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

Where do you see this?

 

The ratings are actually irrelevant as it comes to the actual income. Fox and ESPN aren't doling out the money based on the rating per se, meaning, if the rating is good, Fox isn't paying more, and if it's bad they aren't paying less.

The real question is, what are they paying for which asset. Are they paying for the USMNT and get the USWNT thrown in for free? Is it a 50/50 split in their mind? Somewhere in between? Probably. The point is, it is not just clean math that you can crunch some numbers and poof. If it was that easy, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.

Complicating things even more is that MLS rights are bundled with the USMNT and USWNT rights. It's a convoluted mess, and it is going to come down to the interpretation of a judge as to who is in the right legally. My guess is that neither side let's a judge get anywhere close to an all-or-nothing decision and this gets settled out of court, the settlement will be sealed, and nobody will never have the satisfaction of knowing "we" were right and "they" were wrong.

 

I'm basing it off of the average tv ratings that the USMNT & USWNT get. It's not an official number. Only ESPN/Fox/Univision could tell you what the value of each team is in the packages. Because they are the ones who cut the checks. Just because the packages are bundled doesn't mean we can't find out the true value. My numbers are an estimate, but I think they are more accurate than the 50/50 narrative that is going around. Would anyone say we have no idea how much TV revenue is generated by the NBA because their TV contract is bundled with the WNBA? I doubt it. The evidence is there if you want to find it.

 

I understand that TV ratings do not mean more $$$ for the TV contracts that were already signed. But they are the biggest predictor of the amount of money you will get for your next contract. The contract the USSF signed with ESPN/Fox/Univision for U.S. matches was based on the TV ratings from the past. In which, the USMNT doubled & tripled the USWNT ratings. Why would any TV company pay the same fee for half the ratings, which means half the ad revenue?

 

It's all speculation on the part of the TV company. Fox about lost their shirt on the World Cup last summer because the USMNT didn't make it. Maybe a TV company projects better numbers for women's soccer, maybe they want in on the ground floor, maybe they just want the good publicity and they use it as a loss leader. The point is while it may appear as common sense to you and me, will it hold up in court? Common sense doesn't always prevail in the legal arena.

 

Back of the envelope, that's correct. There are some modest adjustments because not all viewers are equal in terms of buying power, therefore advertisers are going to pay more (or less) depending upon which viewers are in the respective ratings streams.

1 million Univision/Telemundo viewers are worth a bit less than 1 million Fox/ESPN viewers. If the average WNT English broadcast viewer is a bit more upper middle class than the average MNT viewer, I could see the WNT broadcasts being a bit more valuable on a per viewer basis.

We're not talking a dramatic shift from that 2-3x multiple you mentioned though and I don't know how USSF or the women would be able to quantify this. They'd need to be able to see the advertising contracts of the networks.

 

My understanding has been that networks want MLS but only with the MNT. Apparently the WNT is the least desirable out of all the entities, which is why it HAS to be bundled with the MNT/MLS.

MLS/USMNT/USWNT are all packaged right now with ESPN/Fox correct?

It used to be NBC/ESPN but that ended - I think around 2012/2013.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That's why I proposed making part of the USSF money somewhat equivalent to TAM in MLS. Use it to boost players' salaries above the league maximum, stipulate that it has to be used for domestic (not necessarily USWNT) players.

 

I don't agree with the women on this -- but I would point out that the broadcast showed huge outdoor watch parties just like in 2014. Specifically KC Gas & Light and Chicago's Lincoln Park.

 

Don't you have to look deeper than gross ratings? Who is watching can be as important as how many as I understand it.

 

You know there's at least one player on that team who isn't appreciative of having her athletic achievements hijacked in the name of SJW activism (thinking of one player in particular whose husband is a well-known devout Christian). Hopefully if there is she'll come out with a tell-all book in a few years.

 

So Christians can't be about social justice?

 

They tend not to be in favor of SJWism in the modern sense.

 

I'm very much in favour of Social Jesus Warriors.

 

Don’t keep it a secret! Tell tell tell!

 

Just speculation. But in a group of 23 people, even 23 millennial women, it's likely at least a few are politically conservative.

 

That doesn’t sound like speculation.

 

Mentioned that a bit upthread. Yeah, it’s a consideration. There are a lot of variables. Not to dig too far into the valuation of media rights, but...

-If the goal is to allocate the current media rights, those aren’t based upon current ratings. They are based upon the buyer/sellers prediction of now when the deal was struck. In other words, prior WC ratings projected as of the time of the deal going forward.

-If the goal is to allocate the value future rights that have not been secured, use recent WCs and project forward.

Subtle but important distinctions. You can’t (legally) argue a current deal is unfair based upon what was not known/knowable at the time the deal was struck.

As for valuing those rights (current or future), the key variables:

-projected ratings/viewers

-dollar value of those ratings to advertisers considering demographics of viewers (age, income, consumer preferences, etc)

-production costs. Higher quality programming = better ratings, but at a higher cost (optimization).

-opportunity costs. Not a big discount for higher ratings events, but networks aren’t going to pay for the portion of the ratings they could otherwise get for “free” via standard, low cost programming. Re-runs of syndicated sports talk shows, highlights packages, etc. If Fox thinks a WC will average a 6.0, but they could pull a 0.3 for the Watching Paint Dry World Championships filmed in any empty studio down the hall with the same viewer demo, they’re not paying for 6.0. They’re paying for 5.7.

 

One (big) problem with all of this...USSF doesn't control the World Cup television rights. Fox bids for the World Cup directly from FIFA (or whoever FIFA has sold the rights to) and separately from their agreement with SUM that includes USMNT, USWNT, and MLS.

 

I have zero inside knowledge, just pointing out that at least one of the players on the team is a devout Christian (I knew about her husband, didn't realize she was also publicly open about her faith until I searched for her husband on Google just now). To be fair she doesn't seem like the type to write a book like that so probably wishful thinking on my part. Worth mentioning that her husband also has teammates involved in high-profile political activism (Malcolm Jenkins, formerly Chris Long), but that they do so with orders of magnitude more class and respect than the likes of Rapinoe.

https://sportsspectrum.com/sport/fo...lie-looking-use-platform-reach-others-christ/

I could be wrong but get the impression that the USWNT's political activism is very much dictated from the top, and any players who disagree would be putting their spots in jeopardy by dissenting publicly.

 

Tobin Heath is as well:

These Women’s World Cup champions give 'glory to God'

 

Probably. The numbers suggest there's conservative players in that locker room and players with conservative family members.

Rapinoe a couple days ago said everyone she's spoken to on the team supports the decision to not visit the white house.

No matter what one's viewpoints are on the white house or the current president, I have to think given her stature in the team, if someone was in favor of visiting the white house, they probably aren't coming out of the closet with it.

When the Patriots visited the white house, some players declined. That's fine. But it appears Rapinoe and a few others made the decision the whole team wouldn't go.

My personal viewpoint is true activism requires opening a dialogue and meeting with those you disagree most with. If I were Rapinoe I'd try to sit down with Trump and have an open discussion with the cameras rolling.

 

Then again after Rapinoe did her whole kneeling for anthem bit...............she wasn't selected for the next major USWNT competition. [As far as I'm concerned that was an unannounced suspension.] And the USSF came out with guidelines indicating that wasn't acceptable behaviour.

I believe that there are quite a number of players/USSF officials that were unhappy with her behaviour as captain of the USWNT. They just kept that behind closed doors as it should have been.

I have no problem with the ladies expressing whatever political beliefs they want to express. We have that right in America. Others have the right to not watch or go to games in response.

 

This is why I hate all this political stunts with this team.

I don’t think the far majority of people have a problem with the women asking for more money. It’s that the people are turned off by it, are turned off by the way Rapinoe has gone about doing it.

It’s easy to get wrapped up in the whole team hates America, blah, blah, blah... but there’s no way that can be the truth. It just seems like Rapinoe has been given the microphone to speak for the whole team, and the media has gobbled it up.

I do hate it for the women on this team that worked their asses off, love this country, and generally want to just go on with their lives privately... even if they lean politically liberal.

Sometimes, it just takes one turd in the punch bowl for no one to drink from the kool-aid. Yet, some in the media won’t drink the kool-aid unless they have their favorite turd in it.

Hence, it seems like the USWNT gained more activists than fans this World Cup.