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.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,480,204 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
Pay is about money earned, talent is beside the point. John Calipari makes way more than the best pro bball coach in Europe even though his team is far worse because Cal's team generates huge amounts of revenue through tv ratings, merchandise sales, and ticket sales.
The US Men's team plays much tougher competition and is far worse ranked globally than the Women's team that dominates the women's world cup. But the Women's team is a much bigger brand. Just like Univ of Kentucky bball is a much bigger brand than elite team x in Europe despite being less talented. The women's team should be compensated relative to the revenue they generate, if it's more than the men then pay them more.
How did this thread devolve into talk of male vs female porn stars??
It's not really based on highest rated or how many people watch, it's based on how much money they bring in. Sports are in the entertainment profession and that is all based on how much money you bring in. Soccer players aren't doctors or engineers, they are entertainers. Winning a soccer game doesn't provide real value to anyone. They are paid a percentage of what they generate as entertainers. The women's World Cup generates significantly less value than the Men's.
"The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams."
I could see if this were a job as a nurse and a man and woman were doing the same job but earning vastly different salaries. This is entertainment and competition. Maybe they should just have one World Cup and allow the best to compete, whether it be a man or a woman and pay them the same. Would that stop the complaints?
The difference is that the men's is the best in the world and the women's is not. When you are talking about sports, that means all the difference. Triple A baseball players make about $25,000-$30,000 per year on average, while MLB players make about $4,000,000-$6,000,000 per year on average. That one tiny step means a lot when it comes to an entertainment industry. Being the best or not being the best.
Since race times are fairly concrete, let's look at the top record-breaking time for the female 100 meter dash. The top female time doesn't even crack the top 25 male times, nor does it approach the top times for boys 17 and under. The top times in history for females would be on par with 12-15 year old boys. Who is paying middle school boys to race or to play soccer? Is it fair that these middle and high school boys are running faster than women in the Olympics but getting paid nothing. Why are we paying athletes who are on par with middle or high school boys? Just because they are female?
How much money you can generate is key to an entertainment industry. Here's another example...
"But pay is hardly equal among porn stars. For a typical male/female sex scene, the average actress’s compensation is typically between $800 and $1,000. Top-tier female performers, however, can earn as much as $1,500--and sometimes $2,000 if they’re among the industry’s most sought after. (A newcomer, for comparison, could earn as little as $300.) Male performers, meanwhile, average $500 to $600 per scene or day."
This does seem to be roughly the same level of performance and men earn significantly less than women. It all has to do with how much they generate as entertainers.
For many countries, women's soccer is not taken' seriously. I've traveled to a few Latin American countries and women's soccer was taken' as seriously as ping-pong. The funding to such endeavors is proportionate. That the U.S. women's team is touting their superiority over a vastly underveloped field and crying about how they don't get as much attention or money as the men is just insane.
This nonsense about whether women could compete DIRECTLY with men in the same sport has NOTHING to do with being underpaid...
And seriously....you bring porn stars into the "discussion"....yeah just drag this further into the mud...
FACT: US Women out perform the US Men in soccer....FAR outperform....
FACT: The US Women out "earn" the US Men in soccer.....
FACT: The US Women are paid less than the US Men....
It is inequitable however you want to spin it.
$900,000: How much more revenue the women's team generated than the men's team from fiscal year 2016 to 2018, according to the Washington Post.
$3,662,480: The amount spent on development for women's teams (under-14 teams to under-23 teams) in fiscal year 2016, according to the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
$7,438,159: The amount spent on development for men's teams in fiscal year 2016.
$11,400,000: The total projected revenue of the women's events (such as friendlies and tournament play) in fiscal year 2018. After expenses, the team made the US Soccer Federation money, with a surplus of just over $2 million, according to the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
The womens world cup brought in 73 million, mens in SA brought in 4 billion, mens world cup in Russia 6 billion.
You also seem to forget that in women's football, there is barely 4 teams that are competitive in the whole world. You also neglect that boys teams have and will continue to beat women national teams if pitted against each other. I bet the mens US team would knock 10 past the womens team easily and the mens US team is weak. The worlds best mens team would destroy the worlds best womens team.
This nonsense about whether women could compete DIRECTLY with men in the same sport has NOTHING to do with being underpaid...
And seriously....you bring porn stars into the "discussion"....yeah just drag this further into the mud...
FACT: US Women out perform the US Men in soccer....FAR outperform....
FACT: The US Women out "earn" the US Men in soccer.....
FACT: The US Women are paid less than the US Men....
It is inequitable however you want to spin it.
$900,000: How much more revenue the women's team generated than the men's team from fiscal year 2016 to 2018, according to the Washington Post.
$3,662,480: The amount spent on development for women's teams (under-14 teams to under-23 teams) in fiscal year 2016, according to the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
$7,438,159: The amount spent on development for men's teams in fiscal year 2016.
$11,400,000: The total projected revenue of the women's events (such as friendlies and tournament play) in fiscal year 2018. After expenses, the team made the US Soccer Federation money, with a surplus of just over $2 million, according to the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
US Women operate at a surplus....US Men operate at a deficit and yet the men are paid MORE....there is no justification for such an inequity...
Then the obvious answer is for the money the women earn be turned over to the men's team in order to make it better and offer them "equal opportunity" and a chance to "better themselves"......why not? ...it's what Title IX has ludicrously been doing for years with women's college sports.
Maybe people are just tired of the demand they take women's soccer seriously. Or amused at hyperventilating overreactions to benign chat forum posts on the subject.
Besides, anyone not spraying their jockeys in absolute Rapture over women's sports, is automatically a knuckledragging, neckbearded acne riddled virgin who couldn't lose his V-card if he drove to a cathouse in a Maserati loaded with $100 bills!!
Women's sports are just fine, USA women athletes are among the world's best; but just because some love women's sports, doesn;t mean everyone has to feel the same FFS
Then the obvious answer is for the money the women earn be turned over to the men's team in order to make it better and offer them "equal opportunity" and a chance to "better themselves"......why not? ...it's what Title IX has ludicrously been doing for years with women's college sports.
More ridiculous nonsense...
Why don't you just concede that you have NO valid argument to explain the discrepancy in earnings when the Women's team is more successful for less investment, generates more revenue than the Men's team and yet gets paid less????
The womens world cup brought in 73 million, mens in SA brought in 4 billion, mens world cup in Russia 6 billion.
You also seem to forget that in women's football, there is barely 4 teams that are competitive in the whole world. You also neglect that boys teams have and will continue to beat women national teams if pitted against each other. I bet the mens US team would knock 10 past the womens team easily and the mens US team is weak. The worlds best mens team would destroy the worlds best womens team.
Who cares what the TOTAL amount brought in by the World Cup is.....
This is about what the US TEAMS generate for income...and the US WNT generates more income than the US MNT at a lower cost....
The "argument" over who would beat whom, Men vs Women is also moot, and has NOTHING to do with the topic...again more nonsense raised by someone who has no understanding or grasp of the concept
NO ONE is suggesting Alex Morgan should be allowed to play on the Men's team
However Alex Morgan sells more jerseys than Christian Pulisic and the average person on the street could name more women's soccer players than men in the US
EVERY top 10 ranked MEN's Tennis player would beat Serena Williams yet the Men's and Women's winners at Wimbledon receive the SAME PURSE...by your logic the Women's Winners should have to take LESS because obviously they couldn't beat the men....
You can say they perform better than the men, but they don’t really, because they don’t play against the men. They compete at their level better than the men, being that level is playing in the Women’s World Cup, etc. you don’t have to be an expert at analyzing soccer play to see the difference in play, watching the WWcup and the same day watching the Men’s Gold Cup. The men play at a faster pace, pass the ball a lot more briskly, and drive the ball toward the net much harder.
That said, it’s still as enjoyable to watch the women play against other women as it is to watch men play against men. It is the same game but at a different level.
On the other hand, a game like tennis is much more enjoyable to watch women compete in, because the men do not usually get into long volleys on some points as much as the women. The men use power and the women use more finesse. Watching men’s tennis is almost as difficult as watching men’s hockey, because it is so hard to see the fast moving object they are hitting.
US WOMEN have vastly outperformed the MEN on the pitch and at the bank yet they get paid LESS
Not one valid excuse raised to explain the inequality
In terms of net TV and attendance revenue, I have to suspect the men's world cup vastly outperforms the women's. FIFA gets more money for the men's cup, so FIFA can pay more in prize money. The fact that the USMNT didn't make the last cup means a big revenue loss for the US soccer federation.
Is it fair? Probably not. But capitalism usually isn't "fair"; it's business.
Who cares what the TOTAL amount brought in by the World Cup is.....
This is about what the US TEAMS generate for income...and the US WNT generates more income than the US MNT at a lower cost....
The "argument" over who would beat whom, Men vs Women is also moot, and has NOTHING to do with the topic...again more nonsense raised by someone who has no understanding or grasp of the concept
NO ONE is suggesting Alex Morgan should be allowed to play on the Men's team
However Alex Morgan sells more jerseys than Christian Pulisic and the average person on the street could name more women's soccer players than men in the US
EVERY top 10 ranked MEN's Tennis player would beat Serena Williams yet the Men's and Women's winners at Wimbledon receive the SAME PURSE...by your logic the Women's Winners should have to take LESS because obviously they couldn't beat the men....
US WOMEN generate more income than the men in endorsements, jersey sales, ticket sales.....across the board
US WOMEN have vastly outperformed the MEN on the pitch and at the bank yet they get paid LESS
Not one valid excuse raised to explain the inequality
Because the total for the world cup matters. Its the level of competition players are playing at, thats why you get paid higher. A McDonalds cook does not make as much as someone who works as a cook at a restaurant that is demanding. This victimhood the womens team are crying about needs to stop. I have said they probably should get paid more, but equal or more ? Equal or more to men who arent that good but would still absolutely STOMP the womens team.
Outside of the world cup the womens game have very little commercial draw, very little little interest too. League attendances show it. The USWMT is the creme de la creme of womens football, that isnt even questionable. Its minor league in comparison to the mens game. So what about the teenage boys that beat the womens team very comfortably, they should be paid more than them. They are clearly better.
The womens game across the board will have to grow to demand more pay. Id love to see womens football played at a much better level but its going to take decades of huge investment across the world for that to happen. The womens team is the best at what they do, but there is still very little skill and physicality compared to the men.
If you had a Co womens and mens wc with the same promoition youre still going to have to sell tickets at a heavily discounted price to get people to the womens game. The women are on a guaranteed salary and the men are not. Yes the men get higher bonus's but if they do well in tournaments they have potential to bring in 10 times the money the women do. Yes they deserve a pay rise, but not equal.
Again, you cannot separate the WC from pay, because the WC is the money draw. The mens team are poor and when they qualify they play teams that are way better and its competitive. In the womens WC you may as well just send the US to the final or at least the semi's. The womens team play teams who just show up, 13 goals in a WC game ? Thats a joke.
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.
......why not? ...it's what Title IX has ludicrously been doing for years with women's college sports.
