US Soccer's Astonishing Stupidity

[Tuariki]

In terms of what the players should be paid IMO should in large part depend on the revenue generated by the respective teams.
And looking in from afar it seems to me that the USA Women's team gets bigger crowds and more people watching their games on TV than the USA men. However, maybe I am wrong.

[gh]

that screeching sound you heard was Carlos Cordeiro doing an emergency 180

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-s...-uswnt-protest

[Conor Dary]

In terms of what the players should be paid IMO should in large part depend on the revenue generated by the respective teams.
And looking in from afar it seems to me that the USA Women's team gets bigger crowds and more people watching their games on TV than the USA men. However, maybe I am wrong.

Comparing the men and women attendance has some problems. The women can play in major cities and get big crowds that support the team. Meanwhile the men have to play in small cities in Ohio or Utah do ensure a friendly crowd. The US men once played Mexico in Soldier Field in Chicago and a large majority of the crowd were fanatic Mexican fans. It was like playing in the Azteca in Mexico City. They never repeated that mistake.

The women's game brings in little money...no professional league has survived long here. Meanwhile TV money for the men's is huge.

Also what do they charge? The Oregon women's basketball team outdrew the men this year and both were Pac 12 champs. This is often brought up. What they don't mention is tickets to the men's games are 5-10 times higher. My great season ticket to the women's this year was $129. The men's price for the same seat was $1250.

[Pego]

There's no sarcasm font available, unfortunately.

Yes, that makes more sense .

[Pego]

Individuals may have different opinions about equal pay for men and women on their respective national teams, and it is well known that the men get way more $$$ in subsidies from FIFA. But FIFA doesn't have to deal with American public opinion. I can't think of a legal position more out of tune with the times than the filings in the women's national team lawsuit for equal pay which assert that:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/us/us...rnd/index.html

The genius author of the above (Cordeiro or close) has resigned.

[bambam1729]

In terms of what the players should be paid IMO should in large part depend on the revenue generated by the respective teams.
And looking in from afar it seems to me that the USA Women's team gets bigger crowds and more people watching their games on TV than the USA men. However, maybe I am wrong.

The problem with that, Tuariki, is that apparently the money available from the men's World Cup is something like 10 times more than from the women's World Cup, so even a mediocre (at best) men's US team can see more money from the World Cup (assuming they qualify) than the women's team. I don't know the details closely but I know that is part of the argument US Soccer is using against their demands.

[Atticus]

I keep referring back to the IAAF's decision to have financial gender parity in prize money. All of the same arguments AGAINST that exist, but they did the right thing and mandated it. Other sports should take the hint. I do see that the WNBA and like entities can't follow that model, because the gross revenue does not exist, but national federations for sports like soccer certainly can.

[Atticus]

They are lightyears ahead of the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't take women's soccer seriously.

I'll have to politely demur. Our advantage is Title IX and the excellent farm system high schools and colleges provide.
Also, there is tremendous national pride in women's soccer in dozens of nations* and it's spreading.

* Germany, Brazil, Sweden. Japan, China, England, France, Australia, Canada, etc.

[Conor Dary]

I'll have to politely demur. Our advantage is Title IX and the excellent farm system high schools and colleges provide.
Also, there is tremendous national pride in women's soccer in dozens of nations* and it's spreading.

* Germany, Brazil, Sweden. Japan, China, England, France, Australia, Canada, etc.

They do have teams.....certainly far better than they use to have...but sports scholarships don't exist in those countries and interscholastic sports, at least in Britain, aren't much of a thing. Schools at secondary and university level don't play each other. So your pool of players is drastically smaller.

I wouldn't say tremendous pride....at least in England...my soccer friends in England were rather dismissive of the England women's team. Nice they play but that is about it.

As for Brazil I don't think they care about the women's team much. Let alone tremendous pride...and forget the rest of South America and Africa.

Given that the Brazilian men’s national team has achieved unrivaled global success, influenced soccer governance, and defined the “beautiful game,” one might think that the women’s national team’s recent downturn would trouble the federation, but that’s far from the case. The program has largely been left to struggle without any help.

• While the men’s team has won five World Cups, the women’s best showing was a runner-up finish in 2007.
• In the 2011 World Cup, they fell to the United States in the quarterfinals.
• In 2015, a promising team was knocked out by Australia in the Round of 16.
• This year, CONMEBOL, the governing body of soccer in South America, scheduledCopa América, the men’s South American national team tournament, at the same time as the World Cup. They did the same thing in 2015, too. This year, the finals for both tournaments take place the same day: July 7th.
• Women’s professional soccer players in Brazil still don’t earn a living wage. Top players for the men’s league can make upwards of $125,000 per month, while women have yet to surpass $500.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/6/9/18...ld-cup-history

[dukehjsteve]

I continue to object to any protest by Women's Tennis for equal pay, as they only play 2 of 3 sets instead of 3 of 5. If they want equal pay, play equal # of sets.

[Atticus]

I continue to object to any protest by Women's Tennis for equal pay, as they only play 2 of 3 sets instead of 3 of 5. If they want equal pay, play equal # of sets.

It's 2020 (clearer vision pun!). Why don't they?

[gh]

I continue to object to any protest by Women's Tennis for equal pay, as they only play 2 of 3 sets instead of 3 of 5. If they want equal pay, play equal # of sets.

that would be a logistical nightmare at the major tourneys; suspect we'll see men drop to 3 sets before women bump up

[18.99s]

I continue to object to any protest by Women's Tennis for equal pay, as they only play 2 of 3 sets instead of 3 of 5. If they want equal pay, play equal # of sets.

TV stations don't want the women to go up to 5 sets, and would prefer if the men dropped to 3.

[18.99s]

The problem with that, Tuariki, is that apparently the money available from the men's World Cup is something like 10 times more than from the women's World Cup, so even a mediocre (at best) men's US team can see more money from the World Cup (assuming they qualify) than the women's team.

The US men's team didn't qualify for the last World Cup, and the net result was that the US women's team brought in slightly more revenue than the men, according to this article:

https://www.espn.com/sports/soccer/s...ht-latest-next

From 2016 to 2018, women's games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared to $49.9 million for men's games. Here's the sneaky caveat: The men average higher attendance, but the women have played more games, which leads to more revenue. The women have also done more promotional and media tours than the men in that span.

[bad hammy]

. . . as they (women) only play 2 of 3 sets instead of 3 of 5.

Sounds like the women are just a bit smarter on this one . . .