U.S. Soccer Is Offering The Same Contracts For Its Men's And Women's Teams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not an easy problem. The problem is why do women earn less and generate less revenue. Is it because for years institutions such as NCAA and FIFA channel funds into development marketing and tv to male side of sport ? Think of it like a race: the male is given Nike flys custom fit, a nutritionist, elite coaching, and a 5 year head start. Who do you think will be ahead ??? That’s the revenue issue.
Fix it?

No - it's because most people don't, and never will, care very much about, or spend much money on, women's sports. That's because a good high school boy's teams can defeat the "world's best" women's team. People want to watch absolute performance in sports (Messi, Ronaldo, etc.), not just "the best of the humans that aren't really that good at the sport" (i.e., women). There are a few niche markets where the masses enjoy watching female sports (figure skating, tennis, etc.) and other athletic endeavors dominated by women (e.g. ballet). That's just reality.

I'm glad that U.S. soccer has offered identical contracts to the women; and I'm amused that their b*tching about it.

[Anonymous]

So - let’s see the offered contracts. Until you see them it is all just crap. The men’s side’s deal expired in 2018. The women’s is up at the end of the year. Let’s see the proposals.

If it is a $1M a year for everyone in the player pool - probably everyone will support it from both teams. If it is $1 a year then no one will support it. If it was a good faith offer it should be simple to disclose it. The USSF is a non-profit after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

Great argument if it were true. You have been buying the hype and spin The women just do not bring in that much vs the men’s even when the men do not qualify for WC. The MLS by itself blows away USWNT. Let’s look at the facts.

The 24 MLS teams in existence during the 2019 season produced $1.1 billion in revenue, including distributions from the league (2020 was an estimated $468 million for 26 teams)[/quote]

https://sports.yahoo.com/los-angeles-fc-tops-sportico-173152728.html

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.[/quote]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

Great argument if it were true. You have been buying the hype and spin The women just do not bring in that much vs the men’s even when the men do not qualify for WC. The MLS by itself blows away USWNT. Let’s look at the facts.

The 24 MLS teams in existence during the 2019 season produced $1.1 billion in revenue, including distributions from the league (2020 was an estimated $468 million for 26 teams)[/quote]

https://sports.yahoo.com/los-angeles-fc-tops-sportico-173152728.html

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.[/quote]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

You mean a league with heavily subsidized stadiums can sell tickets for a full slate of games? Have you told the press, this is a shocking revelation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an easy problem. The problem is why do women earn less and generate less revenue. Is it because for years institutions such as NCAA and FIFA channel funds into development marketing and tv to male side of sport ? Think of it like a race: the male is given Nike flys custom fit, a nutritionist, elite coaching, and a 5 year head start. Who do you think will be ahead ??? That’s the revenue issue.
Fix it?

No - it's because most people don't, and never will, care very much about, or spend much money on, women's sports. That's because a good high school boy's teams can defeat the "world's best" women's team. People want to watch absolute performance in sports (Messi, Ronaldo, etc.), not just "the best of the humans that aren't really that good at the sport" (i.e., women). There are a few niche markets where the masses enjoy watching female sports (figure skating, tennis, etc.) and other athletic endeavors dominated by women (e.g. ballet). That's just reality.

I'm glad that U.S. soccer has offered identical contracts to the women; and I'm amused that their b*tching about it.

What does Messi have to do with the USMNT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

Absolutely none of this is true.

[Anonymous]

What will happen in that USSF will not move from where they are now -- they will tell the players this is our best offer. Players may strike. USSF will fill slots with other players. They will find them -- the NFL and MLB umpires did. This will not end well for the women on the national team now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an easy problem. The problem is why do women earn less and generate less revenue. Is it because for years institutions such as NCAA and FIFA channel funds into development marketing and tv to male side of sport ? Think of it like a race: the male is given Nike flys custom fit, a nutritionist, elite coaching, and a 5 year head start. Who do you think will be ahead ??? That’s the revenue issue.
Fix it?

No - it's because most people don't, and never will, care very much about, or spend much money on, women's sports. That's because a good high school boy's teams can defeat the "world's best" women's team. People want to watch absolute performance in sports (Messi, Ronaldo, etc.), not just "the best of the humans that aren't really that good at the sport" (i.e., women). There are a few niche markets where the masses enjoy watching female sports (figure skating, tennis, etc.) and other athletic endeavors dominated by women (e.g. ballet). That's just reality.

I'm glad that U.S. soccer has offered identical contracts to the women; and I'm amused that their b*tching about it.

What does Messi have to do with the USMNT?

The point is that there is big money in men's sports (including the FIFA prize money, for which Messi competes with Argentina) because large numbers of people care about, and are willing to pay for, men's soccer. Because there is interest in seeing the absolute best players (who are all men) performing and competing. There is not, and never will be, the same interest in women's soccer. Thus women's soccer will never be as financially valuable, nor will women's soccer players ever be as financially valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will happen in that USSF will not move from where they are now -- they will tell the players this is our best offer. Players may strike. USSF will fill slots with other players. They will find them -- the NFL and MLB umpires did. This will not end well for the women on the national team now.

There will be 75% to 80% turn over with the current team. They are just too old. By the next World Cup Lavelle will be considered old. So there will be a lot of new players who have no voice in the CBA that they will play under. This is just the classic case of the old established players negotiating the CBA. They want all the money and do not care about up and coming players, development(NWSL) or the youth system because it means less money for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an easy problem. The problem is why do women earn less and generate less revenue. Is it because for years institutions such as NCAA and FIFA channel funds into development marketing and tv to male side of sport ? Think of it like a race: the male is given Nike flys custom fit, a nutritionist, elite coaching, and a 5 year head start. Who do you think will be ahead ??? That’s the revenue issue.
Fix it?

No - it's because most people don't, and never will, care very much about, or spend much money on, women's sports. That's because a good high school boy's teams can defeat the "world's best" women's team. People want to watch absolute performance in sports (Messi, Ronaldo, etc.), not just "the best of the humans that aren't really that good at the sport" (i.e., women). There are a few niche markets where the masses enjoy watching female sports (figure skating, tennis, etc.) and other athletic endeavors dominated by women (e.g. ballet). That's just reality.

I'm glad that U.S. soccer has offered identical contracts to the women; and I'm amused that their b*tching about it.

What does Messi have to do with the USMNT?

The point is that there is big money in men's sports (including the FIFA prize money, for which Messi competes with Argentina) because large numbers of people care about, and are willing to pay for, men's soccer. Because there is interest in seeing the absolute best players (who are all men) performing and competing. There is not, and never will be, the same interest in women's soccer. Thus women's soccer will never be as financially valuable, nor will women's soccer players ever be as financially valuable.

Messi is relevant to the USMNT every 4 years. The other three, they are hoping that Mexican Americans boost the ratings for their big rivals games because Americans decidedly don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

LOL... you saying if the women had they own TV deal, ratings would be through the roof? GTFOH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

LOL... you saying if the women had they own TV deal, ratings would be through the roof? GTFOH

It would crystallize the argument however. Let them both stand on their own two feet, negotiate their own deals and see who gets the greater revenues, sponsorships and compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer needs USSF. This would be like women's sports at colleges relying on their own revenue, when it's impossible. Nearly all sports rely on big money makers like football and basketball. Why can't they just make a contracts with % based on revenue earned? Are you doing to force the globe to watch and buy products supporting women's sports? Men make more revenue. How is this hard?

No, they don’t USSF uses the women to subsidize the men and MLS. USWNT could get a much better tv deal if they weren’t bundled with MLS and their putrid ratings. Nike would stick with them (even if off years, how many women’s national team jerseys do you see and have you ever seen a men’s jersey in the wild). USSF does nothing for girls soccer, so that would be a wash. The men will get a nice bump this year, but they’ll loose every game in group play and then people will continue forgetting they exist until
They do the same in four years

LOL... you saying if the women had they own TV deal, ratings would be through the roof? GTFOH

It would crystallize the argument however. Let them both stand on their own two feet, negotiate their own deals and see who gets the greater revenues, sponsorships and compensation.

This won't happen because everyone, including the WNT/NWSL know they'll be dead in the water. This is same logic that people say to "see who's better", but men and women teams will never play. I still don't know why they don't say, you get 20% of your revenue generated or whatever the percentage is. If men make $100M off their crappy wc season and women make $20M, that's called free market. TV deal aside, advertisers will pay 100x more for a men's WC over women's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not an easy problem. The problem is why do women earn less and generate less revenue.

It's because they're not as good at the sport. This makes them less entertaining to watch.

There is a slight twist here in the US because our women are relatively (compared to other nations) better at the sport than our men, and people like watching winners.