Hope Solo

[Bishop Briggs]

19 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

I'm not sure our men are paid anything unless they qualify.

I understand the argument the US women are making if they generate as much in US FA commercial deals etc. I'm asking if US FA are actually justifying it or just battening down the hatches. If they were saying "we have to pay the men an amount which seems worthwhile to them in comparison to their club salaries" or saying "we pay them more because they win us more at tournaments due to the bigger prize pots" it would be understandable.

But do the women generate the same income as the men?

That's the key point. And it's not just commercial deals that's important, ticket and other match revenue are major factors too.

[Loondave1]

"You've got to fight for your right to parity" as the Beastie Boys once said.

[Bishop Briggs]

4 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Well then no, it would be unreasonable to overpay. 

Well that's effectively what Hope Solo and others want - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2019/06/09/world-cup-united-states-women-equality/1335530001/

"The lawsuit alleges that U.S. Soccer has violated the Equal Pay Act, which prohibits women from being paid less than men for the same work, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin."

[Gordon EF]

57 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Out of interest what is the US FA's defence for paying mens side more: is it that they 'have to' or else the players wouldn't bother (having big club salaries), or due to prizemoney being higher?

Actually read about it recently. As far as I know, they haven't made any comment on the reasons for the different payments, understandable as they're being taken to court. Interestingly, there's apparently a clause that says if, in any given calendar year, the total women's pay is a lower %age of total revenue than the mens is, the USFA will make lump sum to the women players to bring them up to relative parity.

Seems a fair enough rule to me. Think the issue is almost none of the current group of players seemed to have known about it and the USFA may not be entirely transparent about revenue streams.

To be honest, I suspect the case won't be won on the gender discrimination point, and I'm not sure I think it should be (I don't think you can make the case that it's actually, legally equal work). But I'd imagine it'll put enough pressure on the USFA to offer the women a fair deal.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Gordon EF

[Gordon EF]

21 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

But do the women generate the same income as the men?

That's the key point. And it's not just commercial deals that's important, ticket and other match revenue are major factors too.

Although it's difficult to find exact figures, it's been widely reported that the US women generated more revenue than the men's team in 2017 and 2018.

Of course, when particular tournaments fall is going make a big difference. The men's team missing the 2018 WC obviously has an enormous impact on their bottom line.

But it could well be the case that the women do just generate more revenue in sponsorship, TV deals and ticket sales than the mens team do in the US. Clearly, they're in a bit of a unique situation where the men and women's game are generally about similar levels of interest/support. I don't think there's any other country where the interest or revenue from the women's game would be comparable to the men's.

[Binos]

4 hours ago, Dee Man said:

The Australian women's team was beaten 7-0 by an under-15 side 3 years ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html

As enjoyable as it was watching the game tonight, the standard genuinely reminded me of watching a decent level of U-16s game. 

Eta: I see I was beaten to it as I was writing my post but mine is obviously better as it shows the boys were actually a year younger than Gordon EF stated 

Or not so decent a level of under 16s as the facts bare out

What would Barca under 16s do to them, 20-0

[Binos]

2 hours ago, LiviLion said:

I don't care what people think of the standard, my post was aimed at folk using kickabouts (and links from the Daily Mail ffs) as a way of trying to justify the point. The USA game mentioned was literally just a kick about because they were using the same training facilities, remember seeing pictures from the boys afterwards and they were all sweating buckets while the women looked they'd only just turned up. The Australia game was taken so seriously subs were just coming and going with at least one of the players strutting about in a jumper, IIRC in any case it was mostly 2nd/3rd choice with it being preparation for the Olympics.

Anyone seriously using them as justification for criticism deserves to be laughed at.

Did you see the defending at the second goal today, about 5 chances to clear the lines

[Kuro]

22 hours ago, Binos said:

Or not so decent a level of under 16s as the facts bare out

What would Barca under 16s do to them, 20-0

I thinl the best u13s boys team in the world say Barca or Chelsea or whatever, would probably beat the top women's intl side in the world.  That's the standard.  

[RussellAnderson]

I thinl the best u13s boys team in the world say Barca or Chelsea or whatever, would probably beat the top women's intl side in the world.  That's the standard.  

What’s your point here?

[Kuro]

5 minutes ago, RussellAnderson said:

 

What’s your point here?

 

They probably shouldn't be earning remotely close to the men.  I would have thought that obvious.

[RussellAnderson]

They probably shouldn't be earning remotely close to the men.  I would have thought that obvious.

Well it depends on the man surely. Are we talking Luka Modric or Luka Tankulic?

A World Cup is a bit of a red herring I’d imagine as any prize money in the men’s game is going to be dwarfed by the salaries that the top level players receive from their club teams.

I suppose women’s club sides aren’t in the position to pay the massive salaries yet. The commercial revenue streams which fuel the inflation of salaries aren’t there yet. TV money, sponsorship, image rights, etc.

The argument probably isn’t “why are female players paid less?” and more “why are male players paid so much?”

Surely the promotion of the women’s game is a good thing in helping to bridge that gap? Do you want to see women’s football get closer to men’s in terms of quality?

[Kuro]

5 minutes ago, RussellAnderson said:

 

Well it depends on the man surely. Are we talking Luka Modric or Luka Tankulic?

A World Cup is a bit of a red herring I’d imagine as any prize money in the men’s game is going to be dwarfed by the salaries that the top level players receive from their club teams.

I suppose women’s club sides aren’t in the position to pay the massive salaries yet. The commercial revenue streams which fuel the inflation of salaries aren’t there yet. TV money, sponsorship, image rights, etc.

The argument probably isn’t “why are female players paid less?” and more “why are male players paid so much?”

Surely the promotion of the women’s game is a good thing in helping to bridge that gap? Do you want to see women’s football get closer to men’s in terms of quality?

 

I don't give the slightest f**k.  

[RussellAnderson]

I don't give the slightest f**k.  

Do you care about men’s football? Who’s your team? I can’t see on the mobile app.

[Kuro]

3 minutes ago, RussellAnderson said:

 

Do you care about men’s football? Who’s your team? I can’t see on the mobile app.

 

I don't really have one, but yes.

[sjc]

I thought Hope Solo was advocating (wrongly imo) parity in prize money at the women's World Cup with the men's World Cup?

Surely she wasn't refering equal pay in terms of salary at Club level?

[RussellAnderson]

I don't really have one, but yes.

With a mild interest in men’s football, and disdain for the women’s game, why are you so specifically interested in the pay gap between the two sports? What draws you to that specific issue?

[Kuro]

Just now, sjc said:

I thought Hope Solo was advocating (wrongly imo) parity in prize money at the women's World Cup with the men's World Cup?

Surely she wasn't refering equal pay in terms of salary at Club level?

She is.  Utterly mental.

[Kuro]

Just now, RussellAnderson said:

 

With a mild interest in men’s football, and disdain for the women’s game, why are you so specifically interested in the pay gap between the two sports? What draws you to that specific issue?

 

Enormous interest in men's football.  Its topical, perhaps you missed it.  This is fun though, you're very clever.

[Gordon EF]

33 minutes ago, RussellAnderson said:

The argument probably isn’t “why are female players paid less?” and more “why are male players paid so much?”
 

 

Surely you just answered your own question?

Because there is a huge amount of money in the mens game and clubs are willing to spend a lot of that money to bring in top players. 

And don't think anyone believes that top male footballers intrinsically "deserve" to be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds per week. Just like top earning actors or TV personalities. But someone is willing to pay them it.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Gordon EF

[Kuro]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

Surely you just answered your own question?

Because there is a huge amount of money in the mens game and clubs are willing to spend a lot of that money to bring in top players. 

And don't think anyone believes that top male footballers intrinsically "deserve" to be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds per week. Just like top earning actors of TV personalities. But someone is willing to pay them it.

 

Exactly, why do captains of industry earn so much?  That's economics, its a meritocracy, they're not stealing it.