Women’s v. Men’s pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be ridiculous. The women's side is not paid more than the men's side. Never has been.

Look, the reality is that everyone who plays under the USSF umbrella, and that currently is about 2.0 million kids, men and women, are subsidizing MLS. If you wanted to argue back in 95 that we needed a U.S. based pro soccer league and that it was okay for the USSF to support it with time and money to get it started -- I think you had an audience and a decent argument. FIFA put $50 million in to the till and held the World Cup here to build an audience so that MLS could get started.

Now though; time's up. MLS pocketing USSF funds makes no sense any more when it hurts kids and the national teams - men and women. So, good for MLS -- it can stand on its own without national team and little kids subsidizing it.

Here's a simple question: Who makes money when someone like Coke wants to sponsor the Women's World Cup Team? Who does Coke negotiate with? Who do they pay? It's not the women's team. It's not even the USSF. It's a company called Sports United Marketing or SUM. SUM is 80% owned by MLS. Want to make a deal to sponsor the women's sided? Sure, but it has to include MLS or at leasts not be competitive to MLS, or a sponsor of MLS or a media broadcaster of MLS. That's a conflict of interest.

And, that's why the women's side says -- let us get our own deals and we will pay what SUM pays the USSF. They can do much, much, better because they will not be looking, first and foremost, to pay MLS. If Pepsi wants to do a deal, and will pay more than Coke, great. They could do it without having to worry about product sales in MLS stadiums. The same with media deals. The same with other product sponsors.

Oh no! SUM has unique knowledge about soccer in the U.S. Only SUM can make a TV deal. Only SUM can line up product sponsors. Really? There's about 100 other major advertiser companies in the U.S. that deal in the professional sports industries, address promotions and media, AND would not have the major conflict of interest that SUM has.

It's time to separate the national teams and the USSF from SUM. Let MLS stand on its own. If it cannot -- then, maybe, the USSF can help out some. But, it should be doing so directly and above board so everyone can see what is going on.

MLS stands on its own and is not part of US Soccer. They are separate entities. The NWSL is funded by US Soccer paying the salaries of the national team players. The NWSL would fold in under a year without that support.

The money on the national team side is commingled. On the none World Cup years, the US women’s team really struggle to bring money in both advertising and tickets sales. The men’s team gets a lot of money from friendlies. It’s like Troy playing Alabama in football. Alabama Guarantees Troy(or whoever they play) $1-2 million for the game. When the men’s team plays a bigger soccer country, they get paid. It’s not because there is a market for the USNT. It’s because the other country’s team generate money and they have to have someone to play. That does not happen on the women’s side.

No -- the MLS does not stand on its own. It is beholding to the national teams for lots of money, media and promotional dollars. Remember, SUM is 80% owned by MLS. If the women's side cut its own media and promotional deals SUM's take would fall drastically -- and SUM will do deals only if they are good for MLS, or at least not competitive to MLS sponsors. The USSF should not be in the business of making money for MLS.