BREAKING NEWS! US Womens National Team (Soccer) Players Make MORE Money Than Men!!!!

Can’t help but wonder if you read beyond the headline.

The men are paid more per game. The men have higher bonuses in their contracts for apples-to-apples accomplishments.

The difference, over about a decade, is that the women actually win and earn bonuses while the men suck up the joint. That doesn’t alter the fact that the women are paid or offered less per game, win, tournament result, and championship.

Consider, as a hypothetical, if I say two genders can earn equal money but gender A must appear in 3 games and gender B must WIN 10 games, it is gender discrimination even if gender B actually wins the 10 games. I can’t claim that equity was achieved. It would have only occurred through performance of the laborers and in spite of a disparate pay structure not because of fairness by the employer.

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Entity being sued releases one sided interpretation of numbers that support their position! Supporters of said position agree with interpretation!

I didn't take a position on this ;) The numbers can be (and are) skewed to which ever side of the argument you fall on.

antifemminism wrote:

women: want to be treated the same as men

*gets called a dude*

*women: heeeeeyyyyyyyyy that's illegal you patriarchs

Illegal?

I NEED TO SPEAK TO A MANAGER THIS IS ABSURD

Sometime soon a bunch of dudes will realize it will be easy to identify as female and start earning a good living playing on the women’s team

I should have quoted the original post which stated that the women’s team should be deported.

It seems irrational to pay ppl to play soccer (kick-ball), when they lose -$27m in net profit over the last 11 years.

But they call it an investment?

RossiCheated wrote:

Can’t help but wonder if you read beyond the headline.

The men are paid more per game. The men have higher bonuses in their contracts for apples-to-apples accomplishments.

The difference, over about a decade, is that the women actually win and earn bonuses while the men suck up the joint. That doesn’t alter the fact that the women are paid or offered less per game, win, tournament result, and championship.

Consider, as a hypothetical, if I say two genders can earn equal money but gender A must appear in 3 games and gender B must WIN 10 games, it is gender discrimination even if gender B actually wins the 10 games. I can’t claim that equity was achieved. It would have only occurred through performance of the laborers and in spite of a disparate pay structure not because of fairness by the employer.

Am I wrong to interrupt that the issue is that the men's team is still bringing in more revenue despite providing a significantly worse product?

The women have a base salary. The men don’t. The women’s WC generates $80 million. The men’s $400m The women national team matches generate $400k in revenue per game. The man $900k The women receive a higher % of the total revenue than the men. There’s a massive difference in the popularity and revenue.

RossiCheated wrote:

Can’t help but wonder if you read beyond the headline.

The men are paid more per game. The men have higher bonuses in their contracts for apples-to-apples accomplishments.

The difference, over about a decade, is that the women actually win and earn bonuses while the men suck up the joint. That doesn’t alter the fact that the women are paid or offered less per game, win, tournament result, and championship.

Consider, as a hypothetical, if I say two genders can earn equal money but gender A must appear in 3 games and gender B must WIN 10 games, it is gender discrimination even if gender B actually wins the 10 games. I can’t claim that equity was achieved. It would have only occurred through performance of the laborers and in spite of a disparate pay structure not because of fairness by the employer.

Yes, and no. Yes, they are bringing in more revenue. No, it's not because the men are a significantly worse product. Economically, the men are a better product than the women. People are supporting the men's team far more than the women's team for reasons other than the win-loss record. Economics, in this case, has nothing to do with win-loss.

But you're right to point out that revenue plays a big role.

Basically, women negotiated different pay, and now are whineing.

U.S. Women’s National Team Compensation & U.S. Soccer Investments in Women’s Soccer

This fact sheet is based on U.S. Soccer staff’s extensive analysis of the past 10 years of U.S. Soccer’s financials, which include Form 990 filings with the IRS, as well as financial statements that have been audited yearly by an independent accounting firm. This analysis also included the women’s and men’s respective collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and salary information, based on actual player W-2 filings and player payroll, which are routinely reviewed by the Players’ Associations. This fact sheet is the result of that analysis; this fact sheet, in turn, has been reviewed by an independent accounting firm.

COMPENSATION

Over the past decade, U.S. Soccer has paid our Women’s National Team more than our Men’s National Team. From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million—not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not. There are several reasons for this:

Different pay structures—Our men and women national team players do indeed have different pay structures, but this has nothing to do with gender.Rather, each of the teams have negotiated for different compensation models under their respective collective bargaining agreements. For example…

Guaranteed salary for women—Under their CBA, the women have chosen to have a guaranteed salary; U.S. Soccer therefore pays each WNT contracted player a base salary of $100,000 per year. (In contrast, the men’s national team players have no guaranteed salary and are only paid for the training camps they attend and the games they play, plus game bonuses.) In addition, U.S. Soccer also pays WNT contracted players a $67,500-$72,500 salary for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League. In other words, U.S. Soccer guarantees WNT contracted players who also play in the NWSL a base salary of $167,500-$172,500 per year, atop which they can earn game and tournament bonuses.

Guaranteed benefits for women—Above and beyond the guaranteed salaries mentioned above, U.S. Soccer provides our women players with a robust package of benefits that are not provided to the men. These benefits include fully-paid health, dental and vision insurance; severance; a 401(k) retirement plan; paid maternity leave; guaranteed injury protection; and assistance with childcare. Again, under their contract, our men’s players receive none of these benefits.

Support for Women’s National Team Games— One metric that can be measured directly is the revenue that our women’s and men’s teams generate, on average, game by game. From 2009 through 2019—a timeframe that includes two Women’s World Cup championships—the Women’s National Team has earned gross revenue of $101.3 million over 238 games, for an average of $425,446 per game, and the Men’s National Team has earned gross revenue of $185.7 million over 191 games, for an average of $972,147 per game. More specifically, WNT games have generated a net profit (ticket revenues minus event expenses) in only two years (2016 and 2017).Across the entire 11-year period, WNT games generated a net loss of $27.5 million. Nevertheless, U.S. Soccer does not view these as losses, but rather as an important investment in our Women’s National Team and in the long-term growth of women’s soccer.

I've heard it explained that the discrepancy are the broadcast deals that each team is able to get. If the networks are paying X dollars more for men than women, then really the "bad guys" are the networks, not the national federation. It's a business ultimately, and you can't get paid more than you actually have.

The networks can’t pay any more than their advertising brings in. Corporations won’t pay top dollar for TV spots if nobody is watching. Nobody watching means less money.

The issue is that it’s not as popular. Same with WNBA and women’s hockey.

Yes they work hard. So do garbage men and ditch diggers.

wastely wrote:

It seems irrational to pay ppl to play soccer (kick-ball), when they lose -$27m in net profit over the last 11 years.

But they call it an investment?

Umm yup - lots of companies lose money to start - uber has been around for that long and they still lose a ton of money. Plenty of people invest in them.

If you look at the broader market - girls and womens soccer is quite the growth industry. Now that may or may not translate to future profits but (at least in the US) it seems like a reasonable thought.

As far as equal pay - I would think the women have done a much better job of marketing themselves (through mostly their own success) as I find it likely that the average american can name more women on the national team and likely have stronger feelings towards those players than the men's national team.

So... You swallow repeatedly proven republican lies, terrorism, and literal propaganda; Regurgitating it back out worse than an newborn. All while claiming that supported facts and reality are fake news and thus makes the media liberal. Go home and stay off teh interwebz forever.

Going even further. wrote:

The networks can’t pay any more than their advertising brings in. Corporations won’t pay top dollar for TV spots if nobody is watching. Nobody watching means less money.

The issue is that it’s not as popular. Same with WNBA and women’s hockey.

Yes they work hard. So do garbage men and ditch diggers.

Except that more watch the USWNT than the USMNT based on television ratings. The networks are making a killing because they are paying less for broadcasting the USWNT despite getting more views (ad companies probably doing well additionally).

The USA women’s Soccer Team is universally hated.