. it is first world problems but if you're born a woman you might give a care. due to title 9 there will be more women's programs, but then the pro end is sitting someplace in the 1990s, either a-league level or the beginning of MLS.

    to get pointed, part of USSF's task is to promote both sides of the equation and encourage people to stick with it. the men's side right now about takes care of itself. the women are the ones who still need help.
     
  7. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #5632 juvechelsea, Dec 2, 2022
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
    i am not going to say a 501(c)(3) isn't a charity. i am not going to say a literal "nonprofit" is instead some spun "not for profit." those are political rhetorical normative comments. at face value it is what it is. i am going to say the bonus thing starts to wander into whether it remains a charity and shouldn't get dinged for taxes. but that's does this quack like the duck it should be.

    USSF runs the youth championships, the youth side, the adult championships, the adult side, open cup, coach and ref licensing, and then also the pro side. there is a fair debate about how much goes to what and whether that's fair. one reason i have questioned the bonuses is, yes, maybe they should get some smaller, agreed lump sum, like the olympians, and more should go to development, the kids, etc. that is the practical underside of does it act like a charity or does it pass through revenues. you're chastizing me but in some ways we might be closer than you think. i am just saying make it act like a charity. you're saying it's not.

    i still think you're ignoring that at this point the women haven't taken off like the men have. put it this way. does the general mass of women's skiiers need the same sort of help as mikaela schiffrin. does your average elite track runner chasing the olympics deserve the same treatment as sydney mclaughlin. i did a small revenue sport as my sport after i got too beat up for soccer. the stipend and living accomodations they gave my friend let her quit her job, join their NT, and chase the olympics for a while. i think we throw so much money at the WNT it clouds the question of what it would look like without that money. are the women to the point where i deserve this tirade? i know the men are. i think you're conflating the two. the women in NWSL minus USSF money might be closer to my buddy whose ability to pursue it at a high level and represent the US came down to the living space and stipend. otherwise she'd have been stuck an amateur, maybe given up. as it is she no longer competes and got a regular job. the idea here is promote them sticking with it. every cycle they lose athletes to getting a real job or getting married. which is part of why the women in her sport aren't as competitive. which in turn makes the sport less attractive to kids looking for what their new sport will be.

    i agree there should be more focus on the kids but even that wanders into should the money go to development leagues, ODP, or rec ball. my personal experience was playing select at a high level but being unable to afford ODP. i kind of don't think ODP should come down to whether you have the money. but i know my other sport has the same issue. there is who you would pick on merit. there is who you would pick if the families have to fund it. beneath the jawboning do you care about that?

    personally i think there has been a ton of focus on "pay for play" at the select level -- "MLS academies are free" -- but not whether "pay for play" exists at the ODP/regional/YNT levels.
     
  8. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    i also think there should be a clairefontaine type setup like france has but that wanders into the model of youth development here is switching from traditional select towards the english model. however if you ignore the snobs' affection for what is on TV, england is only semi-successful of late as a NT, such that we just tied them second world cup meeting in a row. i am not quite sure how that became the model instead of the french, italians, germans, spanish. you know, teams who have won world cups lately. the french have been particularly successful and they have their regional centers and then the national one. they do not just leave it to dallas and houston and expect both to do their jobs. cause one does and one doesn't. this was a more competitive team in the bradenton era when the elite kids trained together for years and in one site with quality control.

    in terms of this thread, i would like to see that development model, plus a per diem for each game equal across the sexes, and then a set bonus, equal across the sexes, for world cup success levels. my beef with the bonus discussion to begin with was it didn't sound like a charity. the people arguing about who makes more money miss that shouldn't matter for a charity.
     
  9. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    Long treatises that are directed to no one in particular. Sly straw-man erection, then destruction. Long-winded, ambling - nay - aimless retreading of well-trodden ground...

    Kind of like the Iranian Monitor of the USWNT. (I know that IM has actually managed to make friends here - his behavior elsewhere is...let's say, "special". He should be commended for suppressing his typical worst urges here.)

    So missed* this.

    * still a lie
     
  10. Southern Man

    Southern Man Member

    Jun 14, 2008
    The link clearly says that "profit-sharing" is not allowed. Profit sharing is very different from "revenue sharing." There are tons of people, for example in development offices, who work at charities whose compensation is related to how much revenue they produce. This is not illegal in any way shape or form.

    I'm going to ignore the rest of your bad-faith nonsense. I should know better to engage with you on any issue, but that is on me.


     
    dred, Kejsare, jaykoz3 and 3 others repped this.
  11. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    Carli did tweet a picture of herself rooting for the MNT, at least.
     
    bigredfutbol repped this.
  12. Marko72

    Marko72 Member+

    Aug 30, 2005
    New York
    That's... a little nicer than she's mostly been.

    FWIW I'm still seeing headlines in newspapers playing this like an undeserving men's side is making more money and only now letting the women have a taste, and it's really annoying to a soccer fan like me to see this men's side--who agreed to revenue share after all--used as a dog to kick by people with an agenda. There's nothing that these guys can do to satisfy those with axes to grind.
     
    dred, TxEx, Kejsare and 4 others repped this.
  13. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    I think the bonus-sharing plan is terrific. Promotes true unity within the federation. Avoids future litigation.

    Now, the *amount* the two teams get is mind-boggling.
     
    ChrisSSBB repped this.
  14. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They probably believe the men should share their personal earnings from their professional club contracts.......
     
  15. Marko72

    Marko72 Member+

    Aug 30, 2005
    New York
    Personally I think Elon Musk should share his earnings with me. I deserve it more.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  16. Gamecock14

    Gamecock14 Member+

    May 27, 2010
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I don't think we will get a player / NT-friendly USSF president for the foreseeable future.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What? Why would you think that?

    Very strange….
     
  18. YankBastard

    YankBastard Na Na Na Na NANANANAAA!

    Jun 18, 2005
    Estados Unidos
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What is the payout the USMNT gets from FIFA for making it to the round of 16?
     
  19. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    I think Cone will stay for a while. She's about as player/NT-friendly a president as I could conceivably imagine.
     
    Marko72 and Roger Allaway repped this.
  20. Mantis Toboggan M.D.

    Philadelphia Union
    United States
    Jul 8, 2017
    That will be the next Current Thing for these people.

    No mention of the diva WNT stars taking a pay cut for the sake of their NWSL teammates making 15k and coaching a local high school in addition to personal training on the side to make ends meet, of course.
     
    Kejsare and Deep Wilcox repped this.
  21. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think we should redirect our outrage toward something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen. That’s how we prove we have the most sincere pumpkin patch.
     
    Southern Man repped this.
  22. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #5647 juvechelsea, Dec 5, 2022
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022
    bad faith? screw you. bad faith is knowing i am wrong and lying. i neither agree with your analysis nor lied about your theory supposedly being true.

    to explain precisely how you are wrong, you are trying to compare someone whose job is to raise money for a charity, being rewarded with a bonus for how much they bring into the charity- - WHICH BY THE WAY GENERALLY STAYS THERE --with a salaried athlete getting a bonus of some percentage of the prize money won by the federation. WITH THE INTENT MOST OF THE PRIZE MONEY NEVER SEES USSF.

    you are also implying that the prize is like charitable donations they personally brought in. no, it is tournament prize money the fed was awarded. players who never see the field get a share. how did they "earn" the supposed "revenue?" LDLT? roldan? garbage. this is precisely the argument some of you make ABOUT THE WOMEN GETTING MEN'S MONEY. what you're really saying is the prize should pass through to the team. you're saying they should get a share of the profit they produce. IN FACT A TYPICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE WOMEN FOR YEARS HAS BEEN THEIR EVENTS ARE LESS PROFITABLE.

    it's team prize money. USSF is the team. the prize money goes to the fed. the world cup bonus should all be profit. the trip is paid for (by the fed by the way). the world cup prizes are not won by any specific athlete nor rewarded to any specific athlete. the world cup bonus already goes to athletes who don't earn it, and ones who play. mere donations to a charity are revenue but not necessarily profit, as they inherently go in the pot from which overhead and such are paid. i assume the people getting a bonus on that were specifically on the phone with someone. the whole charity team doesn't get a bonus because weah, pulisic, and 9 others were on the call. and yet here, everyone on the team does. whether they produced or not.

    the irony of you folks' position is you attack the women for supposedly making less and thus deserving less without seeing how that effectively proves it's revenue sharing. when USOC gives the same amount to men and women for medals, they are distancing the bonus from revenue. the amount doesn't vary if USOC gets more money from congress or IOC or TV or such. it doesn't matter if your sport is high revenue or highly subsidized. it doesn't matter if you are a man or woman. a gold is a gold. and they athlete getting the bonus earned it. that is rewarding sporting excellence, but it has nothing to do with how much USOC itself made other than they likely ensured it was some minor fraction of the total money they had so they could emphasize supporting the athletes going forward.

    in this situation, precisely your beef is the women didn't earn it, but they get an equal share of the revenue. it is what it is. be honest. and don't call me a liar for calling you folks out on the necessary implications of your own arguments.

    i will do you the service of not calling you a liar or claiming you are making your inaccurate arguments in bad faith.
     
  23. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #5648 juvechelsea, Dec 5, 2022
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022
    btw the US MNT compensation used to be done -- though i am not sure if it still is -- where the friendly bonuses related to seeing the field or winning the game. a set amount for each. that isn't revenue sharing. they might make the bonus for a road game where we receive little or no revenue for the event. the players who did not play do not get certain bonuses. it thus relates primarily to sports and not profit. even if it's a home game, it doesn't matter if it's lightly attended in a HS stadium or a full house in the Rose Bowl against Mexico. same bonus.

    we probably played games to no one in the pandemic. nothing but expenses except the TV rights. bunch of rent for the venue. if you get bonuses for that, that's disconnected from any sense of revenue or profit. we ran a sporting event. we bonused the sporting successes regardless. the whole point to this world cup prize debate is we're making money and everyone wants their large slice of guaranteed profit. the backup keepers get it, roldan, LDLT, long, etc. don't pretend.
     
  24. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    re the smack talking about do the women pass the money on, none of you know. you are assuming they buy a mansion and bentey. they haven't gotten the money yet much less spent it.

    in women's skiing lindsay vonn, who won some medals, had sponsors, won on the circuit, gives scholarships and also has contributed money to promising women on the ski team who are not fully funded and making a ton of prize money. people like breezy johnson who go on to start winning medals on the circuit. they can then concentrate on sports and not so much on fundraising just to travel around europe for the circuit.

    you're just assuming what you would like to think.
     
  25. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #5650 juvechelsea, Dec 5, 2022
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022
    the idea of women spongeing off of men is just repackaging the revenue arguments. the women routinely go further in tournaments. they cannot help how the prize money is allocated between the sexes. the whole idea here is to equalize that. if it was equal then maybe they'd agree to just let the respective winner have it.

    also, if you look behind the bonuses here, the arguments are vaguely amusing. the men didn't even make the last tournament, and if the timing was different we'd be saying they sponged off the successful women. as it is you're moaning because the women got a lot of money for the tepid male efforts of qualifying, making it out second, then getting destroyed round of 16. 1 lousy win. if we pay more for that than what the women get if they win the whole event, that really speaks to the gender disparity, or, worst, exposes this as people wanting revenue sharing.

    i mean, you don't get USOC bonuses for finishing 9th-16th in the olympics ie losing in the semi round. you get bonuses for winning 1st through 3rd ie a medal. that makes it feel more like a sporting reward and less like passing through revenue.
     

Share This Page