How far Left, could a Leftist Left, if a Leftist could Left, Left.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There’s nothing wrong with finding out whether they’re paid fairly based on the revenue they produce. I believe the latter is what you’re getting at and I agree, the pay should be based on the revenue brought in. 

 

But this is brought about by soccer, obviously, and the women’s team has generated more revenue from its games in the past 3 years. That was something I didn’t realize until recently - I thought the lawsuit was stupid because I assumed they generated less revenue. 

 

The sponsorship deals are done in a bundle so those can’t be separated, but Nike says the women’s jerseys are breaking records for both men’s and women’s soccer jersey sales.

 

Additionally, 2 women’s soccer games have each brought in more TV viewership than any U.S. men’s soccer game in history, due to their playing in the World Cup. And their getting to the World Cup is an accomplishment that is part of the equation, not something that should be minimized when comparing the 2. If the women play better against their competition, and due to that generate more revenue, that matters in deciding whether to pay them more. If the men ever make it that far their pay should be increased.

 

Also, if this topic is about all national sports teams, another piece of the conversation should be that men’s and women’s figure skaters make the same amount, even though the women generate more revenue. 

 

 

It was all collectively bargained. That alone makes all arguments (and the lawsuit) laughably irrelevant for the time being.

[Moiraine]

27 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

It was all collectively bargained. That alone makes all arguments (and the lawsuit) laughably irrelevant for the time being.

 

 

If the lawsuit is what you’re saying it is, wouldn’t it have been thrown out already? I assume they must have an argument that doesn’t make it frivolous. 

[BigRedBuster]

The equal pay issue for soccer is not as cut and dried as a lot of people want to make it out to be.  There is nothing wrong with the discussion and I have no problem with the team lobbying for their side.  People who don't think it's an issue and don't want it discussed are just looking like idiots.  

 

I've tried to read up on the issue and, quite frankly, it's very difficult to get good info all in one spot that's well organized.  It's like reporters who are reporting on it failed the class on data organization or something.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, there are two parts to this:

 

A)  What the team gets paid from FIFA when they advance through the tournament and ultimately win.  Right now, the revenue that FIFA makes off of women's soccer is much less than the men's WC.  So, in my mind, it's not out of line that the payouts from FIFA through the tourney would be less for women.  

 

FIFA revenue from Women's WC 2015 = $73 million = players got 13%

FIFA revenue from Men's WC 2010 = $4 billion = players got 9%

 

LINK

 

and....

 

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

 

But, it's still more complicated than it seems.

 

LINK

 

Quote

 

How are the players paid?

Player compensation is more complicated to calculate because many variables are involved — and less information has been made public about the current compensation mechanism.

 

Earnings for both men and women are governed by collective bargaining agreements, with a player’s eventual earnings affected by the number of games played and whether the team wins or loses.

 

In the lawsuit, the women’s team said that if each team were to win 20 exhibition games in a year, "female WNT players would earn a maximum of $99,000 or $4,905 per game, while similarly situated male MNT players would earn an average of $263,320 or $13,166 per game."

However, this calculation was made under the old collective bargaining agreement.

 

PolitiFact was unable to obtain a copy of the current bargaining agreement, which has not been released publicly. The Associated Press reported that the 2017 agreement for the women’s team, which runs through 2021, includes "raises in base pay and bonuses as well as better provisions for travel and accommodations, including increased per diems."

 

In fact, under the new agreement, women’s team members are paid a guaranteed salary and then collect bonuses on top of that, while the men’s team players are paid only a bonus, the Associated Press reported. So the women have the security of a guaranteed floor.

 

Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker did obtain a copy of the new agreement. When they calculated the same 20-game scenario as the lawsuit did for the old agreement, they found that a women’s team player would now earn "$28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player."

 

In other words, by this calculation at least, a women’s team player would earn less than an equivalent men’s team player — about 11 percent less.

 

But that comparison is heavily dependent on such factors as games played and won. "If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount," the Fact Checker calculated. "That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary."

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

What is really stupid is that this discussion is in this thread.  How in the hell is this a "left or right" issue?  Why is discussing it and making sure the women are appropriately compensated some how some extreme liberal view point.  When the hell did it become some noble conservative view that women wanting to make sure they are appropriately paid are way out of line and destroying the essence of everything that is good about America?

That is what is mind blowing.

[teachercd]

The women should try to get AS MUCH as they possibly can.  Just like the men.  

 

The people paying them should try to pay them as little as they can while still getting the desired results.  

 

#Business

 

If the women want more money, go for it.  Sit out, don't play, boycott the WC (I think this would be a bold move and I do think it might backfire) and see if that gets what you want.  Take every penny you can while you can.  And when you get what you want...ask for more.  You have a limited amount of time in sports to make money.  Push for all you can get.  

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The women should try to get AS MUCH as they possibly can.  Just like the men.  

 

The people paying them should try to pay them as little as they can while still getting the desired results.  

 

#Business

You just succinctly summed up a large part of Marx's critique of capitalism. Well done.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

The equal pay issue for soccer is not as cut and dried as a lot of people want to make it out to be.  There is nothing wrong with the discussion and I have no problem with the team lobbying for their side.  People who don't think it's an issue and don't want it discussed are just looking like idiots.  

 

I've tried to read up on the issue and, quite frankly, it's very difficult to get good info all in one spot that's well organized.  It's like reporters who are reporting on it failed the class on data organization or something.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, there are two parts to this:

 

A)  What the team gets paid from FIFA when they advance through the tournament and ultimately win.  Right now, the revenue that FIFA makes off of women's soccer is much less than the men's WC.  So, in my mind, it's not out of line that the payouts from FIFA through the tourney would be less for women.  

 

FIFA revenue from Women's WC 2015 = $73 million = players got 13%

FIFA revenue from Men's WC 2010 = $4 billion = players got 9%

 

LINK

 

and....

 

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

 

But, it's still more complicated than it seems.

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

 

Good post. One thing that pisses me off is when people combine the 2 issues (FIFA payouts and U.S. Soccer) and then use it to disparage the women by trying to make it seem like the women are asking for equal pay from FIFA.

 

I found the same thing when I looked and mentioned some of it. Sponsorship is combined for men and women, but if Nike jersey sales are an indicator, the women generate more revenue there too. 

 

Right now I can name 3 active U.S. women’s players. I can maybe name 1 men’s player assuming Altidore still plays. And I don’t think that’s ‘cause I’m female. I’ve only watched 3 U.S. women’s soccer games in the past 10 years.

[BigRedBuster]

49 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Good post. One thing that pisses me off is when people combine the 2 issues (FIFA payouts and U.S. Soccer) and then use it to disparage the women by trying to make it seem like the women are asking for equal pay from FIFA.

 

Admittedly, it took me a while to figure that out.  When you listen to it being discussed, it's not readily apparent.  Unless someone actually sits down and tries to learn about the issue, they aren't going to know that.

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Admittedly, it took me a while to figure that out.  When you listen to it being discussed, it's not readily apparent.  Unless someone actually sits down and tries to learn about the issue, they aren't going to know that.

 

 

I didn’t know it until I read more but that’s what people should do - read about things. Not just spout off what they want to be true so it’s easier to disparage it.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I didn’t either but that’s what people should do - read about things. Not just spout off what they want to be true so it’s easier to disparage it.

 

Well, they gotta repeat what their talking heads have told them to say.

[VectorVictor]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What is really stupid is that this discussion is in this thread.  How in the hell is this a "left or right" issue?  Why is discussing it and making sure the women are appropriately compensated some how some extreme liberal view point.  When the hell did it become some noble conservative view that women wanting to make sure they are appropriately paid are way out of line and destroying the essence of everything that is good about America?

That is what is mind blowing.

 

Because Conservatives are playing a political game where, in order to win, someone has to lose. In this case (and many others on this board), white evangelical males would win, while everyone else loses and suffers as a result. 

 

Conversely, Liberals are trying to play a win/win game, where even if someone succeeds, the society in which they are a part of succeeds as well, and standards are raised (a rising tide floats all boats, and such). That includes fair pay for same work, regardless of differences, and a safety net that provides someone the opportunity to bounce back after a fall so they have another chance at 'winning', but they don't fall so far down that they're a political 'loser' in the process. 

 

That's why Conservatives get so butthurt when it comes to treating women, minorities, immigrants, asylum seekers, homosexuals, and other persecuted groups as equals--without a political loser, how can they declare themselves a winner and feel good about themselves? Plus, respect and integrity are limitless--conservatives act as though letting these marginalized groups to the table is going to reduce the respect and integrity they have, when adding them to the table would do no such thing. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Because Conservatives are playing a political game where, in order to win, someone has to lose. In this case (and many others on this board), white evangelical males would win, while everyone else loses and suffers as a result. 

 

Conversely, Liberals are trying to play a win/win game, where even if someone succeeds, the society in which they are a part of succeeds as well, and standards are raised (a rising tide floats all boats, and such). That includes fair pay for same work, regardless of differences, and a safety net that provides someone the opportunity to bounce back after a fall so they have another chance at 'winning', but they don't fall so far down that they're a political 'loser' in the process. 

 

That's why Conservatives get so butthurt when it comes to treating women, minorities, immigrants, asylum seekers, homosexuals, and other persecuted groups as equals--without a political loser, how can they declare themselves a winner and feel good about themselves? Plus, respect and integrity are limitless--conservatives act as though letting these marginalized groups to the table is going to reduce the respect and integrity they have, when adding them to the table would do no such thing. 

 

 

Thanks,

 

I would love a conservative's answer to my question.

[teachercd]

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You just succinctly summed up a large part of Marx's critique of capitalism. Well done.

Thank god!

 

I can sum up his horrible math "textbook" that he wrote too:  Not good

[B.B. Hemingway]

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What is really stupid is that this discussion is in this thread.  How in the hell is this a "left or right" issue?  Why is discussing it and making sure the women are appropriately compensated some how some extreme liberal view point.  When the hell did it become some noble conservative view that women wanting to make sure they are appropriately paid are way out of line and destroying the essence of everything that is good about America?

That is what is mind blowing.

 

The virtue signalling isn't necessary if you'll notice the context in which the topic was introduced into this thread(my first post), you'd see it's a link to a tweet that states democrats are calling for a hearing regarding equal pay for women in sports in the U.S. 

Also, it's very on brand for Democrats to bring attention to a faux issue that is easily explained away through basic economics in most circumstances, if they think it can help them at the polls (that last part isn't exclusive to Dems). As for the USWNT, it seems clear to me that they should be paid on at least equal footing with the men's team, BUT it's still a faux issue because it was all AGREED to through collective bargaining.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

The virtue signalling isn't necessary if you'll notice the context in which the topic was introduced into this thread(my first post), you'd see it's a link to a tweet that states democrats are calling for a hearing regarding equal pay for women in sports in the U.S. 

Also, it's very on brand for Democrats to bring attention to a faux issue that is easily explained away through basic economics in most circumstances, if they think it can help them at the polls (that last part isn't exclusive to Dems). As for the USWNT, it seems clear to me that they should be paid on at least equal footing with the men's team, BUT it's still a faux issue because it was all AGREED to through collective bargaining.

 

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?