I actually don't think that the prescription to get more women to support women's soccer (and women's sports in general) is all that far off. When it comes down to it, outside of a small hard-core, sports fans who are also women still tend to gravitate toward men's sports primarily - I'm thinking the "casual" fans who are less intensely-invested week-to-week. There is a similar small hard-core of men who gravitate towards women's sports, but they are more "specialized" and disparate on average, but also sufficiently numerous to mostly "cancel out" the women. In other words, in order to drive women's sports forward as spectator concerns, on average, you need more women, and women will drive said fandom.
As applied to soccer, do you have some examples of where women’s soccer has moved forward in terms of spectators where women have driven the fandom? I am a very long-time women’s soccer fan (men’s too, but much more on the women’s side), and of the women’s teams I know of that have been successful at generating fandom, I do not know of a single one where women have driven that fandom. There’s no question that women have been a significant part of their fan base, but driven the fandom, no.
No I do not. It's a conclusion drawn on anecdotal data in the aggregate. Someone who has such data would do well to sell it. I also sense that we are thinking of "drives" in two different senses.
Because of earlier comments here (sorry, I didn't take time to hunt them down, but I know there have been multiple comments about "same pay-to-play offer"), I thought this info was important to point out. Multiple players (Rapinoe, Morgan, and now Sauerbrunn) are on the record as saying that they were not offered the same pay-to-play deal as the men, and from the way they've talked about it, I don't think it all came down to a difference of bonuses from FIFA. It sounds like USSF did not offer equal pay even under the same structure. Obviously, the CBA they negotiated is still the CBA the agreed to, and I still think the ladies want both the guarantees of the contract and more pay. However, I do think its possible that they didn't get the same offer and that's partly why they rejected it (while agreeing in part to reduce the number of contracts and progressively move away from the guaranteed contract structure). In negotiation, they saw more money on the table with the contracts and went for it. Does that make a difference to any of those here? Sauerbrunn on the @MenInBlazers insta live: "We were never offered the men's contract." and re: the pay-for-play offer USSF did make: "For every win bonus, it was significantly less than the men." #USWNT— Meg Linehan (@itsmeglinehan) May 6, 2020
Why do we assume the players know or are being upfront about? Especially as the women are biased in this situation and the impartial judge said they were offered it? If I had to guess, the structure was the same, but worth less per match in comparison to the men because that is the going rate for a women's soccer international compared to the men. Especially as unless I am mistaken, but the women play a lot more matches every year in comparison to the men. Even last year, both teams had summer tournaments and yet the women played 10 more matches then the men. I watched this video earlier involving the one who posted that tweet: To me it just sounds like the women expect over the odds. The national team shouldn't be a career for these players and I get that the women' have a fundamentally different situation from the men in terms of job prospects, but I don't understand why that makes it US soccer's problem.
If the WNT gets the same structure and the same per game friendly bonus rate, it will be interesting to see if USSF continues to schedule friendlies outside of FIFA windows, including SheBelieves and Tournament of Nations.
If the tournaments will show a profit after expenses, pay, bonuses etc the those tournaments will be held. If they will not show a profit then maybe not. The pay structure would only matter to US Soccer if any increases made playing specific matches unprofitable and just about any USWNT match in the US that gets even marginal promotion shows a profit now and I believe that those matches will continue to be held as long as that is true. Of course should the USWNT start failing to win most of those matches then it could well be that profitability could fall off and then the matches could be in doubt. In the case of the USSF it is all about the money and, even under the new leadership (unless it gets voted out in the future), I would expect that to continue. And, if the leadership falls back to those that are in it for the power, the matches will still continue if it is profitable. In fact I expect there will be some push to hold more international friendlies if possible as that just makes more money for the USSF and gives more power to the top brass.
I think the other part of FIFA windows could be how long USSF keeps paying NWSL salaries. The second USSF stops doing that, is the second the clubs regain control of players outside of FIFA windows.
Am I the only one that remembers Paul Riley threatening to refuse to release a few non-Federation designated Courage players in late July, 2018 when the team was scheduled to play in Miami in the ICC and the WNT was getting together for its mid-summer friendly tournament - outside the FIFA window?
Oh, I remember he threatened, but if his owner is paying that tab, he will more than threaten next time.
SheBelieves is in a FIFA window, and was very much a USSF initiative to avoid going to the Algarve and instead make money. (ToN though I wouldn't mind seeing go; I hate it being in the middle of the NWSL season.)
I figured they got 2 in during the window and the 3rd outside, but that is the only window FIFA allows a 3rd match. Did FIFA do that specifically for SheBelieves or was that in place for the Algarve Cup?
Oh, I know they have bias and their fight has been in large part about winning the PR battle (which they've done very well on), but the players commenting are the players who were most involved in negotiations. They'd know better than most. And actually the judge didn't say they were offered the same; he said they were offered similar structure. (Quote: "The history of the negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT...."). So, maybe it was an equal offer, but like I said, to me it seems likely that the offer was same structure but not same pay (not same win bonus, play fee, etc.).
The 3-match window has been in place for years for the Algarve Cup and other spring tournaments (Cyprus, etc.).
Or for any players.This setup takes a year-round institution and turns it into a series of events that casual, undisciplined fans can digest. It's like a Christian who prays and discusses faith only on Sundays. Because US Soccer can win (has won) multiple Cups in a competition where there really isn't enough talent or numbers anywhere else to keep the USWNT from being almost a lock. My guess is that federations count World Cups the way national Olympic committees count gold medals. The USSF is tied for third overall in total World Cups behind Germany and Brasil. That's good for some bragging rights in some sense or another. It's cheaper to allow the college system to provide talent than it is to financially prop up a league big enough to match that talent. Mead's response to you (and earlier to me) really pissed me off, and I don't piss off easily. It's wrong, apparently, to suggest here that the demographic most affected by sexism in general should maybe be first in line to support women in the entertainment industry (like Black folks did with Negro League Baseball, to the best of their ability) and maybe help get (more of) the players paid the right way. I was reared to put time and money into the things I believed in, to whatever degree I believed in them. The Beat got three games' worth of my money and time because I thought WUSA should exist. I don't deserve a medal for that, but what little I did was three filled seats and $100 or so better for woso than sitting at home watching Barcelona or whoever on TV.
Oh I absolutely believe they were not offered the exact same contract as the men. I'm sure the bonuses were lower because they are expected to win the vast majority of their games, including the major tournaments. The only reason the men have the contract they do is USSoccer doesn't expect to have to max it out because they rarely win games, AND the men play fewer games. Plus they get money from fifa to pay the world cup bonuses. They probably would bankrupt themselves paying the women those per game rates. Although maybe I'm wrong about that and they could easiliy afford it.... in which case just pay the women.
Why can't people make points on this without straight-up lying? I mean, overall, there's a decent point in there on the indisputable fact of there being fewer games, and even the conclusion on the speculation that the offer was different because of said calculation comes at least from some sort of logical path - even if I disagree with the conclusion - but, damn. There is no need to lie.
I thought the discrimination was nicely proven by the USSF for them by that filing.... Maybe this has been asked already...can the WNT split off from the men's and form their own federation? You know, one that doesn't think they're inferior?
No. USSF is the officially recognized federation by FIFA and they aren’t going to recognize a second one for the US women. Any attempt to form a split off would result in them being banned from international soccer and being quickly replaced on the USWNT.
Well yes, that's actually why the bonus focused argument doesn't make sense. The men's contract didn't really have better bonuses because they weren't realistic scenarios.
Hi, Lynne, nice to 'see' you again. I used to be exref and know you from the Manchester United forum. As female posters there, we had to stick together! Hope life is going well for you.
The USMNT has no deal and hasn't for quite some time (since 2018 I believe). They play under their previous expired deal. So, there is no doubt the USWNT were not offered the Men's deal, because that would either be something from 2014 or doesn't exist. It is hard to understand the statements in between the spin. Even the word, "games" is hard to decipher because there are many different types of games. The Men play far more competitive games in a 4 year cycle then the women even when they miss the world cup. From 2015-2018, the Men played at least 27 competitive games. From 2016-2019, the women played maybe 21 competitive games? The women play many more money making friendly games inside the USA. The Men routinely play teams that they are the underdog against, while the women rarely play any game they would not be the favorites in. WCQ'ing for the women is usually a cake walk. The men usually win at home but rarely win on the road. Saying the win bonus for a WCQ'er should be equal is fine, but the chances of paying out are not equal. The women's team from Costa Rica playing in Houston is just not the same game as the men's team from Costa Rica playing in Costa Rica. Ditto for Mexico in North Carolina versus the Azteca. So, I doubt the women were offered the exact deal and they can say such. But I'm sure they were offered a framework of mostly bonus payments like the men but rejected it for a more guaranteed contract. I notice Brunn doesn't say they weren't offered a bonus heavy deal. She just says they weren't offered the "exact" deal. One thing the judge didn't even touch on is that the women's CBA limits competition in the roster. The Men's CBA has no guarantees for any player that they will be called up.
I have the distinct impression, from what I am reading here, that posters have not actually read the decision, but rather are reading so called "expert" comments. I write this because some of the statements here about the decision are wrong. Here is a pdf of the decision. It contains a detailed recitation of the various offers and counter offers, among other things.