With all due respect, the high level men's games more often than not play a low line of pressure. So I disagree with your theory here. It is all relative to your opponent as well. The women are much more skilled than their peers, while our men are behind their peers.
By your definition of work, which is different than mine, the value the women provide is much higher than the men. See World and Olympic Championships vs not qualifying for the World Cup. And you dismiss my factual statement that women have to train as hard as men to be ahead of their peers without any supporting argument. It is not about women vs men on the pitch. The US women's results are the best in the world. They train their asses off to get there. The US men's results are average. They train their asses off to get there. What is the difference?
That doesn't change the equation tho. The USWNT lawsuit is that USSF is violating gender equity laws by paying the women less than the men. USSF's argument is that the women and men are not performing the same work, so therefore they do not have to pay the women the same as the men. This means that USSF could pay the women more than the men if they wanted to.
Weird, because the (otherwise excellent) finish by Press that gets used as an example showed that the Japanese defense was not only soft, but barely existent. No men's game in the world at a professional level affords a central striker that kind of time and space. This in particular is beside the point.
The value is exactly what the sponsors and spectators believe it to be. It completely depends on how you quantify "train".
Runhard and Youshou appear to know the difference between a legal issue and an argument about what is right or wrong. If posters truly want to understand what's going on in the lawsuit, I suggest they read Runhard's and Youshou's comments with a view to learning something. Regarding the FIFA payouts for Men's v Women's World Cup results, there's a fact that some posters are ignoring. The FIFA payouts do not go to the men and they are not required to be passed on to the men. Rather, they go to the national organization, in other words the USSF for the United States. How the USSF distributes that money is completely up to the USSF. One of the things the USSF appears to have said, in their "offer" to the women (which was to pay equal to the now-expired men's contract), is that it does not apply to the distribution of revenue from FIFA World Cup payouts. Thus USSF's offer asks the FIFA payouts to be treated as though the USSF does not control the distribution of those payouts. The women's aren't buying that and appear to have said FIFA's position on that is a non-starter so far as negotiations are concerned. Interesting to me is that the argument cuts both ways, meaning it could apply to the FIFA payout for the Women's as well as the Men's World Cup. But fundamentally, the women appear to be telling the USSF that if you're going to pay a male player X if they win the World Cup then you have to play a female player X if they win the World Cup. What this means, hypothetically, is that if the women and men both won the World Cup in a year and the US men's total payout was Y and the US women's was Z, then the total of Y+Z would go into a single pot and the men and women each would get the same amount out of that pot (although the USSF likely would be arguing that not all of the amount in the pot should go to the players, some of it should go to support other USSF programs). The USSF could do this. It doesn't want to and, so far, has refused to entertain the possibility. Thus the two sides are at a stalemate with both sides refusing to budge on this issue.
Runhard and Youshou appear to know the difference between a legal issue and an argument about what is right or wrong. If posters truly want to understand what's going on in the lawsuit, I suggest they read Runhard's and Youshou's comments with a view to learning something. Regarding the FIFA payouts for Men's v Women's World Cup results, there's a fact that some posters are ignoring. The FIFA payouts do not go to the men and they are not required to be passed on to the men. Rather, they go to the national organization, in other words the USSF for the United States. How the USSF distributes that money is completely up to the USSF. One of the things the USSF appears to have said, in their "offer" to the women (which was to pay equal to the now-expired men's contract), is that it does not apply to the distribution of revenue from FIFA World Cup payouts. Thus USSF's offer asks the FIFA payouts to be treated as though the USSF does not control the distribution of those payouts. The women's aren't buying that and appear to have said FIFA's position on that is a non-starter so far as negotiations are concerned. Interesting to me is that the argument cuts both ways, meaning it could apply to the FIFA payout for the Women's as well as the Men's World Cup. But fundamentally, the women appear to be telling the USSF that if you're going to pay a male player X if they win the World Cup then you have to play a female player X if they win the World Cup. What this means, hypothetically, is that if the women and men both won the World Cup in a year and the US men's total payout was Y and the US women's was Z, then the total of Y+Z would go into a single pot and the men and women each would get the same amount out of that pot (although the USSF likely would be arguing that not all of the amount in the pot should go to the players, some of it should go to support other USSF programs). The USSF could do this. It doesn't want to and, so far, has refused to entertain the possibility. Thus the two sides are at a stalemate with both sides refusing to budge on this issue.
Your explanation of the payouts from Fifa is good. If that is the case, US Soccer should offer that to the women today and get this settled. All money from Fifa tournaments goes into one pot and then split equally for all players. This would more than likely help the men more than the women. When the men fail to qualify for another WC (hope not but they suck right now) the men will still get paid after the women win the WC. A percentage of 5 million is still something. If the men ever win a WC (no chance) the women could share in that 30 million payout as well. ( it won't be these women but maybe girls that are now 4 and 5 years old). We just settled this entire thing. Edit to add maybe I spoke to soon. Do the women want US Soccer to pay them 30 million if they win the world cup like Fifa does for the men's winner? If that is the case, I don't see how this get's settled. That would be taking away a lot of money from other US Soccer supported programs. If what there asking for is an equal split of whatever Fifa pays to US soccer based on the US teams results, then that should absolutely be split even and this thing gets settled.
But, that does not translate or compare. Marta is considered extremely skilled. So, was Pele. You must compare them with their peers. If a College player is stronger and faster than Pele and Marta it does not mean that he is a legend. Likewise, Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo aren't the fastest or strongest player. The male game is established has a larger player pool, a long and storied history. I do find it more entertaining but it isn't due to faster and stronger players. I prefer female Volleyball and Tennis game because the male version became too fast and powerful I find the female skill set more diverse in those sports.
I have no idea where you and I disagree. I think you misapprehend what I was saying. Time and space matter greatly to the use of and application of skill.
Norway FA decided to split FIFA and UEFA money between the teams back in 2017. Maybe, with a new mandate and popular/sponsor pressure, this can happen in the US also. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...pay-deal-for-womens-team-shows-it-can-be-done But I'm not 100% sure about that. To be brutally honest I can't see a male Top 15 team doing the same. It would require an enormous pay cut from the men's side. The case is messier when you take into account male NT that does not constantly qualify for the WC and have strong female teams.
Posting as a reminder of the FIFA World Cup Payouts Difficult to see a compromise, given the magnitude of disparity.
They should get paid commensurate to their ability to draw a crowd and generate revenue. They are fully capable of doing this on merit. However a few radicalized bullies have chosen to extort their way to riches. I will no longer watch a USWNT match. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-carlos-cordeiro-caves-to-fake-sexism-outrage
It's also worth noting that the US is unique among nearly all established soccer nations in compensating BOTH sides at the federation level. In other words, the US National Teams are vastly overpaid compared with most peers. This is an artifact of the 1920s/30s Soccer Wars and the subsequent 40 years of nothingness after Belo Horizonte.
But that is my question? What compromise are they looking for? Do they want US soccer to make up the difference in what Fifa pays? If that harms other US soccer programs would they be OK with that? What if they have to cut the U14-U19 Girls National teams? Or at least get them together much less and have play far fewer tournaments? Are the USWNT players OK with taking the money from US soccer if it comes on the back of the youth teams? I agree that is a big difference, but not sure US Soccer can do anything about it. Maybe they should sue FIFA or refuse to play in FIFA events?
That is a really bad comparison. WC is huge and has been a financial success for many years. It is a cash cow for FIFA. Fifa's Club World Cup is a slap in the face for the women's request for significant investment, IMHO. It is a yearly Cup and prize award is significant compared with WWC (4-year event) "The reintroduction of the match for fifth place for the 2008 competition also prompted an increase in prize money by US$500,000 to a total of US$16.5 million." This means FIFA will pony up 66 million (7 teams "cup") over a four year period for a competition that doesn't have the same meaning as the WWC... WWC prize money is 30 million for 24 teams. Fifa does not make a profit with Club WC... They could at least match the prize money.
Considering the reaction to expanding the player pool, coaches who expand the player pool and NWSL wanting to raise salaries, I would say the USWNT is perfectly okay with more money and really don't give a damn who they hurt in the process.
not responding to you directly. Just point out that compering WC and WWC prize money isn't really reasonable.
Ah, okay. It most certainly not reasonable. I have no idea why he bothered posting that as if it had something to do with the current suit other than as supporting evidence to a non-primary argument.
The short answer is that he was showing the disparity between WWC and MWC cash prizes. Usually this is part of the argument to support why the WNT's bonuses are less than the MNT's. *shrug*
But how USSF codifies those bonuses in the CBAs is entirely up to USSF. As they are currently written, the WNT's WC bonuses are based on the payouts for the WWC and the MNT's WC bonuses are based on the payouts for the MWC and this structure is one of the arguments the WNT is using to show inequity between the WNT and MNT pay. As mentioned previously, other federations have have it written in their CBAs that those bonuses go into a bucket and then are divvied out equally to their MNT and WNT.
And, however the FIFA payouts are divied up as between the men's and women's World Cup players (including possibly by formula based on World Cup results), the USSF is not required to pay all the money to the World Cup players. Instead, it can use some of it for soccer develpment. For those who are concerned about the possible loss of funds for soccer development, if the men achieve a large payout in the World Cup, are you advocating that their take from that should be reduced to the level of what the women get from their World Cup results, with the balance going to soccer development?