U.S. women's team files wage-discrimination action vs. U.S. Soccer

[UK2K]

Five members of the U.S. women's national soccer team -- including Hope Solo, Carli Lloyd and Alex Morgan -- have filed on behalf of the entire team a wage-discrimination action against the U.S. Soccer Federation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less.

"Recently, it has become clear that the Federation has no intention of providing us equal pay for equal work," Megan Rapinoe said in a news release, after also attaching her name to the filing along with Becky Sauerbrunn.

Seems legit...


The U.S. women received a team total of $2 million when it won the World Cup last year in Canada. Yet when the U.S. men played in the World Cup in Brazil in 2014, the team earned a total of $9 million despite going just 1-2-1 and being knocked out in the round of 16.

Until...

You start talking facts.

[QUOTE]The Wall Street Journal reported in June that Fox Sports was poised to receive,

[TYCRO]

You are starting to sound like Jam.

[LJJ]

You sound a little bit confused.


The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less.


All they are asking for is that the compensation they receive from the USSF reflects the money they bring into the USSF. No more, no less.

None of the other shit you posted has anything whatsoever to do with this.

[TYCRO]

You sound a little bit confused.




All they are asking for is that the compensation they receive from the USSF reflects the money they bring into the USSF. No more, no less.

None of the other shit you posted has anything whatsoever to do with this.
Right, but he wants to complain about women anyway. This is what makes him sound like Jam. Women are rent free in the OP's head.

[ArbitraryWater]

Well, it was coming due to the tennis stuff... its great to see these other requests shut down though, maybe that will drive some sense into the tennis tour

[UK2K]

You sound a little bit confused.

All they are asking for is that the compensation they receive from the USSF reflects the money they bring into the USSF. No more, no less.

None of the other shit you posted has anything whatsoever to do with this.

YOU are a bit confused... because it has everything to do with what I posted.


According to the Wall Street Journal, there was $17 million in sponsor revenue for this year's women's World Cup compared to $529 million for the 2014 men's tournament. America's winning women earned a larger share, about 11%, of the money their tournament made this year from sponsors than the victorious German team, who got just 6.6% of the sponsor revenue from last year's men's World Cup as their prize.

That's where the money comes from. They could earn $200 million more than the mens team, but the revenue generated by the womens world cup is nothing in comparison to the mens, and thats where the paycheck comes from.

What part of 529 > 17 is confusing to you?

Germany won the Mens world cup that year, and received $35 million. Are you suggesting the women's champion (despite there being a fraction of the teams) should receive $35 million as well, even though the tournament as a whole only brought in $17 million? Where's the extra money coming from? You?

[LJJ]

YOU are a bit confused... because it has everything to do with what I posted.



That's where the money comes from. They could earn $200 million more than the mens team, but the revenue generated by the womens world cup is nothing in comparison to the mens, and thats where the paycheck comes from.

What part of 529 > 17 is confusing to you?

Germany won the Mens world cup that year, and received $35 million. Are you suggesting the women's champion (despite there being a fraction of the teams) should receive $35 million as well, even though the tournament as a whole only brought in $17 million? Where's the extra money coming from? You?

You are bringing up wholly irrelevant numbers. How much Germany made, how much the WC overall made, all completely irrelevant. How much men's football overall makes in comparison. Irrelevant.



As per the USSF own financial statements, the US women's national team generated $20 million more for the USSF than the US men's national team.

This is strictly about the USSF revenues and payouts. US women's made more, got compensated less. Simple. That's what this is about, nothing else. No other number you bring up is relevant.

[DeuceWallaces]

You are bringing up wholly irrelevant numbers. How much Germany made, how much the WC overall made, all completely irrelevant. How much men's football overall makes in comparison. Irrelevant.



As per the USSF own financial statements, the US women's national team generated $20 million more for the USSF than the US men's national team.

This is strictly about the USSF revenues and payouts. US women's made more, got compensated less. Simple. That's what this is about, nothing else. No other number you bring up is relevant.

You're right, and UK2K, as always is confused, but there will be an interesting legal battle because US Soccer is paid out via FIFA for the World Cups wherein the men's team gets a whole lot more for nothing they generate stateside.

The women clearly generate more money nationally, have higher tv ratings, go deeper into tournaments, are more successful, and are generally more popular. This was all collectively bargained and it's clouded by the FIFA pay outs and US labor laws.

I don't know enough about their CBA to make a real assessment but it's definitely a tricky situation.

[Nick Young]

how the phuck did the shitty women's team who went to the world cup that no one watched generate more money than the US mens team?

It's not "equal work" that the womens team are doing. They are playing a shitty inferior style of football and would lose 10-0 to any decent high school boys team.

LOOK-they played against our U17 boys team and lost 8-2. (http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/uswnt-vs-u-17-usmnt.1939180/)

And that was with the U17 Boys going 10 vs 11


If they want to get paid like the men, they should learn how to beat U17 boys. Sorry, I'm just being real.

If USA women went against USA men they would be murdered.


That is not "equal work". That is inferior work.

[9erempiree]

Why gals? Why?

There is no SJWing in sports.

[Dresta]

Is the US pretty much the only country in the world where people actually watch women's football?

Seems strange, because the game is utter shite.

[Akrazotile]

You're right, and UK2K, as always is confused, but there will be an interesting legal battle because US Soccer is paid out via FIFA for the World Cups wherein the men's team gets a whole lot more for nothing they generate stateside.

The women clearly generate more money nationally, have higher tv ratings, go deeper into tournaments, are more successful, and are generally more popular. This was all collectively bargained and it's clouded by the FIFA pay outs and US labor laws.

I don't know enough about their CBA to make a real assessment but it's definitely a tricky situation.


This seems to be the key to me.

They bargained their own salaries and so did the men. Nobody forced these women to accept the sums they agreed upon.

If the men and women had deferred their payment to be a percentage of revenue and then men were given more, of course you could claim discrimination.

But this is like Harden negotiating 70M with the Rockets, then Howard comes along and gets a 90M contract, and Harden claims discrimination for being shorter. :facepalm

Hindsight disappointment in what you negotiated is not discrimination.

[Nick Young]

Is the US pretty much the only country in the world where people actually watch women's football?

Seems strange, because the game is utter shite.
most of the other countries field amateur teams that are only organized when a world cup comes around.

USA and I think Japan are the only countries that actually have a full-time team.

That is why you watch these shitty womens world cup matches and regularly see keepers and defenders who run AWAY FROM the ball.

They are just random amateur women who don't take the game very seriously put there to lose to Team USA.



The women think they should get more money than the men for beating shit competition like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwx0Uv93o8k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akyBTzJ7oPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGbFW6O7rnM

Are you ****ing serious?

Apart from team USA, and Team Japan, women's football is a complete joke.

the Women's world cup is basically a big event set up for USA to come in and curbstomp amateurs who don't even play football on a regular basis.

[Akrazotile]

Also, why do we even have separate tournaments for men and women? Everyone is equal and gender is a patriarchal social construct, right?

Just have one team with the best available players.

Equality.

[Nick Young]

Also, why do we even have separate tournaments for men and women? Everyone is equal and gender is a patriarchal social construct, right?

Just have one team with the best available players.

Equality.
Gender is just a patriarchal social construct. I agree with you. We need to start treating women in sports as the equals that they are.

[imdaman99]

You know, I would never know what the hell the feminists were up to if it wasn't for all you people bringing light to it.

Thanks for the news I couldn't care less about, my anti-women ISHers :applause:

[Bosnian Sajo]

Wait, what? You don't get paid for playing for your country, tf these bitches talking about?

[Nick Young]

Wait, what? You don't get paid for playing for your country, tf these bitches talking about?
They agreed to a shitty collective bargaining agreement and now are suing US soccer to try to get out of it.

[bdreason]

Using TV ratings as an argument doesn't make sense if the sponsorship money isn't there. If the ratings are as good as they claim, then theoretically there should be more sponsorship money available in the future. That really comes down to the promoters of the Women's World Cup though.

[Nick Young]

Using TV ratings as an argument doesn't make sense if the sponsorship money isn't there. If the ratings are as good as they claim, then theoretically there should be more sponsorship money available in the future. That really comes down to the promoters of the Women's World Cup though.
maybe they have a point?
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2015/07/08/16/59/150708-wnt-victory-breaks-tv-records

I think their problem is the CBA they agreed to.

[UK2K]

maybe they have a point?
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2015/07/08/16/59/150708-wnt-victory-breaks-tv-records

I think their problem is the CBA they agreed to.

We are using this one year to make a point, when the reality is, nobody gives a shit about womens soccer. It's not because the corporate sponsors or the owners are sexist, its because, generally, nobody gives a **** about womens soccer.

They had a highly rated game? Cool, so why did the last two women's soccer leagues in the US both collapse?

Again, we are using this ONE year to make an argument, when you could average the last four years, and the writing is on the wall. So they want more money because they had a good year? So two years ago when they lost money, how much do they make then?

And throwing tv revenue in for both mens and womens soccer (as the USSF does) is... well, its a joke.


The fact is people aren’t as interested in women’s soccer as they are in men’s. The numbers prove it. Major League Soccer brings in an average of 240,000 viewers at ESPN while women’s soccer ratings are barely a blip in comparison, averaging around 63,000 viewers (others put it closer to 100,000), but sinking at one point to just over 30,000.

The truth, and the simple fact is, the women wouldn't even have a team if the USMNT didn't exist. The same can't be said if the situation was reversed.

Just like the WNBA. It, also, wouldn't exist if the NBA didn't either. But again, the reverse wouldn't be true. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

If you want the mens salary, then get rid of the mens and womens teams and play in one league. Take your squad to the USMNT's try-outs and see how many make the team. Then, the ones who do, get the fat checks.

Win/win for everybody, and there's not a single reason why that shouldn't be the way it is already.

[Nick Young]

We are using this one year to make a point, when the reality is, nobody gives a shit about womens soccer. It's not because the corporate sponsors or the owners are sexist, its because, generally, nobody gives a **** about womens soccer.

They had a highly rated game? Cool, so why did the last two women's soccer leagues in the US both collapse?

Again, we are using this ONE year to make an argument, when you could average the last four years, and the writing is on the wall. So they want more money because they had a good year? So two years ago when they lost money, how much do they make then?

And throwing tv revenue in for both mens and womens soccer (as the USSF does) is... well, its a joke.



The truth, and the simple fact is, the women wouldn't even have a team if the USMNT didn't exist. The same can't be said if the situation was reversed.

Just like the WNBA. It, also, wouldn't exist if the NBA didn't either. But again, the reverse wouldn't be true. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

If you want the mens salary, then get rid of the mens and womens teams and play in one league. Take your squad to the USMNT's try-outs and see how many make the team. Then, the ones who do, get the fat checks.

Win/win for everybody, and there's not a single reason why that shouldn't be the way it is already.


I always try to watch it but it's just such a shitty style of playing the game.

I mean hotties playing soccer? it should sell itself, and it would if these women had more skill and played the game smarter and better.

I understand they are athletically inferior but I don't understand what excuse they have for being so behind in technique, tactics and skill-wise compared to men.


Alex Morgan for example, one of the most skilled women attacking players has worst technique and touch and talent than an average England League 3 level central defender on a bottom table team.

ALSO there are no excuses for the keepers being so shit. Every single keeper flops uselessly in fear every time a cross comes in to the box, gets beat on the near post on soft shots, and lets weak shots bounce off their arms, leading to stupid goals.

Look at this for example-this level of defending and goal keeping is quite frankly embarrassing.
http://i.imgur.com/hz1aUfL.gifv

And this is considered one of the best goals scored in women's football EVER.


Play better football/soccer-more people will watch and you'll get more money. That's all there is to it.

US soccer will likely bow down due to political reasons, but real talk, these women need to step up their game if they want more money.


The reason people don't watch isn't because of their gender. It's because they suck and play the game in a shitty and boring way.

[ThePhantomCreep]

If the women generated more money than the men, they should be paid more. If they generated less money, they should be paid less. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, so why are these reichwing dimwits bringing up irrelevant shit like the USWNT's skill level relative to the men? It's completely irrelevant.

[DeuceWallaces]

We are using this one year to make a point, when the reality is, nobody gives a shit about womens soccer. It's not because the corporate sponsors or the owners are sexist, its because, generally, nobody gives a **** about womens soccer.

They had a highly rated game? Cool, so why did the last two women's soccer leagues in the US both collapse?

Again, we are using this ONE year to make an argument, when you could average the last four years, and the writing is on the wall. So they want more money because they had a good year? So two years ago when they lost money, how much do they make then?

And throwing tv revenue in for both mens and womens soccer (as the USSF does) is... well, its a joke.



The truth, and the simple fact is, the women wouldn't even have a team if the USMNT didn't exist. The same can't be said if the situation was reversed.

Just like the WNBA. It, also, wouldn't exist if the NBA didn't either. But again, the reverse wouldn't be true. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

If you want the mens salary, then get rid of the mens and womens teams and play in one league. Take your squad to the USMNT's try-outs and see how many make the team. Then, the ones who do, get the fat checks.

Win/win for everybody, and there's not a single reason why that shouldn't be the way it is already.

You're such a dipshit. This has nothing to do with the MLS or women's soccer league. The women's national team kill the men's national team domestically in tv ratings and revenue. The most watched game in US soccer history is the women's final. They have been killing it since '99.

The men are benefactors of the world wide popularity and FIFA payouts despite them performing poorly domestically. Sounds like the women have a bad CBA that will be hard to fight in court.

[Nick Young]

You're such a dipshit. This has nothing to do with the MLS or women's soccer league. The women's national team kill the men's national team domestically in tv ratings and revenue. The most watched game in US soccer history is the women's final. They have been killing it since '99.

The men are benefactors of the world wide popularity and FIFA payouts despite them performing poorly domestically. Sounds like the women have a bad CBA that will be hard to fight in court.
o rly?:confusedshrug:

What ratings do the US women get compared to the men in non-world cup televised matches?

[ALBballer]

If the women generated more money than the men, they should be paid more. If they generated less money, they should be paid less. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, so why are they reichwing dimwits bringing up irrelevant shit like the USWNT's skill level relative to the men? It's completely irrelevant.

True although it appears the women only made more money in 2015 which is due to the Women's WC being in 2015 while the men played in 2014. But if they signed a CBA and are trying to get out of it by claiming gender wage gap I think that is disingenuous and manipulative.

In the end I will let the courts figure it out and won't lose sleep over it.

[bdreason]

Again, TV ratings don't mean shit if the sponsors aren't there. And I'm guessing the reason the sponsors aren't there, despite the good ratings, is because Women's soccer just isn't that popular worldwide, and simply isn't worth the investment.

US Women's Soccer players remind me more of Olympic athletes. Every 4 years they get promoted, and after the event is over, they are soon forgotten about. A lot of that has to do with exposure, and the fact that outside of International events, nobody gives a shit about Women's soccer or its players.


I'm a big time sports junky, and I couldn't even tell you what the premiere women's domestic league is. Does the U. S. even have a domestic league anymore?

[LJJ]

Again, TV ratings don't mean shit if the sponsors aren't there. And I'm guessing the reason the sponsors aren't there, despite the good ratings, is because Women's soccer just isn't that popular worldwide, and simply isn't worth the investment.

US Women's Soccer players remind me more of Olympic athletes. Every 4 years they get promoted, and after the event is over, they are soon forgotten about. A lot of that has to do with exposure, and the fact that outside of International events, nobody gives a shit about Women's soccer or its players.


I'm a big time sports junky, and I couldn't even tell you what the premiere women's domestic league is. Does the U. S. even have a domestic league anymore?

All this would sound reasonable if it weren't for the fact that the USSF's own financial statement reflects that the women bring them more dough. :confusedshrug:

You can say that they don't bring in as much sponsorship money and revenue as the Men's and that nobody cares about them, but it's contradicted by hard data.

[ALBballer]

The women clearly generate more money nationally, have higher tv ratings, go deeper into tournaments, are more successful, and are generally more popular. This was all collectively bargained and it's clouded by the FIFA pay outs and US labor laws.

I don't know enough about their CBA to make a real assessment but it's definitely a tricky situation.

You have a source that they draw higher TV ratings? Sure the WC game in 2015 drew record numbers but I doubt the individual women games draw more TV Ratings.

Also the financial statement can be found here:

http://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information

Revenue isn't broken down between Women and Men's (expenses are) rather I think the claim by the women side is during the 2015 year revenues went up 20 million. However the claim is a bit misleading because it looks like the women are claiming they drew more money than the men's non world cup year, therefore women deserve more money even in non world cup years. However a better analysis would be over a 4 year period or a longer period of time.

[Nick Young]

You have a source that they draw higher TV ratings? Sure the WC game in 2015 drew record numbers but I doubt the individual women games draw more TV Ratings.

Also the financial statement can be found here:

http://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information

Revenue isn't broken down between Women and Men's (expenses are) rather I think the claim by the women side is during the 2015 year revenues went up 20 million. However the claim is a bit misleading because it looks like the women are claiming they drew more money than the men's non world cup year, therefore women deserve more money even in non world cup years. However a better analysis would be over a 4 year period or a longer period of time.
Feminazis doctoring numbers?
http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2015/06/28/635711292497697119473611858_tumblr_inline_nbc8y1ra WO1qhgb5g.jpg

[LJJ]

You have a source that they draw higher TV ratings? Sure the WC game in 2015 drew record numbers but I doubt the individual women games draw more TV Ratings.

Also the financial statement can be found here:

http://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information

Revenue isn't broken down between Women and Men's (expenses are) rather I think the claim by the women side is during the 2015 year revenues went up 20 million. However the claim is a bit misleading because it looks like the women are claiming they drew more money than the men's non world cup year, therefore women deserve more money even in non world cup years. However a better analysis would be over a 4 year period or a longer period of time.

That's actually not the document they are talking about. This one is: http://resources.ussoccer.com/images/160127-AGM-PDF-FINAL.pdf

http://s27.postimg.org/fb4dpgsfn/UST.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/r1ib6ul83/UST2.jpg

I mean, on a game to game basis you can obviously see a massive discrepancy when you look at the ratio of revenue vs team expenses for both teams.

[ALBballer]

Feminazis doctoring numbers?
http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2015/06/28/635711292497697119473611858_tumblr_inline_nbc8y1ra WO1qhgb5g.jpg

There's more to the story then just those numbers. I have seen people use this as a reference on reddit:

http://resources.ussoccer.com/images/160127-AGM-PDF-FINAL.pdf

If you look at page 57 and 58 it shows the women earn a profit of $5 million and men have a loss of close to $1 million. However, there are a few things missing:

1) TV revenues are not accounted for between men and women
2) It only take into account ticket sales but men play more away games (thus home ticket revenues are not taken into account for) and men ticket prices are much higher than the females. Average ticket price for men games appears to be around $60 while the female games are probably around $45.

Point is DW makes strong assertion but aside from the occasional games he catches every 4 years he doesn't know shit about soccer but when it comes to whiteknighting he is the first to come in with his ignorant ideas.

[Euroleague]

Seems legit...



Until...

You start talking facts.



And then you back up those facts with more facts...



So the mens teams are getting 7 percent of the total revenue generated, while the women's teams are getting 13. Despite the fact that the mens tournament brought in 31 times as much revenue.

More 'equality but only if it benefits me' logic. I have a great idea...

Since we are all equal now, we should get rid of the mens and womens team, have all of them try out for one single team, and then that way everyone on Team USA gets paid the same.

Think that idea would fly? It should, since we are all equal.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/jlHF3tVYRwXqU/200.gif

[TheMan]

No one cares about women's sports :confusedshrug:

The only reason there's a hint of interest in the US Women's National Soccer Team is that they don't suck like their male counterparts...

Overall though, I'd rather watch the under 17 men's world soccer tourneys than the snorefest that's women's "highest level" of soccer.:sleeping

[Euroleague]

Wait, what? You don't get paid for playing for your country, tf these bitches talking about?

USA pays all of their national teams.

USA senior men's basketball team had a $200 million budget for 2012 Olympics, and a lot of that went to paying the players and coaches. Coach K alone gets something like $8 million a year to just coach the team.

[ALBballer]

That's actually not the document they are talking about. This one is: http://resources.ussoccer.com/images/160127-AGM-PDF-FINAL.pdf

http://s27.postimg.org/fb4dpgsfn/UST.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/r1ib6ul83/UST2.jpg

I mean, on a game to game basis you can obviously see a massive discrepancy when you look at the ratio of revenue vs team expenses for both teams.

Yep I was just looking at that but there are a few issues;

1) Women play much more Home games thus their revenues are inflated compared to men
2) TV revenues and sponsorship are not accounted for. Only ticket sales
3) Tournament prize money isn't accounted for
4) Average ticket for men games appear to be 20% higher for most games and men play at larger venues. I'm not sure why the women play at smaller venues.

But I think it's fair to say base off the numbers above they deserve a raise when you compare the profit margin to men but you would need numbers for other revenues sources for a complete picture.

[Nick Young]

No one cares about women's sports :confusedshrug:

The only reason there's a hint of interest in the US Women's National Soccer Team is that they don't suck like their male counterparts...

Overall though, I'd rather watch the under 17 men's world soccer tourneys than the snorefest that's women's "highest level" of soccer.:sleeping
http://worldsoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/dos-a-cero-usa-mexico-600x600.jpg

http://www.yanksarecoming.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mexico-2.jpg

[LJJ]

Yep I was just looking at that but there are a few issues;

1) Women play much more Home games thus their revenues are inflated compared to men
2) TV revenues and sponsorship are not accounted for. Only ticket sales
3) Tournament prize money isn't accounted for
4) Average ticket for men games appear to be 20% higher for most games and men play at larger venues. I'm not sure why the women play at smaller venues.

But I think it's fair to say base off the numbers above they deserve a raise when you compare the profit margin to men but you would need numbers for other revenues sources for a complete picture.

You're definitely right about those things. Very possible the USSF comes up with sponsorship numbers and other revenue streams which paint a different picture.

[UK2K]

That's actually not the document they are talking about. This one is: http://resources.ussoccer.com/images/160127-AGM-PDF-FINAL.pdf

http://s27.postimg.org/fb4dpgsfn/UST.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/r1ib6ul83/UST2.jpg

I mean, on a game to game basis you can obviously see a massive discrepancy when you look at the ratio of revenue vs team expenses for both teams.
So you're not even taking into account ad revenue?

Cause the financial statements I saw had roughly $400m from advertising... I doubt sponsors shelled that out to be shown during women's broadcasts.

[LJJ]

So you're not even taking into account ad revenue?

:roll:

I didn't make that document. Jeez you are thick.

[Nick Young]

US women's team wins no matter what here.

1. If they lose in court, then they can play the victim and sexism card, leading to more media coverage and exposure for a team that no one cares about when its not the world cup, and a slight boost in publicity for the next few womens games.

2. US soccer settles because they think it will bring them good publicity. US womens team gets out of the CBA they agreed to and gets more funding.

3. US Women win-this is highly unlikely based on the evidence presented so far, but on the rare chance that an extremist feminist judge resides over the case, they do indeed have a tiny chance to win.

Zero-risk, high reward.

[UK2K]

:roll:

I didn't make that document. Jeez you are thick.

No, it not about the document...

Your argument that they brought in more revenue was based on...what? That?

Cause if so... on page 1 when you were saying 'all those other numbers dont matter'.... yeah they ****ing do. Are you kidding me?

[LJJ]

No, it not about the document...

Your argument that they brought in more revenue was based on...what? That?

What? You lost the plot again.

I'm sorry but you are just too dumb to have a discussion with. :confusedshrug: Maybe you should bring up the German men's national team again?

Let the big boys talk.

[ALBballer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB_IG4dpKYE

So TYT (a "progressive" internet Show) does a newscast on the issue a few days later but doesn't spend 20 minutes doing a bit of research? It literally took me 10 minutes to look at the financial reports, which are all made public on the internet, to figure out the claim the women will make $8 million more in FY 2017 is a bit misleading because it only takes into account home ticket sales.

Then you have the two female hosts that are arguing on the appeal of emotion. "Women win more they deserve more." One of the women even claims there isn't a men's team that consistently wins world championships. Oh is she unaware of the Men's Basketball (you know Basketball a top 4 sport in the US) team that has consistently won different world tournaments? Then this same person tries to gain your sympathy because some women soccer player play abroad and have side jobs? Yeah it sucks but they are playing a ****ing child's game and if the teams and clubs aren't making much money then the women don't have much leverage (also women maybe you should try to convince more women to watch more women sports.) This is simple supply and demand. Now the argument if ESPN and other media sources gave more attention to women's sports then they could make more could be applied to anything. With that logic, if more media attention was focused on soccer compared American Football then maybe MLS players wold be paid more. Maybe then Soccer would be a bigger sport in the US. The simple explanation for the difference in pay between men and women is sports can mainly be attributed to ability. Men are more physically stronger and faster than women and this tends to lead to more competitive games.

Now if the women wanted to argue they deserve more money for their success then I think a legitimate argument can be made assuming the numbers support their stance. They can lobby for a higher pay and it is in their best interest to do so if they are going to negotiate a new CB. But arguing using the gender wage gap argument is manipulative and deceiving, and let's be honest, you are playing with the hearts of liberals that don't know any better.

:D

Lastly for argument's sake, is it not unfair that most of these players on the national team are paid the same? The pay discrepancy on the national teams of a player that is a role player on the bench to a world class player probably isn't that much. Majority of players are not playing international games for money because the incentive isn't there.

PS:

At the end the chick goes "You're going to throw the free-market argument at me?"

LULZZZZZ

Typical feminist can't argue facts and logic.

[Hawker]

http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/article/15277241/us-soccer-federation-says-uswnt-earns-only-22-percent-less-men


While the women in the filing say they have earned nearly 25 percent less than their male counterparts this year, the figures supplied by the USSF show that for the 25 top-earning U.S. national team players over the past four years, 14 of whom are women, the average compensation is $695,269 for the women over that span, compared with $710,775 for the men, a difference of 2.2 percent.

In 2015, 14 of the 24 women's players earned more than $300,000 in salary plus benefits, and no one earned less than $249,000, according to federation numbers, adding that the top male player earned just more than $178,000 in salary in 2015.

USSF chief financial officer Eric Gleason said the USSF numbers also show that for the past eight years, there has never been a year in which the player-compensation-team-revenue ratio was greater for the men than for the women.

Interesting.

Looks like the USWNT case continues to be unsupported.

Also haven't read through the thread but it's worth mentioning that the USSF actually pays the salaries for the women in the US women's soccer league.

Check out TV ratings for equivalent matches from the WC:

2015 U.S. Women's World Cup Group Stage English-Language Viewers:
5,043,000 USA-Nigeria (Fox)
4,500,000 USA-Sweden (Fox)
3,311,000 USA-Australia (Fox Sports 1)
AVERAGE: 4,285,000.

2014 U.S. Men's World CupGroup StageEnglish-Language Viewers:
18,220,000 USA-Portugal, ESPN
11,100,000 USA-Ghana, ESPN
10,800,000 USA-Germany, ESPN
AVERAGE:13,374,000.

Yes, the women's soccer team had the highest TV ratings in the women's world cup finals but based on these ratings you could say had the men reached the WC final it would've been 300%+ more.

(Source: http://www.socceramerica.com/article/68281/tv-viewers-us-men-vs-us-women.html)

USMNT kills USWNT in attendance and TV ratings. Include spanish viewers and it would probably be even more devastating.

[DeuceWallaces]

The switch to Fox is a big drop in ratings. Will be better to compare to the next men's event which will also be on Fox.

[Hawker]

The switch to Fox is a big drop in ratings. Will be better to compare to the next men's event which will also be on Fox.

Doubtful that it would make up 200-300%.

Incorrect to say that the women have better TV ratings though.

[Nick Young]

The switch to Fox is a big drop in ratings. Will be better to compare to the next men's event which will also be on Fox.
this little cuck and his little cucking excuse after excuse doe...smh:facepalm

[Nick Young]

http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/article/15277241/us-soccer-federation-says-uswnt-earns-only-22-percent-less-men



Interesting.

Looks like the USWNT case continues to be unsupported.

Also haven't read through the thread but it's worth mentioning that the USSF actually pays the salaries for the women in the US women's soccer league.

Check out TV ratings for equivalent matches from the WC:

2015 U.S. Women's World Cup Group Stage English-Language Viewers:
5,043,000 USA-Nigeria (Fox)
4,500,000 USA-Sweden (Fox)
3,311,000 USA-Australia (Fox Sports 1)
AVERAGE: 4,285,000.

2014 U.S. Men's World CupGroup StageEnglish-Language Viewers:
18,220,000 USA-Portugal, ESPN
11,100,000 USA-Ghana, ESPN
10,800,000 USA-Germany, ESPN
AVERAGE:13,374,000.

No coming back from this. How dare the US women bite the hand that feeds them? Women's soccer league wouldn't exist if US Soccer wasn't effectively paying for all of it.

[Hawker]

No coming back from this. How dare the US women bite the hand that feeds them? Women's soccer league wouldn't exist if US Soccer wasn't effectively paying for all of it.

Exactly. I wonder how much money other countries are pouring into their women's team. USSF is probably $$$$$$ more so when you go down that rabbit hole it's not even fair to make the performance comparison.

And the bonus structure can be easily explained in my opinion, men's players risk much more money by playing on the USMNT (injury). They should get a bonus every time they play for that reason.

[Hawker]

this little cuck and his little cucking excuse after excuse doe...smh:facepalm

In an earlier post he said the USWNT had higher TV ratings. :lol Won't admit he was wrong.

[Nick Young]

In an earlier post he said the USWNT had higher TV ratings. :lol Won't admit he was wrong.
Facts and reality are a libtard's two biggest enemies.

[Hawker]

https://www.goal.com/en-in/news/uswnt-suffers-blow-in-equal-pay-lawsuit-as-judge-makes-major/fiep1in3xcx715pd4xb49vvcp

Case gets dismissed. Judge rules in favor of USSF.

Basic math and common sense win the day.

[warriorfan]

What ever happened to UK2K? He posted something about how he tore his Achilles quite awhile ago and then he stopped posting.

[FultzNationRISE]

https://www.goal.com/en-in/news/uswnt-suffers-blow-in-equal-pay-lawsuit-as-judge-makes-major/fiep1in3xcx715pd4xb49vvcp

Case gets dismissed. Judge rules in favor of USSF.

Basic math and common sense win the day.


What's sad is that if you support a fair assessment of the facts, an a fair adjudication, and the result does not come out in favor of this or that "special needs" group... then you're a bigot, for not supporting the lopsided approach necessary to favor the more sympathetic group.

They'll call you a literal bigot for supporting due process if they dont like the outcome :lol

The Gospel, According to SJWs

[FultzNationRISE]

What ever happened to UK2K? He posted something about how he tore his Achilles quite awhile ago and then he stopped posting.

IIRC he began a new job, and I think he didnt want to deal with the possibility of people trying to dox and smear him for not groveling to the Gospel According to SJWs.

[Hawker]

What's sad is that if you support a fair assessment of the facts, an a fair adjudication, and the result does not come out in favor of this or that "special needs" group... then you're a bigot, for not supporting the lopsided approach necessary to favor the more sympathetic group.

They'll call you a literal bigot for supporting due process if they dont like the outcome :lol

The Gospel, According to SJWs

Out of all things - the result of this case is absolutely the most satisfying to me. Not the mueller report. Impeachment sham. etc.

The madness culture around the USWNT and the BS reporting of the facts by biased liberal media was insane. I mean - just look at the arguments made by douchewallaces (RIP). He tried to pull some BS about the women's team having high TV ratings and I provide the proof and he blames it on FOX. Amazing amount of cognitive dissonance.

This culture is an extension of the democrat party - just look at all the tweets by Hillary, Warren, Harris, Pelosi, even moderate Joe Manchin back when they wont the world cup in regards to this. They were hoping to get some liberal judge that would make some BS emotional judgment based on "women have been persecuted since forever so facts don't matter."

Twitter/social media has way too much power and I hope the USSF drinks some champagne tonight after this W.

I can appreciate women's soccer but it's simply unwatchable and something I can't support due to how uneducated they are.