No need to.JohnStOnge wrote:I know:
Let's let the US men's soccer team play the US women's soccer team in a best of 7 series then if the women win we can confirm that they are not getting equal pay for equal work.
But I'm pretty sure that any of us would bet the men's team would win the series 4-0.
Skjellyfetti wrote:No need to.JohnStOnge wrote:I know:
Let's let the US men's soccer team play the US women's soccer team in a best of 7 series then if the women win we can confirm that they are not getting equal pay for equal work.
But I'm pretty sure that any of us would bet the men's team would win the series 4-0.
The US women's team played the Under-17 men's team (so, basically elite high school kids) a few years ago.
They lost 8-2.
How does who could win a head-to-head series have anything to do with who should be paid what? If the women's team brings in more viewers and more advertising revenue than the men's team than they should be paid more than the men because the product that they are providing is more valuable than the men's product. It's capitalism plain and simple.JohnStOnge wrote:I know:
Let's let the US men's soccer team play the US women's soccer team in a best of 7 series then if the women win we can confirm that they are not getting equal pay for equal work.
But I'm pretty sure that any of us would bet the men's team would win the series 4-0.
Agreed. But what about the expense side of the equation? How much has been spent on each product to produce said revenue?UNI88 wrote:How does who could win a head-to-head series have anything to do with who should be paid what? If the women's team brings in more viewers and more advertising revenue than the men's team than they should be paid more than the men because the product that they are providing is more valuable than the men's product. It's capitalism plain and simple.JohnStOnge wrote:I know:
Let's let the US men's soccer team play the US women's soccer team in a best of 7 series then if the women win we can confirm that they are not getting equal pay for equal work.
But I'm pretty sure that any of us would bet the men's team would win the series 4-0.
The men are part of a system that generates far more revenue than the women's system does. There's an article about that from last summer at http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/06/world ... nterparts/.How does who could win a head-to-head series have anything to do with who should be paid what? If the women's team brings in more viewers and more advertising revenue than the men's team than they should be paid more than the men because the product that they are providing is more valuable than the men's product. It's capitalism plain and simple.
Otherwise, the point of the comment about women playing men is that it's not equal work. It's a significantly lower level of competition. The quality is not as high.In 2011 the Women’s World Cup hosted in Germany had earnings of $72,818,500. The South Africa World Cup in 2010, had sales of $3.7 billion. That is 50 times greater.
The 2014 World Cup was even a greater success, $4.8 billion.
When comparing the pay of the players relative to the event’s revenue, one sees the discrepancy, that women players gain a higher percentage of the event’s earnings than men. In 2011, the payout for women’s event was $10 million. This would mean the players earn 13 percent of total revenues.
In 2010 the total men’s prize money was $348 million, that is nine percent of that tournament’s earnings. It was even worse for men in 2014 when they received seven percent of the revenue.
John this isn't about women's teams around the world suing FIFA, it's about the US women's team suing USSF so systems is not the relevant comparison. How does women's soccer in general and the US women's team specifically compare in generating revenue for the USSF?JohnStOnge wrote:The men are part of a system that generates far more revenue than the women's system does. There's an article about that from last summer at http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/06/world ... nterparts/.How does who could win a head-to-head series have anything to do with who should be paid what? If the women's team brings in more viewers and more advertising revenue than the men's team than they should be paid more than the men because the product that they are providing is more valuable than the men's product. It's capitalism plain and simple.
Otherwise, the point of the comment about women playing men is that it's not equal work. It's a significantly lower level of competition. The quality is not as high.In 2011 the Women’s World Cup hosted in Germany had earnings of $72,818,500. The South Africa World Cup in 2010, had sales of $3.7 billion. That is 50 times greater.
The 2014 World Cup was even a greater success, $4.8 billion.
When comparing the pay of the players relative to the event’s revenue, one sees the discrepancy, that women players gain a higher percentage of the event’s earnings than men. In 2011, the payout for women’s event was $10 million. This would mean the players earn 13 percent of total revenues.
In 2010 the total men’s prize money was $348 million, that is nine percent of that tournament’s earnings. It was even worse for men in 2014 when they received seven percent of the revenue.
And to answer Kalm's question, I'm pretty sure that the women's expenses are less than the men's.The 2015 women's World Cup final was the most-watched soccer game ever, men's or women's, on a U.S. network. More Americans watched that game than the NBA Finals. USSF enjoyed a $20 million increase in revenue in 2015, thanks to the women's victory and a triumphant tour.
Now some of this is because the world is focused on men's soccer and the US wants to be one of the big boys with Brazil, Germany, Spain, etc. or at least climb up to the level of the Dutch. Patriotism alone isn't enough to make that happen, they have to pay well and provide first class training and accommodations. It's an uncertain investment in the future. It also appears to be being underwritten to some extent by the women. It's sports welfare with the men's team being the "takers" dependent on the success of the women's "makers."The women still fly coach; the men fly business class
I disagree. Soccer is a World sport. To me you can't take it out of the context of the World. The United States is trying to compete on a World level.John this isn't about women's teams around the world suing FIFA, it's about the US women's team suing USSF so systems is not the relevant comparison. How does women's soccer in general and the US women's team specifically compare in generating revenue for the USSF?
John, I love the way you will massage any argument and the resulting statistics to support your 19th century beliefs regarding gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.JohnStOnge wrote:I disagree. Soccer is a World sport. To me you can't take it out of the context of the World. The United States is trying to compete on a World level.John this isn't about women's teams around the world suing FIFA, it's about the US women's team suing USSF so systems is not the relevant comparison. How does women's soccer in general and the US women's team specifically compare in generating revenue for the USSF?
Do you not agree that the USSF is trying to compete in a World context?The US Women's team is paid by the USSF. The team is suing the USSF. The relevant economic information is that related to USSF revenues from the women's team compared to the men's team.
Read my previous posts, I agreed to that earlier. But why should the women underwrite that attempt without being better compensated themselves? Why do you support welfare in this context?JohnStOnge wrote:Do you not agree that the USSF is trying to compete in a World context?The US Women's team is paid by the USSF. The team is suing the USSF. The relevant economic information is that related to USSF revenues from the women's team compared to the men's team.
The USSF also has to attract the best soccer players it can.UNI88 wrote: The US Women's team is paid by the USSF. The team is suing the USSF. The relevant economic information is that related to USSF revenues from the women's team compared to the men's team.
Who??Ivytalk wrote:But...but...but... Abby Wambach's DUI!
Google her, for gawdsakes.BDKJMU wrote:Who??Ivytalk wrote:But...but...but... Abby Wambach's DUI!
Your argument literally makes no sense. You are just trying to spin it so you aren't wrong.JohnStOnge wrote:I disagree. Soccer is a World sport. To me you can't take it out of the context of the World. The United States is trying to compete on a World level.John this isn't about women's teams around the world suing FIFA, it's about the US women's team suing USSF so systems is not the relevant comparison. How does women's soccer in general and the US women's team specifically compare in generating revenue for the USSF?
Ok I did and the image of some surfer looking dude popped up.Ivytalk wrote:Google her, for gawdsakes.BDKJMU wrote:
Who??
I believe that I admitted that before you or John brought it up when I stated:Skjellyfetti wrote:The USSF also has to attract the best soccer players it can.UNI88 wrote: The US Women's team is paid by the USSF. The team is suing the USSF. The relevant economic information is that related to USSF revenues from the women's team compared to the men's team.
Many US men's team players have passports for other countries - they had a choice between representing US and another country. Part of their salary reflects this and has to be higher so that it is worth their time to represent the US.
Many of these players also play in Europe. They are paid more and also it costs much more to fly from Germany for a friendly than it does to fly from somewhere else in the US for a friendly.
UNI88 wrote:Now some of this is because the world is focused on men's soccer and the US wants to be one of the big boys with Brazil, Germany, Spain, etc. or at least climb up to the level of the Dutch. Patriotism alone isn't enough to make that happen, they have to pay well and provide first class training and accommodations.
Link/proof? Yes the USSF subsidizes the NWSL but the NWSL does have fans who attend games, buy concessions and merchandise so the NWSL does have revenue to cover some expenses. I believe the CSA (Canadian Soccer Association) and Mexico also subsidize the NWSL.Skjellyfetti wrote:100% of their professional salaries in the National Women's Soccer League are paid for by USSF as well.
I killed her back on the first page. Keep up Mr. SloLo!Ivytalk wrote:But...but...but... Abby Wambach's DUI!
I don't get you guys. People are using the interest the women generated during their Womens' World Cup runs to argue that the women should be compensated more. If you're going to do that how can you separate the issue from the World context?Your argument literally makes no sense. You are just trying to spin it so you aren't wrong.
He was really good in the Point Break remake.BDKJMU wrote:Ok I did and the image of some surfer looking dude popped up.Ivytalk wrote:
Google her, for gawdsakes.
The US women's team generates way more interest and revenue than the US men's team. It doesn't matter what, say, an England v Germany match would generate for revenue. The rest of the world doesn't matter when it comes to what our teams make for wages and what they make in revenue.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't get you guys. People are using the interest the women generated during their Womens' World Cup runs to argue that the women should be compensated more. If you're going to do that how can you separate the issue from the World context?Your argument literally makes no sense. You are just trying to spin it so you aren't wrong.
The US womens' team, by definition, competes against other countries in a World context. Same with the men. Overall, the mens' "league" of World teams generates WAY more interest and revenue than the womens' "league" does.
I don't think that's spin at all.
Yep, you are right.BDKJMU wrote:The only men watching womens soccer (besides those with school age daughters- you get a pass) are fags and libtards...