The problem with that is again was the way the contract was negotiated. MNT matches r almost always on ESPN or ESPN 2, it's only WNT and youth matches that get pushed to ESPN3. ESPN 3 should never have been put on the table as satisfying the TV rights contract. I would be willing to bet that all three SBC matches would have been on FS1 if ESPN had only had the choice of ESPN 2 or release the matches.
"satisfying the tv rights contract?" Does the existence of the contract force the network to broadcast every game they schedule? I assumed it forced them to pay for all the games whether they broadcast them or not...
The interesting part of that for me was apparently SUM doesnt make enough off NWSL to get to the point where they have to redistribute money. At this point what is the inclination for SUM to drive NWSL marketing higher when they r the only ones seeing a profit from it. Or did I read that wrong?
This could be the case, it's what Kate Fagen said in her ESPNW interview. I'm wondering if there is push back already from the Fed on these issues? The piece also stated the WNT are expected to bring in more revenue than the men in 2016 for the second year. I'm not exactly sure of this, with the Coppa though. if WNT wins gold and again have a large victory tour, then i'm sure they will bring in more revenue. If they don't place, I can't see this happening. I can't believe WNT don't get first class tickets at this point. However, the WNT gets a salary, benefits, pregnancy leave and the MNT do not.
The general deal the NWSL makes with FOX/ESPN is the owners pay production costs and the network shows the matches. The deal with MLS/MNT/WNT actually pays them money for the rights.
I still believe leverage point of this isnt to get equal pay but to make the powers that be decide if they want SUMs books opened up or they r willing to make contract concessions to make the case go away.
Do we have any info or reason to believe the fed wasn't willing to make concessions though? I'd love to know exactly what the team is asking for.
While that is true, wouldn't it seem to indicate the networks weren't interested in carrying NWSL games when SUM sold the MLS/MNT/WNT games? Again, SUM has no vested interest in including NWSL games in the package, so I'm not sure why they'd go out of their way to get NWSL games on TV as long as USSF didn't make it a requirement for them to do so.
I have read every post in this thread and am more confused than when I started. When it comes to matters of compensation I am about as egalitarian as it gets, but I do not understand what the argument is about. One of the first questions I have is about the SBC? The way I am reading the rights agreements posted above it would seem that the networks already owned the rights to SBC by virtue of their rights to USWNT. What am I missing here? If that is the case the old school single def streams we were watching was a Network choice. Had they wanted they could have aired it all in HD prime time. The NYT link in the opening post says it is an EEOC complaint for getting 40% less than the men. I don't have any numbers before me, but as long as their revenues are 40% less how is it unfair. The pie is smaller they are sharing is all. I thought that it was once a practice to provide a certain number of WNT players individual contracts. You know before there was a women's league..is that correct and is it still a practice? IIRC it was part of the reason we the saw the same old players past their sell by date. It is also worth a mention that the reason we are dominant force in woso is because of title IX. We if not the only one of very few countries that force our taxpayers to subsidize professional sports development leagues. As wrong as it may be, we do it in all sports. Until very recently our college women's teams were some of the only places in the world where players could play full time. If it is only about money it really looks as if they may be making the classic union mistake of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I also do not think that looking at revenues on a yearly basis is any kind of real or meaningful analysis. It really ought to be something based on WC cycles since revenue surely follows some similar track. If the women are generating more than the men then they ought to get more, but the converse is also true. The level of dominance in your sport is not what determines pay. A world champion surfer does not make what a world champion pitcher does. The phrase world champion is only relevant when comparing like to like, men's soccer players are not the same as women soccer players. One of the ironic things about the whole kerfuffle is that part of the problem with attendance is due to our multicultural society. If the men play any CA or SA team, that team's fans will buy any and all tickets not sold to US fans. Those same women could come here and they might have a mere smattering of fans in attendance. Take a 40k seat stadium, even if US fans were 25k at both games, the opposing team would have sell out the men but I think the women would still be 20k short.
At this stage of course no network will be interested in NWSL. But as that same article pointed out, when no network was willing to broadcast mls, what sum did was package the mls deal with the men's World Cup. And that paid off. Why can't the same be done for NWSL? Given that the current deal extends until 2022, NWSL will potentially have to go it alone up until that point when in effect their rights could have been sold along with the wnt at the very least. These are the little things that get lost in the argument when people compare both teams. The men are given all possible opportunities to be successful when the women aren't given the same.
Where are you getting the 2017 numbers? Let's go off actual numbers and not projections. What is the difference from 2010 to 2015?
For me what it comes down to is the big value part of that deal is MLS. While the NT r nice properties their biggest matches fall under other contracts. So it comes down to how much give and take would be involved in getting the NWSL added. Apparently SUM wasnt interested in reducing the value of the deal to get NWSL in there. I think the NWSL and WNT need to be packaged as a commodity since the main drawing card of the league at this point is the players the USSF pays for. If that was the starting point I think they would be included in the deal because the WNT friendlies would make up for the league being in infancy. Of course I have no way of knowing if this was tried.
We do know that their negotiator has repeatedly requested access to the SUM books so the union can see how much money comes out before their participation starts.
I would have preferred the SBC matches to be played on ESPNEWS alongside the ESPN3 platform, instead of airing the most recent dunk from the multitudes of basketball tournaments.
As to SBC its a friendly tournament as was Algarve so it is covered under the tv contract as opposed to a separate contract like a CONCACAF event or Olympics or WC. I dont think the problem with SBC was lead up time as the US probably opted out of Algarve in November or October. Simply, u are never getting WNT on ESPN2 in march because of college basketball while they r happy to dump it on ESPN3.
And that's a good idea. (even tho I dont get it ) but ESPN would be the people to complain to about that. They met their contractual responsibilities with ESPN3 tho I guess if they got enough complaints they might also throw it up on News or Classic. Squeeky wheel and all that. If the USSF had had the foresight they could have excluded this tournament from the contract and tried to sell it separately. Since neither network would have likely picked up Algarve in a non WC year, it wouldnt have been a subtraction from the offering.
http://www.soccernation.com/five-us...-the-equal-employment-opportunity-commission/ Edit: Here's a better link with the complete budget breakdown/projections. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-soccer-equal-pay_us_56fd37e3e4b0daf53aeee5d7
How can we be positive ESPN met their contractual obligation? Is there language in there that states espn3 is an allowed outlet for wnt matches?
The US federation should invest in women's soccer so it becomes as popular as men's. That's how to create equality. Now that I think of it, 2015 Women's World Cup TV ratings were high. That's a strong argument in their favour.
You don't need to do a different TV deal, they just need to indicate each commodity's (i.e., team's) worth separately in the contract, either as a percentage or dollar amount. On a side note, it seems to me that Donald Garber did a terrific job marketing the growth of pro soccer for the men in the US via SUM. Having said that, I think the WNT would be better served by finding their own marketing agent or agency. However, from a synergy standpoint, I would still keep TV deals combined with all soccer teams and leagues (men's and women's) together, as I believe it's in the best interest of all parties involved. The only difference I would make, again, is to separate out the worth of each league or NT deal, so revenue sharing is more proportionate. Finally, opening my browser today to Google News Sports and seeing that the first headline (from the NY Times yet) was about WOSO, I couldn't help thinking to myself, "there is no such thing as bad publicity and any publicity is good publicity." This can be a hidden boon for soccer, in general, if SUM and USSF handle it correctly.
The contract should have said that all women's matches should air on TV channels available at 60 million homes.
As I said I dont think this is about money...I think it's about respect. I think they like the setup they have + 20% or whatever they usually get. I think they r insulted that men get to dictate playing surface, get better traveling conditions, better hotels. Are they going to be using the same compound in Brazil as Olympics home base? I think this is about them getting their noses rubbed in it.