rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
I thought there was a $9M number initially offered. I guess the USWNT didn't like that number and rolled the dice?
US Soccer: "Our Proposal for Equal Pay for Women & Men"
- Thread starter MWN
- Start date
Keepermom2
GOLD
As I read posts from several people (pretty sure most are men), I am struct how people are arguing the value of women (generally speaking). I appreciate you are not considering that is the number one battle women have had to fight back to the right to vote, to the right to work in executive business positions etc. By the way, I respect most of the posters. This isn't an argument. I would just like to add some information for thought.
For the last several years, men have argued that women do not bring in enough revenue to justify equal pay and then all were shocked that they actually do. Then men started arguing this point and that point as to why they shouldn't be paid equal. Interestingly, if women had to justify their value when there was no basis to do so, the women's movement would not be where it is today because there was no history. You have to invest to achieve returns and returns take time.
The ability of women in sports to generate revenue has been the number one argument since the arguments over Title IX. Had that been considered during the implementation of Title IX, we wouldn't be where we are today in Women's soccer and Title IX wouldn't have passed and we wouldn't be where we are today in women's sports.
The women's national soccer team have had to fight all the way..".From its inception in 1985, the public responded to the USWNT with an attitude of inferiority. The USSF ultimately allowed for the formation of the team solely to avoid a lawsuit, not out of interest in promoting women’s soccer. In its early stages, the USSF made it very clear that it did not think the squad was a legitimate professional enterprise, with players earning no salary. The USSF only provided players ten dollars a day in meal money."
"Despite its slow start, the team stayed together long enough for the announcement that FIFA planned to launch the first ever women’s soccer world championship in 1991. FIFA opted to call it the M&Ms Cup, after the tournament’s sponsor, rather than the FIFA World Cup, in case the event flopped, highlighting the inferior treatment that the women’s game received. FIFA also decided that the games in the women’s championships would only last eighty minutes, believing women were incapable of possessing the stamina to play a full ninety minutes. Such thinking echoes the fears of physical educators in the mid-twentieth century and resembles policies of moderation."
"The U.S. Women’s National Team fought its way to the final of this initial event. The squad faced off against Norway in front of sixty-three thousand fans, at the time the largest crowd to ever watch a women’s soccer game. The U.S. prevailed, defeating Norway, 2-1, to win FIFA’s M&M’s Cup, bringing the first Women’s World Cup title back to the United States. Soccer officials and family members made up the welcome reception for the team; no media attended the return."
The reality is, the women's team now brings in more revenue and the potential for growth in the sport here in the US is huge because women's soccer in the US does not have to compete with American football. Look at what the women's national team has accomplished since 1985.
For the last several years, men have argued that women do not bring in enough revenue to justify equal pay and then all were shocked that they actually do. Then men started arguing this point and that point as to why they shouldn't be paid equal. Interestingly, if women had to justify their value when there was no basis to do so, the women's movement would not be where it is today because there was no history. You have to invest to achieve returns and returns take time.
The ability of women in sports to generate revenue has been the number one argument since the arguments over Title IX. Had that been considered during the implementation of Title IX, we wouldn't be where we are today in Women's soccer and Title IX wouldn't have passed and we wouldn't be where we are today in women's sports.
The women's national soccer team have had to fight all the way..".From its inception in 1985, the public responded to the USWNT with an attitude of inferiority. The USSF ultimately allowed for the formation of the team solely to avoid a lawsuit, not out of interest in promoting women’s soccer. In its early stages, the USSF made it very clear that it did not think the squad was a legitimate professional enterprise, with players earning no salary. The USSF only provided players ten dollars a day in meal money."
"Despite its slow start, the team stayed together long enough for the announcement that FIFA planned to launch the first ever women’s soccer world championship in 1991. FIFA opted to call it the M&Ms Cup, after the tournament’s sponsor, rather than the FIFA World Cup, in case the event flopped, highlighting the inferior treatment that the women’s game received. FIFA also decided that the games in the women’s championships would only last eighty minutes, believing women were incapable of possessing the stamina to play a full ninety minutes. Such thinking echoes the fears of physical educators in the mid-twentieth century and resembles policies of moderation."
"The U.S. Women’s National Team fought its way to the final of this initial event. The squad faced off against Norway in front of sixty-three thousand fans, at the time the largest crowd to ever watch a women’s soccer game. The U.S. prevailed, defeating Norway, 2-1, to win FIFA’s M&M’s Cup, bringing the first Women’s World Cup title back to the United States. Soccer officials and family members made up the welcome reception for the team; no media attended the return."
The reality is, the women's team now brings in more revenue and the potential for growth in the sport here in the US is huge because women's soccer in the US does not have to compete with American football. Look at what the women's national team has accomplished since 1985.
hopefully this will be my last post. i enjoy mathematical puzzles, so this one got me intrigued and sucked in. its been interesting to think thru the math.
i will leave you guys with a couple last things
when you have a theory about WNT and MNT and economics,..if its investing money that you think it needs or if they are paid well or anything like that,...first test your theory instead on the WNBA and the NBA. I think its the perfect test case for your analysis.
The NBA gave birth to the WNBA 23 years ago. Its its baby, and they are motivated to see it succeed, they have the money to invest (to the extent they think its worth it) and have had 23 years to do so.
Remember how much the NBA advertised the WNBA during prime time finals NBA games and playoffs etc? "We got next!" That was not free to do vs selling that advertising time to someone else.
After 23 years, the WNBA now generates about $60mm in revenue while the NBA generates 120 times more revenue at $7.6B.
It would be very hard for the women to argue gender discrimination, or that they dont invest enough money, or in any way want to hold back the WNBA growth against the parent who gave birth to them and invested so much time and money.
Here is a fascinating web page I just found that goes through the comparisons of the two businesses and the math:
www.wsn.com
check out my above post guess at the WNBA and NBA player % of revenue (25% and 60%), vs what this article states it is,..(20% and 50%).
I dont want to toot my own horn,..but "TOOT TOOT!!"
i will leave you guys with a couple last things
when you have a theory about WNT and MNT and economics,..if its investing money that you think it needs or if they are paid well or anything like that,...first test your theory instead on the WNBA and the NBA. I think its the perfect test case for your analysis.
The NBA gave birth to the WNBA 23 years ago. Its its baby, and they are motivated to see it succeed, they have the money to invest (to the extent they think its worth it) and have had 23 years to do so.
Remember how much the NBA advertised the WNBA during prime time finals NBA games and playoffs etc? "We got next!" That was not free to do vs selling that advertising time to someone else.
After 23 years, the WNBA now generates about $60mm in revenue while the NBA generates 120 times more revenue at $7.6B.
It would be very hard for the women to argue gender discrimination, or that they dont invest enough money, or in any way want to hold back the WNBA growth against the parent who gave birth to them and invested so much time and money.
Here is a fascinating web page I just found that goes through the comparisons of the two businesses and the math:
NBA vs WNBA: Revenue, Salaries, Attendance, Ratings
How does the WNBA stack against the NBA in terms of revenue, salaries, attendance and ratings? WSN launches into a comparison of the NBA and the WNBA!
check out my above post guess at the WNBA and NBA player % of revenue (25% and 60%), vs what this article states it is,..(20% and 50%).
I dont want to toot my own horn,..but "TOOT TOOT!!"
hopefully this will be my last post. i enjoy mathematical puzzles, so this one got me intrigued and sucked in. its been interesting to think thru the math.
i will leave you guys with a couple last things
when you have a theory about WNT and MNT and economics,..if its investing money that you think it needs or if they are paid well or anything like that,...first test your theory instead on the WNBA and the NBA. I think its the perfect test case for your analysis.
The NBA gave birth to the WNBA 23 years ago. Its its baby, and they are motivated to see it succeed, they have the money to invest (to the extent they think its worth it) and have had 23 years to do so.
Remember how much the NBA advertised the WNBA during prime time finals NBA games and playoffs etc? "We got next!" That was not free to do vs selling that advertising time to someone else.
After 23 years, the WNBA now generates about $60mm in revenue while the NBA generates 120 times more revenue at $7.6B.
It would be very hard for the women to argue gender discrimination, or that they dont invest enough money, or in any way want to hold back the WNBA growth against the parent who gave birth to them and invested so much time and money.
Here is a fascinating web page I just found that goes through the comparisons of the two businesses and the math:
NBA vs WNBA: Revenue, Salaries, Attendance, Ratings
How does the WNBA stack against the NBA in terms of revenue, salaries, attendance and ratings? WSN launches into a comparison of the NBA and the WNBA!
check out my above post guess at the WNBA and NBA player % of revenue (25% and 60%), vs what this article states it is,..(20% and 50%).
I dont want to toot my own horn,..but "TOOT TOOT!!"
You seem to be making a straw man argument. No one is claiming NWSL players should make as much as MLS players. This is just a deflection from the real issue, which is that USSF should pay the women more than the men because, unlike in your WNBA/NBA example, the WNT actually is responsible for more revenue and profit.
This argument just reaks of misogyny. You went out and found a place where women don’t bring in as much revenue as the men to justify why women who actually do outperform their male peers financially still deserve to be paid less. This may be the stupidest of many stupid arguments to rationalize why the WNT players should not be paid what they’re worth.
outside!
DA
There is one other flaw with the argument, the comparison of soccer to basketball. Soccer is the most popular game in the world and the potential for growth in the US is much greater than it is for basketball. Soccer is also more relatable than basketball since players can be of average build and still play at the highest levels. Basketball is a great sport, but it will never reach the popularity levels of soccer.
whatithink
GOLD
I have to admit to being somewhat mystified by the back & forth here. The facts are pretty simple and the judge ruled on the facts, based on the contracts the players negotiated and the versions of the contracts offered during the negotiations. The judge also allowed the WNT to proceed with the pieces which appeared discriminatory, but outside the contractual relationships.
The WNT were offered the same contract as the MNT and rejected it. So there's no gender discrimination. They generated more revenue in the period in question and got paid more in the period in question. Both were marginal but probably equate. They could have had a bigger upside with a different agreement ... but they didn't have a different agreement!
If the WNT now feel they have greater worth and deserve a better deal, then have at it and negotiate that. You can't go back, though, and say I want everything I had plus I want all the upside from a different contract that I rejected.
The WNT were offered the same contract as the MNT and rejected it. So there's no gender discrimination. They generated more revenue in the period in question and got paid more in the period in question. Both were marginal but probably equate. They could have had a bigger upside with a different agreement ... but they didn't have a different agreement!
If the WNT now feel they have greater worth and deserve a better deal, then have at it and negotiate that. You can't go back, though, and say I want everything I had plus I want all the upside from a different contract that I rejected.
correct, the WNT did make more revenue
but the WNT was actually paid more than the MNT for making more revenue, and i stated so in my original post.
if i have flawed data, happy to stand corrected
WNT revenue was $50.9mm and the players were paid $25mm (49% of revenue)
MNT revenue was $49.9mm and the players were paid $19mm (37% of revenue)
OMG. You clearly aren’t an accountant or MBA. How many times do I need to explain to folks that revenue is irrelevant? The question is how profitable they are, which also means including expenses. And we all know USSF spends a lot more on the men to earn that lower revenue. The women bring in higher revenue and have lower expenses. They deserve to be paid more.
We must accept it because that’s how a judge ruled? Is that how you feel about the Dred Scott case? People should have just accepted that black people aren’t American citizens because that’s what some judges decided (Dred Scott)? Or it was constitutional to make black kids go to black only schools (Please v Ferguson)?
But let’s put “the law” aside for a minute. Do you agree that the WNT should make more than the MNT if the WNT consistently brings in more revenue and has fewer expenses? Do you agree that - if it were possible to apportion out the $10 million Nike contract for the WNT and MNT and the WNT was responsible for $7 million of it - that the WNT should get credit for that? Should the WNT get credit for the higher tv ratings and additional revenue generated by that? No hiding behind a CBA to rationalize why they don’t. I’d like to know what you think they should receive, not more excuses about why they don’t.
????
Under the 2017 CBA they negotiated additional bonuses for exceeding Sum gross revenue targets and for increased viewership, so they are getting many of these things you identified above.
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
And...this is where everything falls apart.
Absolutely not. That is not how those contracts work. The contracts were negotiated before any of that information was available. Since the 2015-2019 info is now available, the women can use that information to go after more in their next CBA. You do not get to go back and change the terms of a contract in any business, soccer included.
You're moving a lot of goal posts here.
whatithink
GOLD
Yes, they should get paid more and should go to USSF and negotiate accordingly. I'd suggest they hire someone competent to do that who can clearly align the revenues they generate, the success they bring and therefore their worth and how that should be compensated.
wrt the court case, they have no case under the CBA, that's clear. They signed a contract, so you can't put the law aside and now say what about this, that and the other. None of that is an excuse, its just a fact.
They may have a case for the rest, and so that's been allowed to proceed.
That’s what I thought, hiding behind a contract to continue rationalizing the continuing underpayment of women. No contract may waive someone’s civil rights, whether a CBA or otherwise. You can’t even muster the “courage” to admit that women should be paid more even when they earn more. Sheesh.
How about a labor union negotiating a contract that pays blacks at a lower rate? They agreed to it, are they stuck with the lower pay rate until the next collective bargaining cycle? Or is it just women who we can force to endure discriminatory CBAs?
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
You've gone off your rocker. Of course I/we can admit that. USSF admitted that. The financial statements admit that. The judge admitted that. The only ones that can seem to admit they were paid more when they earned more are the women's team. They were paid more during the period where they earned more. Are you disputing this? What am I missing here?
You can turn this into whatever "ism" you want, because that is really all you can fall back on. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What part of lower % in exchange for guaranteed pay are you not understanding? There is no way you can possibly not understand how simple this is. No one forced them to endure anything. The CBA was ratified and executed by them and their representatives.
So it’s ok for an employer to negotiate lower rates for blacks also then. How awesome. If they strike, we can really get what we wanted, which it to get rid of the entire protected class.
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
At this point, I am convinced you have no idea what you are even debating any longer. When did African Americans become part of this debate. Also, I find it extremely offensive that you are using the term "blacks." I don't think this is an area you want to wade into.
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
@EOTL
Let me lay out the options as I see them for the USWNT moving forward. I am genuinely interested in which one you would think is best. It's the only way I think I can wrap my head around your mental gymnastics.
1. Negotiate a bigger % of revenue than current, negotiate travel as they want, hotels as they want, per diem as they want. Negotiate bigger bonuses for major tournaments, appearance bonuses, win bonuses. Basically the same exact structure the men have, but with higher percentages or bonuses. With this, they would have to give up their guaranteed salaries, benefits, maternity leave, etc. If they aren't in a matchday squad they don't get paid.
2. Keep guaranteed compensation and additional benefits, which essentially keeps the domestic pro league afloat in exchange for a lower % of profit sharing.
3. Agree with USSF that they will except the exact same pay structure as the men, true equality. With this comes the mandate that USSF separate the men and women into two entities. Each get the same % from TV, gate, sponsor and merchandise sales. A committee with a Fed member, USMNT member and USWNT member would be part of the negotiating team for each entity.
Which one is closest to your line of thinking? I don't see many other viable options.
Let me lay out the options as I see them for the USWNT moving forward. I am genuinely interested in which one you would think is best. It's the only way I think I can wrap my head around your mental gymnastics.
1. Negotiate a bigger % of revenue than current, negotiate travel as they want, hotels as they want, per diem as they want. Negotiate bigger bonuses for major tournaments, appearance bonuses, win bonuses. Basically the same exact structure the men have, but with higher percentages or bonuses. With this, they would have to give up their guaranteed salaries, benefits, maternity leave, etc. If they aren't in a matchday squad they don't get paid.
2. Keep guaranteed compensation and additional benefits, which essentially keeps the domestic pro league afloat in exchange for a lower % of profit sharing.
3. Agree with USSF that they will except the exact same pay structure as the men, true equality. With this comes the mandate that USSF separate the men and women into two entities. Each get the same % from TV, gate, sponsor and merchandise sales. A committee with a Fed member, USMNT member and USWNT member would be part of the negotiating team for each entity.
Which one is closest to your line of thinking? I don't see many other viable options.
This is how it should be done. The MNT gets nothing. Zero. NBA and MLB players don’t get paid when they represent our country, because they don’t need the money. The little s**ts who can’t even beat T&T don’t deserve it because they don’t need it.
Furthermore, they also don’t deserve to get paid because, with the possible exception of Pulisic, every single one of them is completely replaceable by someone who would do it for free without any meaningful change in outcomes. There are 150 million men in the US, and any one of them can score zero goals just like Jozy Altidore. I concede that you would be hard-pressed to find someone in that 150 million who will turn over the ball at a higher rate than Michael Bradley or play less defense. You could field a team for free that will still lose to T&T. You could even make more money with the free team because they’re going to sell out the Rose Bowl when they play Mexico, instead of the current bunch doing that in a 24,000 seat stadium in Ohio because they’re too chicken to play in a real stadium.
And then pay the women at least twice what they currently make because, unlike the men, each of them individually is incredibly valuable. If you replace the best 18 with the next best, they don’t even make the WC finals and USSF’s advertising revenues completely collapse.
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
Thanks for your honest response. I can now clearly see where you are coming from. I think the misandry, disingenuousness and whataboutism of your posts come through load and clear. I’ve enjoyed the debate.
If you want an honest answer, read my prior posts. They are exhaustive if not exhausting.
And also answer my question about whether it’s ok to pay blacks less in a CBA...