Well that didn't take long: Judge dissmisses US women's soccer lawsuit demanding equal pay

Hardloper wrote:

"Klausner's ruling was informed by the federation's contention that women's players were paid more in total and on a per-game basis than their male counterparts were during the period in question. Friday's ruling cited as undisputed fact that from 2015 to 2019, the women's national team averaged $220,747 per game in total payments (for a total of $24.5 million), while the men's national team averaged $212,639 per game in total payments (for a total of $18.5 million)." Not even counting the NWSL subsidy.

Total non-issue publicity stunt

I’d have to imagine the “per game” statistic is misleading because the women play significantly more games than the men. You know... because one team is elite and the other is pathetic.

macdaddy wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

"Klausner's ruling was informed by the federation's contention that women's players were paid more in total and on a per-game basis than their male counterparts were during the period in question. Friday's ruling cited as undisputed fact that from 2015 to 2019, the women's national team averaged $220,747 per game in total payments (for a total of $24.5 million), while the men's national team averaged $212,639 per game in total payments (for a total of $18.5 million)." Not even counting the NWSL subsidy.

Total non-issue publicity stunt

I’d have to imagine the “per game” statistic is misleading because the women play significantly more games than the men. You know... because one team is elite and the other is pathetic.

Women's soccer = Hopping on leg championship, or some other contrived contest. There's no depth. Who cares if you're the "elite" at something the rest of the world doesn't compete in.

klsnsjh wrote:

macdaddy wrote:

I’d have to imagine the “per game” statistic is misleading because the women play significantly more games than the men. You know... because one team is elite and the other is pathetic.

Women's soccer = Hopping on leg championship, or some other contrived contest. There's no depth. Who cares if you're the "elite" at something the rest of the world doesn't compete in.

I mean... you could say that about just about any sport. Track doesn’t get the best athletes in America. Not many people playing American football worldwide. Triathlons cut out anyone who can’t afford a bike. Swimming cuts out those without access to water. Doesn’t stop anyone from celebrating like crazy when they’ve won...

I couldn’t find statistics on the most participated in women’s sports, but I’d imagine soccer is up there considering it’s the worlds most popular sport by far.

Women’s participation in sports is skyrocketing the last decade or so. Give it another decade and we’ll start seeing even more parity.

msb21 wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Yeah, these articles never address where the money is supposed to come from. I don't believe it's from a charity.

The US women do bring in more money than the US men.

"That’s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women’s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men’s games. From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

Now do the rest of the revenue streams like World Cup money over time.

I suspect that the next CBA will be very different. I also wonder if the next TV deal will be negotiated differently. Maybe the revenues and expenses will be more clearly delineated. As it is now all of the contracts dump the money into one pot so it makes it hard to tell.

The years when the US men qualify for the World Cup it carries US Soccer.

The more disturbing parts to me were that the per diem and travel arrangements were so different although I think this has been addressed. The women were given less per diem in part (and I think this was found in a memo or email) "because they eat less".

Well this is High school participation numbers from the 2018-19 school year from NFHS.

There may be a small number of girls who play club and not HS soccer, but I doubt it is enough to move the numbers much (and other sports might have the same issue).

macdaddy wrote:

Women’s participation in sports is skyrocketing the last decade or so. Give it another decade and we’ll start seeing even more parity.

Women's soccer be like...

We're the champs, we deserve more money than men, even though nobody else in the world cares much about women's sports in general, and women's soccer in particular, with the real only exception being women's gymnastics, which is deeper than men's.

Yeah. We all know how popular the WNBA has become. It wouldn't survive at all without NBA subsidies .

The US Women's team are two time world champions and won just about everything in sight and cashed every bonus.

The US Men sucked and didn't even qualify for the last World's and missed out on nearly every bonus.

That brought the actual pay to about parity.

If the men had qualified for Worlds they would have been paid significantly more even if they lost every game.

The US women are ranked #1 in the world.

The US men are ranked #22 in the world.

Their net pay was about the same, but their performance wasn't the same.

Bands a make hoes dance wrote:

This is a slippery slope because if they gave them the same pay as the men then it could open up more litigation for equal pay in other areas and sports. If they deserve the same pay as the men then I deserve the same pay too for sitting on my couch all day and should not be discriminated against. The whole business of money making is pretty random, not like an athlete really deserves 100mil, but it drives individuals to unscrupulous greed.

That's not it at all.

They have a collective bargaining agreement, that they negotiated. If they thought they should receive more money, their negotiators should have made a better deal.

Bands a make hoes dance wrote:

There was a thread on this yesterday, mentioning Rapinoe in the title. Judge got it right was the consensus.

LRC note. We've merged them together.

Yep. No one forced them to sign that CBA. They should focus on getting ready to negotiate a different one next time. Another reality it the women have less leverage than the men. The men club league's are way way more profitable than women's. The men on the national team make millions from club play each year while the women rely on the national team pay. The best men have a lot of leverage because they can legitimately skip the national team play without hurting their finances.

macdaddy wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

"Klausner's ruling was informed by the federation's contention that women's players were paid more in total and on a per-game basis than their male counterparts were during the period in question. Friday's ruling cited as undisputed fact that from 2015 to 2019, the women's national team averaged $220,747 per game in total payments (for a total of $24.5 million), while the men's national team averaged $212,639 per game in total payments (for a total of $18.5 million)." Not even counting the NWSL subsidy.

Total non-issue publicity stunt

I’d have to imagine the “per game” statistic is misleading because the women play significantly more games than the men. You know... because one team is elite and the other is pathetic.

How is it misleading? They got paid more per game, played more games, got paid way more total, any way you can possibly convolute the numbers, they got paid more. And yet they tried to file an equal pay lawsuit. Do you not appreciate the hilarity in this?

Game revenue is meaningless, I want to see total revenue and, specifically, World Cup advertising revenue between the two (when the USMNT doesn't crap the bed and fail to qualify).

What was the viewership of the last womens world cup compared to the men's worldwide. Millions of people watch every champions league game and every premier league game. In the US the women's national team may get a similar following to the men's but worldwide but worldwide men's soccer generates exponentially more revenue.

When you talk about performance and pay the real measure of performance is money brought in. That is the reality in any business and it should be the same in sports. At the end of the day the world ranking doesn't matter. If the women's team brings in more revenue they should be paid more than the men's team. With the caveat that the pay is collectively bargained so if they choose a different deal structure they can't complain about the deal they struck if they don't like it later.

What is wrong with you OP that this makes you happy?

Men have dominated athletics forever. T&F is actually one of the few places there is some balance in coverage.

Hopefully women will generate for revenue in a lot of sports moving forward and can earn more. I don't know why anyone would root against that. It doesn't affect you. Nobody is forcing you to watch women's soccer.

joedirt wrote:

I watch women’s soccer, I coach competitive girl’s soccer, but this is the proper judgement. It doesn’t make me happy like the incel OP, but it is just, as their pay is not discriminatory based upon what they produce. A judgement in their favor would have made youth soccer more expensive than it already is. The best way to increase their compensation is to promote their game, not harm it with frivolous lawsuits. Women outnumber men in this world. If women start following women’s sports like men follow football, basketball, etc., their compensation will exceed that of men.

Meanwhile, poor migrants from south america are working tirelessly in order to provide for their family. The optics of the juxtaposition of rapinoe and your typical poverty stricken mother of 3 is shocking.

What a world we live in. People like rapinoe making millions while other women in other countries not making anything.

SMH

Nobody's comparing Rapinoe to an impoverished woman in some third world country, just like nobody is comparing Tom Brady to the homeless guy I toss coins to in traffic. All are paid what they are worth as far as the revenue they generate. If they want better pay, they have to do a better job of getting people to follow their sport. Alleging discrimination where it does not exist is a good way to turn people away from your sport (I thought Colin Kaepernick already demonstrated that).

Women's sports will die in the next few years due to transgender lawsuits. The logical legal decision will ultimately be that men and women must be allowed to compete for the same job (sport).

They wanted equal pay when they were already paid more, wow. Did nobody even bother to check? Imagine if the men's team had sued for equal pay. I'd like to see what happens if a women's sport that people truly don't watch, like women's basketball, sued for equal pay. Then there might be a case.

Kvothe wrote:

They wanted equal pay when they were already paid more, wow. Did nobody even bother to check? Imagine if the men's team had sued for equal pay. I'd like to see what happens if a women's sport that people truly don't watch, like women's basketball, sued for equal pay. Then there might be a case.

I don't follow soccer (men's or women's) but is the actual gripe that membership on the Women's National Team is their meal ticket (main source of income) while membership on Men's National Team is more of an honor/side gig for a player that makes most of their money from their pro team?

My understanding is that the only sport where women get better TV ratings than their male counterparts is NCAA Softball vs. NCAA Baseball.