Does the national woman’s soccer team bring in the attendence income equal to the men’s team?
If so, then the women would have a strong argument for equal pay.
The argument usually invoked by the women–that their record is better than the men’s–is worthless. Thy are playing against women. If they played against the men and won, that would be powerful argument. But, of course, they didn’t and couldn’t.
This is appears to be a rhetorical question as a preamble to an IMHO about equal prize money & pay for female athletes. Reported for wrong forum.
As far as TV viewership goes, it appears it’s not equal. It is better.
But I’m not sure whether that matters. If you make the argument that this is why the U.S. women’s soccer team should be paid the same, then it’s a justification for most other female athletes getting less than men.
You’re stating this as if it is an absolute fact when, in reality, it’s just your opinion.
The truth is, people like to watch a good product, and the women’s team has shown over time that it is much more competitive and successful than the men’s team. People in general, and Americans in particular, love winners.
The U.S. women’s team is currently ranked #1 in the world and has a real chance of winning yet another World Cup title. They are excellent and they are exciting.
The U.S. men’s team failed to qualify for the last World Cup run because they lost to mighty Trinidad and Tobago, a two island nation that appears as two specks off the northern coast of South America.
Taylor Twellman’s ESPN meltdown after the U.S. men’s team humiliating loss to Trinidad and Tobago
If you wish to follow U.S. men’s soccer and scorn the women, that is your privilege. I think I’ll stick with the women. 
The unstated assumption here is that the worth of the national team members is tied to how much money they bring in.
Which is a stupid assumption. It’s an argument to possibly make for professional leagues, but national teams are supposed to be more than that.
Paying women national athletes less is saying your nation (whichever that might be, mine included) values women less than men, plain and simple.
Be better. Be Norway. Or the USA currently, in theory according to the Senate.
Moved to the Game Room.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I looked them up on Wikipedia, but I am still not exactly clear where their pay comes from and how it is decided.
To just say that it should just be equal to the Men’s pay is a dumb way to decide things. The real question is “How should the soccer’s team’s (men and women) pay be determined?” By the opinions of some elected board? By certain metrics (e.g. viewership, revenue, winning percentage, etc)?
To me, some metric should be used. Maybe a mixture of the three I mentioned above.
As far as I can tell, if that is used then the women’s pay might end up being higher than the men’s. Then so be it!
If some female quarterback in the Lingerie/Legends Football League has a better winning record than Tom Brady, should she be paid as much or more than Brady?
Both the men’s and women’s teams in Portland sell out every home game of 20,000 seats, and there is a contingent that travels to away games. The Timbers are financing a $50M upgrade to add another 4,000 seats or so to accommodate demand. The Thorns are a powerhouse and a joy to watch.
There is a decent discussion here from 2016. As I understand it, one of the differences is that members of the USWNT get paid a base salary and then a bonus for winning a game. The USMNT members only get paid for games that they play (but get paid materially more per game).
I don’t know if anything changed in the CBA between 2016 and the present.
Women’s soccer actually does pretty well in attendance and TV ratings, so it’s not off base to say they should be paid as much as the men. They at least made it to the World Cup, so that alone brings more eyeballs than men’s soccer.
If the WNBA, for example, made such a claim, they would have a much weaker case.
Probably not, but that’s just me.
Something tells me also that the women’s team will only be satisfied if “equality” means a raise. If the U.S. Soccer Federation decided to impose equality by reducing the men’s salary to the women’s level, they’d still be mad.
Well, if they are part of the same organization, there are only two options:
- Have the managers and big wigs earn less (Ha ha ha, yea right).
- Reduce the men’s salaries.
Hey, a lot of the time equality is a zero-sum game. I am always surprised that some people don’t get that.
That doesn’t mean that equality should not be pursued, but don’t act shocked if it has other effects.
The US teams are in competition for players with other countries. There is a player on the England team who could have played for the US, a player on Germany’s team, a player on Mexico’s team, a player on Bosnia’s. Thus the US has to provide a reason for these players to play for the US.
For the women since playing on the US team also includes a guaranteed spot in the US league there is no real competition for players.
One problem is, is it just “base salaries”? IIRC, there was quite a bit of discussion over whether the women should be paid anything at all from the money FIFA gave USSF (U.S. Soccer) for the men’s team’s participation in the 2014 World Cup, which was far more than what the women got for winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup, mainly because the men’s tournament brought in far more money for FIFA from national TV rights worldwide than the women’s tournament did.
If you are representing your country at any sport then a flat rate seems fair. Male or female, sport to sport. The equivalent of paying equal unemployment benefit or pensions.
On top of that will come whatever income can be generated by sponsorship, prize money and attendance revenue. That will and should vary. If the women bring in more money through those avenues then they get more. That might be the case in the USA. There are probably quite a few sports around the world where the female version is more popular.
nm
The problem is that the Thorns are rarely on TV, while every Timbers game is. And TV is where all the big money comes from. With that kind of support, they could televise the Thorns at least locally, and I don’t know why they don’t. Yes, the rest of the league has mostly low attendance, but that’s not a reason not to cash in on the team that does have high attendance.