USWNT

We have two basic issues:

Issue 1 - Women's Soccer Has Low Commercial Value. The world-wide market for women's soccer is orders of magnitude less than the world-wide market for men's soccer. The total prize money to be split between the 24 women's teams for 2019 is $30M. The total prize money for the men in 2018 (Russia) was $400M. The 2018 Champion on the men's side recieved $38 Million (the runner up $28 million). Contrast that with the Women's TOTAL prize money being $30 million. and we can already see where the money is.

Why the disparity? Institutional sexism? No. Soccer is entertainment and women are not as entertaining to watch from a world-wide perspective.

Audit shows a record 3.572 billion people watched the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia™
Figure includes those who watched TV at home, out of home or on digital platforms
The final was seen live by a combined 1.12 billion viewers worldwide. Source: https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cup
Contrast with the last women's worldcup: "More than 750 million television viewers watched the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™" https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup...world-cup-tops-750-million-tv-viewers-2745963

On a worldwide basis, based on spectators the men's FIFA World Cup is:

4.76266666667
Times More Popular
​
Than the women's FIFA World cup.

What is FIFA and its various Governing Bodies doing about this? There is a strategy, but we are only a few years into that strategy, which includes:
  1. Grow Participation (60 million female players by 2026) (Game Plan Section 1)
  2. Enhance The Commercial Value (Game Plan Section 2 and 3)
  3. Build The Foundations (Game Plan Section 4 and 5)
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/women-s-football-strategy.pdf?cloudid=z7w21ghir8jb9tguvbcq

Issue 2 - US Soccer CoMingles the Value of USWNT contributions to its overall revenues and doesn't separate perceived values of the two teams based on gender.
With regard to the present lawsuit, US Soccer is its own worst enemy and the USWNT players know it. They also know that the vast amount of the public are idiots and don't look beyond revenues. Hint: you are an idiot you are myopic if you don't look at "net profit."

When you look at US Soccer's budgets the Women are monetary losers, but before we get to that. Let's also appreciate that the women are looking to maximize their "perceived" value. The failure of the men to qualify for the World Cup was the best thing to happen to the ladies because it required US Soccer to redirect efforts that play into perceived value.

The Fiscal Year 2020 budget - executive summary basically put the ladies up on a "marketing pedestal"

Not qualifying for the Men’s World Cup had a real impact on our ability to achieve our mission in the short-term. Not participating in June’s World Cup caused a shortfall in our ability to increase the fan base because the World Cup has developed into a sporting moment that unites the country around our team. This is a void that we can not fill in the short-term. As we look to FY’20, we are pushing ourselves to make the Women’s World Cup a transformative opportunity for the sport. The operating area that has been impacted the most has been events. While year over year comparisons on attendance are not necessarily the most relevant comparisons due to a variety of factors such as number of matches, competitive dynamics, etc., in FY’20, we will continue to rebuild support for the Men’s National Team and are looking to maximize our pre-Women’s World Cup events for the Women’s National Team.
Click to expand...
Page 5, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.

The above point is where you all seem to not get it. This isn't about what is their present value, this lawsuit is simply about what is the "perceived" value in terms of marketing and growing the sports to US Soccer.

When we take a look at the FY'20 Projected Source and Use of Funds, the women are clearly bringing in more revenue (given its their World Cup cycle) than the men, but US Soccer is getting hammered on expenses (Page 8, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.)

US Mens National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: $20,414,455
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($21,431,499)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($1,017,044)

US Women's National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 18,503,582
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($20,801,255)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($2,297,673)

US Women's National Team - World Cup
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 4,454,374
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($10,582,252)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($6,127,878)

Restated, for Fiscal Year 2020, operating the US MNT will cause US Soccer to lose $1,017,044. Operating the US WNT will cause US Soccer to lose $8,425,551.

What is missing from the above numbers is the revenue related to TV rights and sales of jerseys, etc. at its relates to the Mens v. Women's programs. What we do know is that the projected Revenue for Mktg - Sponsorship - Broadcast is $51,7M, the Projected expenses are $7,827,128 and the projected profit is $43,912,872 for combined rights.

It isn't broken up by men and women, but it would be delusional to think that the women contribute 8x to 10x more for broadcast rights over the men when the TV viewership is much lower for women over men. Where the women probably come close to equality on the marketing front is jersey sales, but its hard to say because the numbers are not broken up by gender.

At the end of the day, if we were just trying to be fair on a "pro rata basis" and give the women the same percentage of what they bring to the table, the USWNT players should be paid less than the men. If we wanted to pay the USWNT players based on their perceived value from a marketing standpoint then we pay them the same or more because America loves winners (as does every other nation).

Make no mistake about any of this, the USWNT players know the score. They are fighting under the banner of equality knowing that their contribute less to the overall revenues and more to the overall costs. They know that you don't understand it. The US Men laid an egg, the USWNT is topped ranked and in a World Cup cycle year and US Soccer's mission to grow the sports needs them right now. Their perceived value hasn't been higher.

The lawsuit IS strategic (even down to the day it was filed - National Women's Day) and designed to get the USWNT players, not their fair share of their economic contribution to US Soccer, but their perceived value, which are two different things.
 
MWN said:
We have two basic issues:

Issue 1 - Women's Soccer Has Low Commercial Value. The world-wide market for women's soccer is orders of magnitude less than the world-wide market for men's soccer. The total prize money to be split between the 24 women's teams for 2019 is $30M. The total prize money for the men in 2018 (Russia) was $400M. The 2018 Champion on the men's side recieved $38 Million (the runner up $28 million). Contrast that with the Women's TOTAL prize money being $30 million. and we can already see where the money is.

Why the disparity? Institutional sexism? No. Soccer is entertainment and women are not as entertaining to watch from a world-wide perspective.

Audit shows a record 3.572 billion people watched the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia™
Figure includes those who watched TV at home, out of home or on digital platforms
The final was seen live by a combined 1.12 billion viewers worldwide. Source: https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cup
Contrast with the last women's worldcup: "More than 750 million television viewers watched the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™" https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup...world-cup-tops-750-million-tv-viewers-2745963

On a worldwide basis, based on spectators the men's FIFA World Cup is:

4.76266666667
Times More Popular
​
Than the women's FIFA World cup.

What is FIFA and its various Governing Bodies doing about this? There is a strategy, but we are only a few years into that strategy, which includes:
  1. Grow Participation (60 million female players by 2026) (Game Plan Section 1)
  2. Enhance The Commercial Value (Game Plan Section 2 and 3)
  3. Build The Foundations (Game Plan Section 4 and 5)
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/women-s-football-strategy.pdf?cloudid=z7w21ghir8jb9tguvbcq

Issue 2 - US Soccer CoMingles the Value of USWNT contributions to its overall revenues and doesn't separate perceived values of the two teams based on gender.
With regard to the present lawsuit, US Soccer is its own worst enemy and the USWNT players know it. They also know that the vast amount of the public are idiots and don't look beyond revenues. Hint: you are an idiot you are myopic if you don't look at "net profit."

When you look at US Soccer's budgets the Women are monetary losers, but before we get to that. Let's also appreciate that the women are looking to maximize their "perceived" value. The failure of the men to qualify for the World Cup was the best thing to happen to the ladies because it required US Soccer to redirect efforts that play into perceived value.

The Fiscal Year 2020 budget - executive summary basically put the ladies up on a "marketing pedestal"

Page 5, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.

The above point is where you all seem to not get it. This isn't about what is their present value, this lawsuit is simply about what is the "perceived" value in terms of marketing and growing the sports to US Soccer.

When we take a look at the FY'20 Projected Source and Use of Funds, the women are clearly bringing in more revenue (given its their World Cup cycle) than the men, but US Soccer is getting hammered on expenses (Page 8, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.)

US Mens National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: $20,414,455
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($21,431,499)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($1,017,044)

US Women's National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 18,503,582
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($20,801,255)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($2,297,673)

US Women's National Team - World Cup
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 4,454,374
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($10,582,252)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($6,127,878)

Restated, for Fiscal Year 2020, operating the US MNT will cause US Soccer to lose $1,017,044. Operating the US WNT will cause US Soccer to lose $8,425,551.

What is missing from the above numbers is the revenue related to TV rights and sales of jerseys, etc. at its relates to the Mens v. Women's programs. What we do know is that the projected Revenue for Mktg - Sponsorship - Broadcast is $51,7M, the Projected expenses are $7,827,128 and the projected profit is $43,912,872 for combined rights.

It isn't broken up by men and women, but it would be delusional to think that the women contribute 8x to 10x more for broadcast rights over the men when the TV viewership is much lower for women over men. Where the women probably come close to equality on the marketing front is jersey sales, but its hard to say because the numbers are not broken up by gender.

At the end of the day, if we were just trying to be fair on a "pro rata basis" and give the women the same percentage of what they bring to the table, the USWNT players should be paid less than the men. If we wanted to pay the USWNT players based on their perceived value from a marketing standpoint then we pay them the same or more because America loves winners (as does every other nation).

Make no mistake about any of this, the USWNT players know the score. They are fighting under the banner of equality knowing that their contribute less to the overall revenues and more to the overall costs. They know that you don't understand it. The US Men laid an egg, the USWNT is topped ranked and in a World Cup cycle year and US Soccer's mission to grow the sports needs them right now. Their perceived value hasn't been higher.

The lawsuit IS strategic (even down to the day it was filed - National Women's Day) and designed to get the USWNT players, not their fair share of their economic contribution to US Soccer, but their perceived value, which are two different things.
Click to expand...

That’s just too F’n long to read.
 
MWN said:
We have two basic issues:

Issue 1 - Women's Soccer Has Low Commercial Value. The world-wide market for women's soccer is orders of magnitude less than the world-wide market for men's soccer. The total prize money to be split between the 24 women's teams for 2019 is $30M. The total prize money for the men in 2018 (Russia) was $400M. The 2018 Champion on the men's side recieved $38 Million (the runner up $28 million). Contrast that with the Women's TOTAL prize money being $30 million. and we can already see where the money is.

Why the disparity? Institutional sexism? No. Soccer is entertainment and women are not as entertaining to watch from a world-wide perspective.

Audit shows a record 3.572 billion people watched the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia™
Figure includes those who watched TV at home, out of home or on digital platforms
The final was seen live by a combined 1.12 billion viewers worldwide. Source: https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cup
Contrast with the last women's worldcup: "More than 750 million television viewers watched the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™" https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup...world-cup-tops-750-million-tv-viewers-2745963

On a worldwide basis, based on spectators the men's FIFA World Cup is:

4.76266666667
Times More Popular
​
Than the women's FIFA World cup.

What is FIFA and its various Governing Bodies doing about this? There is a strategy, but we are only a few years into that strategy, which includes:
  1. Grow Participation (60 million female players by 2026) (Game Plan Section 1)
  2. Enhance The Commercial Value (Game Plan Section 2 and 3)
  3. Build The Foundations (Game Plan Section 4 and 5)
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/women-s-football-strategy.pdf?cloudid=z7w21ghir8jb9tguvbcq

Issue 2 - US Soccer CoMingles the Value of USWNT contributions to its overall revenues and doesn't separate perceived values of the two teams based on gender.
With regard to the present lawsuit, US Soccer is its own worst enemy and the USWNT players know it. They also know that the vast amount of the public are idiots and don't look beyond revenues. Hint: you are an idiot you are myopic if you don't look at "net profit."

When you look at US Soccer's budgets the Women are monetary losers, but before we get to that. Let's also appreciate that the women are looking to maximize their "perceived" value. The failure of the men to qualify for the World Cup was the best thing to happen to the ladies because it required US Soccer to redirect efforts that play into perceived value.

The Fiscal Year 2020 budget - executive summary basically put the ladies up on a "marketing pedestal"

Page 5, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.

The above point is where you all seem to not get it. This isn't about what is their present value, this lawsuit is simply about what is the "perceived" value in terms of marketing and growing the sports to US Soccer.

When we take a look at the FY'20 Projected Source and Use of Funds, the women are clearly bringing in more revenue (given its their World Cup cycle) than the men, but US Soccer is getting hammered on expenses (Page 8, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.)

US Mens National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: $20,414,455
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($21,431,499)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($1,017,044)

US Women's National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 18,503,582
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($20,801,255)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($2,297,673)

US Women's National Team - World Cup
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 4,454,374
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($10,582,252)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($6,127,878)

Restated, for Fiscal Year 2020, operating the US MNT will cause US Soccer to lose $1,017,044. Operating the US WNT will cause US Soccer to lose $8,425,551.

What is missing from the above numbers is the revenue related to TV rights and sales of jerseys, etc. at its relates to the Mens v. Women's programs. What we do know is that the projected Revenue for Mktg - Sponsorship - Broadcast is $51,7M, the Projected expenses are $7,827,128 and the projected profit is $43,912,872 for combined rights.

It isn't broken up by men and women, but it would be delusional to think that the women contribute 8x to 10x more for broadcast rights over the men when the TV viewership is much lower for women over men. Where the women probably come close to equality on the marketing front is jersey sales, but its hard to say because the numbers are not broken up by gender.

At the end of the day, if we were just trying to be fair on a "pro rata basis" and give the women the same percentage of what they bring to the table, the USWNT players should be paid less than the men. If we wanted to pay the USWNT players based on their perceived value from a marketing standpoint then we pay them the same or more because America loves winners (as does every other nation).

Make no mistake about any of this, the USWNT players know the score. They are fighting under the banner of equality knowing that their contribute less to the overall revenues and more to the overall costs. They know that you don't understand it. The US Men laid an egg, the USWNT is topped ranked and in a World Cup cycle year and US Soccer's mission to grow the sports needs them right now. Their perceived value hasn't been higher.

The lawsuit IS strategic (even down to the day it was filed - National Women's Day) and designed to get the USWNT players, not their fair share of their economic contribution to US Soccer, but their perceived value, which are two different things.
Click to expand...
MWN thank you for adding so much light to the analysis...I was surprised to see how close the two teams were in revenues. My layperson reaction is that the women are drastically outperforming or the men are really underperforming since I can't think of any other sport except tennis where female star athletes rival if not surpass male counterparts in the same sport.

The WWC expenses should not count in the comparison unless you also penalize the men for lost revenues, loss of intangibles like "goodwill" etc. for missing the WC and the Olympics. Stated another way, I don't think one should penalize the women for qualifying for the WWC?? For example, and hypothetically speaking, the Patriots probably have higher overall annual expenses than the Bengals but it's also possible the Bengals are more "profitable" than the Pats. May I submit that the additional revenues the women will generate be added to the overall pie that they generate?

If you include the WWC revenues then this is what follows:

US WNT FY'20 Revenues: ($18,503,582 + $4,454,374) = $22,957,956
US MNT FY'20 Revenues: $20,414,455

I think this is an interesting way to look at the pie of revenues that are being generated and suggests that the USWNT has a point.
 
MWN as you point out there is also the issue of broadcast rights which is kept murky for some reason...the domestic TV and merchandise deals are comingled with the men, women and MLS all bundled together so it tough to verify if the allocation to the three parties is done on a fair basis. Nevertheless, even without the exact data from the cloudy TV deals this is what we can observe:

1. MOST WATCHED SOCCER GAME IN US HISTORY -26.7 MILLION FOR THE WOMEN in 2015 in Canada...versus 26.5 for the Men's WC final in 2014 and versus 0 views for the US MNT in last WC since they were sitting home...for perspective 18 million watched the US women in the final in 2011...
2. US WNT 2018 Total Viewership: 5,746,000
US MNT 2018 Total Viewership: 4,750,000
3. US WNT Head Coach Ellis makes less that the US Men's U20 coach. Maybe that is fair but its not a good look if you get my drift...
4. US WNT viewership fell 20% in 2018; US MNT viewership fell 47% in 2018.
5. The women have more followers on social media than the men.

I do not know which side is right but I find the data to be interesting and I can see arguments that strengthen the case for more scrutiny on the current financial arrangements.
 
I'm no expert on anything, but no matter which side you support, or if you're neutral like me, it's about capitalism, not Women's rights, or discrimination. If they get a better deal it's about them making more money. If they don't, it's about US soccer saving money. Making it anything other than is just propaganda to gain an edge.
 
MWN said:
When we take a look at the FY'20 Projected Source and Use of Funds, the women are clearly bringing in more revenue (given its their World Cup cycle) than the men, but US Soccer is getting hammered on expenses (Page 8, US Soccer 2019 Book of Reports.)

US Mens National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: $20,414,455
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($21,431,499)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($1,017,044)

US Women's National Team
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 18,503,582
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($20,801,255)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($2,297,673)

US Women's National Team - World Cup
FY'20 Projected Revenue: 4,454,374
FY'20 Projected Expenses: ($10,582,252)
Projected Profit/Loss: ($6,127,878)

Restated, for Fiscal Year 2020, operating the US MNT will cause US Soccer to lose $1,017,044. Operating the US WNT will cause US Soccer to lose $8,425,551.

What is missing from the above numbers is the revenue related to TV rights and sales of jerseys, etc. at its relates to the Mens v. Women's programs. What we do know is that the projected Revenue for Mktg - Sponsorship - Broadcast is $51,7M, the Projected expenses are $7,827,128 and the projected profit is $43,912,872 for combined rights.

It isn't broken up by men and women, but it would be delusional to think that the women contribute 8x to 10x more for broadcast rights over the men when the TV viewership is much lower for women over men. Where the women probably come close to equality on the marketing front is jersey sales, but its hard to say because the numbers are not broken up by gender.
Click to expand...

Really enjoyed this. Question is why are the expenses higher for the women than the men if the men's coaches and male players make more than the women's coaches and female players? Or do they? Do you have this info?
 
soccerobserver said:
MWN thank you for adding so much light to the analysis...I was surprised to see how close the two teams were in revenues. My layperson reaction is that the women are drastically outperforming or the men are really underperforming since I can't think of any other sport except tennis where female star athletes rival if not surpass male counterparts in the same sport.

The WWC expenses should not count in the comparison unless you also penalize the men for lost revenues, loss of intangibles like "goodwill" etc. for missing the WC and the Olympics. Stated another way, I don't think one should penalize the women for qualifying for the WWC?? For example, and hypothetically speaking, the Patriots probably have higher overall annual expenses than the Bengals but it's also possible the Bengals are more "profitable" than the Pats. May I submit that the additional revenues the women will generate be added to the overall pie that they generate?

If you include the WWC revenues then this is what follows:

US WNT FY'20 Revenues: ($18,503,582 + $4,454,374) = $22,957,956
US MNT FY'20 Revenues: $20,414,455

I think this is an interesting way to look at the pie of revenues that are being generated and suggests that the USWNT has a point.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I understand, you want to eliminate the expense of the WWC, but capture the revenue? No, that form of accounting would violate GAAP and is the kind of thing that sends CEO's to prison (e.g. Enron). The WWC expenses must count against the Women's revenues because this very line item is fundamental to the WNT's claims and overall costs. If anything, the Players are arguing that the expenses should increase more, so we must consider this line item. The direct loss remains around $8M and would increase if we paid more in salaries.

With regard to penalizing the men. This isn't about penalizing the men, because the men's team has historically borne an unequal burden, its about all working towards an end goal, which is promoting the US Soccer brand (i.e. generating more revenue) and growing the sport for all, regardless of gender. The historical performance of the men's team and that of the women's has helped US Soccer grow.

Concerning goodwill, when it comes to "budgets" and operating a company, "goodwill" isn't a line item, so there is no impact to goodwill, other than future sales. A budget is not a balance sheet. Goodwill belongs as an intangible asset on a balance sheet, but has no place on a budget or P&L.

Historically the men's game made the lionshare of broadcast, marketing and sponsorship money. When FOX pay's $X dollars, it is solely interested in how many eyeballs will be on its broadcasts, so it can sell commercials to the likes of chevy, budweiser and others. Here in the US, this is where the women have an argument given recent performances, but that argument is weak because the FOX contract was entered into with the expectation of both teams advancing (at least that was FOX's bet).

Moving forward, while the world wide audience is low, in the US, the women tend to out perform the men when it comes to TV viewership because the women are typically playing in the later rounds. That said, the TV contract between US Soccer and FOX was made prior to the men's egg laying effort against Trinidad-Tobago and didn't really impact FOX's rights. Fox pays $425M over the life of the contract which is

We can't lose sight of the fact that soccer is entertainment and watching the national team play combines both entertainment with patriotism. Whether its the Olympics or World Cup, America cheers and watches its national teams, on this front, the USWNT are doing very well and its perfect timing to capitalize on their perceived value as it relates to US Soccer's marketing efforts.
 
socalkdg said:
Really enjoyed this. Question is why are the expenses higher for the women than the men if the men's coaches and male players make more than the women's coaches and female players? Or do they? Do you have this info?
Click to expand...

I have some of the info and it mostly comes down to the fact that the "men" are not employees of US Soccer, whereas, the women are employees of US Soccer. US Soccer pays the annual salaries of the stars while they play in the NWSL because there is no profitable market currently for women's team sports (soccer, softball, hockey, basketball, etc.), whereas, US Soccer pays nothing for the men, just per diem's and bonuses. When it comes time for being rostered on the US Team, both get paid, but the men get paid more than the women, especially when you take into account performance bonuses. Also note that the women have a collective bargaining agreement in place and renegotiated in 2017, so if you read any pay disparity articles dated before 2017, ignore them.

The lawsuit filed by the women is also banking on the fact that the complexities are too complicated and pundits will reduce all of this into soundbites without understanding the structural differences between the men and women's game, both professionally and at the FIFA and Olympic level. Just look at the opinions expressed already, how many people actually understand that the women are employees of US Soccer, whereas, the men are not. There is no men's collective bargaining agreement because the men don't play for US Soccer subsidized entities. The women do.
 
@MWN, great information that puts things in the right perspective. My initial reaction was also that there is way less entertainment value in women' soccer, so the disparity in pay is justified. However, we're not talking about NWSL salary vs MLS salary here. There seems to be a good case to be made for WNT vs MNT looking at your numbers.

On a side note, imagine the PR nightmare if we put WNT and MNT in different cabins of the same flight :).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44965630
 
MWN said:
I have some of the info and it mostly comes down to the fact that the "men" are not employees of US Soccer, whereas, the women are employees of US Soccer. US Soccer pays the annual salaries of the stars while they play in the NWSL because there is no profitable market currently for women's team sports (soccer, softball, hockey, basketball, etc.), whereas, US Soccer pays nothing for the men, just per diem's and bonuses. When it comes time for being rostered on the US Team, both get paid, but the men get paid more than the women, especially when you take into account performance bonuses. Also note that the women have a collective bargaining agreement in place and renegotiated in 2017, so if you read any pay disparity articles dated before 2017, ignore them.

The lawsuit filed by the women is also banking on the fact that the complexities are too complicated and pundits will reduce all of this into soundbites without understanding the structural differences between the men and women's game, both professionally and at the FIFA and Olympic level. Just look at the opinions expressed already, how many people actually understand that the women are employees of US Soccer, whereas, the men are not. There is no men's collective bargaining agreement because the men don't play for US Soccer subsidized entities. The women do.
Click to expand...

I thought the men do have a collective bargaining agreement. Does each player individually negotiate his compensation?

BTW - the women's complaint filed in federal court calls the MNT employees of US soccer.
 
MWN said:
Let me make sure I understand, you want to eliminate the expense of the WWC, but capture the revenue? No, that form of accounting would violate GAAP and is the kind of thing that sends CEO's to prison (e.g. Enron). The WWC expenses must count against the Women's revenues because this very line item is fundamental to the WNT's claims and overall costs. If anything, the Players are arguing that the expenses should increase more, so we must consider this line item. The direct loss remains around $8M and would increase if we paid more in salaries.

With regard to penalizing the men. This isn't about penalizing the men, because the men's team has historically borne an unequal burden, its about all working towards an end goal, which is promoting the US Soccer brand (i.e. generating more revenue) and growing the sport for all, regardless of gender. The historical performance of the men's team and that of the women's has helped US Soccer grow.

Concerning goodwill, when it comes to "budgets" and operating a company, "goodwill" isn't a line item, so there is no impact to goodwill, other than future sales. A budget is not a balance sheet. Goodwill belongs as an intangible asset on a balance sheet, but has no place on a budget or P&L.

Historically the men's game made the lionshare of broadcast, marketing and sponsorship money. When FOX pay's $X dollars, it is solely interested in how many eyeballs will be on its broadcasts, so it can sell commercials to the likes of chevy, budweiser and others. Here in the US, this is where the women have an argument given recent performances, but that argument is weak because the FOX contract was entered into with the expectation of both teams advancing (at least that was FOX's bet).

Moving forward, while the world wide audience is low, in the US, the women tend to out perform the men when it comes to TV viewership because the women are typically playing in the later rounds. That said, the TV contract between US Soccer and FOX was made prior to the men's egg laying effort against Trinidad-Tobago and didn't really impact FOX's rights. Fox pays $425M over the life of the contract which is

We can't lose sight of the fact that soccer is entertainment and watching the national team play combines both entertainment with patriotism. Whether its the Olympics or World Cup, America cheers and watches its national teams, on this front, the USWNT are doing very well and its perfect timing to capitalize on their perceived value as it relates to US Soccer's marketing efforts.
Click to expand...

None of the finances should be used to justify paying the MNT players more since they're based on phony misogynistic accounting. Specifically, USSF drops money into the "men's revenue" category although the MNT has virtually nothing to do with generating it. There is nothing about GAAP that says USSF should (or can) put certain revenues into gender-specific categories and then pay women unequally because of it. USSF is just hiding behind numbers to rationalize gender discrimination.

For starters, consider the windfall payments USSF receives when the MNT actually qualifies for a WC (currently $8 million just to show up). This money is the result of revenue generated from ads and ticket sales when real teams like Germany, France and Brazil play, and the MNT is no more entitled than the WNT to money received by FIFA that it obtained from 200 other countries and that the MNT does nothing to earn other than being men. In other words, although both the MNT and WNT are responsible for getting a payment when they win, the men did nothing to justify the fact that their payment gets to be larger. That money shouldn't be considered revenue generated by the men because they were no more responsible than the women for the size of the payment; they were only responsible for the fact that USSF got a payment.

Even with USSF revenues from games played in the US, it's B.S. to say that the MNT players are responsible for that revenue either. When Messi or the Mexican NT rolls in for Copa or a friendly, you can put virtually any MNT player on the field without losing $1. In reality, not a single one of them deserves a dime because none of them move the needle on revenue generation. To the contrary, the MNT players are actually a huge drain on revenue that could and should benefit all USSF operations. For example, how much money does USSF intentionally throw away because it schedules qualifiers against Mexico in a 20,000 seat stadium in OH, instead of the 100,000+ Coliseum, just to have a fighting chance at winning a game they'll lose anyway? Why should the WNT, youth soccer and everything else USSF oversees by virtue of its Congressionally-provided monopoly status - which must be used for the best interests of the U.S. (and not the MNT only) - pay the price for the revenue that a bunch of men at USSF throw away because the MNT is crap?

Ironically, the women have a direct positive impact on revenue and, as such, are more important than the men's players when it comes to generating it. If the WNT sucks, revenue goes way down because everyone comes to see them play, not the opponent. And they (along with their American predecessors) are almost single-handedly responsible for the prize money that FIFA passes out on the women's side. The MNT players just ride the wave of France's, Argentina's and Brazil's awesomeness and then claim an entitlement to money that was earned by someone else. It's great to be a man and make more than women no matter how s**y you are at your job, no matter how interchangeable you are, and no matter how little impact you have on a company's revenue (other than to make it go down because you have a fragile ego and suck). That is the very definition of gender discrimination.

It is also wrong to say the MNT isn't benefiting from institutionalized sexism. FIFA has received almost a billion dollars from Qatar. Stadiums will be filled with middle eastern dudes from countries like Saudi Arabia that don't let women play (or even go to) a soccer game at all, meaning 100% of that country's soccer dollars go to men's soccer based on a repressive male-dominated society. And although middle eastern countries are an extreme example, they aren't that extreme. Probably every country on earth has a long and inglorious history of inhibiting women in sports and every aspect of business and life. Men get to make decisions and hold financial purse strings virtually everywhere and, when women can't play sports and don't have the money to support them, discrimination perpetuates itself forever.

It is also incorrect to say that the MNT deserves more money because men's soccer is a better product worldwide. Maybe that's true in Brazil, but that argument falls apart when you make the appropriate comparison between the MNT and the WNT. Claiming that the MNT is better entertainment than the WNT is borderline laughable. I believe TV ratings are better for the women overall in the US and, when they aren't, it's because people are tuning in to watch their opponent. The VW contract was also almost certainly driven by the WNT based on the timing (the year after the MNT generated no WC ad revenue and the year before the women generate a lot) and the fact that women and rich girl soccer players are VW's target audience. USSF fails to give the WNT credit for driving ad revenue when that credit is due, and although that revenue is a huge factor.

Regardless, hiding behind misogynistic accounting misses the point. By virtue of its congressional mandate, USSF's role is supposed to act in the best interests of the U.S., not the best interests of the MNT. Gender equality is in the best interests of the U.S. Throwing money away hiding from Mexico is not in the best interests of the U.S. It's not even in the best long-term interests of the men, since some of that money could be used for the benefit of our youth boys (and girls) systems.
 
MWN said:
Let me make sure I understand, you want to eliminate the expense of the WWC, but capture the revenue? No, that form of accounting would violate GAAP and is the kind of thing that sends CEO's to prison (e.g. Enron). The WWC expenses must count against the Women's revenues because this very line item is fundamental to the WNT's claims and overall costs. If anything, the Players are arguing that the expenses should increase more, so we must consider this line item. The direct loss remains around $8M and would increase if we paid more in salaries.

With regard to penalizing the men. This isn't about penalizing the men, because the men's team has historically borne an unequal burden, its about all working towards an end goal, which is promoting the US Soccer brand (i.e. generating more revenue) and growing the sport for all, regardless of gender. The historical performance of the men's team and that of the women's has helped US Soccer grow.

Concerning goodwill, when it comes to "budgets" and operating a company, "goodwill" isn't a line item, so there is no impact to goodwill, other than future sales. A budget is not a balance sheet. Goodwill belongs as an intangible asset on a balance sheet, but has no place on a budget or P&L.

Historically the men's game made the lionshare of broadcast, marketing and sponsorship money. When FOX pay's $X dollars, it is solely interested in how many eyeballs will be on its broadcasts, so it can sell commercials to the likes of chevy, budweiser and others. Here in the US, this is where the women have an argument given recent performances, but that argument is weak because the FOX contract was entered into with the expectation of both teams advancing (at least that was FOX's bet).

Moving forward, while the world wide audience is low, in the US, the women tend to out perform the men when it comes to TV viewership because the women are typically playing in the later rounds. That said, the TV contract between US Soccer and FOX was made prior to the men's egg laying effort against Trinidad-Tobago and didn't really impact FOX's rights. Fox pays $425M over the life of the contract which is

We can't lose sight of the fact that soccer is entertainment and watching the national team play combines both entertainment with patriotism. Whether its the Olympics or World Cup, America cheers and watches its national teams, on this front, the USWNT are doing very well and its perfect timing to capitalize on their perceived value as it relates to US Soccer's marketing efforts.
Click to expand...
@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.
 
MarkM said:
I thought the men do have a collective bargaining agreement. Does each player individually negotiate his compensation?

BTW - the women's complaint filed in federal court calls the MNT employees of US soccer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MWN said:
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.
Click to expand...

And be charged accordingly?
 
espola said:
And be charged accordingly?
Click to expand...
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.
 
MWN said:
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.
Click to expand...

Paying more would equalize your consumption of limited resources.
 
End of the Line said:
misogynistic accounting
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top