US Soccer pays salaries of the women’s domestic league…
US soccer players don’t have “profit sharing.” They’re paid different rates. Different employees of non-profits are paid different rates.
Hmm, so pay can drive participation? In that case, the men should get paid even more since the USSF is trying to compete with the NFL, NBA, and MLB for athletes while the women don’t have nearly that type of competition. The most efficient use of their money to advance their goal of expanding the popularity of soccer is much much more spending on the men!
Every point you try to make that manages to delve even a bit into the weeds of this issue makes it clear you know very little about soccer or the facts of this case. We are not just talking about the World Cup. The disparities they are talking about are mostly per game compensation. I don’t even know what you mean by “extra revenue”. Are you talking about non-guaranteed revenue?
Yes. It’s even more stark as the women’s World Cup success is what makes them so profitable.
Probably not nearly as many.
Are you reading the specific point you are quoting? My comment was in response to you arguing it’s more fair for the US Men’s Soccer team to effectively subsidize the US Women’s Soccer team that it is for German Men’s team to effectively subsidize the US Men’s one. What is the logic there?
Yes, it is. Why do you keep assuming it’s not?
Very important. If the USMNT were paid like Olympic athletes, many of the best male players would not participate. That’s putting aside the fact that their work product is more valuable, and thus should be better compensated.
The point was that many organizations that seek to increase revenue and serve a public function.
The people who run US Soccer.
But your suggestion isn’t based on anything. Even putting aside the fact that US Soccer paid the USWNT to play in a professional soccer league, a system more closely based on Olympic pay would have much GREATER pay disparities.
But that misses the point. The Men had to EARN a spot which is why they deserve the compensation that is nearly guaranteed by being on that big a stage. It’s like asking if I were magically granted a spot on the Golden State Warriors, would I make an NBA salary?
No. The worst team in the world doesn’t get anywhere near the World Cup (the World Cup finals actually).
Of course we CAN. The fact that the reality on the ground is subject to change doesn’t make your analogy any better.
Yes, it pretty much is. Winning is what generates revenue, so the analogy is fine.
Did we limit this discussion to LA unified school district? I must have missed that qualifier. Can you show me where you mentioned LA at all before this last post?
No. You missed the point. The comment was about how a district with more resources may pay teachers better in order to attract more talented applicants.
But that’s EXACTLY how it’s being used for women. Why aren’t people complaining about that?
Because youth soccer participation is not generally based on the success of the national teams.
Girls weren’t allowed to play in little league or pop warner until relatively recently. Many other sports are dominated by girls including: cheerleading, gymnastics, field hockey, volletball, etc.
It’s not the only popular team sport with girls. In fact, a greater percentage of girls play basketball, volleyball, and baseball/softball.
Because while we collectively produce the best female soccer players in the world, our male players are relatively lacking. Americans are generally among the best athletes in the world in most sports, so it stands to reason we can cultivate better male soccer players if the time, money, interest, and incentives are there.
Even if that were true, there is no real career for female athletes in general let alone soccer players. If that interest cannot be channeled into anything long term, it’s not as worth pursuing IMO.
Again you are twisting the issue. Your argument has been that if someone is representing their country, or preforming in a specific capacity, they should be compensated similarly to someone else doing the same thing. But if you want to bring up some technicality, feel free to replace the u-16 team with the U.S. Paralympic Soccer Team.
Yes. I consider their success in the men’s world cup more valuable and more impressive objectively than the women’s success in the women’s world cup.
Generally yes. What other measure is more objective?
Very little in either case.
They cover their costs with profits. How long do you think their team would exist if it cost considerably more than it does now?
Why not? That’s the main way they make money.
Then once again, why aren’t the paralympic team, the boys and girls teams, and the handful of other teams under the US soccer umbrella who are national teams who represent our nation, paid the same?
Once again, the complaint is not about women’s pay in the professional leagues.
You are saying that the national teams should be paid based on how much profit they generate. Don’t call it profit sharing if you don’t like the term but there is an element of profit sharing there.
Is that the role of the NATIONAL TEAMS?
Is there a reason people keep conflating the national teams with the professional leagues? I agree that David Beckham should be paid more than some relatively anonymous female soccer player in the professional women’s soccer league.
I don’t know much about soccer and NOONE has bothered to explain what it is about soccer that allows us to conflate compensation of professional players in the professional leagues with compensation for players on the national team.
The video clip seemed to be about the national soccer teams ONLY. Why is compensation in the professional soccer leagues relevant?
I was assuming that the national team that represented our nation in international competition was something like the Olympics.
Is this because they wouldn’t come to meaningless scrimmages or because they wouldn’t participate in the world cup because it seems to me that they would in fact participate in the world cup like every other professional soccer player in the world. It also seems to me that they are not generating a whole lot of value at those meaningless scrimmages.
They OWN US Soccer?
Wait. What?!?!? The USWNT is a professional team in a professional league?
How so?
Not to quibble but U-17 is different than U-15 and I didn’t realize we were talking about the best 17 year olds in the country, I thought we were talking about . I agree that the women’s team will lose regularly to the best 17 year old boys in the country. The WNBA champions will probably also lose to the 5 best 17 year old male basketball players.
I believe there is a league minimum wage. But you miss the point. If we are talking only about the national team when they are representing the nation, why should we pay the men more than the women just because men’s soccer is more profitable than women’s soccer?
I said the worst team in the world cup but I get your point. I see the world cup as I understand it is actually a playoff that most national teams do not get into.
So we agree we CAN. And we agree we DON’T. Should we? The teachers in Beverly Hills high school are probably adding more value than the teachers in Compton high school. They are increasing the earning potential of their students by more than the Compton teachers are increasing their students’ earning potential.
So you think the main motive of the men’s national team is generating revenue? I think we have very different ideas about what purpose a national team serves.
I am using it as an example because you are choosing to say that different districts have different pay structures.
I guess it comes down to whether you believe the men’s and women’s team are in the same district or different districts. I think they feed from the same trough, or they ought to.
Cite that the USWNT is an incubator for a commercially viable women’s professional soccer league?
Sure, and girls going into ice skating is not generally based on how we do in Olympic figure skating.
Yes and in these female friendly sports, do you think that we should be promoting the male participation because that is where the growth is?
OK, perhaps (I note your article is about adolescent participation and the article goes on to say that there is a difference in participation between ages). but can’t you make a reasonable argument that there is reasonable interest from the female side?
And you think paying the national team is the way to do it? We already have a fucking professional men’s soccer league. We may never have a professional women’s soccer league. Why do we need the pay disparity at the national team level to promote men’s soccer?
So if the soccer participation does not lead to a career as a professional soccer player then its not worth promoting?
OK so it seems like you understand the point I am making but you are not addressing the point.
So coming in 11th is more impressive than coming in first for several years running because…? I have a cousin was a pretty good high school wrestler but nothing special and he could absolutely destroy the state champion wrestler that was 40 pounds lighter than him. You are basically saying that my cousin was the more impressive wrestler.
“They’ve inspired millions of girls to dream bigger, and by the way, inspired millions of boys to look at girls differently, which is just as important,” he said.
I think the second part of that sentence has value too (if true).
I don’t think the ticket sales ($2/ticket) or concession stand sales is what is keeping the program going. The program continues because George mason wants to have a baseball program.
The world cup is the main way that US Soccer makes money? Does that include the money made by Major League Soccer?
For the same reason we don’t pay the little leaguers that make it to the little league world series. Its not like we don’t televise that.
And can the members of the U-15 team join the women’s national team?
“Considering the Socceroos’ remuneration is fair, the PFA said the Matildas’ low pay was a hindrance to development and FFA must look to increase its investment in the women’s game to ensure the Matildas reach levels that are fair, equitable and attractive.”
Well the obvious solution is for you to buy your own team and pay them the big bucks that will magically make them play better than adolescent boys thus generating the profit needed to pay them. At least change their advertising campaign. There must be a market for 15 year old boys spanking a women’s soccer team.
It’s not a conflation. You just don’t know what you are talking about. There are two reasons both issues come up. One, US Soccer, as part of their goal of popularizing soccer, pays the league salaries of the women on the USWNT when they play on their club teams. They do this because the league would not be solvent otherwise. These payments, which men do not receive, are part of their compensation package.
Second, this issue comes up because you generally need to pay men more to attract top talent to play. This is less of an issue with the US team because few of them are world class talents, but our best players are being paid millions by their clubs to play soccer. Dempsey and Bradley bot make over $6 million/year. You need to incentivize them more to risk injury and wear and tear on their body. This goes doubly so for people like Ronaldo and Messi who make tens of millions of dollars.
It is and it isn’t. They do represent our country, but that doesn’t mean they are exactly like the Olympics which represent just one part of their duties. It’s a organization that seeks to make money, filled with employees who seek to maximize their salaries.
Yes.
It’s clear you don’t quite understand how this works. The “World Cup”, as you seem to be using the term, is really the “World Cup finals”. That latter is the thing that generates the most money, and is thing people watch every 4 years on TV. The actual World Cup includes a qualification phase that takes place over the preceding 2-3 years. There are 209 teams that participate in the World Cup, but only 32 in the World Cup Finals/Tournament. About 850 games were collectively played in the qualifying phase and only 63 in the finals. The US plays far more often outside the “World Cup” (eg. 20+ friendlies and various tournaments) than in.
This is a silly phrasing. It is a governing organization that derives power from it’s ability to create revenue. Nobody “owns” US Soccer just like no one owns the NCAA or the ABA.
Because the compensation of Olympic athletes is disproportionately based on sponsorship and other revenue that is dependent on market forces. The IOC basically pays nothing, so a role player on the USWNT would make almost nothing.
Did you read the link? They lose/have lost to both teams.
Because representing your country doesn’t obviate the need to pay based on market forces and/or the value of one’s work product. FYI, this is why soldiers are paid different rates as well.
I am not sure that is true if you go by percentages, or by value added above an average teacher. Either way, the ability to find comparable teachers, and the reluctance of tax payers to foot the bill, means teachers salaries are going to be depressed, and not really comparable to those of professional athletes.
It doesn’t have to be the MAIN motive. It is clearly part of their goal as it serves their mandate to promote US Soccer. You cannot do that without revenue.
You pointing out what happens in one district doesn’t advance your position or address mine at all. It’s just barely short of a non sequitur.
I agree. So why did you suppose that the success of the USWNT had much impact of girls soccer participation rates?
Probably not because there is little to no male interest in those sports, so it’s not actually an area for growth.
What are you talking about? Is this a typo?
Yes. It’s not the only way, but it’s really important. Better pay is one of the ways we’ve been able to attract foreign-born US citizens and US-born foreigners to play for the USMNT. In addition, we’ve spent more to hire well regarded coaches and provide better facilities. It also bolsters MLS revenues by raising the profile of many of the players.
We already have a professional women’s soccer league. Have you not been paying attention?
No. I am saying if participation in a sports CANNOT ever lead to much of anything resembling a viable career due to collective disinterest, it’s generally not worth encouraging. Definitely not at the expense of real job skills.
I and others have done nothing but address this. You have ignored many questions about why multiple other teams under the umbrella of US Soccer are not paid the same as either the USMNT or the USWNT? Why does the Paralympic soccer team not make as much as the USWNT?
Because it, in this case, is objectively harder, requires far more skill to accomplish, and attracts more interest/money.
Not really. I am saying if your cousin was facing the best, most skilled, most experienced wrestlers in his weight class, of whom we could expect any of 10 or so wrestlers to win it all, coming up short is more impressive than a lighter, less skilled wrestler winning in a class where only 2 or 3 teams are actually competitive.
Or, to use another sport for a cleaner analogy, I think an NBA team losing in the second round of the playoffs is more impressive than some WNBA team winning the championship or some D3 men’s team winning the championship.
But they aren’t playing the same people, so their relative win-loss percentages are not directly comparable.
And?
You ignored the question. If it costs Mason $10mm/year to have a baseball team, would they have one? Would they have one if it made them $10mm/year, even if the students hated the team? The point is that money matters. It is not the only factor, but it’s important. The revenue picture for college sports is complicated because sports arguably act as an advertisement/draw for the school, but revenue always matters in any sports.
Yes, in the sense that those games are what drives viewership and sponsorship dollars. The MLS is a completely separate entity. Why do you not understand this?
Paralympians are not children. Why are they not paid the same as the other national teams? More importantly, why shouldn’t we pay the kids if, like you argue, they are doing the same job for most intents and purposes? There is no prohibition on paying children for work.
The obvious solution is for me to start my own COUNTRY and pay the men’s national team that represents my country the same as the women’s national team that represents the country.
The women’s team actually receives a base salary, while the men’s team doesn’t. Perhaps the women’s players should be upset with their union.
Other logical factors as to the pay discrepancy:
• The men are better players than the women: more athletic; more skilled. In fact, in exhibition matches, women’s teams have been defeated by teams comprised of teenage boys.
• Men’s soccer is far more popular.
• Women’s soccer has only been around since the mid-80s; men’s soccer has been around since the 30s.
It sounds like what you are saying is the the women aren’t actually paid less, they are paid differently. Don’t you think that is a very different argument than "the free market should determine how much the women’s team is paid compared to the men’s team.
Are we really paying our Olympic basketball team members enough to cover their risk of injury? I don’t really give a shit how european teams compensate the players that represent their countries, if they don’t think promoting women’s soccer is important then that is up to them. I think part of your argument has been that we are better off promoting men’s soccer because that is where we will find a commercially viable league while promoting women’s soccer is not quite a vanity project but not really something that is going to progress much beyond participation in international events so we really ought to pay the men more so that we will find the Michael Jordans and Tiger woods of the s[port that will bring a generation of fans into soccer.
I guess this is where I am getting lost. How is it different enough from the Olympics that we say “lets pay the men more because they have more market value” because I am pretty sure we don’t do that with things like the Olympics.
And how does Argentina get Messi to show up at meaningless scrimages? How much are they paying him to be on their national team? How much does Cameroon pay for Eto? AFAICT some of these guys are paying much of their own expenses to play on their national teams.
OK, I understand that part (now). So the US mens team only looks sucky because I only ever see them playing in the finals against the top 15% of teams and the women’s team only seems good because they are playing against other women who generally suck across the board not just because they are not as strong as men but because they are generally sucky players compared to men.
If more money can make the men’s teams better does it make sense that more money can make the women’s team better too? Or is there simply not enough money in international competition to ever incentivize women to play better? Which leads me to wonder how much of an incentive higher men’s team pay improves their level of play.
The NBA is owned by its franchisees (the teams). Any profits made by the NBA is shared equally by each of the franchisees. It seems like a pretty profit driven organization.
The NCAA has rules against paying the players no matter how much ,market value they may have.
So if there are market forces at work that compensate people based on their market value why do we need national team salaries to further accentuate these market driven values? Why not pay all the players the same and let sponsirships and other revenue that is dependent on market forces make up the difference?
The link only seems to mention the loss to the U-17 team 8-2. Is it somewhere in the comments?
Are you saying that if we equalized pay, then the men would leave the national teams? Because we pay certain soldiers more because we can’t find enough people with those technical skills who are willing to devote their life to the military if we pay them grunt wages.
So why are market forces applicable to soldiers but not teachers?
I thought there was a revenue generating professional league where we paid athlete based on market forces. Why do we need to pay the men’s team more? Will they all quit or change their nationality to a better paying country if they are paid the same as the women?
I thought the point I was making is that market forces do not determine everything and yet the world still seems to work pretty well.
I was being sarcastic.
Do you really need me to link to stories about how young girls are being inspired to take soccer more seriously because of the success of our women’s soccer team?
And the interest in womens’ soccer seems to be growing partly as a result fo the success of the USWNT.
I’m saying that people are getting more into women’s soccer because of how well the USWNT is doing.
Name one soccer player on the USMNT that changed to US citizenship because of the the pay scale on the USMNT. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that these people play for the US because its the best team they have a connection with. How does paying them more bolster their profile?
I meant financially viable women’s soccer league.
And that is part of the reeason why we have US soccer to subsidize the women’s side of the sport so that we can develop a good USWNT and perhaps even one day have a viable women’s soccer league. Isn’t it?
Thats a good point. If we want to promote higher soccer participation in that population we should pay them more.
All of that except the “attracts more money” part is irrelevant and the notion that we should distribute that money based on their marketability is what I am contesting in the context of national teams. Are the Williams sisters in the same league as the top male players? But they make a shit ton more than male players that could consistently beat them.
I don’t think that is the right way to look at it. What you are basically saying is that not only women a different weight class than men, the whole weight class sucks.
I get that. What I don’t get is why we keep trivializing the fact that this is not professional sports and keep trying to impose market based arguments.
You can’t really compare 100 pound wrestlers to 160 pound wrestlers either.
Your statement that the women’s soccer team is not inspiring young girls is little more than a personal opinion that many many people do not seem to share. particularly young girls that play soccer.
It almost sounds like you think that colleges only have profitable sports teams.
Wait, didn’t someone say that MLS was a part of US soccer? So no money from MLS goes to US soccer? Does the premier league subsidize English Soccer?
That’s a good point. Why aren’t we? Is women’s soccer profitable enough to justify paying them but not the others?
It sounds like what you are saying is the the women aren’t actually paid less, they are paid differently. Don’t you think that is a very different argument than "the free market should determine how much the women’s team is paid compared to the men’s team.
Are we really paying our Olympic basketball team members enough to cover their risk of injury? If not then why is that a part of your argument?
I guess this is where I am getting lost. How is it different enough from the Olympics that we say “lets pay the men more because they have more market value” because I am pretty sure we don’t do that with things like the Olympics.
And how does Argentina get Messi to show up at meaningless scrimages? How much are they paying him to be on their national team? How much does Cameroon pay for Eto? AFAICT some of these guys are paying much of their own expenses to play on their national teams.
So if there are market forces at work that compensate people based on their market value why do we need national team salaries to further accentuate these market driven values? Why not pay all the players the same and let sponsirships and other revenue that is dependent on market forces make up the difference?
Why do we need to pay the men’s team more? Will they all quit or change their nationality to a better paying country if they are paid the same as the women? Can you name one soccer player on the USMNT that changed to US citizenship because of the the pay scale on the USMNT.
Do you really need me to link to stories about how young girls are being inspired to take soccer more seriously because of the success of our women’s soccer team?
Interest in womens’ soccer seems to be growing partly as a result fo the success of the USWNT.
Messi (and CR7) both have the “never won an international title” on their backs. They want to change that. The meaningless friendly prepares his national team for the major tournaments.
Well.
i) They are (much) more skilled.
ii) They bring in more revenue in sponsorships
iii) They bring in more broadcast monies
iv) Put more bums on seats
The former is not an argument, it’s a fact. That the market seems to be saying that men should be compensated better is the justification for paying them more in areas where there pay structure is comparable.
No. Which is why many American basketball players sit out. It’s only ego, love of country/the game, the ability to leverage the exposure, and the knowledge that they will not have to play too much, that gets some of them to play. That said, there have been many arguments from owners and others to curb this practice since it’s not worth it.
Yes, that’s part of it. I think that makes perfect sense. To me, your side is like arguing the USOC should focus as much on the luge team as they do the gymnastics team. At a certain point, the collective interest and the utility of the skills acquired by the athletes should factor into how much we invest. And it’s not just a gender thing that skewed toward men. I think the women’s gymnastics team should get more money than the men’s team.
First, we do do that with the Olympics. The USOC basically gives athletes nothing. It barely covers expenses in most cases. This is why most athletes have real jobs as well. They can get away with paying nearly nothing because they know the top notch athletes will be sponsored. There is no need to cover the multi-million dollar bill for training Michael Phelps over the years because Sony or Speedo will. They essentially let the market decide.
Second, you are ignoring the history of the Olympics. Athletes could not be compensated at all until 1971. They couldn’t even accept endorsements or prizes. The Olympics did this because it, in theory, is an quadrennial AMATEUR competition which sought to minimize the unfair advantages brought by money and professionalism. There were explicit rules for amateurism until the 1990s or so. Even today, that facade is maintained by avoiding making money the explicit reward, and discouraging professionals from competing (save a few team sports). So it’s not some sense of egalitarianism that motivates the USOC to play athletes the same (basically nothing); the rules dictated everyone be exploited for most of the the competition’s history.
Now as to why we don’t do that with other people “representing our nation”, it’s because these people are, by and large, PROFESSIONALS. The USWNT and the USMNT are professionals and employees plying their wares in “amateur” competitions (eg. the Olympics) AND professional competitions (eg. FIFA World Cup, international friendlies, CONCACAF Gold Cup, Copa America, etc.). For the latter tournaments/work, both teams are compensated the way most professionals are: based on the value of their work product. Like all compensation agreements, it isn’t perfect, but it’s related to how much they bring in, other options, etc. For the Olympics, both teams ARE paid exactly the same as they are competing in an “amateur” competition.
He often doesn’t. He’s not expected to play in the Olympics in Rio for example.
Yes, but they are playing for ego mostly.
Yes, but I don’t think you need to be as negative about it. The USWNT is a great team, but they are women, and comparing them to men athletically means they will obviously not stack up.
I suppose, but how much more dominate do they need to be? We are already producing the best female soccer players in the world. At some point, there are diminishing returns given they are already sufficiently incentivized. .
A lot. The best way to look at this is to look at the relative success the MLS has experienced as salaries have increased. Many of our best domestic players have come back here to play, and many former international superstars have come to play here too. And while none of the international star were at their peak, the fact that they could be paid a near market salary via MLS’s designated player rule has meant it’s a reasonable option for a good player.
Did I mention the NBA? Don’t think I did.
Which is irrelevant. The point of comparison was the fact that the NCAA, like US Soccer, is not owned in any traditional sense.
Because the agreements collectively bargained by the respective teams don’t say that. They could agree to play for almost nothing, and just survive on sponsorships, but I doubt most players (especially female players) would agree to that.
Yes: “USWNT in the past frequently lost to U-15 boy club teams.”
And I can somewhat vouch for that based on conversations I have had with people I played soccer with, and people who work with and for US Soccer. But feel free to consider it unverified if you wish.
Some would. I doubt it would be a mass exodus, but I think the basis for collective bargaining would preclude such an event happening given the disparate revenue created by the teams. More importantly though, it would just be an unfair thing to do.
But that is not the issue. You argued everyone should be paid the same. That doesn’t mean they all need to make a lower wage. Surely we should pay the grunts what their higher paid brethren are making, right?
Both professionals are somewhat insulated from market forces due to the near monopoly the public sector has on jobs, so I disagree with your contention. Further, the sentence you were quoting is comparing TEACHERS and ATHLETES, not soldiers.
Nope. Just link to some stats showing girls playing soccer more relative to boys, and how that correlates with the success of the USWNT. Stories are great, but they don’t usually fuel long term trends. This is why despite the success of the USWNT, almost no one watches NWSL.
I completely disagree. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to subsidize the women’s pro league. More importantly, any growth is basically limited by the collective apathy we have for women’s pro sports in general. Can you name any, successful, profitable women’s pro league in any sport?
Did I say anyone changed their citizenship based on the pay scale? When we started paying well, hiring legit coaches, and funding out youth schools, people started to realize we were taking international competition seriously. That’s why they came.
No, it would not. We have or have had people on the USMNT that were connected to Norway, Germany, Argentina, Italy, Mexico, etc.
I was saying playing on a successful NT boosts the profile of many of the players who also play in the MLS.
You are putting the cart before the horse. The USWNT has been successful longer than the NWSL has been in existence. The USWNT isn’t relying on the NWSL to get talent.
Yes! Because they bring in FAR more money. You are making my argument for me.
How can you be ignorant of this basic fact for so long? This IS professional sports. Both the USWNT and the USMNT are PROFESSIONALS. Yes, they participate in “amateur” events, but they are professionals in every meaningful sense.
I agree. I was futilely trying to work within your terrible analogy.
No, I don’t think anyone said that. Either way it’s not accurate AFAIK. In fact, the MLS and US Soccer have not gotten along at all recently.
And the US team doesn’t? I don’t recall the US team winning the world cup.
These are all “market” driven arguments.
To repeat my question in the context of the post it was responding to (which claimed that the US national team needed to pay more to entice these players to paly on the US national team:
“Will they all quit or change their nationality to a better paying country if they are paid the same as the women? Can you name one soccer player on the USMNT that changed to US citizenship because of the the pay scale on the USMNT.”
No but my job is not to inspire people and increase the popularity of a sport.
I still don’t understand why people think they can use professional sports leagues and professional athlete salaries in those professional sports leagues as an argument for disparate pay on the national teams.