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.
I'm not even sure it's equal viewing in the US. The arguments I've seen for that are also carefully worded to only include English language broadcasts.
Someone may consider this as prejudiced given that non-English speakers have precisely the same purchasing power as English speakers do. Purchasing power is the only thing of importance in regards to revenue.
So if viewing in excluding Univision and Spanish channels, they would be using a prejudice to claim they're victims of prejudice.
It is complicated. In America the women's national team partially by being as successful as they are make more money than the far less successful men's national team. They also have higher TV ratings. The problem is internationally they don't. The men have entirely more opportunities to make more through bonuses and prize money through CONCAF and FIFA payouts due to the additional prize money for men compared to women. Thankfully FIFA is looking to increase women's pay for the 2023 tournament.
It's remarkable how an entire argument can be built on not understanding what cherry-picked 'revenue' numbers actually mean.
Who says being bad at math is a disadvantage?
What exactly is "cherry picked" in the revenue debate? If you are going to make a claim, back it up. I didn't source because my points have been said ad nosseum.
What exactly is "cherry picked" in the revenue debate? If you are going to make a claim, back it up. I didn't source because my points have been said ad nosseum.
I'll answer for him. The argument they're making is that since 2016, the women have exceeded the men in revenue. The cherry picking is "since 2016" and how they define "revenue" (they only include ticket sales, which are a fraction of the actual revenue the US Soccer Federation brings in). Here's a chart showing the "revenue":
The women sold $1.9 million more in tickets in 2016. That's the only year in the history of the sports that they sold more tickets (by dollar amounts). In the two years since (2017-2018) the men have beaten them by $1 million. But if you take only that three year period, they can factually argue that they had $900k more in ticket sales than the men.
What exactly is "cherry picked" in the revenue debate? If you are going to make a claim, back it up. I didn't source because my points have been said ad nosseum.
The main $ comes from international/global revenue. They federation then divvies that out among the country federations. So the men (with less success) benefit from men's soccer being the most popular sport in the world. The US woman have been hugely successful and are popular in the US- however that does not change that their is much less demand to the women's game international.
So as has been posted- the women get a bigger share of a smaller pool of money. The men get a smaller piece of a much larger pool. I would compare it to SEC & ACC schools with middling football programs that still earn paydays when the conferences get a fat check for those two schools to play in a championship. Or revenues from SEC & Big Ten networks that flow to all conference schools. So US Women are the Boise Sate and the men are Vanderbilt. Vandy will get more $ simply by being in a more profitable league even if Boise St is a better team.
At some point it is like arguing over why players in one sport earn more than players in another.
What exactly is "cherry picked" in the revenue debate? If you are going to make a claim, back it up. I didn't source because my points have been said ad nosseum.
My comment wasn't directed at you specifically... but two people have kindly answered for me anyway.
This whole discussion starts with a false premise, based on cherry-picked 'data'. And feminists are living the stereotype of women not understanding numbers... because that's the only way to make their claim stick.
Sadly this isn't the only issue where their go-to strategy is to deliberately misrepresent statistics. Hell, it's their stock and trade these days
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.
