U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-19-2019, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,938 posts, read 13,905,699 times
Reputation: 6998

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
This thread is a good example of why so many liberals hate capitalism and freedom of choice. They simply can't handle that people have the freedom to spend their money how they choose.
No, its a pretty good example of gender discrimination by the US soccer Federation.

 
Old 06-19-2019, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
11,720 posts, read 8,294,722 times
Reputation: 5783
How's this: When they allow men who think they are women to play on the team then they can have equal pay.

 
Old 06-19-2019, 06:45 AM
 
16,748 posts, read 9,100,771 times
Reputation: 6779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The article doesn't indicate event revenue it states profit, why wouldn't TV revenue go to the soccer federation.


Once again they won 7 major championships in the last 20 years, they set an attendance record for a women's event in the Rose Bowl in 1999. Why would you expect their profits to be that much different than 2016 to 2018 and they are expected to exceed the men's earnings for this year and next. There will be more information when they get to court.
Their actual lawsuit only compares event revenue. Not all revenue. Then all of the SJWs like yourself keep screaming that it is all revenue.

US Soccer bundles TV and radio rights for both genders together. So it is hard to distinguish, but women's soccer outside of the US gets very little TV views compared to men's soccer...remember not all of the US Soccer TV money comes from inside the US.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-w...low-pay-2019-6

Quote:
Women's games reportedly brought in $50.8 million from 2016 to 2018 from mostly ticket sales. Men's games made $49.9 million in the same time frame. Before 2016, however, the men's team had generated more revenue every year, sometimes by more than $10 million.

Ticket sales make up just part of the US Soccer Federation operating revenue. The organization bundles brand sponsorships and broadcast sales between the two teams, making it harder to distinguish the difference in revenue
You are repeatedly lying in this thread. Stop lying.

So, the men have out-earned women every single year in event revenue until 2016 and by significant numbers.

Women out-earned men in event revenue the past few years, but are still under a contract based on them earning less in event revenue.

They can negotiate a new contract soon and point to recent event revenue (which will flip back to the men earning more event revenue as they go through the qualifying rounds and stay with the men if they do qualify...to spell it out for you next year the men will earn more in event revenue 2020 and 2021...and will earn significantly more in 2022 if the qualify for the World Cup. Making the whole event revenue a moot point.).

The women could go strike for a new contract now breaking their old contract, but they deemed that they were too replaceable and chose not to strike.

However, all of this ignores TV revenue, which in part comes from overseas too where less people care about women's soccer, which in effect, would put men back on top in terms of revenue. As these contracts were designed at the time with the men's soccer viewers in mind.

If more people worldwide start watching women's soccer, then these TV contracts will undoubtedly grow to as the demand for women's soccer grows.

Those are the facts.
 
Old 06-19-2019, 07:36 AM
 
51,857 posts, read 41,758,040 times
Reputation: 32364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Poor example, the women's team has been winning world cups and Olympics going back to 1999 while the men's team has failed, didn't even make the world cup last year. You claimed that this was a joke and the public is too uneducated to know but missing from your argument is anything that remotely resembles accounting and math, just conjecture. They won 2 world cups since 1999, runner up and 3rd place in the others, won 4 gold medals in the Olympics and one silver. How many have the men won to deserve almost 3 times the pay.


So lets hear your case to demonstrate why they are only deserving of a fraction of the men's team, some facts as presented for 2016 would be a good starter.
https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/...al-information

Click on audited financial statements 2018.
Go to page 9.

Half the revenue is coming from TV, royalties etc. which is mostly coming from the mens team. While this is not line-itemed in this particular report, you can look to tv ratings and what types of contracts are out there. (Womens team has a measly streaming agreement on yahoo. )

I'm explaining how the claimant, whose duty it is to explain the disparity is intentionally trying to mislead by using only a small wedge of revenues from a small timeframe.

There may very well come a day in the near future that the TV revenues etc. get better for womens soccer than mens but until that time comes it is going to keep their pay much, much lower.
 
Old 06-19-2019, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,938 posts, read 13,905,699 times
Reputation: 6998
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Their actual lawsuit only compares event revenue. Not all revenue. Then all of the SJWs like yourself keep screaming that it is all revenue.

US Soccer bundles TV and radio rights for both genders together. So it is hard to distinguish, but women's soccer outside of the US gets very little TV views compared to men's soccer...remember not all of the US Soccer TV money comes from inside the US.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-w...low-pay-2019-6



You are repeatedly lying in this thread. Stop lying.

So, the men have out-earned women every single year in event revenue until 2016 and by significant numbers.

Women out-earned men in event revenue the past few years, but are still under a contract based on them earning less in event revenue.

They can negotiate a new contract soon and point to recent event revenue (which will flip back to the men earning more event revenue as they go through the qualifying rounds and stay with the men if they do qualify...to spell it out for you next year the men will earn more in event revenue 2020 and 2021...and will earn significantly more in 2022 if the qualify for the World Cup. Making the whole event revenue a moot point.).

The women could go strike for a new contract now breaking their old contract, but they deemed that they were too replaceable and chose not to strike.

However, all of this ignores TV revenue, which in part comes from overseas too where less people care about women's soccer, which in effect, would put men back on top in terms of revenue. As these contracts were designed at the time with the men's soccer viewers in mind.

If more people worldwide start watching women's soccer, then these TV contracts will undoubtedly grow to as the demand for women's soccer grows.

Those are the facts.
The article claims it is difficult to separate out TV revenue, "its hard to distinguish" yet you are assuming without facts that the men bring in more TV revenue, do you have the numbers. Where do you get that the neb will out earn the women for the next few years. That speculation does not even resemble what we call facts.


You never answered the question, do you think that 2016 was an aberration and the women pulled in 1/3 of the men the last two decades. Do you think the women only deserve $100K while the men get $260k, have they brought in 3 times the profits.
 
Old 06-19-2019, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Elysium
6,573 posts, read 3,629,274 times
Reputation: 4558
Well if it takes $260k to get men who will at least not lose 13-0 where as $100k does attract the best women in the world then yes it is fair. I would retire and take comparable pay to women players and we can then watch men from Thailand celebrate their great achievement of dribbling me onto my behind
 
Old 06-19-2019, 08:00 AM
 
Location: USA
17,599 posts, read 8,827,681 times
Reputation: 13133
Women's sports are an inferior product to Men's sports. That's just a fact, and the reason why Men's sports are successful, and women's aren't. Simple economics which often Progressives do NOT understand, or want to ignore solely for the purpose of Social Engineering.
 
Old 06-19-2019, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Federal Way, WA
619 posts, read 190,892 times
Reputation: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
Anyone who is trying to equate a professional athlete and a salesperson does not understand the discussion.
The only thing I equated was the fact that both are paid based on performance and revenue generated because of their performance. If you don't understand the comparison, you don't understand the discussion.
 
Old 06-19-2019, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,429 posts, read 15,421,970 times
Reputation: 11362
Ran across this in the WSJ.

U.S. Womenís Soccer Games Outearned Menís Games

U.S. Soccer has made revenue generation a key part of its defense. In U.S. Soccerís May 6 legal response to the suit, the federation said the menís and womenís teams are separate organizations with separate collective-bargaining agreements. It said that any alleged pay differential between the menís and womenís teams is ďbased on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex.Ē

But U.S. Soccerís numbers show that while menís games used to generate millions more than womenís games, in recent years the gap in revenue all but disappeared.

From 2016 to 2018, womenís games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccerís audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men. Game revenues are made up mostly of ticket sales. In the last two years, at least, the menís tally includes appearance fees that opposing teams pay the U.S. for games.


This may not represent the entire portfolio, but if what they are is generating is indeed equal or more than the men, then they should be earning more. So I say they shouldn't fight for equal pay, but they should get what they deserve, and if it's more than the men because they are out-earning them, then so be it.

If they are under a current agreement, they should complete the term and then renegotiate at the proper time for what they deserve.
 
Old 06-19-2019, 08:39 AM
 
29,363 posts, read 15,414,221 times
Reputation: 19966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
No, its a pretty good example of gender discrimination by the US soccer Federation.
Do you actually believe the ticket costs between men's and women's games are the same? Lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top