[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.