Soccer equal pay ruling

#2

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,215
Likes
32,899
#2
US Soccer is so stupid on this. We get it, the women don't generate as much revenue, but the optics of this look so bad. It's worth it just for the good press, but now we're to the point where they should do it just to avoid bad press. It's a non-profit organization, LOL. This would be like the NCAA only offering partial scholarships to women.
 
#3

Fun coupon VOL

Not at the table Carlos
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
656
Likes
617
#3
US Soccer is so stupid on this. We get it, the women don't generate as much revenue, but the optics of this look so bad. It's worth it just for the good press, but now we're to the point where they should do it just to avoid bad press. It's a non-profit organization, LOL. This would be like the NCAA only offering partial scholarships to women.
The ncaa should only offer partial scholarships to women. Top 25 high school boys teams would beat the national champion for women in any sport like a drum, excluding gymnastics.

Men’s college athletics shouldn’t have to subsidize women’s college sports. This applies to the pros and US teams.

If you don’t generate revenue you don’t get paid.
 
#4

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,215
Likes
32,899
#4
The ncaa should only offer partial scholarships to women. Top 25 high school boys teams would beat the national champion for women in any sport like a drum, excluding gymnastics.

Men’s college athletics shouldn’t have to subsidize women’s college sports. This applies to the pros and US teams.

If you don’t generate revenue you don’t get paid.
Well, they do generate revenue. Quite a bit, actually.

1557338057979.png

Most college sports teams aren't in the black, so you're talking about eliminating 95% of full scholarships (only some men's basketball and football teams would make the cut). Do you really want a merit system in college athletics? I'm cool with that.
 
Last edited:
#5

Fun coupon VOL

Not at the table Carlos
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
656
Likes
617
#5
Cherry pick a year slim.
Well, they do generate revenue. Quite a bit, actually.

View attachment 204798

Most college sports teams aren't in the black, so you're talking about eliminating 95% of full scholarships (only some men's basketball and football teams would make the cut). Do you really want a merit system in college athletics? I'm cool with that.
Ha of course you cherry pick one year. Go look at the men for the olympics or World Cup for comparison.

Sure go ahead with the merit based system. Men’s programs make more money than any women’s sport ever will unless they bring lingerie football to a school near you.(No Fatties)
 
#8

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,215
Likes
32,899
#8
Cherry pick a year slim.

Ha of course you cherry pick one year. Go look at the men for the olympics or World Cup for comparison.

Sure go ahead with the merit based system. Men’s programs make more money than any women’s sport ever will unless they bring lingerie football to a school near you.(No Fatties)
I showed 4 years, not 1. In my very first post I acknowledged that the men bring in more revenue. All I'm showing with the graph is that the women bring in a significant amount of $ in response to your comment, "If you don’t generate revenue you don’t get paid."

A merit-based system would mean that players get paid...or if you are uncomfortable with $, you'd have to somehow figure out how to give guys like Kyler Murray $500k+ in benefits, since he generates millions in revenue. Are you still sure you want a merit-based system?
 
#9

Fun coupon VOL

Not at the table Carlos
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
656
Likes
617
#9
I showed 4 years, not 1. In my very first post I acknowledged that the men bring in more revenue. All I'm showing with the graph is that the women bring in a significant amount of $ in response to your comment, "If you don’t generate revenue you don’t get paid."

A merit-based system would mean that players get paid...or if you are uncomfortable with $, you'd have to somehow figure out how to give guys like Kyler Murray $500k+ in benefits, since he generates millions in revenue. Are you still sure you want a merit-based system?
They don’t generate enough revenue to cover expenses.
Please, go ahead with paying women the same as the men and we will see how fast they shut down the women’s US soccer team. I can’t wait for this to happen.

But, I would expect the us to cover all of the expenses for the women’s game with money from what the men generate so women can be paid equally.
 
#10

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,215
Likes
32,899
#10
They don’t generate enough revenue to cover expenses. Please, go ahead with paying women the same as the men and we will see how fast they shut down the women’s US soccer team. I can’t wait for this to happen.
Link? In 2015, US soccer budgeted for a loss and they were in the black by $17M because USWNT did so well. Revenue is going up. If the women go on strike instead of playing in the WC this summer, I guarantee you that US soccer would give, because it's worth it to them.

US soccer nickel and dimed the men's team back in the late 90's and it resulted in the American Fiasco, which US soccer would do anything to change that history. They didn't learn their lesson. There is so much revenue to be had with the women if they do well this summer. The last thing you want is an unhappy team.
 
#14

Fun coupon VOL

Not at the table Carlos
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
656
Likes
617
#14
So now it's about who won a scrimmage and not revenue?...because those under-15 boys won't draw anybody to their games.
Nope. They still don’t produce the revenue the men’s team does. This is proven. I’m just showing that they will never bring the money in that men do because they are not even close in terms of skill and athleticism.

Now, if you put them in lingerie and said hey go kick this ball around, they could and probably would eclipse the men in revenue. Especially if you count the $1 thrown on the field.

Women’s college basketball, softball, soccer all lose money and are funded by men’s sports, yet you stay here and try to argue that the women’s national team is the exception.

Attendance for home games for the men and women teams are as follows:

2018: W - 14,064 M - 24,163
2017: W - 18,150 M - 29,400
2016: W - 15,973 M - 29,707
2015: W - 27,766 M - 38,763

The women have played on average 5.6 games more a year while the men’s team has missed out on the biggest tournaments the last few years.

From 2016 to 2018 the women generated 50.8 million in gate sales while playing 61 games and the men generated 49.9 million in gate sales while playing 49 games. 832,786 per game to 1,018,367 per game. I’m giving you the best years for the women. Difference of 185,581 or 8,069 dollars per player.(23 man roster). The lawsuit filed by the uswnt alleged the men made $13,166 dollars per game compared to the women making $4,950. If we assume the $4,950 is the base salary for the generated revenue of $832,786 for the women’s game, then splitting / dividing the additional revenue(185,581) produced by the men’s game at just the gate by the total players for the men’s roster(23) we total a per game salary of $13,018.74,or just a little under the $13,166 they allege. Now this assumes expenses and revenues from all outside factors are the same. Expenses should be greater for the women’s team since more games were played.

The USA purposefully includes both teams in the broadcasting rights package, so to get the men you have to take the women as well.
 
#15

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
10,996
Likes
7,313
#15
Totally irrelevant. I can be the greatest underwater basket weaver in the world. If nobody wants to pay a dime to watch me do it, I won't make a dime.

Over the last couple of years, the gap between the revenue generated by the men and the women isn't large. To that extent, the USWNT's complaints to be paid more are legitimate. Way more legitimate than WNBA players saying they should make salaries more akin to what NBA players make.
 
#16

Fun coupon VOL

Not at the table Carlos
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
656
Likes
617
#16
Totally irrelevant. I can be the greatest underwater basket weaver in the world. If nobody wants to pay a dime to watch me do it, I won't make a dime.

Over the last couple of years, the gap between the revenue generated by the men and the women isn't large. To that extent, the USWNT's complaints to be paid more are legitimate. Way more legitimate than WNBA players saying they should make salaries more akin to what NBA players make.
Did you read my post directly before yours?
 
#17

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
32,454
Likes
12,794
#17
US Soccer is so stupid on this. We get it, the women don't generate as much revenue, but the optics of this look so bad. It's worth it just for the good press, but now we're to the point where they should do it just to avoid bad press. It's a non-profit organization, LOL. This would be like the NCAA only offering partial scholarships to women.
Lol. Yes they should get more money because the "optics" look bad. Millenialism 101.
 
#21

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
32,454
Likes
12,794
#21
US Soccer, which hasn't had the best press the last few years. Apparently you're out of your depth here.
Not at all. Completely comfortable with idea that no one gives a damn. Haven't heard a single person discuss this event in my daily interactions since it began. It is a niche sport, as are all ladies sports.
 
#22

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,215
Likes
32,899
#22
Not at all. Completely comfortable with idea that no one gives a damn. Haven't heard a single person discuss this event in my daily interactions since it began. It is a niche sport, as are all ladies sports.
If I don't know about it, it doesn't matter. Boomerism 101.

FTR, 25.4 million people watched the US women in the final in 2015...
 
#23

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
32,454
Likes
12,794
#23
If I don't know about it, it doesn't matter. Boomerism 101.
I know about it, as do the people aged 20-60 males and females, that I interact with daily. Just not if interest to anyone.

You really want something to be, even though you know it isn't. But you'll keep repeating to yourself it is. Back to millenialism.
 
#24

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,215
Likes
32,899
#24
I know about it, as do the people aged 20-60 males and females, that I interact with daily. Just not if interest to anyone.

You really want something to be, even though you know it isn't. But you'll keep repeating to yourself it is. Back to millenialism.
Most people I know have no idea I watch USWNT or have an opinion* on the fair pay case. The idea that you think people not talking to you about it is evidence they don't care reveals a lot about your ego.

*which is nuanced and probably not what you think.
 
#25

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
32,454
Likes
12,794
#25
Most people I know have no idea I watch USWNT or have an opinion* on the fair pay case. The idea that you think people not talking to you about it is evidence they don't care reveals a lot about your ego.

*which is nuanced and probably not what you think.
I'm pretty sure it indicates they all have other things more interesting to discuss than women's soccer. Obviously, that isn't a very high bar.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top