USWNT

Discussion in 'WNT/MNT/World Cup/Int'l Soccer' started by soccerobserver, Oct 20, 2016.

  1. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8
    @MWN I should have made my points in a cleaner way. I was an expert on Enron and it's accounting irregularities were not a surprise to me although I never thought they would go BK. I like to focus on revenues because they are more tangible than the expense side of the ledger. When I do a forensic accounting analysis on a company as a general rule I trust the revenues more than the expenses. A talented cost accountant can work wonders with how costs are allocated and very different pictures can be presented depending on how costs are allocated between the men's and women's divisions, the extent to which they are capitalized, etc. That is why I focused on the top line revenues, which on the surface show that the revenues generated by the women are above the men's side for 2020. I will never have the detail needed to assess the cost allocation but that is what the lawsuit should enable the women to do through discovery.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. MWN

    MWN Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,905 / 19
    Its my understanding the USMNT players are not W-2 employees of US Soccer, but are paid as 1099 contractors. Beginning in 1996, USMNT formed their own union to collectively bargain with US Soccer (the USNSTPA / United States National Soccer Team Players Association - ussoccerplayers.com). Before that, it was all an individual negotiation.

    It has been my understanding that because the USMNT players have agreements with professional teams/leagues that pay a living wage (in various countries), they didn't want the additional headaches of being an employee of US Soccer, whereas, the women don't have that option and needed a different arrangement.
     
  3. MWN

    MWN Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,905 / 19
    Having just recently returned from a trip to Florida and back, I can tell you that seat size should be allocated on passenger size. I'm 6'3" and more than I should weigh. F'ing seats are way too small, its really the only time I wished I was a petite person.
     
  4. espola

    espola Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +4,830 / 215
    And be charged accordingly?
     
  5. MWN

    MWN Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,905 / 19
    At 6'3" my knees typically touch (or barely touch) the back of the seat in front. If the person in front reclines ... I'm screwed. The bigger problem, is that while my butt fits in the seat, my shoulder width is wider than the seat by a few inches for two reasons (I'm bigger than the average male who is 5'10") and have broader shoulders than the average, which exceed the width of the airline seat.

    Like the WNT, I feel that I'm being discriminated against based on my genetics. Paying more would be discrimination. I should sue.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. espola

    espola Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +4,830 / 215
    Paying more would equalize your consumption of limited resources.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Justafan

    Justafan Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +694 / 28
    Stop sizing each other up, we ALL know neither of you is really 6’3”.
     
  8. espola

    espola Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +4,830 / 215
    I have been 5'10" for years, but at my last doctor visit they put me down as 5'8".

    My feet are still the same size.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. outside!

    outside! Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,197
    Likes Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,786 / 36
    My hair's still curly, my eyes are still blue...


    or
     
  10. texanincali

    texanincali Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +88 / 4
    This is unbelievable.

    Honest questions, I would appreciate an honest response. For a minute, let's pretend each team was accounted for separately over a four year period of time, with each have a World Cup cycle (that we actually qualify for) in the period we will look at.

    USSF can negotiate a domestic TV package for the men alone - this would include all friendlies and qualifiers. USSF can negotiate an equipment sponsorship and shirt sponsorship on behalf of the USMNT. USSF pays for business class airline tickets, 4 star hotels, meals and stipends, coaching staff salaries. USSF put the FIFA World Cup payments on the books for the men - why would this not count, they are part of the tournament like every other team. USSF continues to pay the same exact bonuses as they have in the past and keep the same gate receipts as in the past.

    Now let say, USSF can negotiate a domestic TV package for the women alone - includes all friendlies and qualifiers. USSF can negotiate an equipment sponsorship and shirt sponsorship deal on behalf of the WNT. USSF pays for the exact same business class airline tickets, the exact same 4 star hotels, the exact same meals and stipends, and coaching staff salaries. USSF would put the Womens World Cup payments on the books for the women. USSF must still pay the salaries of the women that are on the team, plus the exact same bonuses as the men receive, including gate receipts.

    After each 4 year period, who has the better bottom line? In your opinion, why? Total revenue - total expenses, GAAP accounting vs. MAP (misogynistic accounting).
     
  11. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8
    @Texicali I think your suggestion is eminently reasonable. I also imagine this is what the lawsuits will enable the women to analyze through the discovery process prior to any trial.
    What you propose is sensible. The problem is that the broadcast rights are presently all bundled together- the Men, Women and MLS (!) are bundled so it's difficult to segregate who is earning what. If I am wrong on this then hopefully some one will correct me.

    At first I was disappointed that the women sued. However after seeing some of the data that favor the women in the domestic market I think the women would be crazy not to sue.
     
  12. End of the Line

    End of the Line Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +206 / 6
    The categories of revenue that USSF does and doesn't put into the men's and women's revenue buckets are determined solely by USSF and have nothing to do with GAAP accounting practices, as I previously stated. It is not possible for us to itemize the impact of the MNT's or WNT's impact on advertising revenue and sponsorship deals with absolute certainty of course, but many indicators suggest that the WNT is more of the driving force for the reasons I have previously stated. The fact is that USSF has chosen to attribute only some of the revenue streams to the MNT and WNT revenue buckets, and those happen to favor the men, while it has left out the biggest ones (namely the VW and Nike contracts) which probably favor the women. USSF certainly could negotiate contracts separately in order to better asses their relative contributions to USSF's biggest revenue streams. And that doesn't even do things justice, because VW and Nike contracts are pretty much pure profit, while gate receipts aren't nearly as profitable since much of that it is eaten up by expenses. Regardless, even without negotiating separately for the MNT and WNT, there are mechanisms in place to determine how to value both the MNT's and WNT's percentages of the VW and Nike contracts, but USSF doesn't. If they did, I bet we'd all find out that Alex Morgan alone sells more jerseys than the entire MNT combined. Ultimately, we'd almost certainly find out that the WNT and the Mexican NT players are far more important profit drivers than the MNT players.

    If USSF isn't going to base compensation on the actual value they provide, but only on the value they provide from some of the lesser revenue streams (and the ones that favor the men), it has no legitimate basis to value the men at a higher level and pay them more. In other words, when someone earlier in this thread something about paying the WNT based on "perceived" rather than actual value, the fact is that they're paying the MNT more based on their "perceived", and not their actual overall value.
     
  13. Dos Equis

    Dos Equis Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +1,017 / 15
    Hmmm...

    WNT players suing over the unequal treatment and pay
    MNT failing to qualify for the World Cup, and losing youth players to other countries
    MLS teams threatening to leave the Boys DA
    Some of the most successful clubs in major markets leaving the Girls DA (which is modeled after a failing boys DA)
    The combined Copa America proposed by USA dead on arrival with CONMEBOL, so MNT stuck playing friendlies or against CONCACAF for the foreseeable future, with no Confed Cup either, and Gold Cup contract over in 2021.
    On the positive side -- all of our best young players once again migrating to European clubs, so I can see them on TV every weekend, but not on the national team most games ...
    ..... am I missing something.

    There is something rotten in US Soccer. Please no more committees, Carlos. Major change is needed now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. texanincali

    texanincali Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +88 / 4
    Disagree with quite a bit of what you said, but you do a good job of conveying your point. The biggest issue I see is that your stance is entirely subjective and without any basis of facts.

    Let's set aside FIFA prize money because we all know that greatly favors the men and no one will argue they bring in more from that standpoint. Let's set aside gate receipts, because you are correct, this is peanuts compared to what we are really talking about.

    The reason I disagree - the TV deal is a huge driving factor in generating income, and the facts have been put out that the USMNT significantly draws more viewers than the USWNT. This isn't a 10%, 50% type of figure it is a multiple figure, especially in major tournaments. Given these numbers are published, it would be fair to assume that TV revenue would favor the USMNT somewhere in the 70%-80% range. If there were a mythical $100M TV deal, the men's ledger would show 70%-80% of that. That is a huge gap in revenue generation.

    Now let's look at Nike sponsorship. I don't doubt at all that Alex Morgan sells more jerseys than the entire USMNT, but I haven't seen any figures to corroborate that. That said, that isn't how kit deals are structured. An equipment manufacture will look at current and potential future sales during the deals term to determine the annual $ figure they are willing to pay. They will also take into account the number of eyeballs that see these teams in their gear - we know that greatly favors the men. My guess the number of young boys and grown men that have purchased USMNT kits is far greater than the number of USWNT kits that are sold - but again, that is just my guess based on no factual evidence. These equipment deals are not structured on a "kick-back" type of agreement, where USSF would get x% of proceeds from jersey sales.

    The VW sponsorship deal would be similar to Nike, except they are really just paying for the number of eyeballs that see their logo on the jerseys, very similar to a commercial. Again, this drastically favors the men.

    I will agree with you that the USWNT, at this moment, may have a bigger power to grow the game. But they need to do that first and then it should be reflected in the next sponsorship deals. What I don't see is a top line or bottom line figure that puts the WNT anywhere close to the MNT.

    I would actually argue the opposite of your take on USSF's negotiating tactics. I think they negotiate these deals together so they can provide the WNT with the salaries and payments, which are the best in the world, to match their on field performance. In a way, I think it is done to avoid conflict with the men's team, much more so than to hide anything from the women. Most USSF revenue generating actions come down to how many consumers are touched, whether it be buying jerseys, selling tickets or watching on TV. The fact of the matter is, the MNT provides more eyeballs (multiples of) than the WNT does.

    Given the facts we have and using some subjectivity, if USSF's budget was $6 of every $10 generated toward their NT's - the men should receive $4.20 - $4.80 of that budgetary spend. When adding prize money to the mix the gap widens even more.

    Very interesting conversation.
     
  15. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8
    Here you go...the data below include the World Cup years for both the Men and the Women so the data are full cycle.
    The sponsorship deals have to be included in the equation. The new VW deal is most likely driven by the anticipation that the USWNT will do well in the upcoming WWC.


    Revenues FY2017
    FY2018 FY2019(E) FY2020(E) 2017-2020
    MNT Events: $10.80 $10.80 $14.50 $20.40 = > > $ 56.50
    WNT Events: $14.60 $12.00 $10.30 $23.00 = >> $ 59.90
    Sponsorship: $46.10 $48.90 $ 48.10 $ 52.70 =>> $195.8

    *all data in millions
    Source is the 2019 Book of Reports for the USSF
     
  16. MWN

    MWN Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,905 / 19
    Part of the problem looking at this through a small (4 year) lens, is the results of the men are not typical of what we see during World Cup years and don't take into account the Collective Bargaining cycles. Its rare that the men don't advance out of CONCACAF. More importantly, we all need to appreciate that both the men and women have different types of collective bargaining agreements. The men have bargained for a pay structure that is fundamentally different and riskier because its based solely on participation in USMNT games. The women bargained for a pay structure that is "salary" like and includes payment for playing in the NWSL for the top women players. We can't ignore this.

    Why is this? First, the men in the US Soccer pool know that a market exists for their services outside of the USMNT. They are employed by European clubs and the semi-professional league in the US (I think its called the MLS ... need to google that). They have salaries that pay them based on their market rates as top players. When US Soccer calls the men into "camp" the men are often making less than they would if they stayed put with their clubs. While MLS salaries are low compared to the rest of the world, the men making the USMNT and getting called into all the camps and games would make another $100k. When some of our players are making millions per year, its a nice tip, but not why they are playing.

    The women don't have a league that pays them salaries that rise to the level of a living wage. The market for their services outside of the USWNT is low. US Soccer and the USWNT players collectively bargained for a different deal. We can't lose sight of the fact that US Soccer is also trying to fund Youth programs and other initiates with the money make from the marketing and broadcast dollars as well. As it stands now, the 2017 collective bargaining agreement the USWNT agreed too righted a number of wrongs, but didn't give them everything they wanted, this lawsuit aims to do that but it will be an uphill battle given the structural difference between the men and women's collective bargaining agreements.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8
    MWN would you at least concede that times have changed and that perhaps the pay should be adjusted UP for the women?

    Looks that way to me. Why ??? The Nike deal and the VW deal seem to be game changers.

    In the razor-razor blade model we sell the razor at cost and make all of our profit from selling replacement blades to the consumer at high margins. Similarly, the teams are becoming the razor to the razor blade of advertising deals. May I suggest that the USWNT and their relative success has a lot to do with the growth in sponsorships, the increased sales in razor blades as it were...Viewed in that way they can rightly demand "Show me the money!" But perhaps you and others disagree. Please note that I am not as hung up on whether they make more than the men but that they should make more than they have so far...the US Men help put things in perspective in my opinion.

    I read that the VW deal is over $10 million but I do not know over how long or if that is annually...that would also make a giant difference in the analysis.
     
  18. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8
    Regarding the argument that the USSF pays for NWLS, I only see an expenditure for $795,000 in the financials, which is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of this enterprise. Perhaps other NWLS expenses are buried in other line items but they are not called out in the published financials. To put the "paltry" sum spent on NWLS in perspective, USSF spends $15 million on Administration, $6million on DA, $18 million on Development Programs, $5 million on Sports Medicine, $5 million on National Team Administration, and $ 10 million on Coaching Programs.
     
  19. MWN

    MWN Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,905 / 19
    Fundamentally, I don't have a problem paying the USWNT their "perceived value." I also don't have a problem paying the women their "actual value." Where I have a problem is paying any player, man or women a rate not in line with their "fair market value." I also have a problem with the notion that the USWNT's World Cup path is equal to that of the men. Its not and much easier for a women's team to make the world cup than it is for a men's team. To qualify for the Women's World Cup, the USWNT plays 5 games over a two week period. The USMNT play 16 games over a 2 year period. Its simply not "Equal Work" and the roster bonuses paid to the men should be much higher given the greater risk.

    I have a fundamental problem with the claims being made by the USWNT that they are being treated unequally, thus, illegally. That's B.S. They are treated unequally, because they bargained for a fundamentally different deal than the men. Their current claims (I read the lawsuit) don't mention the fact that the core group is salaried employees of US Soccer and the men are independent contractors that only get paid for training camps and games. From an employer perspective, its like my marketing department (WNT) complaining that the commissioned sales people (MNT) are paid more. Damn straight, because the marketing people are not on commission and can earn substantially less or substantially more, the marketing people have a less risk adverse deal. The USMNT players take the risk, the women don't take nearly the same risk.

    Moreover, the salary structure in place for the USWNT is going to bite the US in the butt, because it create a barrier to bringing in new blood.

    The salaries paid to the USWNT for NWSL are reflected in the USWNT expense line item. The additional money paid to the NWSL is to help support this insolvent league, not to pay USWNT salaries.
     
  20. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8
    I hear you. I suppose I look at it with a different framework. To my way of thinking if you make a movie with live actors or a cartoon and the box office receipts are equal then the compensation for the talent is going to be similar. I also deal with salaried people versus commissioned salespeople and yes the ones with the higher upside are also exposed to much greater downside. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts, if it ever gets to trial.
     

Share This Page