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

The money gets awarded to the team. This implies it's up to the team to decide the split. And why would the female half necessarily get less than the male half? A male grinder might take less to team up with a female superstar: take a lower percentage of the cut in turn for better odds of winning the whole thing.

What is known is the money gets awarded to the team. That's what the tournament sites I've checked state.

Because it's interesting to you the point doesn't matter? OK.

 

part of the game here is also do not talk about what women make in france playing soccer where they are more prized. so the sexism is kind of baked into the cake here already. let's debate pay in terms of how americans pay women's soccer players. if they would freely release our women to play 25-30 NT games around their league, NWSL would empty out.

 

and are you going to acknowledge that the real reason things were skewed is not quality or the like, but that at one point it was an old sport for one set, who were highly successful and pulled ticket sales, and then in a new sport you had the women being pulled along, newly successful but barely attended. the two converged economically over time and that justification no longer flies.

in parallel, in most sports where men and women play in the same events, and men made more, they tended to be back in less lucrative days, less money to play with, and higher attendance for men. sports is now swimming in money. people show up to watch women play. they don't have to skew to save a buck. they don't have to skew to reflect revenues. they can pay equal and have a huge surplus left. there is no real reason left other than tradition or your sexist idea we ignore equal economics, or higher performance in their class, and go back to men are better than women. when that doesn't show up in the economics anymore. and this is not do we make them a bigger trophy. this is payment. divorcing that completely from economics is weird.

 

i mean, my sense is in about every sport with separate leagues and levels, elite women outpace mediocre men at a point. because of their value within their structure. regardless of attendance and whether that man is better at soccer in some abstracted sense. you're pretending it's all merit in some unisex way. no. someone with a women's team sees the value in carli lloyd to them. even if you underpaid women, at a point someone with a women's franchise needs a woman, not a man, and sees the value in the best.

and then in plenty of lower earning sports like skiing, it's all pretty even.

skewing usually happens when money begins getting involved. irony here, the revenue is even.

 

going back full circle, one thing you're missing here is you can make this argument on a bulletin board, but try broadcasting to the world your theory men are simply better and will be paid accordingly in US soccer. when you're supposed to be promoting both teams equally.

there are arguments that have a kernel of truth but are contrary to your core mission such that it is destructive to make them. a company sued for sexist pay can fight to the death over it legally, maybe win, but if they have made a big mission statement within the company of promoting women, you lose your soul to win the case. and you would be perceived as sexist pigs and get bad PR with x% of the country. none of this improves our image or promotes the game. i don't think it in the slightest further motivates the women, who already win the world cup. what purpose does this serve other than asserting some sort of ayn rand contract principle. let's smear ourselves in poop to the public, but maybe we'll win our point in court. and meanwhile the lawyers' meters are running.

you make this argument you're saying to young girls, you will never be equal, we won't pay you thusly even if you win the world cup, and get used to it.

surely you get the reason cordeiro went away and parlow just got the interim job is they see exactly what i just said. this looks like hell.

 

Why not pay each team the same percentage of gate receipts +TV outlays? Then its up to each team to prove itself the greater commercial success.

 

This might be a good idea going forward, but it can't be done during the period at issue in the litigation, because US soccer has previously chosen to bundle men's national team, women's national team, and MLS TV rights, without allocating the amount earned by each.

 

dude, we are not negotiating how the team gets paid for TV viewership or something. this is salary for individuals. not a team contract.

this is sports. athletes are paid a salary, not revenue sharing percentage. the revenues are similar enough that trying to create some formula to pay men and women different only opens you up to pain. this is sports, not a sales commission. you make me about the same money, you're a worse team in a harder version of the sport, you are the best in the world at the easier version. wash. same rate and you will never be accused of discrimination while it's in place.

i would only bother considering divergence again if a massive revenue disparity emerged. otherwise you are borrowing trouble.

also, people can and will sue over whether they get the right percentage. i was watching What About Bob the other day and read Dreyfus sued them over whether he got the right cut of the money. you do not want to make this into an accounting exercise that can be debated. you want, i owe you x and have paid you that amount. and at present there is no business disparity worth risking another lawsuit for.

 

i also think if we are trying to incentivize the MEN we might want the focus back on sporting criteria as opposed to paying them depending on how the business runs. you get paid to show up. you get x as a win bonus. you get paid y to qualify. you get paid z for how far you go at the world cup. they earn what they do.

i also think some of the business discussion forgets this is a national team as a charity and not a business for profit. you want some room to say that more of this money should go to development and the kids. not locking yourself into a commercial revenue share.

 

AFAIK, the USMNT hasn't been salaried in several years, if not several WC cycles. Another indication that e.e. cummings is out of his depth.

 

They are not selected based on whether they would help the opposite sex team. They are selected based on whether they help their particular team. They are then paid based on appearances and team success. The revenues are similar where a sense of whose level is higher is immaterial or a sideshow. Your argument is sexist perseveration posing as objectivity. Normally if I was more recognized at my job than a colleague in terms of industry awards, and brought in as much revenue, it would be considered HIGHLY PETTY to try and reopen who the actually more talented one really is. By the normal criteria you are even or second best.

 

oh spare me. your first shallow substance is this?

they get paid if they appear. they get paid if they win. those bonus amounts are greater than the salary the women get. you want to parse that as "bonus?" fine. it's not. they appear 10-15 times a year maybe. we call that salary for the women, but funny their salary is also per game. her "salary" is "capped." his higher "bonus" is not.

people with a brain can look past the labels slapped on things to see what they actually are.

 

bull. your resume and GPA and the like sort you at the start. someone with one pedigree goes to wall street, medical school, etc. and makes more money. someone who may be just as smart but didn't show it ends up at a lesser station. this plays out on initial salary. and all due respect but the name on your last job opens doors if you need a new one.

and he was the one saying that GPA somehow related to soccer, not me.

my point back was that by objective terms they won their world cup, we didn't, and the revenue is similar. if we are going to break down to objective criteria, it would be those sort of stats of how you do as a team, and not 40 yard dash times, bench presses, juggles, or who looks better at soccer. even though it's true, it doesn't matter unless it shows up in viewership or how much or little they succeed in objective terms.

once the revenues converged, it ceased to be relevant that the men play a harder game better. annualized, the consumer doesn't care. per game, yes. but over the course of more games the busier women bring in the same money. i then don't care if the men would be the more talented sales people with bigger accounts.

 

Are you certain? Someone who remembers...what was the name of that required IRS filing denoting the highest-compensated employees?

It is, definitionally, non-salaried compensation.

I have numbers on this, as well as the annual player pool sizes.

The USWNTPA explicitly negotiated a different, guaranteed method of compensation. Due to the drastically different nature of the player pools and numbers/types of matches, and of course the different CBAs, there is differing compensation afforded to a given player.

 

i am at a loss how this is threatening to the men like it seems. in theory, their salary wouldn't go down, the women's would go up to match. the people who don't play might get paid. the men might make less after bonuses from this stream, but they make far more in their professional life. so sad. and all the men have to do is up their game to match the female bonuses.

 

I'd stick with they 'they can't jump as high argument' because none of this matters...at all. I love the they don't earn the same...well they did but anyway that doesn't count because the men's team lost in a really difficult venue against a top notch opponent(apparently, because concacaf is exactly one team deep and that team is barely above average).

 

so the usmnt team deserves more then the uswnt team because in nigeria they care more about the men's team?

again the question is...why do you care though? the women making more doesn't hurt you so why do you care? or does the idea of women making more hurt you?

 

well yeah I mean nobody even knows who serena williams is....can anyone name the top american mens player?

 

you're playing a lawyer game and not a real world one. if a woman plays in a game it's called salary. they are not allowed more than 100k of it. if a man plays in a game it's called a bonus. no limit. they agreed to the labels but that will not be the shield you think it is. not in a case on are they compensated equally or discriminated on sex.

and what you continue to miss is that freedom of contract does not rule the day. if i talk the women into a far lesser deal for the same services the court is not going to believe that they started with the same compensation and chose different things. i don't buy that one making double the other, and the one making half having the cap, SOUNDS LIKE THE WOMEN WERE EVER GOING TO BE PAID ANYWHERE NEAR EQUAL, STARTING, FINISHING, HOWEVER.

for your argument to work, they have to be paid roughly the same and make different choices that trade off income. that. is. not. what. happened.

all due respect but if you paid your white janitors $10/hr and your black janitors $6/hr, because they used to be in separate unions, it is not going to fly that each group separately signed up for what they got. if the disparity there is big enough, you haven't shown freedom of contract, you've proved discrimination before you even start.

cordeiro is gone because this is an ugly PR dog of a lawsuit in which they had begun to make gross arguments to try and save themselves. at a point, stop digging. i know this is contrary to your sense of business and politics. this is an idiotic lawsuit to fight. you will probably pay the disparity in legal fees to lose the case and then pay the disparity again as damages. and make USSF look like a bunch of sexist pigs while you do it.

i expect parlow to get it settled. why do you hire a former WNT to be the new president now? because you are going to lose the case and look like hell. settle and clean up your PR mess. and next time you think about making politically explosive stands to try and save a buck, think twice.

 

how many teams "take it serious" is even worse than "how well they play the game." you might find people willing to stick out their neck on men's soccer is harder and the athletes better. there isn't going to be much of an objective way of proving how hard teams try. again, even if it's true.

and you're also getting dangerously close to saying one world cup is better than the other, which again is the "better athlete" equivalent where it looks sexist just to say it, and it's contrary to the sales pitch made to every girl starting soccer at age 5.

if you feel compelled to argue this you have already lost.

 

Federal Form 990 Part VII

 

from sweden forward the USWNT won their games by no more than 2 goals, 3 one goal squeakers, 2 two goal wins. too easy? how is that even measured? every knockout was a decent game, all stayed within 3 goals, and there were few of those.

granted, there was a "thailand," but that was literally the only mismatch of its type in the tourney. did Saudi Arabia belong in Russia? Panama?

i also don't know if you want to open this portal with a US team losing by 4 to CR, 4 to argentina, 3 to England, 3 to mexico, not qualifying. in case you forgot a team that beat us to qualifying got beat by 5 in russia by england. trying to say concacaf is a cakewalk might blow up in your face based on how russia went. ever considered in your scenario we're like the mexico women?

 

tautology. the fact they fill out forms to claim it in a certain way just means that's how they would like it to be treated. it doesn't mean that's what it is.

surely you grasp that there is a running debate on whether someone is an employee or independent contractor even if you say 20x you are my independent contractor. the label doesn't necessarily rule the day. duh.