DrunkOffPunch Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 10 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: B) What the team earns from US Soccer. The US women's team brings in slightly more money than the men's team. This is where they should be getting equal or better pay than the men. 2016 - 2018 US Soccer revenue from women = 50.8 million US Soccer revenue from men = 49.9 million Those numbers don't count USSF's revenue for hosting the 2016 Copa America. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 33 minutes ago, DrunkOffPunch said: Those numbers don't count USSF's revenue for hosting the 2016 Copa America. Does it count the games the U.S. played in at Copa America? 1 Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: And that’s where it totally baffles my mind as a historically conservative person. Why is your opinion considered the “conservative” opinion? you admit they should be paid equally. Just because they agreed to the bargaining, doesn’t mean that the issue still isn’t a valid issue, like you admit to....yet claim it’s a faux issue. (Which you actually contradict yourself) Why do conservative talking heads proclaim immediately that these women are destroying everything that is good in America just because they are claiming they should be paid more. Is it because they’re women? A gay woman? Why do conservatives jump immediately to that opinion instead of saying.....let’s look at it and see if something needs changed? Or, is it because they criticized the dear leader? I can't speak for the conservative "talking heads", but I would imagine it has to do with your last sentence. There was no contradiction in my stance. I can believe that they are underpaid compared to the men, while also believing they CURRENTLY have no legitimate gripe, because they're paid under terms that they (or those representing them) agreed too. As for what annoys me about the ordeal, it's really two things: 1) Their pay was collectively bargained. 2) As you mentioned earlier, their argument is on shaky ground as it is. They receive a higher percentage of Women's soccer revenue than the Men do in their sport, so is it USMNT's fault that Men's soccer is far and away more profitable, and popular than Women's soccer? Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: They receive a higher percentage of Women's soccer revenue than the Men do in their sport, so is it USMNT's fault that Men's soccer is far and away more profitable, and popular than Women's soccer? Unless I misunderstand you, I think this convoluting things which was discussed earlier. They're not suing because the men's world cup makes eleventy billion more $ than the women's world cup. They're suing because the revenues are similar between the U.S. women's team and U.S. men's team. They're suing the USSF, not FIFA. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 Just now, Moiraine said: Unless I misunderstand you, I think this convolution things which was discussed earlier. They're not suing because the men's world cup makes eleventy billion more $ than the women's world cup. They're suing because the revenues are similar between the U.S. women's team and U.S. men's team. They're suing the USSF, not FIFA. Ah, okay. I may have misread that. So the 13%/9% isn't from the USSF? Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: Ah, okay. I may have misread that. So the 13%/9% isn't from the USSF? I missed BRB's post. But ya, that's from FIFA who, as far as I know, isn't getting sued over the pay gap. Not sure the teams are even complaining about them although I'm sure there are individuals who are. The USSF numbers are hard to get to but the revenue looks like it's close for them. Link to comment
DrunkOffPunch Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 17 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Does it count the games the U.S. played in at Copa America? I’m going to assume so but IDK. TBH the numbers between the 3 years don’t really make sense. In that time frame the MNT played in two tournaments, the 2016 Copa America and the 2017 GC. Between the two they took home 3.5m in prize money while the women only played in the olympics and the women’s CONCACAF championship. They got knocked out of the quarters in the Olympics and IDK if the Olympics even has a prize pool or how big it would be. The women’s CONCACAF championship gets way worse attendance that their friendlies which is weird since it’s used as WCQ but IDK if that tournament has a prize pool either. Just looking at games played and attendance you would figure the women would’ve out generated the men in 2018 but not 2016/2017. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DrunkOffPunch said: I’m going to assume so but IDK. TBH the numbers between the 3 years don’t really make sense. In that time frame the MNT played in two tournaments, the 2016 Copa America and the 2017 GC. Between the two they took home 3.5m in prize money while the women only played in the olympics and the women’s CONCACAF championship. They got knocked out of the quarters in the Olympics and IDK if the Olympics even has a prize pool or how big it would be. The women’s CONCACAF championship gets way worse attendance that their friendlies which is weird since it’s used as WCQ but IDK if that tournament has a prize pool either. Just looking at games played and attendance you would figure the women would’ve out generated the men in 2018 but not 2016/2017. I just know that what I read is the women generated more $ from their games. I worded the question badly but I'm not sure it makes sense to count other teams' games just because they happened in the U.S., so what I was really wondering is whether other Copa games counted. The game revenue may count TV $ as well (not sure - the numbers are difficult to find), and the 2 women's WC championships broke records for soccer viewership in the U.S. The thing is even if the men make 20% more, then they should be paid 20% more. Not whatever it is now. The contracts should be written so at least a chunk of it is based on revenue and that part of the contract should be the same for men and women. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 21 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: There was no contradiction in my stance. I can believe that they are underpaid compared to the men, while also believing they CURRENTLY have no legitimate gripe, because they're paid under terms that they (or those representing them) agreed too. Then it’s not a faux issue. It comes off as yours and others outrage is simply because you don’t want to hear about it and they are women who don’t like Trump. Which doesnt make it Faux. Why is being upset its being discussed “conservative”? Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 26 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Then it’s not a faux issue. It comes off as yours and others outrage is simply because you don’t want to hear about it and they are women who don’t like Trump. Which doesnt make it Faux. Why is being upset its being discussed “conservative”? Outrage? Nah, I don't really care that much. Considering I can't stand Trump myself, I don't know why their disdain for him would bother me. Link to comment
DrunkOffPunch Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Moiraine said: I just know that what I read is the women generated more $ from their games. I worded the question badly but I'm not sure it makes sense to count other teams' games just because they happened in the U.S., so what I was really wondering is whether other Copa games counted. The game revenue may count TV $ as well (not sure - the numbers are difficult to find), and the 2 women's WC championships broke records for soccer viewership in the U.S. The thing is even if the men make 20% more, then they should be paid 20% more. Not whatever it is now. The contracts should be written so at least a chunk of it is based on revenue and that part of the contract should be the same for men and women. No but the USSF gets compensated for hosting the tournament. IDK what percent they get but Chile got 6.5m for winning and I know the prize pool was about 21.5m which was bigger than the 2015 WWC. I doubt the revenue counts TV $. The Copa America is the 4th biggest soccer tournament in the world and without knowing their 2019 numbers the 2016 edition was the most watched version worldwide. The problem with saying ‘most watched in the US’ is that it doesn’t mean a whole lot when other countries don’t tune in. Around the world the numbers are way behind the men. Also the USSF doesn’t own the TV rights to Olympic or WC games. So from that standpoint the USSF would be making more money off the men because the women only play friendlies outside of the WC/Olympics and their qualifying games. You have to base the players payment on 4 year projections. If the women were to have lost to Spain in the round of 16 it would’ve massively cut into their profit. Same with the MNT not making the WC. You need a bit of overhead in a worst case scenario. The salaries the women get really make things a lot more complicated. If it was pay-to-play like the men it would be much easier to solve. Bit of a side note but I hate the salaries. It keeps fringe WNT from getting caps and hurts our development. We had by far the deepest player pool a WWC has ever seen so it didn’t hurt us this year but with half of our team on the wrong side of 30 and Europe becoming more heavily invested in the women’s side our advantage is shrinking and by 2027 may be non existent. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted July 14, 2019 Author Share Posted July 14, 2019 I would have zero issue with this being considered treason. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said: I would have zero issue with this being considered treason. Ya that’s not okay. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: I would have zero issue with this being considered treason. Really? That seems like a complete overreaction. Treason is reserved for betraying the US to a foreign power that the US is at war with. I don't agree with replacing the US flag with the Mexican flag, but it's a minor case of civil disobedience at worst. 1 Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted July 14, 2019 Author Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 minute ago, RedDenver said: Really? That seems like a complete overreaction. Treason is reserved for betraying the US to a foreign power that the US is at war with. I don't agree with replacing the US flag with the Mexican flag, but it's a minor case of civil disobedience at worst. It would obviously be on the low end of the "treason scale", but I don't think it's an overreaction. On some level, it is a betrayal of this country. Link to comment
Recommended Posts