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.
By every sense of the word, including "pay for performance," the U. S. Women's National Soccer Team should be paid MORE than the men's team which hasn't done squat.
American men can dominate in basketball, football, baseball, ice hockey, swimming, track and many more sports but can't do squat in soccer. What's up with that?
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
By every sense of the word, including "pay for performance," the U. S. Women's National Soccer Team should be paid MORE than the men's team which hasn't done squat.
American men can dominate in basketball, football, baseball, ice hockey, swimming, track and many more sports but can't do squat in soccer. What's up with that?
So every sport is paid adequately but soccer abides by a different rule... I see... Actually, I don't.... Take the average men's soccer team to play the best women's soccer team and we will see what squat is...
I haven't read everybody's responses, so I may be repeating some content that others have already stated.
For soccer, the amount of money that comes from the US Soccer Federation should be equal. Women's matches get higher television ratings, and there is no difference between the amount of work that goes into playing women's and men's soccer.
Some of the pay disparity, however, comes from FIFA. Men's soccer brings in exponentially more dollars than women's soccer does, so in that situation, the difference makes more sense.
Yes, equal viewing in the US. Not so much in the other 95% of the worlds population. Hence the 10-1 difference in world cup prize money between the mens and womens teams.
They're definitely gaining popularity and that will show up in more money eventually from TV contracts.
Again, if people set aside their biases it's a VERY easy accounting review. The hardest part will be how many years timeframe they agree to use going forward. Perhaps every 4 years to match world cup would make sense with a kickout clause if any new TV contracts or endorsements come into play.
By every sense of the word, including "pay for performance," the U. S. Women's National Soccer Team should be paid MORE than the men's team which hasn't done squat.
American men can dominate in basketball, football, baseball, ice hockey, swimming, track and many more sports but can't do squat in soccer. What's up with that?
The U.S. women's soccer team has in effect won the special olympics.
By every sense of the word, including "pay for performance," the U. S. Women's National Soccer Team should be paid MORE than the men's team which hasn't done squat.
American men can dominate in basketball, football, baseball, ice hockey, swimming, track and many more sports but can't do squat in soccer. What's up with that?
1) US mens athletic talent focuses on the other sports, not soccer. For example, there is no womens football. Imagine the talent in the NFL and the US college football programs re-directed to playing soccer for example. You think that Barry Sanders guy might have made a good soccer player?
2) EVERY sport pays in accordance with revenue NOT performance. You think mens wrestling pays well despite the US being pretty good at it? Archery?
By every sense of the word, including "pay for performance," the U. S. Women's National Soccer Team should be paid MORE than the men's team which hasn't done squat.
American men can dominate in basketball, football, baseball, ice hockey, swimming, track and many more sports but can't do squat in soccer. What's up with that?
To me, that is kinda like saying that your local, up and coming rock band who is touring mid-size clubs 200 nights per year should make more than the Rolling Stones, who do (what is it) 11 stadium shows in a tour and make 100's of millions. It sounds good when you say it, but if you go back to my original point, and the point many other have made, the men simply bring in more revenue via Ticket sales AND sponsorships and other deals. Is it fair? I don't know, but then again, there are many small bands out today who blow away the Stones, work 100x as hard, and barely get by. That's life.
I'm still unconvinced that the women should make as much as the men in this case, and I'm certainly not convinced they are providing the same value to those who pay them.
If it were as very simplistic as many claim to compare the men's pay vs. the women's, it would be great, but it is not.
There are all kinds of complicated factors that have to be looked at in order to be decided that people are ignoring, including salary bases of men/women, required costs, sponsorships and expenses for teams to play. Gate revenue is only a small portion of the profits.
It is so complicated that it has to be decided by a court, so I don't really understand why people think a couple of pat calculations or read and repeat 'statistics' makes the case.
I'm a left-leaning centrist, and in general I believe in equal pay for equal work, but I have a pretty unpopular view among my own people.
To me, the pay gap is because (right or wrong) the men fill stadiums, glean bigger sponsorships, and in general have a bigger following than the women do. In short, they bring in more money, therefore they get paid more. Maybe that is fair, maybe it isn't, but that's how it is.
I think expecting women to get paid the same as men is like expecting your Triple-A local baseball players to get paid the same as 'the bigs'. They both win games, they both sell out stadiums, but there are not many other similarities.
Another point is that the quality of play is different. It gets back to "equal pay for equal work". It may be unpopular to say, but the men play at a higher level. Imagine this: What there was no men's and no women's team, just a "national team", where anyone could try out, and only the best players would be picked. Wouldn't matter if you are male, female, trans, or other. If you were the best, you got the job. How much would women be paid in that scenario?
Again, I will close out by saying I am 100% for equal pay for equal work, and I am not one to go around crying about PC this and PC that. I am not one to exclude Trans-Gender from anything, (and I don't care what bathroom someone uses). But in this case, I think the complaints of not getting paid the same as the men is misdirected. To me, it is like saying that there is a gender gap in Rock and Roll because Pat Benatar does not get paid as much as Bono. They've both been around for (approximately) the same amount of time, they both sell out shows, but the reason that Bono gets paid more is because U2 (I am not a fan, BTW), sells more records, fills bigger venues, has higher paying sponsors and in general generates more revenue.
^I guess one could say that it is a societal flaw that men CAN generate more revenue in some cases, but I don't think that applies here.
Would love an intelligent discussion, without being roasted for my opinion. As someone who would LIKE to believe that women should get paid the same in ALL cases, I'm open to respectfully hearing about the flaws in my view. Maybe a good discussion will help me see it differently?
You get paid more when you make the owners money. Women's soccer is not that popular.
They aren't getting paid as much because no one cares that they play soccer.
Men's soccer, on the other hand, world wide is far more popular than our Super Bowl could ever dream to be. That's why they get more money than the female soccer team.
You aren't going to make people like or be interested in something that they aren't by yelling at them.
It's fine that females have professional sports, but they need to stop deluding themselves thinking that what they do is equal to what the male teams are doing, as far as popularity and bringing in a lot of money. It just isn't.
To me, the pay gap is because (right or wrong) the men fill stadiums, glean bigger sponsorships, and in general have a bigger following than the women do.
That is exactly right.
Also, it's about advertising revenues gained from radio and television broadcast rights.
When women's sports fill stadiums and arenas and garner the ratings on radio and TV that men's sports do, then they'll be paid the same.
Myself, other than the Olympics, I have no interest in women's sports and never will.
I barely have an interest in men's sports. I watch college football and the NCAA basketball tournament and that's it. I do watch European football, but have no interest in the MLS. It's like amateur hour top-to-bottom.
I'll start watching MLB when they return to the 24-team format and two divisions in each league. Until then, it's like watching American Legion or high school baseball.
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.
You think that Barry Sanders guy might have made a good soccer player? 
