Yeah I don't see how they have a leg to stand on with FIFA bonuses and asking US to make up the difference. Doesn't make sense to me but would it make sense to a jury?
Speaking of the entertainment factor...the women's US ticket sales exceeded the men's ticket sales for games played in the US and;
"On Sunday, a crowd of nearly 60,000 people gathered at France’s Parc Olympique Lyonnais to watch as the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) defeated the Netherlands 2-0 in the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final. Back in the U.S., millions more were watching.
According to a statement from Fox Sports, citing data from Nielsen, approximately 14.3 million U.S. viewers tuned in to the final match on television, compared to 11.4 million for the 2018 Men’s World Cup Final, a 22% U.S. viewership boost. Fox Sports’ statement reports that total viewership, including online streaming, peaked at roughly
20 million, making it the most-watched soccer match on English-language television, men’s or women’s, in the U.S. since the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup final, which delivered
25.4 million viewers."
I guess people find them more entertaining. I am pretty sure the above information is why the women's team didn't feel their original employment agreement was appropriate.
As I previously posted, FIFA and US Soccer are non profit organizations with their purpose being to grow the game and viewership not maximize profits.
So your arguments/examples are not only trying to match apples to oranges but, equate to men deserve more money than the women because women are the weaker sex. The 60's must have been good years for you. LOL Insert my theme song by Helen Reddy. hahaha