Yes, it is totally a fan problem. Fan interest is what determines the scale of the economy. If the same amount of fans watches women's soccer, then the revenue would be the same, and thus the salaries would be the same.
To your final question, no the US should not get a fraction of what France and Portugal get. I don't say this to get into a protracted argument, because you are a good poster, but you are seeing this too much with your heart instead of your head.
It's really simple. It's just like how Vanderbilt gets way more money than Houston or Boise St, even though both of those programs have won major bowl games and had much more success. The reason those programs don't get as much money is because they aren't able to compete in a more popular competition (the SEC).
It's the same thing with the soccer teams. The value is really from the competition you are able to participate in. The women don't compete in the more popular competition, so they simply don't have access to the same amount of money.
Here's the best way to look at it. Your argument is akin to saying a baseball player hitting .310 in Triple A should make the same money as a player hitting .260 in MLB. They won't, because competing in MLB is simply more valuable than competing in Triple A.
Also keep in mind, as stated by other posters, the women agreed to this contract, because they wanted a guaranteed income. That's because all the fans beating their chests about this equal pay thing don't show up to watch the women aside the big tournaments. They don't put their money where their mouth is. Enough fans (modest as it is) watch Landon Donavon and Clint Dempsey in MLS so those guys can make pretty good money. They don't have to depend on a guaranteed salary from the national team. The women's league pretty much has no fan base to speak of, and they are more dependent on their national team salary. That again goes back to the fans, who are the ones who ultimately determine the economic system of the sport.
No, I guarantee you I am not looking at this with my heart. I honestly couldn’t care less about men’s or women’s soccer. I hope they both do well but there is virtually no chance of me sitting down to watch an MLS game, let alone a professional women’s soccer game. I do enjoy watching the World Cup, but I am the definition of a casual soccer fan.
Also, I could not agree more that the coverage the women have received in the wake of their World Cup triumph has been ridiculously skewed and rose-colored.
I was particularly annoyed in the wake of Sunday’s match that the announcers couldn’t be bothered to spare 30 seconds of airtime to congratulate the Dutch for their historic run. Every time someone dared to e even mention the Netherlands and what they accomplished — even when they were receiving their second-place medals — another announcer would butt it in and make it all about the US.
I just found the whole thing to be very tasteless.
At one point, I was literally yelling at my television, “Show some class!” We don’t have to beat our chests or thumb our proverbial noses at anyone. Just show some dignity.
However, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with what I’m talking about. I am just talking about discrimination, plain and simple.
I think what you are describing w/r/t value is a FIFA issue and I don’t really have any quarrel with that point. If the men’s tournament makes $550+ million more than the women’s tournament, that should probably be reflected in prize monies. At the very least, it is not strictly a United States issue and there’s nothing that we can really do about that.
I’m talking about the United States Soccer Foundation and it’s practices.
To borrow from your league-affiliation analogy, this is not like Vanderbilt making more money than Houston, because Vandy plays in the SEC, whereas the Cougars compete in the AAC. This is more like the Vanderbilt men’s basketball team has four times more scholarships than the Commodores women’s basketball team. The men’s soccer team also has an exponentially greater travel budget, training budget, media budget, etc.
Then, when pressed on it, Vanderbilt chalks it up to merit. They say, if our women’s basketball team wants to have as many scholarships and travel budget, recruiting budget, etc., they will have to earn it like we have.
To which, the rest of the world says, “How exactly have you earned it? What have you done to earn anything?”
No, it’s definitely not merit. You are just very lucky to be affiliated with the wealthiest conference in the country. However, you are a leech on the system and your women’s basketball team is just a slightly bigger leech on the whole process.
Also, I’m not getting into the nitty-gritty of each team’s respective deals. Obviously, if they were to have serious discussions about revenue distribution, at some point it would reach the details phase. That’s not where I am here - not yet. I’m sure they would have to make some sacrifices in order to gain complete equality. That’s up to the negotiators for each side.
I am merely making the point that in the United States, it is a cultural expectation — and I suspect a legal one too — that the women will be compensated comparably for doing a comparable job. if not evenly, with their male counterparts for doing the same job for the same (umbrella) organization.
