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

You've never heard of appearance bonuses, I guess.

 

Games Played:

2016
USWNT 20 home games
USMNT 8 home games

2017
USWNT 10 home games
USMNT 11 home games*

2018
USWNT 16 home games
USMNT 7 home games

*does not include Gold Cup Games

So, not surprising that the Women's team earned more revenue for the period between 2016-2018, they played 20 more home games then the men did (46-26). If we break down the revenue on a per game basis.....the men bring in more money per game.

 

That's not how it works. At least, with regards to pay. Playing twice as much as the men would mean the women are paid about half as much as the men...

 

...Except when you factor in the MNT's participation in the Copa Centennario, which netted the USSF 46 million dollars in 2016.

 

You seem to be trying to make a point.. How about you say what your point is.

 

if the suggestion is that because the women only out-revenued the men one year, but massively so such that they average the same over a few year period, that they should be paid less, you're straining. people outside of government tend to be compensated based on the big years they have had. that's when you get a raise.

to me the men made slightly more x and y but the women dominated z fights to about a draw in terms of who should get paid more. to me it's straining to look at fairly even overall revenue, some years male led, some years women led, and what you get out of that data is the men win more years ergo pay them more. most other ways of weighing win some lose some, or the women having a huge year, would lean "push."

if you have to work this hard to make distinctions, they should probably make the same.

 

Except, as already noted, does that count as revenue generated by the USMNT when a hefty chunk of that revenue was generated because of the other teams in the competition.

 

Yes. Because the Copa Centennario does not happen unless the MNT is involved.

USSF gets nothing unless the USMNT is participating in the tournament. Therefore, it is revenue generated by the MNT. The WNT gets credit for invented Victory Tour tournaments and cups, but the MNT doesn't? Does there need to be a fan quota in order for the MNT to get any credit? Let's pretend that only 10% of that revenue is from USMNT fan involvement, which is quite low. That still means the MNT generated millions more in revenue than the WNT.

 

They want that $66 million. And they don't want the same pay-as-you-play contract the men have.

 

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. As the sanctioning body, the USSF gets a cut of every game played in the US by a non-USSF sanctioned league/competition. That's one of the reasons why Relevant Sports sued USSF after it refused to sanction the Ecuadorian league game they tried to bring to the US.

 

I don’t think US Soccer generates any money that is directly attributable to the Olympics. They don’t get a cut of the TV money and they don’t get any payments from FIFA or the IOC. There are no ticket sales for US Soccer either. The women’s team does get paid for the Olympics though, while the men’s team does not.

 

Has there ever been a competition held on US soil that the MNT or WNT were not involved in?

 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. Even if USSF doesn't get any money from the actual Olympics, they do get paid for the Olympic tune-up games (ticket revenue, media rights, sponsorships, etc). There's also the post Olympic victory tour, but I'm not sure how much USSF gets from that since its largely considered a bonus for the WNT. There's also going to be Olympics bonuses built into sponsorship deals and/or extra money flowing USSF's direction for advertising involving the WNT around and during the Olympics.

 

Competitions? Not sure, but there are a fair number of friendlies played in the US that don't involve a US team, all of which involve the USSF being paid a sanctioning fee.

 

The TV and sponsorship money is all bundled together so it’s hard to say it’s directly attributable to anything and I don’t believe there are any bonuses built into any of it based on team success. I think to the extent either team is successful it helps future sponsorship/media rights deals. I don’t know how much the the ticket revenue from the tune up games amounts too but I cant imagine it’s a substantial amount.

 

...Yes, but that's not really the same thing, is it? Lest you contend that, since the USSF gets a cut of all of the other tourney games that are played that don't involve the US, that neither team gets credit for the tournament itself? The MNT or WNT will only play a fraction of the games played on US soil during tournaments.

We don't have a breakdown of revenues generated from non-US games, and I suppose I'd presume that it's small enough not to be a line item if we can't find it. Or is rolled into that 30 million dollar fee that SUM pays to USSF. Or, maybe it's that the, say Panama and Costa Rican Feds get the lion's share of money for their GC games played on US soil.

Everyone always says we're playing in the US to make money. We wouldn't host the GC unless all the smaller countries weren't getting their beaks wet.

And, to perhaps clarify further, the USSF already makes money by hosting tournaments both here and overseas with the WNT. The Algarve Cup, the SheBelieves Cup, etc. Nobody questions whether or not the WNT has "earned" the USSF money in these competitions. Yet, since the MNT, and only the MNT-side of the sport, is able to host highly lucrative sporting competitions involving the MNT, all of a sudden that's cheating?

It's pretty clear that going forward it's not looking like the WNT is generating the revenues necessary to support the WNT's ever-increasing salary/bonus demands, so it's not going to be the WNT supporting the MNT (which AFAIK they never have), it's going to be the MNT revenues balancing the WNT's costs.

 

Not in the case of the Copa America.. The percentage of the revenue generated directly by the USMNT for that competition was relatively small. Even in the Gold Cup, it's primarily Mexico, with US pulling up a distant second. The fortunate reality for us is that the US is a massive economic draw and, as a result, we get a lot of games and competitions hosted here not because of the MNT, but because of the size of our economy and how much the organizers of those games/competitions can get from hosting it here.

 

Such a really super disingenuous talking point. That's like saying the USWNT only exists because the USMNT paved the way. Should the USMNT be the reason why the USWNT can generate their income?

 

The reality of the situation though is that the women wouldn't get called up as much and the money would be spread between more players...once they aren't contracted they won't get all the call ups.

 

You completely missed the point. I wasn't talking about how much the players are paid. This shows a rough estimate of how much revenue each team generates per game. I was merely showing that while the Women brought in more revenue than the Men did for the years 2016-2018, it was not by much. The women have claimed that they earn USSF more money. That's just simply not the case. Sure they brought in ~$2M more over those three years.....playing 20 more home games than their male counterparts.

 

This is the upside in the USSF proposal imo and one of the reasons why it works so well. The USWNT is an Old Girls Club, protecting established players so they can make more money and not focused on growing soccer in the US. Getting rid of that would be beneficial to the sport in our country.

 

Can someone explain how splitting a ‘pooled’ total men’s and women’s prize money works when qualifying is involved? If the men don’t qualify for the WC do they still get half of the women’s prize $ if they do?

I suppose they could do a ‘starting with the next WC approach and only pay half of the Men’s money out, assuming they US men qualify, holding half of the money for the women’s team, assuming they qualify. But the biggest variable in the women’s bonus money will be determined based on if the men qualify and how well they do.

this is very awkward. What am I missing