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.
Skimming through the "news" and social media and the headline about the US Women's soccer team demanding the same pay as the men's team has been popping up. Do you think it's fair to say that they are payed based on what they bring in? Looking at some numbers from some of the coverage and it seems that the men's world cup was brought in $4 billion, while the women's, they figure will only bring in $130 million for the 2019-2022 cycle. I'm not sure how accurate these numbers are, but how do expect equal pay from such differing levels of money brought in?
Do you think it's fair to say that they are payed based on what they bring in?
Absolutely! In any sport, the athletes are paid according to how many paying seats they fill. This has nothing to do with "fair", it's just business. In any organization, salesmen, those who bring in the money, are always paid the most. I remember in 1970, in a company where I worked, the top salesman made more than the CEO.
The problem is it's not really that simple. In the case of the two US teams, the women's team seems to rake in more money than the men. The numbers you quoted are FIFA's numbers for the World Cup only and FIFA isn't paying the teams. They are giving a prize/prize money, but they aren't paying the salaries.
Quote:
The women’s team contributed close or more than half of the federation’s revenue from games since fiscal 2016. Overall, from fiscal 2016 to 2018, the women’s games generated about $900,000 more revenue than the men’s games. In the year following the 2015 World Cup win, women’s games generated $1.9 million more than the men’s games. And in recent years, the men’s revenue tally also includes the fees that opposing teams pay in order to play the United States.
-WP
But on the flip side, there are sponsorships.
Quote:
Ticket sales are only part of soccer’s revenue stream. Almost half of the more than $100 million that the USSF reported as total operating income in 2018 came from sponsorship deals — broadcast revenue and sales of jerseys and other branded equipment... Those sponsorship deals are bundled together and USSF does not break out how much of the sponsorship revenue it attributes to women’s deals and how much to the men.
- DFP
So there is a lot of sponsorship money, but it's not broken down into who earns what. But since the women started winning, all sales went up. USSF sells sponsorships (which include broadcast rights for all U.S. Soccer games--both men and women) as a bundle. But since it's none broken out, you really can't attribute this to the women's team even if sponsorships went up when the women started winning (it's just assuming and it may be wrong).
Add to that, the women's team made more in bonuses and salary than the men in 2018 — but the women played almost twice the number of games and won a lot more of them.
So if the women are earning more than the men for USSF, and the USSF is paying the athletes, shouldn't USSF pay the women the same as the men (or more)?
Of course, it's still not that simple. The issue is also they aren't paid the same way. They have different collective bargaining agreements. The men are paid in bonuses only while the women earn a salary. The lawsuit from the women’s team points out that if both teams played 20 friendlies in a year, a top-tier women’s national team player would earn $164,320 less, or “38% of the compensation of a similarly situated MNT player.” But if both teams lost those 20 games instead of winning, both men and women would earn the same amount (the men are paid a bonus if they lose, the women aren't but like I said the women have a salary). So looking at it that way, the women are only paid less if they win. When they lose, the pay is equal.
It's a complex issue and is not as simple as the men's world cup game brings in more money than the women's. If you just look at the world cup, yeah, the men (internationally) bring in more money and the prize should be bigger. But it's not just that. And when you start digging down into the details of all money earned and by whom and who pays, it's a confusing mess and it really does need to be looked at. I can't really determine if the women should be paid the same as the men, but I suspect the smoke and mirrors (especially with the sponsorships) is hiding money that the women's team is bringing in and things shouldn't be as lopsided as they are now.
This is a tough one for me. I don't think the teams should be necessarily be paid equally, but the pay setting process should be fair relative to the revenues they bring in. It makes sense the tournament payouts are much higher for the men's worlds cup relative to the women's world cup. The women's tournament actually pays out a higher share of revenues to the winners (23% vs 7%). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.83a432ce4b94
But, when it comes to the US teams salaries that is harder to say. Historically, the higher mens salaries could be justified based on revenues, but the womens team appears to have closed the gap in recent years. So it is unclear if that pay gap is still justified. As the WaPo link above showed it is hard to compare earnings relative to revenues based on public data.
Its interesting, all the cheerleaders for our professional sports, some, who are very popular and draw alot of people just to see them,...they are paid NOTHING AT ALL!
I admit, I wasnt aware of this until about a year ago, a friend of mine married a Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader, I assumed they were paid well!
Skimming through the "news" and social media and the headline about the US Women's soccer team demanding the same pay as the men's team has been popping up. Do you think it's fair to say that they are payed based on what they bring in? Looking at some numbers from some of the coverage and it seems that the men's world cup was brought in $4 billion, while the women's, they figure will only bring in $130 million for the 2019-2022 cycle. I'm not sure how accurate these numbers are, but how do expect equal pay from such differing levels of money brought in?
The bulk of the pay disparity we see between the two teams comes from world cup revenue sharing agreements. Among all men's teams in the world cup in 2016, there was $400 million to split, thanks to revenues of over $6 billion. For this year's women's world cup, there is $30 million to split among all teams, thanks to revenues of $100 million. Yes, that's revenues of $6 billion vs. $100 million: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/a...d-13689380.php. That the men's team didn't play in the most recent world's cup is irrelevant as the revenue sharing agreement is made prior to the commencement of the cup, and pays out regardless of whether your team qualifies for the cup; the same is true for the women's cup . . . the US women's team would still get a share of the dough based on the revenue sharing agreement entered into before the start of the cup even if they failed to qualify for the cup.
The attorney for the women's team claims that the US soccer federation should more equitably split the world cup revenues to ensure that the women are getting their fair share. Says said attorney:
Quote:
“FIFA determines how much money to give to USSF, but USSF can give to anyone,” Kessler said. “It’s just like any other stream of money. It is USSF’s decision to discriminate.”
So let me get this straight: the women's team should share in the revenue from the men's world cup even though they are not part of the league that generates the revenues for the men's world cup? That's some logic for you.
The last men's world cup brings in roughly 4,500% more revenue worldwide than the last women's World Cup. Like it or not, the total revenue picture for the event figures heavily into the compensation. Yes, if you look at ticket sales in the United States, the women's team actually outperforms the men's team. But ticket sales are a fraction of the revenue. If the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL based player salaries on ticket sales along, their salaries would be a fraction of what they are.
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.
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.
