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

There’s that. And there’s also that the tournament was kinda janky from the get go. Lots of goals, which is good, but a lot of the “name” teams had down to no better than average cycles. The Dutch and Italians obviously. Chile as a tier II too. The Germans. Spain and Argentina were pretty average. England was above average for them. Faint praise intended.

Croatia are a good side, but they’re not exactly one half of a storied final we’d expect.

 

I explained it to a baseball fan like this the other day: imagine the US was a cricket country who caught the baseball bug 30 years ago. We have a supposed size advantage. Our league is now AA standard and we produce some guys who make it to the big leagues...in Brazil. Keep the usual suspects (Japan, S Korea, Cuba, etc. Now add 50 Dominican Republics. Some that are bigger DRs. Lots with a decent amount of cash.

 

So it’s been probably about, what, 14 of the 15 minutes?

Now if there is some serious investment in the NWSL we might be talking about something real instead of PR.

 

???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_in_American_soccer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_American_soccer

Results and fixtures for each team. Use the summary for total games, then just scroll, counting the away games. EZ PZ to get year-long comparisons.

 

I think, given what I read in here, the situation of the USWNT players is unique in the world. It's only a political matter in that USA context. I wonder if there's another country, where there's this semi club construction with a fixed group of players.
Anyway, as I already posted, the Orange ladies are going to earn the same as the males by 2023.

 

For how much publicity they got...those #'s aren't great.

ESPECIALLY the final. I don't care about the game time, west coast. It's a World Cup Final.

Thanks for posting the #'s really appreciate that.

 

Keep in mind that prior to MLS arriving in 1996, the US men's team was also constructed this way. Players signed contracts with the USSF. Brad Friedel was on one of those contracts and played exclusively for the USMNT after he left UCLA.

The women have just stayed in that model for a long time.

Its all apples and oranges when you compare the men's and women's teams in 2019. But from a public perception point of view, the USSF has already lost.

 

The problem is that if you lose the salaries, you risk losing the players to Europe.

I don't see these salaries as subsidizing NWSL, but as promoting the women's game in the US.

 

Are the pay for for instance Rapinoe higher than that of Marta in Europe (said to be around 380,000€ without personal sponsor contracts)?
If it is that 100,000 $ (=90,000€), why wouldnot they move to Europe?

 

All but two teams are marketed as “come see USWNT members....”. If two thirds leave for Europe, the league will not function.

So in that sense it is subsidizing the league, indirectly.

Alternatively, the league could be forced to cover the difference, in which case the already low salaries of others will be depressed further. The direct subsidy argument.

It’s a subsidy either way.

 

It really is an impossible scenario when the argument is things should be equal But...

Which is the likelihood we will face because equality is good until it starts to cost you something. The argument that the women get a higher percentage of the revenue generated by their teams is a problematic one. A way to solve that...pool the revenue for Men's and Women's tournaments and divide equally. It flies in the face of Equality, but the Women get more money.

The Men's World Cup in Russia generated over 6 billion dollars in revenue, the prizes awarded to the players were 9%. Havent found the revenue for France 2019 yet, most articles focus on how the Women should make more money but don't post the revenue. The closest thing is an estimate that the Women will generate $131 million in revenue, but that could be wrong.

Now the revenue argument is funny because the case is the US women earn more revenue than the US Men, even though the Men actually earn more revenue than the women. And neither team is paid by the revenue "they" generate in Tournaments. I read somewhere that Men's soccer is essentially paying for Women's soccer overall, but have not found the article yet again to double check what they had listed.

 

Yeah all these people crowing that we care more about the women than the men, yet they couldn't outdraw one of the men's group stage games. Yikes. I also didn't see any huge outdoor watch parties like there were in 2014.

 

Too much clicky and scrolly.

 

Because a lot of Rapinoe’s marketing power is tied to these shores via the WNT. If she leaves for more money in Europe, she likely loses enough of that marketing power to make things more or less a wash. The top of the women’s global pool isn’t so widely regarded for them to be true global brands. Yet anyway.

 

Kansas City had huge ones.

 

Anyone know the net income of the women's program vs the men's?

Blatantly obvious the media which covers this convo has never run a company themselves, or even taken accounting 101.

When running a company, if someone brings up total revenue the first response is, what were the expenses?

Until we have an understanding of all the streams of revenue weighed against total expenses of both programs and get a clear picture of the margins and net income, the appeals to the public, while apparently working, is a side discussion.

I wonder if Rapinoe as a side hustle is a CPA and has cracked open the books and knows all the numbers.

I'm leaning towards there being two solutions to this mayhem. One, offer the exact same deal the men have. Or, separate the men's and women's programs into two separate entities and base compensation off a set % of net income. So if net income of both programs separately is 20M, they get an equal payout. Women won't like either I take it. A different animal if the women's program has to get tv deals, sponsorships and account for salaries, maternity leave, severance, medical insurance, childcare, etc, on their own.

 

There were a few, but not in volume like 2014 or even 2010.

 

The fact you didn't see them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Marta seems to be a global brand.

 

This Washington Post article does as well as has been done in the media in terms of trying to figure it out free of the emotional politics. Its still not perfect, but its at least an attempt to unravel some version of the truth.

Are U.S. women’s soccer players really earning less than men?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...earning-less-than-men/?utm_term=.e028ea8c051d

 

It's more complicated than just adding all revenues and subtracting all expenses. TV rights are bundled, and merchandising monies aren't separated.

 

She's probably the exception that proves the rule. A few differences:

1) Marta is arguably the best player in the history of women's soccer. There is not a single woman who has emerged in the post 99 era that has a reasonable claim for being better than her. Sinclair, Prinz, Rapinoe, Heath, Wambach, Sawa, Signor, etc? Nope.

2) Marta is also the singular face of Brazilian--check that--Latin American women's soccer for a generation. Did she have help on those Brazilian sides? Yeah, and maybe its a bit unfair to call her the singular face, but the fact is there is a huge gap between her from a visibility standpoint and the next prominent women's player south of the Rio Grande (Christiane). She's kind of cornered that market. The USWNT is much deeper and the spotlight is shared to a much greater extent--even among players who are a notch or two lower than the current "featured" player at any point in time.

3) Brazilian mystique. She fits nicely into that virtuoso playmaker category that feeds off the Brazilian men's reputation in a way that can't be matched by other female players. She's basically soccer samba in female form. That is her brand, and it transcends team affiliation.

So yeah, another Marta would have no problem on the endorsement front. Good luck finding that. Contemporary example of a USWNT player with a lot of great technical quality capable of dictating match flow and playmaking: Rose Levell. I friggin love her game. She'll probably elevate to one of those 2-3 faces in US soccer as long as she can remain healthy from here on out if she wants it. If she goes to Europe, she can play there and make (relative) bank. But she'll end up missing out on a lot of face time to build her brand here because her club isn't going to release her for all of those USWNT friendlies the way the Washington Spirit will. The USWNT/WPSL will build brands around those who decide to stay.

 

That one was pretty good.

I don't know why the Copa America dollars keep failing to get counted. They shouldn't be thrown into the "TV/Sponsorship" pot that we can't evenly divide between the two teams.

 

It's actually not that complicated. And any journalist who is really interested in finding the true "revenue" of each NT could find that out. But what they will find won't fit the narrative that USWNT brings in more revenue than the USMNT. For example, regarding USSF TV rights, the USMNT average TV ratings are 2 to 3 times greater than the USWNT. Which, from an economic perspective, would seem to show that 70% of the value of their National Team TV contracts with ESPN/Fox/Univision would be revenue generated from the men. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

Because including them would hurt the agenda.

 

This is required reading if you are interested in the topic.

Thanks!