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.
Its a legal issue. In the US we have strict rules about gender discrimination. While there are exceptions that allow discrimination, each side is voicing in motions why they think and exception does or does not apply. People are allowed to disagree.
The thing is, even if US Soccer is correct legally, its a pretty disgusting position to take. They are essentially saying, because of the results of hormones released during fetal development and later during puberty, men are generally stronger and faster and therefore should be paid more. Even though they can only use these genetic advances when playing like foes. There is no advantage. This is exactly why the discrimination laws exist.
Its a legal issue. In the US we have strict rules about gender discrimination. While there are exceptions that allow discrimination, each side is voicing in motions why they think and exception does or does not apply. People are allowed to disagree.
The thing is, even if US Soccer is correct legally, its a pretty disgusting position to take. They are essentially saying, because of the results of hormones released during fetal development and later during puberty, men are generally stronger and faster and therefore should be paid more. Even though they can only use these genetic advances when playing like foes. There is no advantage. This is exactly why the discrimination laws exist.
Well it's a sport. People get paid for their entertainment value, which draws in funds from the paying public. Is it "fair" from an egalitarian perspective? Certainly not. But how often is capitalism fair? I'm okay with money from the men's side being transferred to the women's in order to try and boost the sport; we already do that in college. But don't completely drain the men's side to feed the women's sport, or it will kill both. There's still supply and demand at work.
Well it's a sport. People get paid for their entertainment value, which draws in funds from the paying public. Is it "fair" from an egalitarian perspective? Certainly not. But how often is capitalism fair? I'm okay with money from the men's side being transferred to the women's in order to try and boost the sport; we already do that in college. But don't completely drain the men's side to feed the women's sport, or it will kill both. There's still supply and demand at work.
So its an interesting concept you talk about. I respectfully disagree with your thoughts you posted. Supply and demand do not apply to non-profit development where there is no competition. If it did, there would be competing agencies trying to develop the best US teams for profit. If that is what we want to do, I get it. Lets have any many for profit businesses start developing soccer leagues and have the best compete. US Soccer does not do this. they are the sole entity allowing US Soccer players to compete at the international level. There is no supply and demand. US Soccer sets the demand. People most certainly do not get paid their entertainment value when there is no competition. They get paid what US soccer wants to pay them, or they leave and choose not to play internationally. If they can compete for another nation because of dual citizenship or other genetic history, they can sometimes. But there is no true competition to drive pay for the value each player provides. The issue is that it is not capitalism. Furthermore, the US has restrictions on capitalism. Can McDonald's say that they will pay men and women different salaries for the same work, of course not. An issue is defining what the work itself is. Is the work representing the US in international competition to win. Okay, I am fine if that is it. Then the women deserve more pay. Is it to sell tickets, well we know that it is not, since it is a non-profit enterprise. If it was for profit, we get it, but it is not. US Soccer cannot hold itself out as a non-profit enterprise and claim that pay is set by the profitability of a team. I would also believe more in the suggestion that money from the men's side being transferred to the women's in order to try and boost the sport but that does not happen. The real money is not US Ticket sales, the real money in sports is TV Rights and sponsorship. Go into any Volkswagen dealer and look at the posters. No pics of Mens team players, but pics of Alex Morgan and Carly Lloyd everywhere. Also, we do not do this in college. Te US is not in the college business. Individual colleges which compete with each other for business do this. Again, one is open competition for services, one is not. Also, its not a men/woman thing in college, its take mens football and mens basketball money and distribute it to all other sports, from mens soccer and swimming to womens That has little to do with sex and only to do with what sports make money. After these two, the profitable sport is womens gymnastics. Which at the power 5 level is self serving. And no one is talking about draining one side to fund the other. What they are talking about is each player, man or woman, in a system where salary is artificially set up, make it equal.
Here is my proposal. US Soccer takes all revenue and cuts it in half. Half goes to US Soccer for its programming, half goes to the players. Players salary is based on the past year's revenue, and can be adjusted with an accounting the following year. When the US women make the world cup, they are playing for every US player on each roster. When the men win Concacaf, they are doing the same. When US Soccer is trying to get Bud or Coors to be the official beer of US soccer, it benefits all players the same.
Also, all players get the same benefits. All women get maternity leave, all men get paternity. All get the same healthcare, all get the same equipment. Trainers can work with each team, but trainers ae paid equally and neither side is favored in equipment, facilities or anything else. Just play these two teams as two parts of a whole unit.
Anyway, I see you point if this was a for-profit game, like it is in professional league, but on the international team side in the US, its not, and honestly, the men and women are equal in drawing revenue if you don't play trick accounting. Its amazing, US Soccer has achieved the success it aimed for in making the US Women's team as popular, if not more so, than its mens side. Now they don't want to pay them equally. It makes no sense to me.
The thing is, even if US Soccer is correct legally, its a pretty disgusting position to take. They are essentially saying, because of the results of hormones released during fetal development and later during puberty, men are generally stronger and faster and therefore should be paid more. Even though they can only use these genetic advances when playing like foes. There is no advantage. This is exactly why the discrimination laws exist.
No, its not a disgusting position to take. The womens is good quality for women but overall the quality is poor. When that same womens team can dominate the womens game and yet lose to 15 year old boys then you have an issue. Most of those boys wont even go on to be top level at US soccer. The womens product is crap. Just because youre the best in a crap tournament, doesnt mean youre great. Plus % wise the receive more than men.
Why do women porn stars get paid more than men? Is is discrimination or entertainment value and market demand?
There is little demand for women's sports, women don't support women's sports with money and total revenue is a fraction of men's sports because most globally don't find women's sports entertaining.
If the women think they are just as good as the men, let them try out for the mens team. Or, if they want to prove tgey are equal, how about a match with a professional mens team?
The thing is, even if US Soccer is correct legally, its a pretty disgusting position to take. They are essentially saying, because of the results of hormones released during fetal development and later during puberty, men are generally stronger and faster and therefore should be paid more. Even though they can only use these genetic advances when playing like foes. There is no advantage. This is exactly why the discrimination laws exist.
Hypothetically then, as a male athlete, do you feel discriminated against because you're not getting the same salaries as the elite athletes? If you trained just as hard, shouldn't you get the same benefits? The only difference then is genetic advantages.
"The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women from sex-based wage discrimination in the payment of wages or benefits, who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment."
Here is my proposal. US Soccer takes all revenue and cuts it in half. Half goes to US Soccer for its programming, half goes to the players. Players salary is based on the past year's revenue, and can be adjusted with an accounting the following year. When the US women make the world cup, they are playing for every US player on each roster. When the men win Concacaf, they are doing the same. When US Soccer is trying to get Bud or Coors to be the official beer of US soccer, it benefits all players the same.
Also, all players get the same benefits. All women get maternity leave, all men get paternity. All get the same healthcare, all get the same equipment. Trainers can work with each team, but trainers ae paid equally and neither side is favored in equipment, facilities or anything else. Just play these two teams as two parts of a whole unit.
Anyway, I see you point if this was a for-profit game, like it is in professional league, but on the international team side in the US, its not, and honestly, the men and women are equal in drawing revenue if you don't play trick accounting. Its amazing, US Soccer has achieved the success it aimed for in making the US Women's team as popular, if not more so, than its mens side. Now they don't want to pay them equally. It makes no sense to me.
This would be true if the US men and women were competing for the same cup in the same forum. They are not. As has been mentioned before, the contest is a money-making enterprise based primarily on TV revenue, plus the audience attendees. The total prize is divided up based on the success within the tournament. This is what the players are competing for. If you want the two to be "equal", then force the TV networks to pay the same amount to cover both. I'll bet they'd be pleased to do just that, because enforced socialism.
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.
