Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

Your 13-year old talks like that?

I’m not the PP but I do have a 13 year old who would say something like that in jest. He knows a lot more about the game than most grownups and regularly discusses it with his dad. In fact his favorite video game is Football manager.

I don’t think he’s unique either, many soccer kids like him arnd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

Your 13-year old talks like that?

I’m not the PP but I do have a 13 year old who would say something like that in jest. He knows a lot more about the game than most grownups and regularly discusses it with his dad. In fact his favorite video game is Football manager.

I don’t think he’s unique either, many soccer kids like him arnd.

Awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

This was covered 3-4 years ago. The women agreed to a contract that gave them more guaranteed salaries, while the men got money based off performance.
Also FIFA pays much less to women's teams because the Women's World Cup doesn't bring in much revenue compared to the men's draw.
Thus the US men's team earns much more for US Soccer just by making the world cup then the women's team does by winning. US Soccer paid out according to this and the collective bargaining agreements. The women are earning more than their share because they are getting a portion of the men's payout now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

I guess your 13 year old has never had to watch their own game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The France vs. Brazil was very entertaining. Brazil’s goal was a nice bit of skills.

Yep. Fun to watch!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

This was covered 3-4 years ago. The women agreed to a contract that gave them more guaranteed salaries, while the men got money based off performance.
Also FIFA pays much less to women's teams because the Women's World Cup doesn't bring in much revenue compared to the men's draw.
Thus the US men's team earns much more for US Soccer just by making the world cup then the women's team does by winning. US Soccer paid out according to this and the collective bargaining agreements. The women are earning more than their share because they are getting a portion of the men's payout now.

And the didn’t-qualify-for-World-Cup-at -all in 2018 MNT now gets a portion of the WNT winnings.
So :scratches head: who exactly is getting more than their fair share?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

This was covered 3-4 years ago. The women agreed to a contract that gave them more guaranteed salaries, while the men got money based off performance.
Also FIFA pays much less to women's teams because the Women's World Cup doesn't bring in much revenue compared to the men's draw.
Thus the US men's team earns much more for US Soccer just by making the world cup then the women's team does by winning. US Soccer paid out according to this and the collective bargaining agreements. The women are earning more than their share because they are getting a portion of the men's payout now.

And the didn’t-qualify-for-World-Cup-at -all in 2018 MNT now gets a portion of the WNT winnings.
So :scratches head: who exactly is getting more than their fair share?

DP Well the men’s team still generated about the same amount(49.9 million) over the 2015-2018 cycle without qualifying as the women’s team(50.8 million) but the women’s players received a salary, medical benefits, retirement benefits, etc each year regardless if they play or if it’s a world cup year. The men only got game checks if the player was on the game day roster. This is a different pay system.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1018710/national-soccer-team-event-revenue/

Now looking at prize money just for the World Cup. The men received 9 million in 2014 World Cup, 0 in 2018 and 13 million for 2022. The women received 2 million for the 2015, 4 million in 2019 and when they win this year 4.25 million(though women players get money for each round they advance which is not in this number). So prize money earned from 2014 to present- USMNT 22 million vs USWNT 10.25 million(when they win this year).

So yes the women are receiving a disproportionate amount of the money. Now it is not an apples to apples comparison because the USWNT players are guaranteed a salary, medical, etc regardless if they play a game for the full cycle(4 years). The men only get a check for each game- get injured, not on the game day roster means no money. For equal pay you would have to pay the players the same way nit just the same amount. The women do not want this. They want the men’s payment per game and a salary, medical, benefits, etc.


Also remember the men’s roster is more competitive vs the women’s rosters. There is a large turn over on the men’s roster while the women’s roster does not change much. A big factor in this is because the women USNT has a salary and the NWSL pay is low. Many promising US women player leave the game because of low pay and do no develop in to USNT players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

This was covered 3-4 years ago. The women agreed to a contract that gave them more guaranteed salaries, while the men got money based off performance.
Also FIFA pays much less to women's teams because the Women's World Cup doesn't bring in much revenue compared to the men's draw.
Thus the US men's team earns much more for US Soccer just by making the world cup then the women's team does by winning. US Soccer paid out according to this and the collective bargaining agreements. The women are earning more than their share because they are getting a portion of the men's payout now.

And the didn’t-qualify-for-World-Cup-at -all in 2018 MNT now gets a portion of the WNT winnings.
So :scratches head: who exactly is getting more than their fair share?

DP Well the men’s team still generated about the same amount(49.9 million) over the 2015-2018 cycle without qualifying as the women’s team(50.8 million) but the women’s players received a salary, medical benefits, retirement benefits, etc each year regardless if they play or if it’s a world cup year. The men only got game checks if the player was on the game day roster. This is a different pay system.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1018710/national-soccer-team-event-revenue/

Now looking at prize money just for the World Cup. The men received 9 million in 2014 World Cup, 0 in 2018 and 13 million for 2022. The women received 2 million for the 2015, 4 million in 2019 and when they win this year 4.25 million(though women players get money for each round they advance which is not in this number). So prize money earned from 2014 to present- USMNT 22 million vs USWNT 10.25 million(when they win this year).

So yes the women are receiving a disproportionate amount of the money. Now it is not an apples to apples comparison because the USWNT players are guaranteed a salary, medical, etc regardless if they play a game for the full cycle(4 years). The men only get a check for each game- get injured, not on the game day roster means no money. For equal pay you would have to pay the players the same way nit just the same amount. The women do not want this. They want the men’s payment per game and a salary, medical, benefits, etc.


Also remember the men’s roster is more competitive vs the women’s rosters. There is a large turn over on the men’s roster while the women’s roster does not change much. A big factor in this is because the women USNT has a salary and the NWSL pay is low. Many promising US women player leave the game because of low pay and do no develop in to USNT players.

The women are earning what they negotiated for. Don't people always say the reason women get paid less is because they're bad negotiators?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

This was covered 3-4 years ago. The women agreed to a contract that gave them more guaranteed salaries, while the men got money based off performance.
Also FIFA pays much less to women's teams because the Women's World Cup doesn't bring in much revenue compared to the men's draw.
Thus the US men's team earns much more for US Soccer just by making the world cup then the women's team does by winning. US Soccer paid out according to this and the collective bargaining agreements. The women are earning more than their share because they are getting a portion of the men's payout now.

And the didn’t-qualify-for-World-Cup-at -all in 2018 MNT now gets a portion of the WNT winnings.
So :scratches head: who exactly is getting more than their fair share?

DP Well the men’s team still generated about the same amount(49.9 million) over the 2015-2018 cycle without qualifying as the women’s team(50.8 million) but the women’s players received a salary, medical benefits, retirement benefits, etc each year regardless if they play or if it’s a world cup year. The men only got game checks if the player was on the game day roster. This is a different pay system.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1018710/national-soccer-team-event-revenue/

Now looking at prize money just for the World Cup. The men received 9 million in 2014 World Cup, 0 in 2018 and 13 million for 2022. The women received 2 million for the 2015, 4 million in 2019 and when they win this year 4.25 million(though women players get money for each round they advance which is not in this number). So prize money earned from 2014 to present- USMNT 22 million vs USWNT 10.25 million(when they win this year).

So yes the women are receiving a disproportionate amount of the money. Now it is not an apples to apples comparison because the USWNT players are guaranteed a salary, medical, etc regardless if they play a game for the full cycle(4 years). The men only get a check for each game- get injured, not on the game day roster means no money. For equal pay you would have to pay the players the same way nit just the same amount. The women do not want this. They want the men’s payment per game and a salary, medical, benefits, etc.


Also remember the men’s roster is more competitive vs the women’s rosters. There is a large turn over on the men’s roster while the women’s roster does not change much. A big factor in this is because the women USNT has a salary and the NWSL pay is low. Many promising US women player leave the game because of low pay and do no develop in to USNT players.

The women are earning what they negotiated for. Don't people always say the reason women get paid less is because they're bad negotiators?

Yes they negotiated both contracts. Every athlete should get what they can because their shelve life is short. I do think the women framed it as equal pay issues but it was not. The issue really was they wanted the money from the men’s side. They wanted the men’s upside and the guaranteed salaries. Also these type of contracts alway screw the new/younger players because they are not at the table.

The old contract was a really good contract when it was signed. There were very limited professional soccer options in the US for women. The first pro league was WUSA(2000/1-2003). Next up WPSL(around 2009-2012) and currently NWSL(2015(ish depending)to present. So no dependable women’s league and professional opportunities in the US.

So if you are negotiating a contract agreement and there is no league, a struggling league, etc, you want a salary(and benefits) for playing soccer in between world cups. US Soccer also want to keep their best players playing soccer and training between world cups. So each side agreed a salary and benefits was the best.

US Soccer really needs to be two separate organizations. The opportunities and problems for the men’s and women’s side are really different.

[Anonymous]

Columbia!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Columbia!

Columbia has best looking kits too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia!

Columbia has best looking kits too.

Colombia

[Anonymous]

Japan vs Spain. What a good game. Japan is looking great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Japan vs Spain. What a good game. Japan is looking great!

That was quite a statement by Japan.

Now I have to kill time before the Canada-Australia match. There’s so much pressure on the Matildas- can’t wait to see how they handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

Your 13-year old talks like that?

Hooray you raised another sexist man to be, go post your successes on four chan Kermit