USWNT

soccerobserver said:
SF2 I have not had a chance to go through it all. At first blush I felt his Factsheet was a bit cursory but I have to look more closely. I am also curious to see the USWNT rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I love it. USSF says the women are paid more if you don't count the money that causes the men to be paid more, but you do count the money women make in their other jobs. Hysterical how Cordiero counts money USSF pays to NWSL, but not the massive amounts of money it pays to SUM, which is owned by MLS. Also great how he touts that USSF started GDA two years ago while forgetting that it started one for the boys more than 10 years earlier. I also didn't see the part about the MNT coach getting paid 10x that of the WNT coach.

USSF can claim all it wants that it cannot distinguish how much the WNT is responsible for its primary and most profitable source of revenue - advertising and sponsorships - but that is precisely what a jury will do for them. It is also what the sponsors are doing for them right now by exerting the pressure on USSF that led to this misleading and desperate "factsheet". USSF knows it is in deep trouble and has resorted to misleading propaganda in the hope that it can mislead more people like Frank. But Nike and VW are smarter than Frank. Soon, you will see the WNT players making far more money than the men because they generate far more money for USSF and they deserve far more money than the men.

BTW everyone, I'm also making great progress in my campaign for equality. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/us/joshua-harris-divorce-apology-scli-intl/index.html
 
End of the Line said:
I love it. USSF says the women are paid more if you don't count the money that causes the men to be paid more, but you do count the money women make in their other jobs. Hysterical how Cordiero counts money USSF pays to NWSL, but not the massive amounts of money it pays to SUM, which is owned by MLS. Also great how he touts that USSF started GDA two years ago while forgetting that it started one for the boys more than 10 years earlier. I also didn't see the part about the MNT coach getting paid 10x that of the WNT coach.

USSF can claim all it wants that it cannot distinguish how much the WNT is responsible for its primary and most profitable source of revenue - advertising and sponsorships - but that is precisely what a jury will do for them. It is also what the sponsors are doing for them right now by exerting the pressure on USSF that led to this misleading and desperate "factsheet". USSF knows it is in deep trouble and has resorted to misleading propaganda in the hope that it can mislead more people like Frank. But Nike and VW are smarter than Frank. Soon, you will see the WNT players making far more money than the men because they generate far more money for USSF and they deserve far more money than the men.

BTW everyone, I'm also making great progress in my campaign for equality. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/us/joshua-harris-divorce-apology-scli-intl/index.html
Click to expand...

I believe they count NWSL because the USSF pays the women for their club work versus the men get paid by club. I get why they would count this as the league would not exist without the USSF paying the salary.
 
Frank said:
I believe they count NWSL because the USSF pays the women for their club work versus the men get paid by club. I get why they would count this as the league would not exist without the USSF paying the salary.
Click to expand...

It is one of many excuses by USSF to rationalize why it does not pay the players fairly. Also, the men don't get paid "by the club". They get paid by MLS, which is a single entity system.
 
While I agree with you Frank I also aver that this is where it gets tricky. EOL had a point re SUM and MLS. SUM collects the revenue from the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deals grew at an exceptional rate that also corresponded with the success of the USWNT. MLS, USWNT and USMNT sponsorships are bundled together. Therefore it stands to reason that the MLS and therefore the USMNT are benefitting from the colossal growth in the sponsorship deals that appear to be driven by the USWNT. I hope I am making sense there.

Also, as EOL alludes to, it is telling that Cordeiro omitted any mention of the sponsorship deals. This is disingenuous on his part and as I am a neutral party it is disappointing to me that he would omit it.

Finally, in my work with companies, sometimes I run across a CEO who does not understand accounting or finance. Perhaps the CEO is a former attorney or a brilliant salesman but has no training nor the aptitude for financial analysis. As I read Cordeiro's "fact sheet" it occurred to me that he might be financially illiterate in a sense. I don't know how else to explain why he counts gate/game revenues but excludes the sponsorships which are now so large that they are 150% of the game revenues.
 
soccerobserver said:
While I agree with you Frank I also aver that this is where it gets tricky. EOL had a point re SUM and MLS. SUM collects the revenue from the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deals grew at an exceptional rate that also corresponded with the success of the USWNT. MLS, USWNT and USMNT sponsorships are bundled together. Therefore it stands to reason that the MLS and therefore the USMNT are benefitting from the colossal growth in the sponsorship deals that appear to be driven by the USWNT. I hope I am making sense there.

Also, as EOL alludes to, it is telling that Cordeiro omitted any mention of the sponsorship deals. This is disingenuous on his part and as I am a neutral party it is disappointing to me that he would omit it.

Finally, in my work with companies, sometimes I run across a CEO who does not understand accounting or finance. Perhaps the CEO is a former attorney or a brilliant salesman but has no training nor the aptitude for financial analysis. As I read Cordeiro's "fact sheet" it occurred to me that he might be financially illiterate in a sense. I don't know how else to explain why he counts gate/game revenues but excludes the sponsorships which are now so large that they are 150% of the game revenues.
Click to expand...

Cordeiro has an MBA from Harvard and is a former partner at Goldman Sachs. He knows what he is doing. He is being deceptive because he knows who is driving sponsorship revenue, and he knows what happens when everyone else figures that out.
 
End of the Line said:
Cordeiro has an MBA from Harvard and is a former partner at Goldman Sachs. He knows what he is doing. He is being deceptive because he knows who is driving sponsorship revenue, and he knows what happens when everyone else figures that out.
Click to expand...
I saw that and was hoping for a kinder explanation...like maybe he was partner in charge of IT at Goldman lol...and having served as Treasurer and overseeing the USSF budgets he knows how all of the financial arrangements are tied together...
 
soccerobserver said:
While I agree with you Frank I also aver that this is where it gets tricky. EOL had a point re SUM and MLS. SUM collects the revenue from the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deals grew at an exceptional rate that also corresponded with the success of the USWNT. MLS, USWNT and USMNT sponsorships are bundled together. Therefore it stands to reason that the MLS and therefore the USMNT are benefitting from the colossal growth in the sponsorship deals that appear to be driven by the USWNT. I hope I am making sense there.

Also, as EOL alludes to, it is telling that Cordeiro omitted any mention of the sponsorship deals. This is disingenuous on his part and as I am a neutral party it is disappointing to me that he would omit it.

Finally, in my work with companies, sometimes I run across a CEO who does not understand accounting or finance. Perhaps the CEO is a former attorney or a brilliant salesman but has no training nor the aptitude for financial analysis. As I read Cordeiro's "fact sheet" it occurred to me that he might be financially illiterate in a sense. I don't know how else to explain why he counts gate/game revenues but excludes the sponsorships which are now so large that they are 150% of the game revenues.
Click to expand...

I also have to agree with the message (although the messenger isn't the best). Cordeiro is not financially illiterate, he is just being shady. He should just be honest and say that the MLS is profitable by itself and use that as some sort of justification not omitting revenue sources to skew the numbers. I think that what the players receive should be commensurate with overall revenue and costs (all the other leagues have a set percentage of their shared revenue that must be spent on players which is why you have journeyman point guards in the NBA getting $20 million a year contracts!) and should be averaged over a set period so that includes both the men and women's World Cups's in the revenue calculation.

Personally I think that more money should be invested in the NWSL and in grass roots development such as subsidizing costs for more regional camps and competition between those regions so that we can truly identify a larger pool of players with the most potential to make it to the pros and the full WNT.
 
soccerobserver said:
I saw that and was hoping for a kinder explanation...like maybe he was partner in charge of IT at Goldman lol...and having served as Treasurer and overseeing the USSF budgets he knows how all of the financial arrangements are tied together...
Click to expand...

US Soccer is the shadiest governing body of any of the major sports in the US by far. As the poet Method Man said, "Cash Rules Everything Around Me...... CREAM.....
 
MakeAPlay said:
I also have to agree with the message (although the messenger isn't the best). Cordeiro is not financially illiterate, he is just being shady. He should just be honest and say that the MLS is profitable by itself and use that as some sort of justification not omitting revenue sources to skew the numbers. I think that what the players receive should be commensurate with overall revenue and costs (all the other leagues have a set percentage of their shared revenue that must be spent on players which is why you have journeyman point guards in the NBA getting $20 million a year contracts!) and should be averaged over a set period so that includes both the men and women's World Cups's in the revenue calculation.

Personally I think that more money should be invested in the NWSL and in grass roots development such as subsidizing costs for more regional camps and competition between those regions so that we can truly identify a larger pool of players with the most potential to make it to the pros and the full WNT.
Click to expand...

Why would USSF want to put more money in to a professional women's sport? I have a serious question in that. Americans in the general do not support professional women's sports so to me if USSF doesn't see a way to profitability at that level a slow and measured financial policy makes a lot of sense. Regardless of the grassroots level of play.
 
MakeAPlay said:
I also have to agree with the message (although the messenger isn't the best). Cordeiro is not financially illiterate, he is just being shady. He should just be honest and say that the MLS is profitable by itself and use that as some sort of justification not omitting revenue sources to skew the numbers. I think that what the players receive should be commensurate with overall revenue and costs (all the other leagues have a set percentage of their shared revenue that must be spent on players which is why you have journeyman point guards in the NBA getting $20 million a year contracts!) and should be averaged over a set period so that includes both the men and women's World Cups's in the revenue calculation.

Personally I think that more money should be invested in the NWSL and in grass roots development such as subsidizing costs for more regional camps and competition between those regions so that we can truly identify a larger pool of players with the most potential to make it to the pros and the full WNT.
Click to expand...

When you're right, you're right.
 
Frank said:
Why would USSF want to put more money in to a professional women's sport? I have a serious question in that. Americans in the general do not support professional women's sports so to me if USSF doesn't see a way to profitability at that level a slow and measured financial policy makes a lot of sense. Regardless of the grassroots level of play.
Click to expand...

Because WNT success means tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship revenue for USSF. And WNT success depends on the NWSL, which helps WNT players stay sharp and fit. Without a competent women's professional league in the US, the US will (actually) fall behind, and then tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship revenue goes away for USSF. USSF puts money into the NWSL for the same reason Apple puts money into R&D.
 
Interesting I did not know some of the players tried to get Ellis fired as recently as 2017....also Mark Krikorian, FSU head coach, rumored to be possible candidate as next HC for USWNT ??? Kate Markgraf on ESPN FC:

 
soccerobserver said:
Interesting I did not know some of the players tried to get Ellis fired as recently as 2017....also Mark Krikorian, FSU head coach, rumored to be possible candidate as next HC for USWNT ??? Kate Markgraf on ESPN FC:

Click to expand...
It would really be against the current political environment to hire a male to coach this high profile of a female sport job. IMO
 
Managing that group of women had to be a difficult task. I hope we hear about the details in her soon to come book.

Advancing the conversation...Jill moved the needle somewhat...not enough imo...toward playing the ball on the ground and more technical players. FSU coach would certainly further those efforts, but I'd be shocked if he left the comforts of the sunshine state for the headaches that come with managing the likes of Ashlyn Harris. Any other coaches being mentioned that would carry the skills/technical/possession torch?
 
Cordiero is answering the "equal pay" question. Under the two different CBA agreements for National Team Players (men and women), the women's salary from the USSF was greater over the 10 year period. The women's player rep sounds like an idiot when she says that the USSF "inappropriately (included) the NWSL salaries of the players to inflate the women's players' compensation." That is part of their USSF salary.

The amount of revenue that is allocated to player salaries is the issue. The USSF's shady accounting is the issue. Both the men and the women have a legit claim for more transparency and greater revenue sharing. The women's side does not need to crap on the men's team performance. They are painting themselves into a corner.
 
MakeAPlay said:
I also have to agree with the message (although the messenger isn't the best). Cordeiro is not financially illiterate, he is just being shady. He should just be honest and say that the MLS is profitable by itself and use that as some sort of justification not omitting revenue sources to skew the numbers. I think that what the players receive should be commensurate with overall revenue and costs (all the other leagues have a set percentage of their shared revenue that must be spent on players which is why you have journeyman point guards in the NBA getting $20 million a year contracts!) and should be averaged over a set period so that includes both the men and women's World Cups's in the revenue calculation.

Personally I think that more money should be invested in the NWSL and in grass roots development such as subsidizing costs for more regional camps and competition between those regions so that we can truly identify a larger pool of players with the most potential to make it to the pros and the full WNT.
Click to expand...
I don't know these numbers but your points seem valid, it should be based on percentages of the take. The one thing in the report is that FIFA pays 40 million to the winner of the men's world cup. I don't know these number either but i would Ass u & me that the men's world cup generates 10 time more revenue than the woman's world cup so they can afford to pay more (10 times as much). Yes I know the governing bodies are corrupt.
On a separate note, I heard/read that they were thinking of increasing the number of teams in the woman world cup by eight, is that correct? I think it might be to soon for that as there were plenty of teams in the last woman's world cup that weren't competitive. Thoughts and did i see that correctly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top