USWNT

[soccerobserver]

Looks as though the USWNT closed their deal on equal pay....from the NYT:

"U.S. Women’s Soccer Team and U.S. Soccer Ratify New Labor Agreement
"The deal, which was ratified by the players on Tuesday night in Dallas and by U.S. Soccer’s board in a conference call, includes a sizable increase in base pay and improved match bonuses for the women’s team, changes that could see some players double their incomes to between $200,000 and $300,000 in a given year — and even more in a World Cup year.

The agreement also includes sought-after changes to noneconomic issues like travel, accommodations and working conditions. The union also won control of some licensing and marketing rights from the federation, another potential source of revenue for the players."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/sports/soccer/uswnt-us-soccer-labor-deal-contract.html?_r=0

 

[bababooey]

Looks as though the USWNT closed their deal on equal pay....from the NYT:

"U.S. Women’s Soccer Team and U.S. Soccer Ratify New Labor Agreement
"The deal, which was ratified by the players on Tuesday night in Dallas and by U.S. Soccer’s board in a conference call, includes a sizable increase in base pay and improved match bonuses for the women’s team, changes that could see some players double their incomes to between $200,000 and $300,000 in a given year — and even more in a World Cup year.

The agreement also includes sought-after changes to noneconomic issues like travel, accommodations and working conditions. The union also won control of some licensing and marketing rights from the federation, another potential source of revenue for the players."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/sports/soccer/uswnt-us-soccer-labor-deal-contract.html?_r=0

Thanks for the update.

It's about damn time that the USWNT is treated the same as the USMNT in terms of pay and other non-economic issues. Let's be honest, the USWNT has been much better over the years than their male counterparts. If anything, the USMNT should be paid less.

 

[soccerobserver]

Thanks Babab...It seems interesting the Players fired their chief negotiator a few days before the CBA expired in December Then the players shifted from "equal pay" to "fair and equitable" pay...now this issue is nicely settled past the next Womens WC...

 

[NoGoal]

Thanks Babab...It seems interesting the Players fired their chief negotiator a few days before the CBA expired in December Then the players shifted from "equal pay" to "fair and equitable" pay...now this issue is nicely settled past the next Womens WC...

It will be interesting to see if Mallory Pugh leaves UCLA early now with the increase in pay for WNT players. Especially, since she is a sure lock for the 2019 WWC roster.

 

[Legendary FC]

It will be interesting to see if Mallory Pugh leaves UCLA early now with the increase in pay for WNT players. Especially, since she is a sure lock for the 2019 WWC roster.

Won't happen. The details have yet to be finalized and the only years that the US WNT makes good bonuses are World Cup and Olympic years. Just take a glimpse at how the men are paid to get an idea of what they will get. Also remember that they did not get equal pay and US Soccer pays the women's salaries not the men. I think that a lot of the increase is for the veteran players and the fringe (occasional call up players) that play in the NWSL. Here is a decent comparison.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-earn-the-glory-while-men-earn-the-money-in-u-s-soccer/

At the end of the day we will see. There are only 2 games on the schedule after these two against Russia through July. She definitely is not going to jump ship this year in order to play in the NWSL (she would have to wait until January anyway).

Here are some key lines:

The result of all those long days and late nights is the team’s new collective bargaining agreement with U.S. Soccer, which was announced on Wednesday morning. The agreement includes a sizable increase in base pay for the players — more than 30 percent, initially — and improved match bonuses that could double some of their incomes, to $200,000 to $300,000 in any given year, and even more in a year that includes a World Cup or Olympic campaign.

Yet while the women’s players can claim significant gains, including on noneconomic issues like travel and working conditions, the new deal does not guarantee them equal pay with the men’s national team, which the women had made the cornerstone of their campaign for much of the last year. For the union, that reality — a consequence of the teams’ different pay structures and an eight-figure gap in FIFA bonus payouts to U.S. Soccer for the men’s and women’s World Cup — was balanced by progress elsewhere. It is those changes, including control of some licensing and marketing rights, which the union views as an opening to test the team’s value on the open market, that the players and their lawyers feel could pay off in future negotiations.

“We tried to completely change the methodology for how to define our value, and we made progress in that regard, and it changes the equation for the future,” Becca Roux, the union’s executive director, said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/sports/soccer/uswnt-us-soccer-labor-deal-contract.html?_r=0

 

[Legendary FC]

It will be interesting to see if Mallory Pugh leaves UCLA early now with the increase in pay for WNT players. Especially, since she is a sure lock for the 2019 WWC roster.

The agreement is actually very insidious on US Soccer's side. If they don't win the WWC in 2019 or the Olympics in 2020 they are going to be in a weak negotiating position.

 

[JJP]

It's about damn time that the USWNT is treated the same as the USMNT in terms of pay and other non-economic issues. Let's be honest, the USWNT has been much better over the years than their male counterparts. If anything, the USMNT should be paid less.

That's ridiculous re equal pay.

Women's soccer generates nowhere near the amount of revenue as men's soccer. The men are paid more because they generate way, way, way more revenue.

2014 men's World Cup generated $4.8 billion, 2015 women's World Cup revenue numbers are not out yet, but in 2011 women's World Cup generated $78 million. So let's say 2015 women's World Cup generated $100 million.

Sports is an eat what you kill business. The women should be paid out of their $100 million pie, men paid out of their $4.8 billion pie. Given the huge revenue generation difference, the men should be paid more, and there's nothing unfair about it.

 

[younothat]

Dallas FC under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/new...-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

"Of course, this match against the academy team was very informal and should not be a major cause for alarm. The U.S. surely wasn’t going all out, with the main goal being to get some minutes on the pitch, build chemistry when it comes to moving the ball around, improve defensive shape and get ready for Russia."

 

[NoGoal]

About 11 yrs ago a U16 WCFC National Cup Championship team (prior to Boys DA) also beat the US WNT. I recall the score was something like 2-0.

 

[LASTMAN14]

That's ridiculous re equal pay.

Women's soccer generates nowhere near the amount of revenue as men's soccer. The men are paid more because they generate way, way, way more revenue.

2014 men's World Cup generated $4.8 billion, 2015 women's World Cup revenue numbers are not out yet, but in 2011 women's World Cup generated $78 million. So let's say 2015 women's World Cup generated $100 million.

Sports is an eat what you kill business. The women should be paid out of their $100 million pie, men paid out of their $4.8 billion pie. Given the huge revenue generation difference, the men should be paid more, and there's nothing unfair about it.

We are talking about the US Women's team and not the rest of the world. Using World Cup numbers do not apply under this conversation. If we were talking about the game globally you certainly have a case. And, I would hope that US Soccer would do the right thing. They can't keep expecting the US Women to maintain their competitive level without some financial benefits. Here are some numbers when you compare the US Men to the US Women.

"The gap between projected revenue — $23 million for the USWNT and $21 million for the USMNT — in 2016 stands at $2 million, but, as demonstrated by the revenue detail, the USWNT’s revenue is set to nearly double what the USMNT will haul in ($17 million to $9 million) in 2017."

 

[espola]

Thanks for the update.

It's about damn time that the USWNT is treated the same as the USMNT in terms of pay and other non-economic issues. Let's be honest, the USWNT has been much better over the years than their male counterparts. If anything, the USMNT should be paid less.

"Better" in the sense of results in the women's soccer world. They regularly get beat by mid-teens boys ODP teams.

 

[pulguita]

About 11 yrs ago a U16 WCFC National Cup Championship team (prior to Boys DA) also beat the US WNT. I recall the score was something like 2-0.

Since most of the posters I know have daughters playing I also have a 2002 son playing Tier 1. Not academy but I will say this, at 15 -16 there is no hope for the women keeping up with the men at this age and beyond. Watching the highest level women's game compared to some of the top 2002, 2001 boys teams play is painful. At this age the boys are quicker, faster, stronger and yes bigger. Most of the quality teams paint the field and have great soccer IQ.

 

[espola]

About 11 yrs ago a U16 WCFC National Cup Championship team (prior to Boys DA) also beat the US WNT. I recall the score was something like 2-0.

In Spring 2009 - Cal South 1992 boys ODP team 5-0 USWNT.

 

[outside!]

"Better" in the sense of results in the women's soccer world. They regularly get beat by mid-teens boys ODP teams.

Are you trying to say males are better at most sports than females? Is it also true that teenage sprinters are faster than masters age sprinters? I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything regarding this discussion. Men and women are different. Comparing women to men athletically is just silly.

 

[Legendary FC]

We are talking about the US Women's team and not the rest of the world. Using World Cup numbers do not apply under this conversation. If we were talking about the game globally you certainly have a case. And, I would hope that US Soccer would do the right thing. They can't keep expecting the US Women to maintain their competitive level without some financial benefits. Here are some numbers when you compare the US Men to the US Women.

"The gap between projected revenue — $23 million for the USWNT and $21 million for the USMNT — in 2016 stands at $2 million, but, as demonstrated by the revenue detail, the USWNT’s revenue is set to nearly double what the USMNT will haul in ($17 million to $9 million) in 2017."

The US men didn't make the Olympics and that is part of the difference. You have to compare World Cup year revenues. I believe if you do that the numbers are much different.

 

[LASTMAN14]

The US men didn't make the Olympics and that is part of the difference. You have to compare World Cup year revenues. I believe if you do that the numbers are much different.

With the US Men not qualifying for Olympics only strengthens the argument. So, lets use the WC revenue. If we compare the two teams the US women (and not talking about any other women's national team) still made more money with less money coming into the Women's WC overall than the US Men's. The point is this, if US Soccer wants to continue to have a strong women's program they will have to pay the women more at some time.

 

[bababooey]

"Better" in the sense of results in the women's soccer world. They regularly get beat by mid-teens boys ODP teams.

Come on Espola......did you really think I was comparing the men's team with the women's team on the same pitch? We know what would happen if these two teams played one another.

My point is that the USWNT results (against other women's teams to help you) have been much more impressive than our USMNT.

 

[NoGoal]

Since most of the posters I know have daughters playing I also have a 2002 son playing Tier 1. Not academy but I will say this, at 15 -16 there is no hope for the women keeping up with the men at this age and beyond. Watching the highest level women's game compared to some of the top 2002, 2001 boys teams play is painful. At this age the boys are quicker, faster, stronger and yes bigger. Most of the quality teams paint the field and have great soccer IQ.

I agree my son back in the day was on a Silver Elite team and his coach also had a Gold team. I recall their scrimmages and how much faster and athletic the boys were. At U15 girls generally get slower, but the boys get faster.

 

[JJP]

We are talking about the US Women's team and not the rest of the world. Using World Cup numbers do not apply under this conversation. If we were talking about the game globally you certainly have a case.

What? How does World Cup numbers not apply? The World Cup (men's World Cup) is the single biggest sporting event in the world and draws more viewers and more eyeballs, thus generating huge advertising revenues and tv broadcast rights fees, than any sport in the world. It's the single biggest income generator for the men's team. What you are saying, disregard men's World Cup revenue to determine what male and female players should be paid, is completely senseless. That's like saying let's calculate Bill Gates wealth without his Microsoft stock.

In a World Cup year, the men's team generates so much more revenue, there is no comparison with the women. Comparing revenue in 2015 is misleading and cherry picking because that's a women's World Cup year and the men are missing World Cup revenue. The fairest way to compare revenue is to average revenue for a four year period, so both men and women get their big income generators factored in.

I'm just really flabbergasted at the absurd and pervasive PC bullshit that even makes this a conversation. Except maybe figure skating or gymnastics, there is no women's sport that brings in the tv viewership or ticket sales anywhere close to the comparable men's sport. Men's soccer generates hundreds of billions, women's soccer generates maybe in the hundreds of millions, and that's a stretch Your pay is based in large part on the revenue you generate. The women generate a lot, lot, lot less revenue. Therefore, they should not be paid equal to men who generate way more revenue.

I'm pretty sure that the women are in fact grossly overpaid compared to the amount of revenue they generate. I was actually shocked to learn that women's team members got a salary paid regardless of whether they played or won a game in international competition, and the salary is not bad. It's pretty much a guarantee that the men's World Cup revenue is subsidizing every other team including the women's team and the youth teams.

And, I would hope that US Soccer would do the right thing. They can't keep expecting the US Women to maintain their competitive level without some financial benefits. Here are some numbers when you compare the US Men to the US Women.

"The gap between projected revenue — $23 million for the USWNT and $21 million for the USMNT — in 2016 stands at $2 million, but, as demonstrated by the revenue detail, the USWNT’s revenue is set to nearly double what the USMNT will haul in ($17 million to $9 million) in 2017."

Again you're cherry picking numbers by not including World Cup revenue, Gold Cup revenue. You should google this. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how much more revenue the men's team generates. My point is, why do you even need that analysis? It's just so obvious there's no money in women's team sports.

 

[outside!]

There is no arguing that the men's World Cup generates more revenue than the women's World Cup. The USMNT is not the reason for that extra revenue however. The reason for that revenue is all the people around the world that tune in to see the World Cup. Only a small portion of those people tune in to see the USMNT. If you are talking revenue to US Soccer for World Cup appearances, the men's team does generate more revenue, since FIFA pays more money to men's teams. Are you saying that we should let FIFA dictate what is fair payment for the US National Teams? The US National teams are made up of players that have benefited from facilities and infrastructure paid for by ALL US taxpayers.

I would argue that the USWNT has done more to grow the sport of soccer in the United States than the USMNT. Providing equal opportunities for girls and women in soccer in the United States will help men's soccer in the United States much more than compensating the USMNT at a level higher than the USWNT. This is also about more than compensation for the USWNT. It is also about fair treatment when it comes to facilities, fields, airline flights, hotels, etc. The single best thing we can do to make the United States a world soccer power is to increase the popularity of soccer in the United States. Treating more than half the population of the country unfairly does not make much sense if you want girls to grow up to be fans of the game.

 

[LASTMAN14]

What? How does World Cup numbers not apply? The World Cup (men's World Cup) is the single biggest sporting event in the world and draws more viewers and more eyeballs, thus generating huge advertising revenues and tv broadcast rights fees, than any sport in the world. It's the single biggest income generator for the men's team. What you are saying, disregard men's World Cup revenue to determine what male and female players should be paid, is completely senseless. That's like saying let's calculate Bill Gates wealth without his Microsoft stock.

In a World Cup year, the men's team generates so much more revenue, there is no comparison with the women. Comparing revenue in 2015 is misleading and cherry picking because that's a women's World Cup year and the men are missing World Cup revenue. The fairest way to compare revenue is to average revenue for a four year period, so both men and women get their big income generators factored in.

I'm just really flabbergasted at the absurd and pervasive PC bullshit that even makes this a conversation. Except maybe figure skating or gymnastics, there is no women's sport that brings in the tv viewership or ticket sales anywhere close to the comparable men's sport. Men's soccer generates hundreds of billions, women's soccer generates maybe in the hundreds of millions, and that's a stretch Your pay is based in large part on the revenue you generate. The women generate a lot, lot, lot less revenue. Therefore, they should not be paid equal to men who generate way more revenue.

I'm pretty sure that the women are in fact grossly overpaid compared to the amount of revenue they generate. I was actually shocked to learn that women's team members got a salary paid regardless of whether they played or won a game in international competition, and the salary is not bad. It's pretty much a guarantee that the men's World Cup revenue is subsidizing every other team including the women's team and the youth teams.



Again you're cherry picking numbers by not including World Cup revenue, Gold Cup revenue. You should google this. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how much more revenue the men's team generates. My point is, why do you even need that analysis? It's just so obvious there's no money in women's team sports.

This is conversation is about US Women making more money. And is not solely specific to the money any world cup generates. The money the US Women generate overall is enough money to earn more.

If the 4 year period is used then I will agree that the US Men have generated more money from 2013-2016, but from 2014-2017 that gap is small and still does not inhibit the women from making more. Both these dates include world cup years. And, no cherry picking that is why I included the 2017 revenue (a non-world cup year).

The governing bodies in both figure skating and gymnastics acknowledge that the women in these two sports generate more money and are more successful than the men. Yet, these organizations find it necessary to pay each (men and women) the same in salary/incentives. Yes, of course men’s soccer generates more money, but again you’re talking about it globally. I am only referring to two teams who are under the same umbrella and paid by them. And, the money the women generate is more than enough to earn more.

Both the men and women are required to play a specific number of games each year. And they are identical in number which was 20 the last few years. For the US Women to get a salary they would have to play all 20 games, which of course does not happen. Otherwise they get paid much like the men per game and no salary. Per your 4 year period suggestion the US Women are paying their way.

It appears your point is that women’s sport in general does not generate monies, which is fine, in most cases that could be true. But, it does not mean they cannot earn a fair and legal amount, especially if what they are generating says otherwise.