I assumed this also, but I saw a chart this morning (can't find the link) suggesting that the WNT actually brings in more revenue to USSF than the MNT does.wlu_lax6 wrote:I am guessing the FIFA TV money and sponsorship dollars weigh heavily to the men's team.
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/03 ... -equal-pay" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8505
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23428
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Women also actually got their WC win bonuses! Those aren't real things for the men!
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Real good breakdownSteve of phpBB wrote:I assumed this also, but I saw a chart this morning (can't find the link) suggesting that the WNT actually brings in more revenue to USSF than the MNT does.wlu_lax6 wrote:I am guessing the FIFA TV money and sponsorship dollars weigh heavily to the men's team.
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/03 ... -equal-pay" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/theg ... -NWSL.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They make more direct money because they play more home games. However, sponsorship money is not broken out, World Cup revenue is not included in the comparison, They have another victory tour planned if they win Rio. Does not compare the $15M the Copa brings this summer.
Are the ladies underpaid...probably...
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
That budget doc looks a little sketchy, although I do appreciate that the USSF's meeting transcripts read like depositions.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
To expand on that, if the USWNT meets its projection of $23M revenue for non-World Cup events in 2016, over actual revenues of $10M in the previous two years combined, that's a hell of a story.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Also, something called "Youth Qualifying Tourn." with no history of revenue is projected to bring in $4.4M this year. Is that the Olympic qualifier we just played against Colombia? Guess tickets were selling for $10K a pop.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
It looks like something created to justify shitty wages.Rex wrote:That budget doc looks a little sketchy, although I do appreciate that the USSF's meeting transcripts read like depositions.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 18955
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Could be due to the Olympics. I have no doubt the women get screwed, but I remember hearing what the men get paid for national team duty, and it is a nominal fee. The difference is the men get paid above the poverty line with their club teams, and even the regular national team players spend very little time with the national team outside of a World Cup year. The women see to play constantly, and can't earn a living on their club teams. Outside of a Mia Hamm or Alex Morgan earning sponsorship money, there is no income for the women.Rex wrote:To expand on that, if the USWNT meets its projection of $23M revenue for non-World Cup events in 2016, over actual revenues of $10M in the previous two years combined, that's a hell of a story.
As for the Youth Qualifications, they play World Cups and tournaments constantly. You have the U-17s, U-20s, U-23 teams. I don't know if that includes the Academy.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Why is the market for women's professional soccer USSF issue as it comes to National team pay? According to the budget docs the USSF kicks in to the NWSL. If the market for women's soccer was there, they would make more than a nominal fee to play in the league. Fill the stands, sell TV, get sponsorship and make money. The USSF has created opportunities for the women to get paid with lots of friendlies in the US after successful tournaments. The women should be rewarded for that and have a bigger piece of that pie. I found the $ per ticket difference problematic.The Sybian wrote:Could be due to the Olympics. I have no doubt the women get screwed, but I remember hearing what the men get paid for national team duty, and it is a nominal fee. The difference is the men get paid above the poverty line with their club teams, and even the regular national team players spend very little time with the national team outside of a World Cup year. The women see to play constantly, and can't earn a living on their club teams. Outside of a Mia Hamm or Alex Morgan earning sponsorship money, there is no income for the women.
I believe the women are underpaid. I believe they have a hard time making a living (think about the roster of non-National teamers playing NWSL). But the market dictates value in the entertainment world. Negotiate a better deal and if the revenue is driven by the women, the USSF will fold in a negotiation.
I think the real issue that needs to get resolved is the fact that the ladies negotiated a bad deal and are trying to get out of their agreement/claim they don't have an agreement. This forced the USSF to sue saying that they actually have an agreement that carries forward.
I am guessing US law prohibits the USSF from not selecting these folks for national team duty over this.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
According to their numbers, the investment in NWSL is around a net loss of $1MM per year, so its not like they're solely propping up the league or anything like that. And I'm sure they're far more aware than you or I that their $1MM investment is paid back over and over in terms of interest (revenue) in the national team and the sport in general. Seems pretty disingenuous to cite that as some sort of charity.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8505
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
I think it matters for a few reasons. I think that paying the women more makes sense because if they can't make real money playing soccer, future female athletes will be less likely to want to play soccer. So there are incentives that go beyond this year's team.wlu_lax6 wrote:Why is the market for women's professional soccer USSF issue as it comes to National team pay?
Also, after 35 years of the Reagan Revolution, I think we should also think about things like fairness when it comes to deciding how much workers should be paid. Especially here, where we are not really talking about standard profit-making business entities. Sports teams, especially national sports teams (and national women's sports teams) occupy a unique role in public perception. They benefit from public interest that goes beyond a commercial transaction. So I think they have obligations that go beyond the normal commercial obligations.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Bedoya and Altidore take shots at Wambach after her DUI
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... ui-arrest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... ui-arrest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
I'd also add that Soccer, despite how many kids actually play the sport, needs to remain vital in the public consciousness if it seeks to have the best home grown athletes choose soccer over the other sports. One of the ways to help realize this goal is to reward women with equal pay if only for the younger brother of a girl playing soccer at the HS level. It's asinine to alienate the two like they currently are.Steve of phpBB wrote:I think it matters for a few reasons. I think that paying the women more makes sense because if they can't make real money playing soccer, future female athletes will be less likely to want to play soccer. So there are incentives that go beyond this year's team.wlu_lax6 wrote:Why is the market for women's professional soccer USSF issue as it comes to National team pay?
Also, after 35 years of the Reagan Revolution, I think we should also think about things like fairness when it comes to deciding how much workers should be paid. Especially here, where we are not really talking about standard profit-making business entities. Sports teams, especially national sports teams (and national women's sports teams) occupy a unique role in public perception. They benefit from public interest that goes beyond a commercial transaction. So I think they have obligations that go beyond the normal commercial obligations.
Noli Timere Messorem
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10860
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
I had a long thing typed up about USSF, WUSA, MLS and WMLS... But it sounds too "get off my lawn" so I spiked it. Suffice it to say, there is a long history here.
The women have consistently miscalculated or misconstrued their overall popularity. And when I hear shit like "the men are paid to show up, while we are out there winning trophies." C'mon. You lose me with that shit. I have supported the WNT and every pro league to come along with my dollars. I want them to succeed. But this type of comparison drives me nuts.
I get that this is a bargaining ploy and I'm all for the women getting a better deal. And that's why I dropped my post as originally written. I just think they would do well to remember how many people want to support both teams and tearing down the men makes it really difficult for some of us.
The women have consistently miscalculated or misconstrued their overall popularity. And when I hear shit like "the men are paid to show up, while we are out there winning trophies." C'mon. You lose me with that shit. I have supported the WNT and every pro league to come along with my dollars. I want them to succeed. But this type of comparison drives me nuts.
I get that this is a bargaining ploy and I'm all for the women getting a better deal. And that's why I dropped my post as originally written. I just think they would do well to remember how many people want to support both teams and tearing down the men makes it really difficult for some of us.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
This is something that the USSF should've handled before it got to you even having to render an opinion about it. I mean, US soccer's biggest impediment is that it's played in a country whose top athletes are drawn to other sports. It makes precious little sense to not have a level paying field, when the women's game is an asset to growing an interest in the sport.Nonlinear FC wrote:I had a long thing typed up about USSF, WUSA, MLS and WMLS... But it sounds too "get off my lawn" so I spiked it. Suffice it to say, there is a long history here.
The women have consistently miscalculated or misconstrued their overall popularity. And when I hear shit like "the men are paid to show up, while we are out there winning trophies." C'mon. You lose me with that shit. I have supported the WNT and every pro league to come along with my dollars. I want them to succeed. But this type of comparison drives me nuts.
I get that this is a bargaining ploy and I'm all for the women getting a better deal. And that's why I dropped my post as originally written. I just think they would do well to remember how many people want to support both teams and tearing down the men makes it really difficult for some of us.
I dunno.
Noli Timere Messorem
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10860
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
I don't really buy the correlation between paying women soccer players the same as the men and growing the sport in the US. Some young boy deciding between football, basketball and soccer is going to choose soccer because Hope Solo is paid the same as Tim Howard? (But only the national team, to be totally accurate.)
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but that just seems like a massive stretch.
I absolutely buy that there should be an additional premium placed on their payouts, based on a lot of factors, but health and long-term sustainability of the women's game is definitely part of that. Like I said, I'm fully on board with them getting more money. But when you say "level paying field"... That's just not a realistic solution.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but that just seems like a massive stretch.
I absolutely buy that there should be an additional premium placed on their payouts, based on a lot of factors, but health and long-term sustainability of the women's game is definitely part of that. Like I said, I'm fully on board with them getting more money. But when you say "level paying field"... That's just not a realistic solution.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
It's not just 'Hope Solo' to the boy. It's Hope Solo to the boy's older sister. The older sister plays for the HS girl's soccer team. The younger boy goes to the games, because Mom makes him. The boy gets exposed to soccer. The boy then plays the game in some organized fashion at the behest of his parents.Nonlinear FC wrote:I don't really buy the correlation between paying women soccer players the same as the men and growing the sport in the US. Some young boy deciding between football, basketball and soccer is going to choose soccer because Hope Solo is paid the same as Tim Howard? (But only the national team, to be totally accurate.)
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but that just seems like a massive stretch.
I absolutely buy that there should be an additional premium placed on their payouts, based on a lot of factors, but health and long-term sustainability of the women's game is definitely part of that. Like I said, I'm fully on board with them getting more money. But when you say "level paying field"... That's just not a realistic solution.
They're without question linked when you're talking about not only growing, but maintaining the sport's vitality. I don't consider it even to be a stretch.
Noli Timere Messorem
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
Court tells uswnt that their case does not hold up. Nice one to release late on a Friday. Trying to bury this in the news cycle?
Last edited by wlu_lax6 on Sat May 02, 2020 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The USSF Reign of Terror continues
I read the order. You can read it here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... gment.html
As these things go, it's pretty persuasive. By that I mean that it lays out the facts and rationale thoroughly and clearly and looks like it will be awfully hard to overturn on appeal. I could be missing something completely because I don't practice in this area. But if you have to prove that you were paid less per game, and the evidence shows that actually you were paid more, and you were offered the same CBA terms you now complain you should have been given but turned that down for a different deal framework? Good luck with that.
The one thing I found unusual was that the judge relied a lot on the USSF's expert witness. Usually when the key issue in a case comes down to expert testimony, we assume that the judge will be hesitant to grant summary judgment. Judges call those "battle of the experts" cases, and usually don't weigh in on that battle so long as both sides could credibly demonstrate through expert testimony that they win. I don't know why that didn't happen here--was the USSF expert's conclusion as to per game unrebutted? The opinion makes it look like the plaintiffs responded to the expert testimony with legal argument rather than a competing analysis that showed he was wrong.
P.S. I can assure you that the federal court system does not do Friday news dumps. These guys have tenure for life! There is no group of people that DGAF more than federal judges.
As these things go, it's pretty persuasive. By that I mean that it lays out the facts and rationale thoroughly and clearly and looks like it will be awfully hard to overturn on appeal. I could be missing something completely because I don't practice in this area. But if you have to prove that you were paid less per game, and the evidence shows that actually you were paid more, and you were offered the same CBA terms you now complain you should have been given but turned that down for a different deal framework? Good luck with that.
The one thing I found unusual was that the judge relied a lot on the USSF's expert witness. Usually when the key issue in a case comes down to expert testimony, we assume that the judge will be hesitant to grant summary judgment. Judges call those "battle of the experts" cases, and usually don't weigh in on that battle so long as both sides could credibly demonstrate through expert testimony that they win. I don't know why that didn't happen here--was the USSF expert's conclusion as to per game unrebutted? The opinion makes it look like the plaintiffs responded to the expert testimony with legal argument rather than a competing analysis that showed he was wrong.
P.S. I can assure you that the federal court system does not do Friday news dumps. These guys have tenure for life! There is no group of people that DGAF more than federal judges.