Where are you getting your attendance figures from? Average attendance last 10 years (2012-2021) = 16,812 Average attendance previous 15 years (1997-2011) = 10,688 Average attendance at USWNT home games (past 25 years)... * Attendance numbers in 2020 and 2021 dropped due to COVID-19 and many matches limited to being played in front of 0-4000 fans. ** Attendance numbers in 1999 and 2003 exclude World Cup (played in USA).
All valid points, but just to highlight this point. From what I understand the English men's national team makes a flat 3,000 pounds per game, compare that to the US men, who get roughly $10k for a win, $5k for a loss, and somewhere in between for a draw. That's a lot of cheddar in comparison to what the English team gets (or could get if they didn't actually donate that to a charity they run) and, I'm assuming, the FA brings in a lot more per game than USSF does.
Pretty sure that by "playing games in front of low 4-digit fans", he wasn't strictly talking about "on average". And since he's talking 2011 and earlier, it's almost certain that he's right. Hell, I've noted that some WCQ games of pretty recent vintage were at least in the mid 4-digits if not lower.
A big issue for equal pay in comparing the USMNT and USWNT is that they are loaded with performance bonuses (for wins, draws, qualifying for WC/OG, making WC/OG roster, etc) but they play drastically different schedules. WORLD CUP QUALIFYING Men - 16 games (minimum of 14 games starting 2021) Women - 5 games OLYMPICS & OLYMPIC QUALIFYING Men - U23 Women - 5 games • The men have the Nations League and Gold Cup. • The women have is the SheBelieves Cup. • The women play more friendlies (and almost all at home). Of course, none of this is factoring in the quality of the competition, which is the real elephant in the room.
I have a database that shows the attendance from every match is USWNT history. I'm looking at it right now. Yes, OGQ and WCQ games are historically some of the lowest attendance games. 14 of the 15 lowest attendance games (min - 3,621, max - 8773, avg - 6,371, median - 6,796) in the past 10 years were WCQ/OGQ games. The non-OGQ/WCQ exception was a 2014 Friendly against Mexico in Rochester, NY (5,680 attendance) on a cold night (temps in the 40's).
I'm unsure as to whether he was talking to Youshou or myself. I mentioned the "low four figures" number because I was there. A game or two at 15k raises the average significantly on a small sample size. I think think of games at the Virginia Sportsplex, University of Richmond Stadium, down in Charleston, and other places that were played in 6-8k stadiums that were charitably half full. Attendance started to rebound after Germany 2011, but there continued to be individual games after that with small crowds. Frankly, as much grief as SUM gets, once they got involved in the marketing and promotion of the WNT, things really improved. That could be the mere fact that professionals were involved (and on a performance based contract) and not some interns at USSF.
It seems that "regular" football is not the only place where women feel discriminated against: Players urge Fifa to change ‘deeply discriminatory’ women’s futsal policy
Brilliant move on the part of USSF ! The purple monster won't give up no matter how many times they lose in court. It's a typical extortion play for activists to protest until they receive money to go away. Jessy Jackson got rich doing this. Since FIFA prize money will never match the men's World Cup and the men's union decided to support the lies on two occasions, why not put the ball in the men's court. Let's see if the Beta male simps on the men's team put up or shut up.
He robbed mainstream Americans of their heritage. Everybody knows that. Everybody. Actually, it should work out well for the USWNT. There is no way the men's union will say no to a request for a handout. They'd get skewered in the court of public opinion for being greedy. Or something.
Ha ha, going to assume you're being sarcastic. For the young fans out there activists get rich threatening to protest corporation. It's the reason Jesse Jackson sons own the distribution beer rights to Budweiser in Chicago. Also why the 3 women that run BLM are millionaires over night.
Should work out as well as it has for the NBA players union, which helps subsidize the WNBA. The purple hair monsters of that league have repeatedly bitten that hand that feeds them.
Let the PR campaigns begin!! US Soccer announces they have sent the Player Associations representing the USMNT and USWNT identical CBAs. https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...t-proposals--to-womens-and-mens-national-team What the definition of "identical" is, is up to interpretation, but, if I had to guess, you can kiss the USWNT's guaranteed contracts, benefits, etc goodbye and that the US Soccer's CBA is a pay-to-play model for the women. It will also be interesting to see what "identical" means in regards to competition awards. Is it literally the Men and Women will get the same amount of money, is it percentage based, or something in between. It is, however, an interesting strategy as USSF is putting the ball into the players' court and either making them work together, or playing the two PAs against each other.
Kind of respect ussf for this. This is a bad deal for the men and not great for the woman, but it is the best for ussf when it comes to pr outside of finding millions of dollars to give the wnt.
Losing the guaranteed contracts, health insurance, benefits, etc. does not exactly sound good at all but at least they are now equal with the men.
They brought it on themselves? In their attempt to get more dollar bills, they are about to lose everything else…
Perhaps the USWNT women balk at this even before the men chime in? So far, it has been pretty silent from all other parties not US Soccer.
Your correct, men are silent and the women are already making negative statements. They got the men to support them and now the men are being asked to subsidize the women's delusional money request.
Problem is the women will not give this up ! Once you give children something, it's almost impossible to take away.
Just going to repeat myself from the other thread here.. For much of the last decade, the women would have been subsidizing the men. The men absolutely have the highest potential earnings, but that only matters if they make the Olympics and World Cup and that hasn't happened in a decade. That doesn't make the women's lawsuit any better, mind you, because if their demands were met, they'd bankrupt USSF, but the quoted argument just hasn't been valid for some time...