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

After a quick perusal I found several guys on the Gold Cup roster who acknowledged the women and their run. So far I can't find any member of the women's team who acknowledged the men were also playing for a trophy.

 

I mean I don't blame the women for not posting as they should be focused. The same way that article by deadspin is garbage because of them pressing the men to make a statement re: the women during the GC

 

File under: who gives a shit.

 

The players who Tweet what they Tweet. I assume they think their content is worth their fan's time.

 

Does anyone have the GC final tv ratings? I can't find it anywhere

 

FS1 got 2.88 million.

 

And in Spanish?

 

FS1 tiene 2,88 millones.

Oh wait - you meant how many viewers watched the final on a Spanish broadcast.

Surprisingly, I can't find actual people numbers, but Univision scored a 1.4 rating. Apparently 1.0 rating is about 4.4 million viewers, so I am guessing around 6 million viewers? It was the highest viewed broadcast Sunday night out of all networks.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/l...ads-abc-tv-ratings-sunday-july-7-2019-1222821

 

So you found several participants in a regional tournament acknowledging the world cup, but not world cup participants acknowledging the regional tournament? Funny, that.

I think it might have been classy and politic to do so, but you're making an equation they would resist.

 

My equation is that the men don't seem particularly "cold" to the women, as was suggested.

 

I get the CBA is the CBA but you're ignoring the power dynamics and historical legacies behind it. If you had a team that in aggregate made more revenue, and was more successful (and successful in the ultimate sense), should it be paid less? Sorry, literally the only way you get away with this is "freedom of contract." By almost every other metric we use to decide pay it's bull. You can try freedom of contract with Leveon Bell if you want, see what you get out of that.

[FWIW I've long been amused how men bounce between justifications, eg, performance and mere tenure to justify salary disparities. The conservatives for executives talk up "performance" to justify massive compensation. Tenure is besides the point and he may have been headhunted yesterday. But then if a woman at the managerial level misses a year for childbirth but is excellent, oh, we suddenly become some quasi-union, quasi-French "tenure" country. But Bill stayed here that year so he gets more.....yeah, but Bill is an idiot and she isn't.]

I would also suggest that while the current CBA lasts through 2021, true, it might be unwise to bet on whether in 2020 they add an Olympics to their leverage.

There is also the lawsuit and the bad publicity.

There is also the 8 figure infusion they just got.

I'm sorry but this is an absurdity that oddly happens primarily in the revenue sports. A friend of mine is on the residency NT in my newer sport and she gets the same residency, baseline coaching, competition funds, etc. as the best man, who is quite good. That best man then goes out and separates himself by endorsements and purses reflecting superior performance. Only in the sports where money gets made do we engage in this oddness of gender and revenue and performance, but then largely make the distinction on gender or revenue as opposed to does the team play well. When it's a sport? Dangerously close to saying yeah you win more and even in sum make more money, but you're girls.

USSF's Form 990 has them making $123 m in 2017 with expenses of $11m. Wise Feds that have that high a margin -- even if non profit -- that just got $30+ million, would level the pay, settle, and be done with their problems.

 

But you implied something in reverse which suggests the two were in competitions on par, a dubious assertion. I thought they had a point, why should WWC be the undercard for regional tournaments. If the men were in the WC and the women were playing some tournament, I wouldn't bat an eye if the women wished the men well and not much in return. It would be a nice gesture and perhaps wise politics to build support for their cause. But the WWC was all over the news and the GC was a footnote. Would have been even if we won, too.

 

What does any of that have to do with their bonuses, which they agreed to and are greater percentage wise than the men’s? The women being champions has nothing to do with anything... they want to be paid from revenues generated by competitions they have nothing to do with, as far as I can tell.

I’m all for them getting whatever they can get, im just about always pro-labor when it comes to these kinds of disputes, but their argument is obviously not an honest one.

USSF lost money on the last WWC due to their salary structure for the women’s team, didn’t they? In what way that doesn’t involve lots of cherry picking do the women earn more in revenue?

 

The historical systemic prejudice argument, where is that supposed to lead? I mean, it’s a given. It’s granted. So now what? Pay the women more from competitions they have nothing to do with despite USSF losing money on the actual female competitions... because of historical inequality?

 

The women, thanks to the PR campaign they have chosen, are now invested in the failures of the men's team. They directly benefit when the men lose or perform poorly.

 

I’m no accountant, but the audited financial reports for 2017 show expenses of $75+ million

 

(1) There is the massive club pay disparity to start with. This is all gravy to the men where a reserve like Lewis is making 6 figures in club, much less Pulisic. NWSL tops out in the $40-something k range. USSF cannot fix that, but I think that offers some context --- this is their primary source of income. So when people say stupid crap like "but they made more in bonuses and salary last year," they won more, and this is set up like this is the way they get paid for their living. USMNT compensation is not set up like "this is how you're going to live." In men's, it's an honor on top of a real pro salary. Not your basic wage and NWSL forks over a pittance.
(2) You're trying to conflate "salary" and "bonus." Surely you get the difference. Per game they are paid a third of the compensation ($4k vs $13k). Their compensation is capped at $100k and the men's isn't. The only reason they catch up is aggregate by playing more games. In the process of playing more games they make more revenue. But it bears reminding recent MNT have sucked and if they won the bonuses they get would probably then change the numbers.
(3) I am less worked up about the bonus but I do think it is absurd when the 2014 men make $9m for losing round of 16 while the 2019 women make $4m for winning it all.

FWIW at least one thing to consider here is it's a non profit -- not a business -- and that when this becomes an exclusively revenue discussion (1) what about performance, this is s sport, (2) why is one side's salary capped and not the other, and (3) if one set of performers are both more successful and bigger revenue producers, shouldn't they have the more friendly business terms, not the harsher?

I could get the arguments if the men doubled up the women on revenue and were a knockout round team. But you're talking about one team outperforms and outrevenues the other, and the women this is their primary source of income, and you're going to make it per game a fraction of what the men make. The women should make more based on performance. The women should make more based on revenue. The women should make more based on this being their primary income source. Any time you can come up with the reason the women make less, other than massaging the numbers and emphasizing the WC winner's bonus, let me know.

 

It's very basic. USMNT have to make at least 50 something in MLS and most probably make well in excess of that. USWNT cannot make more than 40 something in NWSL. USMNT then make 3x as much per game, with no cap on compensation, and bonuses for playing and winning. The women catch up on sheer volume, but that also results in them passing on revenue as well, except we then cap what they can make, when this is their primary salary.

I grant the bonus numbers but it's odd to base your defense on, well, but you have to understand the massively sexist disparity on the winner's purse. That may be one of the few mathematically or intellectually sound arguments, but it's actually implicitly sexist in basis. "You're not accounting for how we screw you over, ladies...." To me it's kind of like when people who talk commissions and performance pay suddenly talk mere tenure when women are involved.

 

The women are capped because the USSF already loses money on the WWC.

The men making more for getting bounced, take it up with the 4+ billion in revenue the men’s event generates. You claim this is sexist, maybe it is... maybe it’s just an historical preference. Either way, claiming that women are entitled to money generated by men’s events and claiming that it’s on the basis of “equality” is laughable on its face.

There are numerous reasons why the women’s pay is what it is... their sport isn’t popular, it doesn’t draw eyes and it doesn’t create money the way the men’s sport does. It’s simple. Sue Bird didn’t make as much as Kobe Bryant, either, because the WNBA hasn’t made money in 25 years.

I’ve been reading this thread, I’m late to it and I’ve noticed it’s just going around and around... so I’m stepping off. I’m for women getting what they can, but their argument is pure shit and painfully transparent.

Unless I’ve really got this all wrong. If I do someone tell me in detail how, because I’d love to be on their side.

 

Can you me a link where women have mentioned/made an argument that the USWNT is their main source of income? I haven’t seen them argue that (not saying it doesn’t exist).

If they did argue that, then I think that would open up more of a Pandora’s box of revenue disparities in NWSL, paltry attendance, USSF subsidies to the league etc.

 

A sensible resolution to this would be as follows. People earning more than x number caps per season -- either men or women -- are salaried, in the usual sense of the word, for that year. $100k, let's say. People under that cap threshold earn a per game amount until they trigger the salary. Standard amounts both sides for making a world cup. The purse-based bonuses are what they are but should be the same percentage of the purse.

 

What if I told you that 60% to 70% of USSF revenues come from "Men's Soccer"? What if I also told you that the USMNT made the knockout round of the World Cup in 3 of the last 4 World Cups they participated in? Would that change your mind?

 

"NWSL operated with a salary cap of $421,000 for each of its nine teams during the 2019 season, with a minimum player salary of just $16,538 and a maximum salary of $46,200. The league relies at least partially on subsidies from U.S. Soccer, which covers pay for national team players."

As I understand it, few or perhaps no NWSL players make the paper max, because it would result mathematically in the rest of the roster making approx. $20k or less. Do the math using the total cap and the maximum single player salary. It would leave you with ~ $380k for 19 more players.

My argument USWNT is their primary source of income is also simple math. At about 10 caps per year -- leaving off bonuses for WC success -- the per game salary would exceed the NWSL possible salary. And this is a team playing 20-odd assorted friendly type games plus 7 this summer.

Meanwhile MLS minimum is now $70k and my bet is Lewis one of the lowest at $100k. And you have millionaires on the team. So the men have a day job and this is gravy. The women the USWNT is their day job otherwise they would be coaching select in their spare time. For many, their WNT income probably exceeds their league salary. Ergo, primary income.

 

Look, I'm absolutely for equal pay. I don't even like the revenues argument because I do think playing for the national teams is equal work. But the contracts are structured so differently that it's hard to tell what equal pay even looks like.

You can look at aggregate pay and see that the men are paid a lot more... or you can look at actual per-player pay, and find that only about a dozen men earn more than the base salary earned by all of the women under contract, because the men's money is split between 50-60 players.

And how do you put a dollar value on job security? The USWNT is not a typical national team that calls in players from clubs. The USWNT plays more games but uses fewer than half the number of players, because the coach faces restrictions on how many non-contract players can be called into a camp and how many days a non-contract player can be in camp in a year. It's hard to cut a player under contract until she chooses to retire. The current CBA virtually amounts to tenure for existing players and locks other women out. This is something they almost certainly made concessions for, and the terms are unique in world soccer. It seems unfair for someone to make money concessions for a non-quantifiable benefit, and then sue to get both the money and the benefit they made concessions for.

The current USWNT union would likely reject this because, considering the extreme level of protection they have for their spots on the roster, they would almost certainly want the salary up-front and not dependent on getting a certain number of caps.

 

At the risk of sounding callous, so?

Whose fault/problem is that? "No one's" is an acceptable answer.

We'll see how committed people are to actually enabling increased compensation for women soccer players (who consist of a hell of a lot more than the USWNT) in the weeks and months ahead. My guess is that after a decent bump, women will stop paying to watch professional soccer in the numbers required, and so will many men.

Who is that on?