Hats off to the USWNT

[oldjudge]

Great. Many male college tennis players could beat Serena Williams. Should she earn less money than her male counterparts?

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Great. Many male college tennis players could beat Serena Williams. Should she earn less money than her male counterparts?

I would have said no. But when you phrase it that way I guess the answer is yes.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Great. Many male college tennis players could beat Serena Williams. Should she earn less money than her male counterparts?

Like any other profession shouldn’t she be paid based on what she produces and what value she has? The women apparently receive 13% of their revenue and the men 9%. Maybe it’s the women who are overpaid?

[kateighty]

It might sound wrong but personally (and as a woman) I've always felt like Serena was a dude. In which case she'd be great at kicking your butt in regards to your comment Jeffrey. MIC DROP.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Like any other profession shouldn’t she be paid based on what she produces and what value she has? The women apparently receive 13% of their revenue and the men 9%. Maybe it’s the women who are overpaid?

Actually women players receive 23% of total World Cup revenue while men players receive 7%.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Actually women players receive 23% of total World Cup revenue while men players receive 7%.

Bottom line, we're not "women players" or "the women" this terminology has to stop. Were you guys born in 1400? I'm pretty sure Serena would agree with me regardless. Come on guys not cool. And here's to the women reading this. Step up and join.

[prewarsports]

Not one person on here has said anything disrespectful of women. Everyone on here is praising their accomplishments and relishing how good they are compared to their peers. What exactly has to stop, the word "women". Calling it "women's soccer" is offensive? What would you like us to call the team?

Also, it is the USWNT who are making the distinction to their pay v. men and trying to rally people to their cause and talking about the fairness. They have taken shots at the men and the debate has hijacked the World Cup, which is why a simple thread praising their accomplishments immediately took a turn to the "fairness" question just like everywhere else anyone is talking about women's soccer. I have not heard one single thing from a male athlete saying one negative thing against the ladies so when you bring attention to your cause and then people debate the merits of it, that is completely fine and sets nobody back to the year 1400.

[kateighty]

This is my exact point prewarsports. Maybe invest in some glasses. My quotes were about other terms that were used. I never said or used the term "women's soccer" so check yourself. Please show me the exact quote where I said "women's soccer is offensive" because I never did. If you're going to make shit up and defame me you better have your name.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by kateighty

This is my exact point prewarsports. Maybe invest in some glasses. My quotes were about other terms that were used. I never said or used the term "women's soccer" so check yourself. Please show me the exact quote where I said "women's soccer is offensive" because I never did. If you're going to make shit up and defame me you better have your name.

Your attempt at having Rhys put his name out here is NOT part of the rules as his link to his auction, in every post, has all of his bio info. From the looks of your tone it seems my PM was spot on.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Like any other profession shouldn’t she be paid based on what she produces and what value she has? The women apparently receive 13% of their revenue and the men 9%. Maybe it’s the women who are overpaid?

Jeff-First, I have trouble understanding those figures. The US men did not even play in the 2018 World Cup. They were knocked out by Trinidad and Tobago. To be kind, the men’s team is mediocre. The men’s sport is bigger and the men’s tournament generates a lot more revenue. I understand that. However, our men’s team doesn’t generate its’ fair share of the revenue any more than the Washington Generals generated its’ fair share of the revenues when it played the Globetrotters. The US soccer federation can allocate their income to the players as it sees fit. The USWNT is a source of national pride and an inspiration to youngsters growing up. How can they not be compensated at least as well as the men?
In Olympic competition US athletes are compensated based on how they do. I competed in the US Olympic curling trials many moons ago. We were told that if we became the US team and won a gold we would get I believe $25,000. A silver was $10,000, and a bronze was $5,000. I think all US Olympic athletes are compensated based on results. I think that the soccer teams should be compensated in a similar fashion.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Jeff-First, I have trouble understanding those figures. The US men did not even play in the 2018 World Cup. They were knocked out by Trinidad and Tobago. To be kind, the men’s team is mediocre. The men’s sport is bigger and the men’s tournament generates a lot more revenue. I understand that. However, our men’s team doesn’t generate its’ fair share of the revenue any more than the Washington Generals generated its’ fair share of the revenues when it played the Globetrotters. The US soccer federation can allocate their income to the players as it sees fit. The USWNT is a source of national pride and an inspiration to youngsters growing up. How can they not be compensated at least as well as the men?
In Olympic competition US athletes are compensated based on how they do. I competed in the US Olympic curling trials many moons ago. We were told that if we became the US team and won a gold we would get I believe $25,000. A silver was $10,000, and a bronze was $5,000. I think all US Olympic athletes are compensated based on results. I think that the soccer teams should be compensated in a similar fashion.

Well said Jay! Hoping you still get your curl on.

[rhettyeakley]

The men’s World Cup generated $6 billion, of which the participants split $400 million, ~7 percent of the total revenue. The Women’s World Cup is expected to generate $130 million, of which the women’s teams will split $30 million, or about 23 percent of the overall revenue.

You keep saying the Men's team is the Washington Generals of International Soccer and that is just silly. Other than their loss to Trinidad & Tobago in the final qualifying game for the 2018 World Cup the men have qualified for the World Cup every time it was played since 1990. They have been consistently in the top-20 rankings of international squads since the mid-to-late 1990's. Soccer is a funny sport, often times a superior team will lose. (which makes the Women's current run very impressive I might add)

Case in point... in 2017 when the USA lost to Trinidad&Tobago all Mexico had to do was beat Honduras to send the US team into a game against Australia to get one of the final bids to the 2018 World Cup and they (Mexico) lost to lowly Honduras 3-2, thus Honduras played in that game against Australia instead. Funny thing is that 4 years earlier Mexico would have missed the World Cup if the US hadn't beat Panama and given Mexico the possibility to play a game to get that same final spot to get into the field. I would hardly say that Mexico is the Washington Generals of Men's Soccer.

[lancemountain]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The men’s World Cup generated $6 billion, of which the participants split $400 million, ~7 percent of the total revenue. The Women’s World Cup is expected to generate $130 million, of which the women’s teams will split $30 million, or about 23 percent of the overall revenue.

You keep saying the Men's team is the Washington Generals of International Soccer and that is just silly. Other than their loss to Trinidad & Tobago in the final qualifying game for the 2018 World Cup the men have qualified for the World Cup every time it was played since 1990. They have been consistently in the top-20 rankings of international squads since the mid-to-late 1990's. Soccer is a funny sport, often times a superior team will lose. (which makes the Women's current run very impressive I might add)

Case in point... in 2017 when the USA lost to Trinidad&Tobago all Mexico had to do was beat Honduras to send the US team into a game against Australia to get one of the final bids to the 2018 World Cup and they (Mexico) lost to lowly Honduras 3-2, thus Honduras played in that game against Australia instead. Funny thing is that 4 years earlier Mexico would have missed the World Cup if the US hadn't beat Panama and given Mexico the possibility to play a game to get that same final spot to get into the field. I would hardly say that Mexico is the Washington Generals of Men's Soccer.

Well, Mexico clearly did not want to win that game and did everything they could short of explicitly throwing the match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[darwinbulldog]

I have no objection to the argument that salaries should be proportionate to generated revenue, but I can't see awarding the U.S. men's team or punishing the U.S. women's team on account of the revenue generation that, say, the Argentinian men's team accounts for. If you're going to compensate all players (or teams) equally, that is tantamount to a participation trophy for the teams that are generating less revenue (and as a rule, playing worse) within the tournament. It would be simple enough to run a regression analysis and see how much of the total revenue each team is causally responsible for, and though the men's tournament clearly draws far more attention and money than the women's tournament, I don't know a priori whether the U.S. men's team per se accounts for more or less revenue than does the U.S. women's team.

So if you want to make a strictly economic argument in trying to allocate salaries appropriately for the U.S. men's and women's players, the question shouldn't be "How much money did the men's World Cup make compared to the women's World Cup?". It should be "How much more [or perhaps less] money did each tournament make with the U.S. as a participant relative to what it would have made without the U.S. as a participant?".

A headliner at a small regional music festival may bring in more dollars (or Euros) than a band on the fifth stage at 9:30 A.M. at Glastonbury or Coachella or whatever the kids are going to these days, and so too may certain women's soccer teams, in isolation, account for more in ticket sales than certain men's teams in their respective World Cup tournaments.