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

It will make a profit but the USSF and the hosting cities may not see that profit directly.

"FIFA could not provide a basic level of certainty on some major unknowns that put our city and taxpayers at risk," the statement said.

"The uncertainty for taxpayers, coupled with FIFA's inflexibility and unwillingness to negotiate, were clear indications that further pursuit of the bid wasn't in Chicago's best interests."

Montreal doesn't think it's worth the investment.

Los Angeles is said to have generated $623 million from the 1994 World Cup but that seems generous. In the meantime FIFA has got a lot wiser about maximizing its own profits.

 

As I understand it FIFA, for the first time, is not allowing the 2026 host countries to organize the World Cup. They are doing this to capture more revenue for FIFA rather than the host country getting it. I welcome being corrected on this but if I am following the story correctly then it is a huge unknown whether the USSF will make much if any money. It all seems to be a big open question. Frankly, I think the USA made a huge mistake not securing these type of issues in their bid contract (assuming there is one.) I would not be upset if USSF looked at FIFA right now and told them to contractually guarantee revenue streams or find another host.

 

What do you mean by "if I am following the story correctly then it is a huge unknown whether the USSF will make much if any money."? No federation ever made money from hosting the FIFA's World Cup, ever! At least not directly, as I said, increase in fan base might turn into financial benefit for the USSF.

Every single WC related revenue goes to FIFA (just look up 2018 FIFA financial report). WC related TV rights, Marketing, Licensing, Hospitality and Tickets all goes 100% to FIFA. What made you think USSF would be able to get a piece of the action?

You act like US had a choice in this... If you want to host the WC this is the deal. If US didn't like it there were others countries willing to host the cup. All parties involved in joint bid (US/Mexico/Canada) knew this.

I am sure US/Mexico/Canada will host a very successful WC.

 

Ever is a long time. The USSF didn't profit directly but US soccer did.

A surplus of approximately $50 million — more than double original projections — was contributed to the U.S. Soccer Foundation, the U.S. Soccer organization created to administer the [1994] World Cup surplus.

https://www.ussoccer.com/history/us-soccer-as-host/1994-fifa-world-cup

 

True. I did mention that FIFA does give money to hosting nation (I believe though the local WC organization) to help in the hosting costs (115 mm US$ nowadays). But these aren't directly linked to WC revenue and I am not sure how any eventual surplus are dealt with (returned to FIFA - goes to the federation).

For some reason DonJuego expected USSF to get a windfall from hosting FIFA WC. This is a misunderstanding on his part about the benefits (or the lack of) from hosting WCs. I was just pointing out FIFA owns all the rights related to WC/WWC.

 

Under FIFA rules, does a federation have any ability to make such demands? Or is it essentially operate similar to a subsidiary / franchise to the FIFA HQ? Is there a process to federations to band together to propose and enact new policies? Or if a federation chooses to act independently, they can choose to leave FIFA and become independent, similar to college soccer?

I ask these questions as they may be very relevant to the topic as USSF has triggered the significant settlement payout and the recent comments highlight the challenges USSF may face with indirect revenue streams and costs. The deal also extends the federations as the primary employer for the WNT. How many other federations use this model and is it widely supported by FIFA and other major federations?

As for FIFA's increased role with World Cup, aren't they replicating how other major sports act when they schedule their games to be played overseas. If FIFA already has contact with those that execute on Super Bowls and Formula 1 events, why wouldn't it work direct? Not trying to be combative, but isn't realistic that professional clubs that execute on a weekly basis will have a greater role for a organization that has an event every 4 years. If it exists, use it; when it didn't exist, use a volunteer army from federations.

 

I am referring to this:

- Grant Wahl from his May 21, 2022 Newsletter

This has been reported elsewhere also.

So, I'm not trying to argue with you or say your wrong. I just think you misunderstand my point. Maybe it was unartfully stated by me. If FIFA is "retain"ing more money it is coming from someone else's pocket. The implication here is that they enhanced money for FIFA is coming directly from what would have gone to USSF related entities. Whether it is payment to a USSF organizing committee or revenue was never the point or relevant.

You read way to much into my statement. I never claimed a "windfall" as you state.

 

yeah ur clearly not offended

he did give you additional info and you replied refusing to consider it because it hurt ur narrative and then finally admitted you didn't fully understand the topic lol.

like I said nobody was trying to hurt ur feelings

 

This is nice.

 

yes, I misunderstood what you meant on your earlier post:

I thought you were actually expecting USSF to get revenue from co-hosting the 2026 WC.

 

Too bad about Montreal as it is a great city for a summer tournament but I don't blame them. The requirements and financial outlay for a host city and stadium can be onerous. They were burned by some foolish infrastructure design as part of Olympic Stadium for 1976 Olympics and are still paying for it.

 

Some good background on the deal from the USMNT side

https://sports.yahoo.com/how-usmnt-...7Nz492htTZpRgUE06y6MlUAAMbyEnN6sthkSIJZZN3Tml

 

According to this article there have been federations making profit just not lately: https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/from-1994-to-2020-the-economic-legacy-of-the-world-cup

It looks like @DonJuego is correct that FIFA is gaining more and more money.

 

Interesting read, thank you.

I didn't know FIFA allowed Korea/Japan to keep the ticket sales in 2002. Everything I read about hosting the WC is how host countries only get the cost and FIFA all the money, I guess it is biased reporting from Brazil.

It isn't clear where the profit from 94 and 06 came from "Similar to the US, Germany pumped its €56.6m in profit into the German Football League". I guess it was LOC allocated money, FIFA gave to help with costs. It is interesting also that on both occasions the "profit" didn't go to the Federation but to the league.

Not sure why FIFA won't work with LOC this time. Multiple host countries, difference in preparation costs?

IMHO, FIFA should let hosting nations keep the hospitality and ticket sales.

 

Some notable points in Henry Bushnell's article, which is from Wednesday, June 1:

1. The key objective for the Men seemed to be to avoid any possible situation where splitting money with the Women would result in a lower floor in World Cup bonuses if the Men fizzle out in the Group Stage, compared to a situation where the Men had negotiated their CBA separately. Given the disparities in pay among the players from guys like Pulisic to players in MLS or lower paid leagues, IMO this was the correct area to prioritize.
2. Players specifically mentioned as being involved in group discussions to determine the Men's objectives are Turner, S. Johnson, Steffen, Zimmerman, Long, Ream, Adams, McKennie, Arriola, and Pulisic. Zimmerman was the leader, and he left the negotiating in sessions with the Women's team to Men's player association executive director Mark Levinson.
3. Finally, Bushnell notes that sources indicated to him that the Men's players, with their "lucrative club salaries", perhaps weren't as invested in the day-to-day talks. He specifically mentions this in the context of why the Men's players left joint negotiations with the Women's players to Levinson. But I suspect that this point could be read more broadly, and that it was a factor in why the Men were willing to make a deal as long as #1 was achieved.

Bushnell indicates that the deal goes into effect on Wednesday after a meeting on Friday [today] in Kansas City, so I think that means it goes into effect on June 8.

 

Thought it was interesting that Walker Zimmerman told me he might be the 1st USMNT player to end up using the childcare provision of the new CBA and bring his 1-year-old to camp: https://t.co/rMrKyqpMi8 pic.twitter.com/FFos1LJ8tO

— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) June 3, 2022

 

it was before that lol

-you posted a video that left out very important facts making it not a complete reality of the situation

-you challenged anyone to prove you wrong

-he did by posting a video that included the very important missing topics

-you replied saying it didnt count because you don't understand what those things mean so that somehow makes you right lol

all I am saying is there was no reason to get upset or offended when he posted his reply or challenged ur opinion and really no reason to be upset at me about it.

 

ur literally misunderstanding everything I am saying. I am saying you shouldn't be upset about it, relax, its ok, move on....but you just can't.

its ok relax its supposed to be fun in no way should you feel shamed, beaten, made to look silly or dumb.

its ok

relax bro

 

I though you had multiple personality disorder until I realized that I have the person you're debating with on ignore.

 

New contract with USMNT is causing headache for Canadian Federation as they claim not to be able to afford % of prize money allocated to players as US. Canadian players decided not to train Friday to express displeasure over contract dispute.

https://www.tsn.ca/canadian-men-s-world-cup-soccer-team-1.1808740