It’s the old “your not paid for what you are worth, your paid on what you negotiate for.”.
You really cant use gymnastics because female gymnasts are so darn young. Some as young as 12. Although I think they set the line at 16 for the olympics? While male gymnasts are much older like in their 20’s.
The Olympics isn’t a profit based sporting organization. They have nothing to do with each other.
They’re getting paid to fill seats.
Womens sports are not as popular as mens sports, get over it. Don’t like that reality? Then perhaps you and others ought to spend more time patronizing female sports teams vs mens teams.
No? Don’t want to do that? Then suck it up and deal with the differential payouts. Where does this end? The CEO of apple might do orders of magnitude less work than the CEO of a struggling company being assaulted on all sides, the latter could reshape the entire company rather than glide along rails for success on what was built before like Tim Cook, but if the revenues for apple are higher, it makes sense that ceo would get paid more.
This is how it works. If you do not like this paradigm, you need to engage in efforts on the back end to shore up others incomes, not on the front end. On the front end I want something closer to a pure meritocracy.
In some respects, yes. But they are not perfect or even reasonable analogues for many of the reasons people already mentioned along with two main things: the IOC by and large doesn’t pay athletes a living wage, and the Olympic athletes are paid the same regardless of gender. The pay of soccer players for their Olympic play (which is equal) is a small subset of what they are paid overall by US Soccer; the disparity in the latter is largely due to revenue differences and sponsorship.
That said, let’s do a comparison. Some Olympic athletes earn almost nothing, and others are paid a lower middle class sum. Few are highly compensated just based on their skills. The few (individuals or teams) that do make real money do so based on their commercial appeal because they are typically being paid by sponsors. If you agree with the idea that athletes should be paid based on their commercial appeal, then paying women the same as men makes no sense.
Further, it’s not as the if the IOC is motivated by egalitarianism here. They pay everyone almost nothing because they are cheap.
I doubt women would be any happier with that situation.
US male and female soccer players are paid the same for the Olympic appearances as well:
In short, the main reason there is a pay disparity is because men’s soccer is more profitable than women’s soccer.
They do earn it through sponsorship and endorsements among other things. TO quote this article:
How does all that mean men get paid more? Well, FIFA compensates men much better because they bring in a LOT more money, sponsors pay men more because their games generally get better ratings, and the men actually play more game generally speaking.
Further, the USSF subsidizes the NWSL which essentially increases women’s pay and the popularity of the sport.
Exactly. They are entertainers. If an individual athlete can pick up more money from endorsements and ads, more power to them.
They aren’t playing against men, so it’s irrelevant if men can/could beat them. If they can’t bring in the crowds, that is relevant.
FIFA earns it. The individual players can suck donkey dicks but get a lot of viewers because they are playing a very popular team. How much do you think FIFA’s revenue would change if American men decided to boycott the world cup? Would they even notice? If they are so fucking worth it and the market is willing to pay them then there are professional soccer teams where they can capitalize on their extraordinary soccer ability, we don’t need to inject these market dynamics into an organization that is supposed to be promoting soccer for everyone including women.
You are talking about the appeal of men’s soccer generally, not the appeal of US men’s soccer. If the purpose of US Soccer is to promote soccer then why does it make sense to pay their perennially losing men’s team more than their perennially winning women’s team?
If the purpose of US Soccer is to promote soccer in the US rather than maximize profits, then yes, that is my contention. There are professional leagues out there for men to participate in and get shit tons of money if they are able. And THAT is where the differences in pay should exist.
But you get my point right? Its not a profit maximizing endeavor.
I thought US Soccer was also not a profit based sporting organization. Or is US national soccer team like the NFL /NBA/MLB/NHL?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the role of US soccer. I am under the impression that US soccer is NOT a profit maximizing entity and that their primary mission is to promote soccer in the US.
I have asked repeatedly for a reason why the US men’s and women’s national teams are more like the NFL than the Olympic teams and all I get are different variations of “you don’t understand supply and demand do you?”
I would argue that team sponsorships are not the result of any merit or ability of the individual players and merely the result of being the national US men’s soccer team. So why does it make sense to reward players for the values added by the team’s association with the US men’s soccer team?
Why not? If some superstar on the men’s soccer team can score a nike deal then good for him but why does he have to get paid more simply for being on the men’s team?
I am sure they would rather be unequally rich than equally poor but those are not the choices.
And why should there be a pay difference for the world cup or do you thin k that women’s Olympic soccer is just as profitable ass men’s Olympic soccer?
And why does profitability come into play when you are playing for your country in an organization whose primary purpose is promotion of soccer in the country irrespective of gender?
I have no problem with individual sponsorships and endorsements deals going to the individual. Team sponsorships and endorsements OTOH should be shared.
FIFA can be as sexist as it wants. They can be as profit oriented as it wants. Is that the same criteria we should apply here to our national soccer teams?
Its still not the same base pay. If you want to pay more for more games played etc. then fine but paying the men more because men’s soccer is more popular than women’s soccer seems more like it is profiting from soccer rather than promoting soccer and AFAIAC we have professional leagues for the profit focused facet of soccer.
we have professional soccer leagues for that sort of profit centered philosophy. Do we apply the same standards for a national team whose purpose is to represent the country and promote soccer to everyone even young girls?
I’d argue you are clearly wrong that it is not about the individual players. Not only because many of these sponsorship deals highlight individual players, but also because the quality of the players affects the quality of the team which in turn affects the number of endorsements and sponsors they have, and how much they are willing to play.
Because his team makes more money, and his work product is more valuable to US Soccer.
Because the men’s world cup brings in much, much more money. This is like asking why a salesperson who sells more is usually paid more. As long as the players/salespeople are not interchangeable parts, and mens and womens players aren’t, then you need to compensate them based on the value they bring to the table.
Because profitability is a market signal that tells you how much people care, and how much people are likely to care and invest in the future. If you goal is to promote something, then you need to respond to those signals that tell you where the interest lies. Paying men more, and making their team more visible is better for US Soccer generally because it incentivizes better players to play for our country, allows them to improve the more valuable product, and it maximizes the number of people watching, enjoying, and supporting the sport.
They are shared amongst the players on the team being sponsored. In fact, they are shared amongst everyone playing a sanctioned soccer match in reality since those sponsorship make up a large percentage of the funding US Soccer receives. I am not sure why you think the women’s teams should get as much as the men for a sponsorship the men obtained.
Generally yes. And while FIFA is kinda sexist, disparate pay is not a mark of those attitudes. It’s the reality of people not likeing women’s soccer as much. Just like people don’t like u-16 boys soccer as much as men’s or women’s soccer. Should we demand the u-16 boys be paid as much as men’s team?
Because the money pool is not equal. The base pay is largely made up of the monies collected for each game. If a US Men’s game brings in $2 million, for example, and a women’s game brings in $500k, why should the players’ base pay be the same?
Why are you under the impression that promoting the game and profit are mutually exclusive?
You also conveniently ignore the fact that US Soccer pays the women on the team to play in the NWSL, something without which might lead to the league collapsing. They don’t pay MLS salaries for men, so why is this being ignored by people who claim US Soccer isn’t promoting women’s sports?
I would argue that the American men’s national soccer team is mediocre at best and benefits from the talent of the men’s teams in Europe and Brazil. I think it is much more fair to have the men’s revenue subsidize the women’s coffers than to have the German men’s team effectively subsidize the American men’s team.
What is the goal of US soccer? Is it a profit driven entity?
You are equating revenue to value. If the goal of US soccer is to maximize revenue, then fine, lets just pay the players based on how well they help us achieve that goal. If it US soccer serves a more public function, then, wtf does the fact that we can attribute more revenue to their activity have anything to do with it?
Lets say you run a school system and you have two schools. One school is in a rich neighborhood that generates 3 times as much revenue as the other. Do you pay your teachers in the rich school three times as much as the teachers in the poor school? What if the rich school only performs about average for schools in rich neighborhoods but the poor school has the best performance among schools in poor neighborhoods?
You can attribute three times as much revenue to the teachers in the rich school, why not pay them three times as much?
Sony sold walkmans at a loss for years in order to grab market share and develop the market for walkmans. This led to the discman and ipods. If women’s soccer is being run at a loss, wouldn’t the market signaling mechanism tell us to just drop women’s soccer altogether?
Because they serve the same purpose for US soccer. Unless you think US soccer should promote men’s soccer more than women’s soccer.
Do they work for US soccer and serve the same role as the national teams?
Because they are serving the same function.
They’re not but if you aren’t motivated by profit then profit arguments are not really appropriate in justifying your behavior.
I don’t know. I am only dealing with the notion that the pay is not equitable between the two irrespective of profit. If they are in fact being paid equitably without regard to how much profit theya re generating then I don’t see what we are arguing about.
Are you under the impression that being a non profit means all employees need to be compensated equally?
Do you think paying women the same way they pay men (which would mean the domestic league collapses btw) would better promote soccer in the US? How?
This makes absolutely no sense. The vast majority of games the men’s team plays are against inferior competitors in CONCACAF. They are certainly not riding the coattails of superior men’s teams to any demonstrable extent.
Even if that were true, why would it be “more fair”?
The goal of US Soccer is to, “make soccer, in all its forms, a preeminent sport in the United States and to continue the development of soccer at all recreational and competitive levels.” Yes, they are profit driven if by that you mean they seek to maximize revenue and impact to achieve the above goal.
Those are not mutually exclusive goals. There are plenty of organizations like the NFL, NCAA, and others that seek to both increase revenue and serve some public function. More importantly, we essentially do pay them based on how well they achieve that goal. That’s why the men make more.
This is a terrible analogy. First, the men are inarguably much, much better soccer players. Do you realize the extent of how much more skilled they are? They USWNT, probably the best woman’s team in the world, loses to male children (u-15) on a regular basis. they are objectively terrible players when comapred to all players. In contrast, the men are actually decent players. It’s only when compared to other great male soccer players that they seem average. Second, teacher pay is not a meritocracy, nor is it generally based on “revenue”.
A much better analogue is sales. Even a relatively mediocre Ferrari salesman is going to make more than a relatively great Fiat salesman. Doubly so if when compared head to head, the Ferrari guy brings in much more money, and has much better sales skills.
Because in reality, unlike in your terrible analogy, teachers do not “bring in revenue”. That said, teachers in rich areas often make more because districts want to attract better talent.
It is. That’s why the previous two women’s pro soccer leagues folded. US Soccer is subsidizing the league because they want to promote soccer. It’s not doing it for money, or some misguided notion that women’s soccer is going to eventally catch on. It’s not as if there is ANY successful women’s professional sports league in the entire world save one or two exceptions that is profitable and pays a decent wage to the players. It’s not a matter of losing money as part of a longer term strategy. People generally don’t like women’s sports, and paying women more isn’t going to change that.
But they don’t have the same value. However, to answer your question, they SHOULD promote men’s soccer more than women’s because that is the main areas for growth and interest.
Essentially yes. So why don’t we pay them all the same?
Are you paid based on function or results and the value of your work product? Do you think everyone doing the same job on a superficial level should be paid the same?
Of course they are motivated by profits. That’s why they sell tickets to games and get sponsors. It may not be to the exclusion of everything else, but that’s true for a lot of organizations.
Why would it be? It’s it on you to make a logical case for why it should be?
How would the domestic league collapse if you paid the women’s national team the same as the men’s national team?
And when it comes to non-profits, the employees are not paid on their revenue generating ability because they are not supposed to be profit driven in the first place.
I thought we were talking about the world cup. Isn’t THAT where they make all their extra revenue or is the extra revenue generation of the men’s team the result of their CONCACAF play? If we eliminated World Cup revenue, is the disparity in revenue generation still there?
If the US men’s team was disqualified from participating in the world cup for the forseeable future, would they have all those team sponsorships and endorsement deals?
How popular is soccer among girls? How popular is soccer among boys? How much of the prevalence of girls playing soccer attributable to then success of the women’s national team and how much of the boy’s participation in soccer is the result of the men’s soccer team? Which team has done more for soccer in the united states?
I don’t see profit anywhere in their mission statement. And frankly US soccer includes the professional soccer leagues. We are talking about the national teams. If you want profit motive in major league soccer, that’s fine, they are owned by owners who have a profit motive and can pay their players to maximize those profits. The national team is not a profit driven entity is it?
And how important is the disparity in pay to furthering their mission?
We pay players in the NCAA? And isn’t the NFL a professional sports league with private profit seeking owners? Who are the profit seeking owners of US soccer?
I am suggesting that the national teams that play in the world cup are more like Olympic athletes than NFL players. We already have a professional soccer league where players are paid based on their marketability. Do we pay our men’s Olympic basketball team more than we pay our women’s Olympic basketball team (if we pay them at all)? In what way if the world cup more like the superbowl than the Olympics?
No analogy is perfect. I understand that female soccer players are not as good as the men (I am not sure that high school sophomores boys regularly beat the women’s national team but I won’t quibble. If we changed the rules one year and the women’s championship team got a slot in the men’s World Cup, is there any doubt that they would generate as much revenue as the US men’s team? Is there any doubt that the team sponsors would line up behind any team that made it to the world cup? The worst team in the world cup gets sponsorships, not because people want to watch them play but because people want to watch who they are playing.
No it’s not but why can’t it be? Why can’t we pay the teachers at Beverly hills public high school more than the teachers at Compton public high school?
Sales is a horrible analogy because the motive of the salesman is revenue generation. This is NOT the primary motive of the men’s national team is it?
You think there is a difference in teacher pay that favors rich neighborhoods within the LA unified school district? Of course not. The fact that there are wealthier districts out there is like saying that there are more popular sports out there.
National teams are not about creating an incubator for commercially viable professional leagues.
Then why don’t we see that sort of lopsided interest in youth soccer leagues? I mean little league seems to be overwhelmingly boys, same with pop warner football and pretty much every sport. The commercial interest may be mostly on the men’s side but if we are seeing a lot of interest from girls (probably the only popular team sport where you see so much interest from girls), then how can you say that the main areas of growth and interest is on the male side? Isn’t there at least a reasonable argument that there is very healthy interest from the female side?
Really? How much do the U-16 boys get paid? Oh they don’t? Then they don’t work for US soccer. They participate in a US soccer program. They no more work for US soccer than my kid works for little league.
No of course not. Are you saying that US men’s national team is achieving better results than US women’s national team? Do you think we have seen more growth in girls soccer or boys soccer? Or are we to measure all value by how many sponsor dollars they attract? How instrumental do you think that men’s national soccer team has been in inspiring young boys to go to and paly soccer. How about the women’s national team?
I recently went to a George Mason baseball game. The tickets cost money and there were sponsors and the concessions stand probably sold things at a profit, and yet I don’t think they were motivated by profits. They were motivated by trying to cover at least some of their costs
My kid in little league has to pay to participate and I don’t think the little league is motivated by profit. There may be elements of US soccer that are profits driven but the US national team should not be one of those elements.
I can only refer back to the fact that these are national teams representing our nation rather than profit driven enterprises that are trying to maximize sponsorship dollars.
The league would collapse because US Soccer heavily subsidizes it, while USSF does not subsidize MLS. If the men and women were compensated the same way the league would fold.
Are you under the impression that all employees of non-profits have the same salary?
You ignored the question of how paying the women more would promote soccer better.
Nobody is talking about compensating the men in MLS the same as the women in the professional women’s soccer league (whatever that happens to be this week). NOBODY. We are talking about the US men’s and women’s national teams that represent our nation at international sporting events. If that wasn’t clear then I am making it clear now. We are ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE NATIONAL TEAMS not how much David Beckham makes.
Do we pay them profit sharing?
It is a turn off to women and girls when an organization treats men preferably to women. If we overtly and systematically paid blacks Olympic athletes less than black Olympic athletes because white Olympic athletes drew higher viewership numbers, it might reduce black participation in the Olympics.