Battle of the sexes: USA Soccer Edition

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

Since all sports are cancelled for the foreseeable future, I figured this would be a lively conversation for a message board pretty low on content.

The US women's national soccer team is suing the United States Soccer Federation for equal pay as the men's team. Below is the argument that the defense team is arguing:

"US Soccer lawyers arguing that, under the Equal Pay Act, "The job of a [men?s national team player] carries more responsibility within US Soccer than the job of a [women's national team] player."

There were also lines of questioning to some current USWNT players.

"Do you think that the team could be competitive against the senior men's national team?" a US Soccer lawyer asked Lloyd, according to documents filed last month.

"I'm not sure," Lloyd said. "Shall we fight it out to see who wins and then we get paid more"

Could get pretty interesting. I also think this was kind of a dumb argument for the US Soccer lawyers to make. Even though it is true, they probably should have stuck to a more revenue/profit based argument rather than pretty much stating that the women aren't as talented as the men.

Thoughts?

[gtowndawg]

If the senior men's team really gave it 100% effort they would absolutely murder the women's team. Anyone that thinks otherwise is crazy.

[dalmuti]

pay the ladies double until the men can do better than the 1930 world cup team

[R2Dawg]

Since all sports are cancelled for the foreseeable future, I figured this would be a lively conversation for a message board pretty low on content.

The US women's national soccer team is suing the United States Soccer Federation for equal pay as the men's team. Below is the argument that the defense team is arguing:

"US Soccer lawyers arguing that, under the Equal Pay Act, "The job of a [men?s national team player] carries more responsibility within US Soccer than the job of a [women's national team] player."

There were also lines of questioning to some current USWNT players.

"Do you think that the team could be competitive against the senior men's national team?" a US Soccer lawyer asked Lloyd, according to documents filed last month.

"I'm not sure," Lloyd said. "Shall we fight it out to see who wins and then we get paid more"

Could get pretty interesting. I also think this was kind of a dumb argument for the US Soccer lawyers to make. Even though it is true, they probably should have stuck to a more revenue/profit based argument rather than pretty much stating that the women aren't as talented as the men.

Thoughts?

This one is an easy argument. Pay whomever what they deserve. If women's soccer brings in more revenue then they should get that % if men do then they should. Same for NBA and WNBA which is what they do. Beauty of free market economy. Pay for who produces.

Men and women equality applies to some things but not others. Equal rights but not equal results. Here is a big secret - men and women are different.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

If the senior men's team really gave it 100% effort they would absolutely murder the women's team. Anyone that thinks otherwise is crazy.

If they actually ended up playing I think the men would win something like 8-0 or 9-0. I think they men would put it away quick and then just sit on the lead in the second half. I?d still love to see it

[dantheman4248]

The lawyers are totally screwing up the debate.

It's not about competition and who works hardest. It's about who is more profitable and better entertainment. Plain and simple.

Thaaaaaaaat's capitalism

[BulldogDX55]

The lawyers are totally screwing up the debate.

It's not about competition and who works hardest. It's about who is more profitable and better entertainment. Plain and simple.

Thaaaaaaaat's capitalism

And the thing is, all reports indicate that the women bring in both more ratings and revenue. There's literally no reason why they should be getting paid less.

[The Federalist Engineer]

Delete - it’s an economics question not about who is better in the sport

[thf24]

The lawyers are totally screwing up the debate.

It's not about competition and who works hardest. It's about who is more profitable and better entertainment. Plain and simple.

Thaaaaaaaat's capitalism

And rightfully so. I'm all for the women getting what they deserve, but if they want to make as much as the men they need to figure out how to sell as much product (which, some people don't seem to understand, includes club play in addition to national).

[thf24]

And the thing is, all reports indicate that the women bring in both more ratings and revenue.

For strictly national team play, yes. For all of US pro soccer, not even close in favor of the men.

[dantheman4248]

And the thing is, all reports indicate that the women bring in both more ratings and revenue. There's literally no reason why they should be getting paid less.

Press (X) to doubt.


The women only compete in one paying event every four years. The men compete in at least 3 that I can think of off the top of my head. The women don't generate revenue. Men don't watch it near as much as they watch other men compete. Do we not remember Secretary of Defense Tim Howard? Way more Americans watched that than this past world cup.

[Johnson85]

Press (X) to doubt.


The women only compete in one paying event every four years. The men compete in at least 3 that I can think of off the top of my head. The women don't generate revenue. Men don't watch it near as much as they watch other men compete. Do we not remember Secretary of Defense Tim Howard? Way more Americans watched that than this past world cup.

That is actually correct looking at a recent four year period. Basically, looking at a four year period, in a period in which the women win the world cup and the men don't even qualify, the women actually do outpace the men in revenue. Of course if the men qualify for the world cup, that alone exceeds the revenue the women could pull in in a four year period.

[Johnson85]

This one is an easy argument. Pay whomever what they deserve. If women's soccer brings in more revenue then they should get that % if men do then they should. Same for NBA and WNBA which is what they do. Beauty of free market economy. Pay for who produces.

Men and women equality applies to some things but not others. Equal rights but not equal results. Here is a big secret - men and women are different.

It's actually not quite that simple, although it's close. First, there is the issue of how the pay is structured. You get paid more for taking on more risk. Playing on the men's team is basically a side gig for the players. THey make their money as pros and they can afford to take on more variable pay. THey don't need benefits like health insurance or paternity leave. They don't need large minimum guarantees.

Second, there is the issue of what to include in compensation. THe Federation claims (and I assume they are telling the truth) that they subsidize the women teams in the US, including the salaries they pay the players that end up on the woman's team. To the extent that money can't be tracked directly to the players' compensation, it may be a fair argument that the federation's money to promote the women's game shouldn't count against their compensation (although on the other hand, if they didn't subsidize the women's teams, they might have trouble having a professional league to play in in the US).

The Federation should just figure out the percentage of revenue that men get and offer the women the same thing, structured the same way (which I think they basically did already except they offered women a higher percentage of the revenue they generate). Then just make them pay for benefits using a third party provider. IF they want maternity, let them buy short term disability through a voluntary policy. If they want insurance, offer a plan without an employer match.

[BulldogDX55]

For strictly national team play, yes. For all of US pro soccer, not even close in favor of the men.


Press (X) to doubt.


The women only compete in one paying event every four years. The men compete in at least 3 that I can think of off the top of my head. The women don't generate revenue. Men don't watch it near as much as they watch other men compete. Do we not remember Secretary of Defense Tim Howard? Way more Americans watched that than this past world cup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

"That’s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women’s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men’s games. From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games."


That is actually correct looking at a recent four year period. Basically, looking at a four year period, in a period in which the women win the world cup and the men don't even qualify, the women actually do outpace the men in revenue. Of course if the men qualify for the world cup, that alone exceeds the revenue the women could pull in in a four year period.

Sure, but that still means the generated more, and for that reason they deserve more.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

"That’s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women’s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men’s games. From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games."



Sure, but that still means the generated more, and for that reason they deserve more.


I don't doubt that's true. The men failed to make the last World Cup and the women won theirs. It's not totally surprising that the women out earned the men. I believe this is the first time in history that has ever happened. The part about the argument that doesn't compute is that the women are given a larger percentage of the revenue they generate domestically than the men. The men just make a ton more money because there is exponentially more money that FIFA distributes, not the USSF. Also, the women don't have health insurance through US Soccer because they failed to get it through their collective bargaining agreement.

[Irondawg]

Unless the US soccer federation lawyers totally bungle the case this is a pretty easy one to do logically and still offer the women a fair deal. I’m not putting it past then though

[RocketDawg]

This one is an easy argument. Pay whomever what they deserve. If women's soccer brings in more revenue then they should get that % if men do then they should. Same for NBA and WNBA which is what they do. Beauty of free market economy. Pay for who produces.

Men and women equality applies to some things but not others. Equal rights but not equal results. Here is a big secret - men and women are different.

Exactly.

[missouridawg]

I think the men’s lawyers are arguing the wrong point. The men make more because they generate more revenue. The idea that the men carry more weight is completely subjective. The revenues, jersey sales, and TV stats are not disputable.

[Liverpooldawg]

Women's soccer is basically popular in 3-4 countries every four years during a WC year. Nobody cares otherwise.

[Ari Gold]

Maybe if they start letting transgenders play with the women things will change.. **

[The Federalist Engineer]

I think the men’s lawyers are arguing the wrong point. The men make more because they generate more revenue. The idea that the men carry more weight is completely subjective. The revenues, jersey sales, and TV stats are not disputable.

Just make a fixed pay schedule .... say 5 or 10% of attributed net goes to the players. Distribution to specific players based on games and minutes played.

BAM! Who ever generates the greater profits gets the most pay.

[R2Dawg]

It's actually not quite that simple, although it's close. First, there is the issue of how the pay is structured. You get paid more for taking on more risk. Playing on the men's team is basically a side gig for the players. THey make their money as pros and they can afford to take on more variable pay. THey don't need benefits like health insurance or paternity leave. They don't need large minimum guarantees.

Second, there is the issue of what to include in compensation. THe Federation claims (and I assume they are telling the truth) that they subsidize the women teams in the US, including the salaries they pay the players that end up on the woman's team. To the extent that money can't be tracked directly to the players' compensation, it may be a fair argument that the federation's money to promote the women's game shouldn't count against their compensation (although on the other hand, if they didn't subsidize the women's teams, they might have trouble having a professional league to play in in the US).

The Federation should just figure out the percentage of revenue that men get and offer the women the same thing, structured the same way (which I think they basically did already except they offered women a higher percentage of the revenue they generate). Then just make them pay for benefits using a third party provider. IF they want maternity, let them buy short term disability through a voluntary policy. If they want insurance, offer a plan without an employer match.

OK, deep dive in details there are fine points but the guiding principal is that simple. Again see NBA and WNBA. End of discussion on equal pay.

The other topic of wanting to see them play would be interesting and must see TV. Even if women had good skill the athleticism of men would take over game.

In 9th grade, my boys basketball team played our high school girls (made state championship game and had 6 college players on it). They competed but we beat them. They were humbled. I think their coach did it on purpose before they made their run to state to let them know that they could be beat.

[dantheman4248]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

"That?s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women?s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men?s games. From 2016 to 2018, women?s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men?s games."



Sure, but that still means the generated more, and for that reason they deserve more.

Soccer plays most things in 4 year rotations. Why only look at a sample of 3 years unless they have an agenda. That's the thing about stats, you can practically make them say whatever you want when you're good enough at them.

This would be a non-issue if they were each paid as a group in percentage of revenue generated that was the same. The women have a higher slice of their pie in that regard. So that will never happen, but it's what would ultimately be fair (and could in the long run be better for future women as women sports more and more gain popularity. America has the best female athletes and we love winners. Keep winning and the money will roll in.)

[The Federalist Engineer]

If the female money gets good...this dude is ahead of his time. Dominating women’s handball

https://s2.glbimg.com/wN4bCCYHUKDGPrE09q-9GiLqE_E=/0x0:1396x785/924x0/smart/filters:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_bc8228b6673f488aa253bbcb03c80ec5/internal_photos/bs/2018/O/P/rAgByLR3G1uRuQgepvQw/http-prod.static9.net.au-media-2018-12-11-12-33-mounceyhandball-env.jpg

https://e00-marca.uecdn.es/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2018/12/18/15451569703730.jpg

[Joebob]

All I know is the women are a lot more fun to watch, so I say pay them.

By the way, can anyone even name a single player on the men’s team?

[The Federalist Engineer]

All I know is the women are a lot more fun to watch, so I say pay them.

By the way, can anyone even name a single player on the men’s team?

This guy, Christian Pulisic, plays for Chelsea FC

https://i1.wp.com/www.hemispheresmag.com/new/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Good-Sport-1.jpg?fit=1600%2C872&ssl=1

He costed Chelsea $73M to transfer from Borussia Dortmund (2nd biggest German team) and he gets paid about $1M per year.

One sad thing for the women is that they basically only make money by playing for the national team, they don't have a steady paycheck from a professional club like Pulisic and the US Men. The money from the "National Team" is just fun money for the boys. If they stopped playing for the USNT, then they would just have more vacation time.

Only the most famous women make six or seven figures. Rapinoe only makes $25K from her club, probably makes more from endorsements to sell products to fellow Democrats. The average (not the best) salary for men in MLS is approximately $350K per year with major stars making seven figures. BTW, all the USNT players are major stars.

[Johnson85]

All I know is the women are a lot more fun to watch, so I say pay them.

By the way, can anyone even name a single player on the men?s team?

I suspect people that actually watch soccer more than once every four years will be able to name a lot more men players and will actually be able to name players not on the national team.

The only player I can name off the woman's team is Rapinoe (sp?) and that's because she comes off as an awful enough human being that it's memorable. She may be a great person in real life, but in snippets, she seems horrible.

And there's one named Gabby or something that is kind of attractive?

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

All I know is the women are a lot more fun to watch, so I say pay them.



By the way, can anyone even name a single player on the men’s team?

More fun to watch because they win more.The game moves at about half speed compared to the men.