OT: Watch Party for USA Women's Soccer game

[Fk_Pitt]

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Its like a basketball team in a new league running five players out there, and one of the five was at the end of his career hanging on by a string, and a liability to his team in many phases of the game against the better teams. But in this new league, any time there’s a shooting foul called, that one player can be used to step up to the foul line and be the one to hit the foul shots. That’s Megan RAMpinoe. Credit her for the poise to be the most dependable PK shooter on the team. But it has to be the most hollow golden boot in the history of soccer. I’d almost be embarrassed to accept the award. Then again, if I were Alex Morgan who was next in line for the award, I wouldn’t be proud if I were the forward on the best team in the world and all but one of my goals came against Thailand. That said, how many of the PKs stated above were drawn by her?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I think there's a lot of truth in that. Women in some countries still aren't permitted to vote, drive vehicles, and be formally educated - let alone play sports. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the best women's soccer is still played in the "Western" nations: the US, Canada, and Western Europe.

That’s all true. But that’s also PRECISELY why we need to support our women comparably to how our men are supported. This is not Egypt or Lebanon.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Let’s make this simple
We aren’t talking about salaries in clubs and pro leagues-
We’re talking about pay from the national program.

And let’s make this clear-
The United States program should pay the equally.
End of story .

Nothing else matters

I rarely say this but Soufie is absolutely right.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Here's the whole crux of the matter for me. The US women are paid what they are paid because they have a union, and their union negotiated them a contract that they all (or at least the vast majority of them) agreed to. If having the same deal as the men was what they really wanted and what they really felt they deserved then why didn't ask for that and why didn't they hold out for that?

And to answer my own question, there is a reason they didn't hold out for that. And part of that is that the women get things that the men don't as a part of their deal. For instance if they announce tomorrow at noon that everyone has agreed that going forward the women get the exact same deal as the men the over/under on when the announcement comes that the NWSL has ceased operations would probably be set at around 12:05. Because without the money that US Soccer puts into the NWSL there is no way that more than one or two NWSL franchises can operate at anything approaching a sustainable level. So the US women are going to all have to go overseas if they want to play at a higher than semi-professional level. On the other hand, US Soccer doesn't put one dollar into the operation of MLS.

Then, of course, those women better hurry out and buy themselves a health insurance plan, because one of the things that the women wanted and got that the men don't have is health insurance for the players and their families. The men don't get that, if for no other reason than the men don't need it because the clubs that the men play for all bring in enough money that they have health insurance through their club teams, not through US Soccer.

Then the other thing is that the top players, Rapinoe, Morgan, all the 23 women on the team plus a few others, need to hope that they don't get hurt. Because when Alex Morgan was hurt and couldn't play with the national team she still got paid money from US Soccer. When one of the men's players gets hurt and they don't play, whether that's Christain Pulisic or whether it's Sean Johnson, they don't get any money. The men only get paid when they are on the roster for a game, if they can't play for any reason, injury, club situation, whatever, they get nothing.

Well, that’s fair as well. There are good and bad things associated with equal treatment and that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

However, that’s a really good starting off point for negotiations. If you start off with the understanding that women and men are equal and deserve equal treatment you can come to a pretty fair agreement in fairly short order.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Its like a basketball team in a new league running five players out there, and one of the five was at the end of his career hanging on by a string, and a liability to his team in many phases of the game against the better teams. But in this new league, any time there’s a shooting foul called, that one player can be used to step up to the foul line and be the one to hit the foul shots. That’s Megan RAMpinoe. Credit her for the poise to be the most dependable PK shooter on the team. But it has to be the most hollow golden boot in the history of soccer. I’d almost be embarrassed to accept the award. Then again, if I were Alex Morgan who was next in line for the award, I wouldn’t be proud if I were the forward on the best team in the world and all but one of my goals came against Thailand. That said, how many of the PKs stated above were drawn by her?

On this point I have no opinion because I’m not informed enough to know who should have won the tournament MVP.

It did seem as though nearly all of Rapinoe’s goals came off penalty kicks. Then again, as we saw against England, penalty kicks are a pretty big deal.

However, out of curiosity, does the Golden Boot always go to a member of the winning team? Further, had you a vote, for whom would you have voted?

I don’t know if she was the MVP, but I do think the Lavelle girl who scored the second goal looks like a really talented young player. I kept noticing her during every game. Also, she was hurt in one of the games and our level of play dropped fairly dramatically without her on the field.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Its like a basketball team in a new league running five players out there, and one of the five was at the end of his career hanging on by a string, and a liability to his team in many phases of the game against the better teams. But in this new league, any time there’s a shooting foul called, that one player can be used to step up to the foul line and be the one to hit the foul shots. That’s Megan RAMpinoe. Credit her for the poise to be the most dependable PK shooter on the team. But it has to be the most hollow golden boot in the history of soccer. I’d almost be embarrassed to accept the award. Then again, if I were Alex Morgan who was next in line for the award, I wouldn’t be proud if I were the forward on the best team in the world and all but one of my goals came against Thailand. That said, how many of the PKs stated above were drawn by her?

I’ll defer to the soccer dudes
But both her and Morgan had 6 goals and 3 assists .
Morgan played 1 more game

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

However, out of curiosity, does the Golden Boot always go to a member of the winning team? Further, had you a vote, for whom would you have voted?

The Golden Boot is for the leading goal scorer of the tournament. Rapinoe had six, as did Morgan. The first tiebreaker is assists, where Rapinoe and Morgan were equal. The second tiebreaker is minutes played, with fewer minutes being better. Rapinoe played fewer minutes than Morgan did, so Rapinoe won the award rather than Morgan.

Three of Rapinoe's six goals were penalties. Five of Morgan's six goals came in the exhibition, er, I mean the opening game against Thailand. The best "real" goal scorer of the tournament was Ellen White of England who also had six but only had one assist. But there is no vote, it's simply most goals scored.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Perhaps though what you are thinking of is the Golden Ball, which is the award for the best player of the tournament. That is a media vote, but FIFA determines which players are on the ballot to be voted on.

Usually someone from the championship team wins that, but not always. Marta of Bazil won it one of the times that Germany was the champion. In 1999, the year the US won the game at the Rose Bowl when Brandi Chastain scored the championship winning penalty kick and then took her shirt off the winner was actually a Chinese player. The other six times the Golden Ball winner came from the team that won the championship.

If I had a vote for the Golden Ball I'd have had Lavelle, Mewis, Ertz, Dahlkamper and probably O'Hara all ahead of Rapinoe just from the US. Off the top of my head I'd have also had Lucy Bronze and White of England ahead of Rapinoe, as well as probably Martens and Miedema from the Netherlands and Asslani of Sweden. If you want to go back to teams that didn't advance as far and players who didn't play as much, you could pick up a couple players like Kerr of Australia, Dabritz of Germany, several of the French players, and probably a few others as well.

The fact is that Rapinoe simply didn't play all that well. But she's the one who people saw putting the ball into the net, and that's a big deal.

 

[Burgh15]

I don’t know if she was the MVP, but I do think the Lavelle girl who scored the second goal looks like a really talented young player. I kept noticing her during every game. Also, she was hurt in one of the games and our level of play dropped fairly dramatically without her on the field.

She seemed to be a popular pick and there was another name that escapes my mind.

 

[anon_d97v9o3a8b6xr]

There were a lot of solid players who were on teams not in the final. France, England, Sweden, Spain, Australia had players who were better than Rapinoe and Morgan. They just have worse teams.

 

[Panther Parrothead]

Perhaps though what you are thinking of is the Golden Ball, which is the award for the best player of the tournament. That is a media vote, but FIFA determines which players are on the ballot to be voted on.

Usually someone from the championship team wins that, but not always. Marta of Bazil won it one of the times that Germany was the champion. In 1999, the year the US won the game at the Rose Bowl when Brandi Chastain scored the championship winning penalty kick and then took her shirt off the winner was actually a Chinese player. The other six times the Golden Ball winner came from the team that won the championship.

If I had a vote for the Golden Ball I'd have had Lavelle, Mewis, Ertz, Dahlkamper and probably O'Hara all ahead of Rapinoe just from the US. Off the top of my head I'd have also had Lucy Bronze and White of England ahead of Rapinoe, as well as probably Martens and Miedema from the Netherlands and Asslani of Sweden. If you want to go back to teams that didn't advance as far and players who didn't play as much, you could pick up a couple players like Kerr of Australia, Dabritz of Germany, several of the French players, and probably a few others as well.

The fact is that Rapinoe simply didn't play all that well. But she's the one who people saw putting the ball into the net, and that's a big deal.

All good points. But the fact that England blew a bunch of penalty shots tells us how tough that it can be to kick that small ball into that big net. So there is something to be said for Rapinoe’s ability to convert those penalty kicks when her team needed ‘em the most. And that, I suspect, was what influenced the voters for the Golden Ball.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

All good points. But the fact that England blew a bunch of penalty shots tells us how tough that it can be to kick that small ball into that big net. So there is something to be said for Rapinoe’s ability to convert those penalty kicks when her team needed ‘em the most. And that, I suspect, was what influenced the voters for the Golden Ball.

I don't know if the numbers are the same for the women, but in the high level men's leagues and tournaments penalties are converted at around 75 percent. So someone who takes three of them should be expected to convert all three around 42 percent of the time.

Unless they're English.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Let’s make this simple
We aren’t talking about salaries in clubs and pro leagues-
We’re talking about pay from the national program.

And let’s make this clear-
The United States program should pay the equally.
End of story .

Nothing else matters

And I agree. With the US program. They draw equal revenue, win more and are arguably more popular. So....yeah. Is this what they are complaining against? Because if so, I am 1000% in their corner.

However, if it the fact that France got $30 million for winning the men's, and the US got $4million for winning the women's, FIFA World Cups, then no I don't agree, because the Men's revenue just dwarfed the Women's, in fact, the Women got MORE of their pool share relative to revenue than the Men.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Perhaps though what you are thinking of is the Golden Ball, which is the award for the best player of the tournament. That is a media vote, but FIFA determines which players are on the ballot to be voted on.

Usually someone from the championship team wins that, but not always. Marta of Bazil won it one of the times that Germany was the champion. In 1999, the year the US won the game at the Rose Bowl when Brandi Chastain scored the championship winning penalty kick and then took her shirt off the winner was actually a Chinese player. The other six times the Golden Ball winner came from the team that won the championship.

If I had a vote for the Golden Ball I'd have had Lavelle, Mewis, Ertz, Dahlkamper and probably O'Hara all ahead of Rapinoe just from the US. Off the top of my head I'd have also had Lucy Bronze and White of England ahead of Rapinoe, as well as probably Martens and Miedema from the Netherlands and Asslani of Sweden. If you want to go back to teams that didn't advance as far and players who didn't play as much, you could pick up a couple players like Kerr of Australia, Dabritz of Germany, several of the French players, and probably a few others as well.

The fact is that Rapinoe simply didn't play all that well. But she's the one who people saw putting the ball into the net, and that's a big deal.

At the end of the day, does it really matter? I mean Sidney Crosby won the 2016 Conn Smythe. You could have made just as good of a case for Kris Letang or Phil Kessel or even Matt Murray to have won it. I don't think this is the big deal people are making out to be. Or.....is it being made a big deal because people don't like her??

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

But here is the dishonesty in reporting (I know, surprise) by our media. Again, in an article referring to the Women's victory and how it was a victory for "equality" (again, I don't get this because a bunch of women beat a bunch of other women though I am not so sure that one Dutch girl is a.....anyways) but in this article to refer to the equal pay angle. And the fact that US only got $4 million in winners pool, while France (the Men's champ in 2018) got $38 million.

Since it was printed in a newspaper, I would expect some degree of journalism, and therefore waiting for the qualifier in their where the revenues of the Men were like 40 times higher than what the women pulled in....and.....reading.....and reading.....and of course this was conveniently left out of the article. Now most people aren't smart like us good folks on this board, they will just read this and look at it and want pitchforks out because of the inequality!!!! But nowhere does it say the men's winners got 7% of the overall revenue and the women's winners got 13% of their overall winner.

This is exactly the crap I was talking about in my manifesto above. Soufie, talk about skewing things to create outrage, well there ya go. Ain't always Fox News.

 

[Pitt69]

I rarely say this but Soufie is absolutely right.

From the Cheap Seats; totally agree with the revenue developed in the USA. If the women want to include FIFA money in their deal, they are way out of line. FIFA is not my favorite operation, but I do believe that on a world wide basis the men's game generates far more revenue than the women's game. Hence there will still be a difference in the bottom line.

 

[Burgh15]

At the end of the day, does it really matter? I mean Sidney Crosby won the 2016 Conn Smythe. You could have made just as good of a case for Kris Letang or Phil Kessel or even Matt Murray to have won it. I don't think this is the big deal people are making out to be. Or.....is it being made a big deal because people don't like her??

I think it's more because Rapinoe didn't have a significant impact during game play as some of the other players in the tournament. Was there any point that you watched her and said "that is the best player on the field"? You could in the case of the Penguins for many of those guys.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

If I had a vote for the Golden Ball I'd have had Lavelle, Mewis, Ertz, Dahlkamper and probably O'Hara all ahead of Rapinoe just from the US.

The fact is that Rapinoe simply didn't play all that well. But she's the one who people saw putting the ball into the net, and that's a big deal.

The fact is, the US didn’t have a stand out this year worthy. Lavelle and Ertz May have been the most valuable but they just didn’t fill the stat sheet. Their midfield play is what makes that team click. I’d include Mewis in that too. Horan is regarded as one of the best players on the team, yet couldn’t get on the field ahead of those 3.

I think it's more because Rapinoe didn't have a significant impact during game play as some of the other players in the tournament. Was there any point that you watched her and said "that is the best player on the field"? You could in the case of the Penguins for many of those guys.

At the end of the day, does it really matter? I mean Sidney Crosby won the 2016 Conn Smythe. You could have made just as good of a case for Kris Letang or Phil Kessel or even Matt Murray to have won it. I don't think this is the big deal people are making out to be. Or.....is it being made a big deal because people don't like her??

I don’t think anyone is making a big deal of it. It’s just a point of conversation. We all know as sports fans that the player with the goal stats is going to get the glory. Regardless of how they come.

Because of the dreadful local talk radio, I’ve been listening to non stop soccer talk radio for most of the summer on XM. And while just about every host, guest and caller acknowledges that Rapinoe wasn’t very good between the whistles throughout the tournament, no one was knocking her for her accolades.

 

[PittAU]

But here is the dishonesty in reporting (I know, surprise) by our media. Again, in an article referring to the Women's victory and how it was a victory for "equality" (again, I don't get this because a bunch of women beat a bunch of other women though I am not so sure that one Dutch girl is a.....anyways) but in this article to refer to the equal pay angle. And the fact that US only got $4 million in winners pool, while France (the Men's champ in 2018) got $38 million.

Since it was printed in a newspaper, I would expect some degree of journalism, and therefore waiting for the qualifier in their where the revenues of the Men were like 40 times higher than what the women pulled in....and.....reading.....and reading.....and of course this was conveniently left out of the article. Now most people aren't smart like us good folks on this board, they will just read this and look at it and want pitchforks out because of the inequality!!!! But nowhere does it say the men's winners got 7% of the overall revenue and the women's winners got 13% of their overall winner.

This is exactly the crap I was talking about in my manifesto above. Soufie, talk about skewing things to create outrage, well there ya go. Ain't always Fox News.

Some of the reporting on the pay gap has been just awful. This morning in the Pittsburgh Tribune/Valley News Dispatch a woman wrote a story supporting the equal pay. She interviewed various soccer people from around Pittsburgh. But then she got one major piece of information incorrect.

The women won a record fourth World Cup on Sunday, bringing in a $30 million prize, according to CNN. The winner of the 2018 men’s World Cup got $400 million.


According to this story, written before the WWC began……..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/the-2019-womens-world-cup-prize-money-is-30-million.html

For the next month, 552 players representing 24 countries will compete to be named World Cup champions and for prize money — more than ever before. In October 2018, FIFA president Gianni Infantino announced that FIFA would raise the total prize money for the Women’s World Cup from $15 million to $30 million. The champions will take home $4 millionof those funds.

“It’s a very important message for women’s football. It will certainly boost this World Cup even more,” said Infantino at a news conference.

But critics unimpressed, including global footballers’ union FIFPRO.

“Despite these changes football remains even further from the goal of equality for all World Cup players regardless of gender,” said FIFPRO in a statement. “In reality, the changes actually signify an increase in the gap between men’s and women’s prize money. This regressive trend appears to contravene FIFA’s statutory commitment to gender equality.”

During the 2018 FIFA Men’s World Cup in Russia, 32 teams competed for $400 million in prize money. The champions, France, took home $38 million — more than all 24 women’s teams will compete for in 2019. This year, the women’s teams will split 7.5% of the total prize money that the men enjoy.

Throw in this from Rich Lowry’s story in the New York Post and the demand for equal money gets even more muddled

https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/us-womens-soccer-team-equal-pay-gripe-is-less-than-it-seems/

This seems blatantly unfair, until you take into account the vastly different viewership and revenue from the two events. FIFA raked in more than $6 billion from the 2018 men’s World Cup. The women’s 2019 World Cup has been projected, when all is said and done, to make about $130 million.

 

[topdecktiger]

That's actually 180 degrees opposite of the point I was making. Revenue generation only matters sometimes. It depends on the economy of the system. If Pitt only received the revenue it actually generated for the conference (as a proportion), none of us would have warm fuzzy feelings about being in the ACC. It's not totally a "fan" problem and there are definitely economic factors. Both sides have merit.

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.

Right, but to take this argument to its logical conclusion, who is generating the lion’s share of that worldwide revenue? Is it the middle-of-the-road USNMT or is it the South American and European powers that regularly advance to the quarterfinals, semifinals and finals?

So, why should England share some of its purse with the US? Why should Brazil not take off a much larger percentage than we get?

People deride the women and say that the majority of the fans are only interested in women soccer whenever they are playing in the World Cup or the Olympics? I think that’s undeniably true. However, that’s also largely true of men’s soccer.

Do people really give a shit about Clint Dempsey or Landon Donovan in an off year? The answer is no! In fact, it is a resounding no! How many casual American sports fans — the types of fans people are describing here — can name those dude’s club team’s? Hell, how many of those types of fans can name five MLS teams?

I guarantee you that would be a very low percentage of Americans on both counts.

Now, there are enough fans of men’s soccer in this country to make it a solid minor-league type sport here – relative to the rest of the world. However, let’s not pretend that it’s the NFL because it’s just not.

That said, the sport is clearly growing here and you’d have to have your head in the sand to fail to see that. A large reason for that growth is because the European leagues have invested in the United States. That’s because they know that it’s good for the long-term viability and health of the sport if the United States were to become a factor in worldwide soccer. They are investing in us because we represent a large and wealthy potential target.

Why can people see that but not see how that exact same logic would be applied to women soccer and specifically the USNWT? It’s the exact same logic, guys. Guys, half the world’s population are women. If you can figure out a way to further engage them, you’re going to make a lot more money. That’s a really good target DNA.

You can’t be for socialism in some cases but against it in others. If you want to be a pure capitalist, fine, so be it. However, then the United States men’s team should only get a fraction of what France and Portugal get, right?

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.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

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.

It's not quite that complicated. It is based on revenue not merit. Right? It doesn't matter who is better or who could beat each other head to head. Notre Dame brings in more TV money and revenue than Alabama and Clemson, but they aren't as good.

Again, the difficulty about this argument/debate is most of our journalism majors never took a course (evidently this is not taught in schools) called "OBJECTIVITY". Everything has to now fit a narrative. So yeah, the US women's team is more popular than the US Men's team. They generate equal revenues in their events. And of course, the women perform better within their own group than the men. That's all true. And that all does scream "EQUAL PAY!!!!"

But FIFA, these World Cup's are NOT a US sanctioned event. The US has not control over it. In every other country, women's soccer is not as big as men's. And the Men's revenue of $6 billion, the women $131 million in their respective World Cup's and BOOM. End of debate. End of debate.

The US Women should get equal compensation from the US Soccer whatever that does this stuff. BUT......the USWNT got exactly what it deserved in the FIFA World Cup compared to the men.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

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.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

At the end of the day, does it really matter?

Well no, of course not. At the end of the day nothing that we talk about here matters. Hell, at the end of the day who won the Women's World Cup doesn't really matter for all but a few people. It's just something to have a discussion about to pass the time and entertain ourselves.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

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.

I know this seems to be really hard for you to understand, but the women simply are not doing the same job as the men. The men play against the best soccer teams in the world. The women don't ever play against one of the top 1000 teams in the world.

Your argument is exactly the same as if someone was arguing that single A baseball players should get paid exactly the same as major league baseball players, because, after all, they are doing literally the EXACT same job. And for the exact same (umbrella) organizations.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I know this seems to be really hard for you to understand, but the women simply are not doing the same job as the men. The men play against the best soccer teams in the world. The women don't ever play against one of the top 1000 teams in the world.

Your argument is exactly the same as if someone was arguing that single A baseball players should get paid exactly the same as major league baseball players, because, after all, they are doing literally the EXACT same job. And for the exact same (umbrella) organizations.

No, it’s not like arguing that at all — it’s just not. I certainly understand that people would like to frame the discussion in that way but it simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Your argument would have merit if I were arguing that the men’s U-20 team should be compensated like the USMNT team. However, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

It’s more like arguing that the Pitt women’s soccer team should be treated with the same resources and respect as the Pitt men’s soccer team. That’s a much better analogy...because it’s the same GD thing!

I’m not talking about what the NCAA should do, I’m talking about what Pitt should do — which is what Pitt controls.

Again, I’m not even talking about identical coaching compensation or anything like that. However, if the Pitt women have to travel to Raleigh to face NC State, they should stay in the same hotel as where the Pitt men stay when they play at NC State.

And if the men’s team flies to Raleigh, the women should fly to Raleigh too. They shouldn’t have to take a bus.

And if the men’s team has 20 scholarships, the women’s team should also have 20 scholarships.

And if the men’s team goes to a nice restaurant in Raleigh, the women’s team shouldn’t be forced to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or McDonald’s.

Why is this so controversial to so many of you? That’s the part that honestly makes no sense to me.

This discussion has nothing to do with the relative quality of the teams involved or even global revenues. This is about discrimination.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

No, it’s not like arguing that at all — it’s just not. I understand that people keep wanting to make that argument but it simply doesn’t hold up.

It's actually exactly that argument. I mean I get why you would want to ignore something that exposes your argument for what it is, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

The US women do not do the same job as the men. They do not play the best teams in the world. They do not play in events that bring in anywhere near as much money. The value that the marketplace has shown that their activities have is far less than the value that the marketplace has shown what men's soccer is. Your argument would be the one to make if Megan Rapinoe was the starting left wing for the one and only US national team and she was being paid far less than the male starting right wing was being paid even though they were producing at relatively the same rate. Unfortunately for her, she's not.

Your argument is EXACTLY that the single A baseball player should be making the same amount as a major leaguer. It is literally two people doing the EXACT same job for the EXACT same organization, and yet one making many multiples of what the other makes.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, I’m sorry but that’s just not right. You can say otherwise 1000 times, but it’s very clear that my analogy is much more accurate than yours for all of the reasons I have already outlined.

You are talking about two people who play the exact same sport but at different levels. Theoretically, a guy who plays single-A baseball could one day become a Major League Baseball player. It happens all the time.

Women’s soccer players do not play the exact same sport as men’s soccer and have no such avenues for advancement. That represents a very clear difference. Megan Rapinoe is no more likely to ever play for the USMNT than is her girlfriend, and former WNBA star, Sue Bird.

That was my point yesterday when I said it was ridiculous that they were comparing Jill Ellis’s achievement to the achievements of some of the great men’s coaches of all-time. I think it’s silly when they compare Gino Auriemma to John Wooden. They coach different sports and do not share records.

However, that does not mean that the women face a different set of rigors or challenges than the men face. They’re constantly getting on flights to Asia, Europe and Central and South America as well. They are training year-round as well. They’re constantly asked to do media and corporate appearances as well.

What are we even doing here? This is a ridiculously lopsided debate.

It comes down to this: you’re either pro discrimination or you’re not. If you choose to be pro discrimination for whatever reason you choose to rationalize that discrimination, that’s entirely your prerogative. However, I’m not going there with you.

We could go further down this rabbit hole if you choose, but I don’t see any reason to do that. It is very clear that we are each firmly entrenched in our respective positions and I certainly respect that. People don’t have to agree with me for me to know that I’m right about something and I’m sure you have a similar self-confidence.

 

[Burgh15]

This thread has a lot of the same arguments for and against paying college athletes.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Women’s soccer players do not play the exact same sport as men’s soccer

That's exactly the point. Women's soccer players aren't doing the same thing as the men. Therefore, when determining their "proper" compensation you are comparing apples to oranges. You've sort of pulled a SMF and made my point for me without seemingly realizing it.

You want to argue that they do different things, and therefore should be compensated the same. I'm pointing out the fact that that makes no sense. They don't do the same thing. Their compensation should be set by what the market determines their value to be. That may very well be more money for the women. I'm all for people striking while the iron is hot and using whatever leverage they can to get what they want. But what the men make shouldn't even be a consideration, because as you agree, they aren't play the same sport.

I do agree with you on one thing. It is a ridiculously lopsided debate. Lots of people want to compare two things that aren't the same as if they are to make their points. Some people even have to resort to pretending that people on the other side must be in favor of discrimination for pointing out the facts that they even admit that they agree to, because otherwise their whole argument falls apart.

 

[Ski11585]

But here is the dishonesty in reporting (I know, surprise) by our media. Again, in an article referring to the Women's victory and how it was a victory for "equality" (again, I don't get this because a bunch of women beat a bunch of other women though I am not so sure that one Dutch girl is a.....anyways) but in this article to refer to the equal pay angle. And the fact that US only got $4 million in winners pool, while France (the Men's champ in 2018) got $38 million.

Since it was printed in a newspaper, I would expect some degree of journalism, and therefore waiting for the qualifier in their where the revenues of the Men were like 40 times higher than what the women pulled in....and.....reading.....and reading.....and of course this was conveniently left out of the article. Now most people aren't smart like us good folks on this board, they will just read this and look at it and want pitchforks out because of the inequality!!!! But nowhere does it say the men's winners got 7% of the overall revenue and the women's winners got 13% of their overall winner.

This is exactly the crap I was talking about in my manifesto above. Soufie, talk about skewing things to create outrage, well there ya go. Ain't always Fox News.

Newspapers have been distorting facts and pushing agendas since the 1800s. This isn’t a new thing.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Newspapers have been distorting facts and pushing agendas since the 1800s. This isn’t a new thing.

So that makes it acceptable? It is really bad now, or perhaps we are just more "woke" to information at the tips of our fingers.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

That's exactly the point. Women's soccer players aren't doing the same thing as the men. Therefore, when determining their "proper" compensation you are comparing apples to oranges. You've sort of pulled a SMF and made my point for me without seemingly realizing it.

You want to argue that they do different things, and therefore should be compensated the same. I'm pointing out the fact that that makes no sense. They don't do the same thing. Their compensation should be set by what the market determines their value to be. That may very well be more money for the women. I'm all for people striking while the iron is hot and using whatever leverage they can to get what they want. But what the men make shouldn't even be a consideration, because as you agree, they aren't play the same sport.

I do agree with you on one thing. It is a ridiculously lopsided debate. Lots of people want to compare two things that aren't the same as if they are to make their points. Some people even have to resort to pretending that people on the other side must be in favor of discrimination for pointing out the facts that they even admit that they agree to, because otherwise their whole argument falls apart.

Joe, again it is really not about being "the best"? I mean a lawyer who works in the IP department of Coke may not necessarily be better than the lawyer at some steel fabricator in Indiana, but he likely gets paid better. Why? Revenue? And that is what it is always about. Revenue.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

So that makes it acceptable? It is really bad now, or perhaps we are just more "woke" to information at the tips of our fingers.

Ie have been hearing the cries of media bias constantly for 20+ years so that it’s assumed as true.

#gaslighting

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Ie have been hearing the cries of media bias constantly for 20+ years so that it’s assumed as true.

#gaslighting

To be fair though, the only reason people think it's true is because it's so obvious anyone who opens their eyes can see it's true.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Ie have been hearing the cries of media bias constantly for 20+ years so that it’s assumed as true.

#gaslighting

What? This doesn't even make sense. You are getting more stupid defending this stuff, you know this?

 

[Fk_Pitt]

No, I’m sorry but that’s just not right. You can say otherwise 1000 times, but it’s very clear that my analogy is much more accurate than yours for all of the reasons I have already outlined.

You are talking about two people who play the exact same sport but at different levels. Theoretically, a guy who plays single-A baseball could one day become a Major League Baseball player. It happens all the time.

Women’s soccer players do not play the exact same sport as men’s soccer and have no such avenues for advancement. That represents a very clear difference. Megan Rapinoe is no more likely to ever play for the USMNT than is her girlfriend, and former WNBA star, Sue Bird.

That was my point yesterday when I said it was ridiculous that they were comparing Jill Ellis’s achievement to the achievements of some of the great men’s coaches of all-time. I think it’s silly when they compare Gino Auriemma to John Wooden. They coach different sports and do not share records.

However, that does not mean that the women face a different set of rigors or challenges than the men face. They’re constantly getting on flights to Asia, Europe and Central and South America as well. They are training year-round as well. They’re constantly asked to do media and corporate appearances as well.

What are we even doing here? This is a ridiculously lopsided debate.

It comes down to this: you’re either pro discrimination or you’re not. If you choose to be pro discrimination for whatever reason you choose to rationalize that discrimination, that’s entirely your prerogative. However, I’m not going there with you.

We could go further down this rabbit hole if you choose, but I don’t see any reason to do that. It is very clear that we are each firmly entrenched in our respective positions and I certainly respect that. People don’t have to agree with me for me to know that I’m right about something and I’m sure you have a similar self-confidence.

You may have stated this somewhere, and I’m sorry if I missed it, but what do you suggest? Should FIFA be creating a more equitable solution? Or should it be US Soccer? Who is dropping the ball?

I have no skin in the game and if anything I am pro USWNT because of my envolvment in the female side of the game. And I am all for the women getting what they deserve. How much is that?

Seems like everyone agrees that the men’s game and women’s game are two different products. If my wife and I sell two different products to the market, and my product generates $6 billion in global revenue, while my wife’s product generates $200 million, why should my wife get paid the same commissions that I do?

And I also know that the sales reps in my current company have different compensation plans based on the size of their individual markets. A rep in a small market with a small book of business makes less than a rep in a large market with a large book of business.

It really is common sense, and I’m afraid that it’s simply gender that is clouding this issue.

But whatever the women get from US Soccer, I feel US soccer needs to break the chain and go above and beyond. It’s a unique situation in this country where the women’s game may help sell the men’s game to new customers. Everywhere else in the world that is not the case.

I understand the need for fair pay (whatever that is). But not equal pay. If gender is taken out of the discussion and only the facts and data were considered, there would be no discussion.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

What? This doesn't even make sense. You are getting more stupid defending this stuff, you know this?

He’s trolling. It’s the only explanation. No one with an IQ over 60 could believe what he’s saying.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

That’s all true. But that’s also PRECISELY why we need to support our women comparably to how our men are supported. This is not Egypt or Lebanon.

The men's world cup grossed about $6 billion worldwide; the women's $130 million. Player compensation will be generally proportionate as a result of the inherent $$ disparity.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

The men's world cup grossed about $6 billion worldwide; the women's $130 million. Player compensation will be generally proportionate as a result of the inherent $$ disparity.

we get that and my point about the mens being over paid is spot on. 99% of the argument that they make what they do is due to the popularity of the sport outside of this country and very little, if anything, to do with their on field performance or even their following (or lack therof) in this country..

the mens team are a joke globally and irrelevant in this country, absolutely irrelevant. but yeah, soccer is big in Europe, south America, asia, Africa so they won the lottery.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

we get that and my point about the mens being over paid is spot on. 99% of the argument that they make what they do is due to the popularity of the sport outside of this country and very little, if anything, to do with their on field performance or even their following (or lack therof) in this country..

the mens team are a joke globally and irrelevant in this country, absolutely irrelevant. but yeah, soccer is big in Europe, south America, asia, Africa so they won the lottery.

I made a comment about investment somewhere. Just as it’s in the best interest for the women’s game to see $$ allocated toward countries in Europe and elsewhere...it’s in the interest of the men’s game to see $$ allocated to the US.

Imagine if the USA cared about soccer??? The Scum who run FIFA would make significantly more for themselves and then wouldn’t have to solicit bribes all over the world.

Still can’t believe Qatar is hosting a World Cup. 120 degree soccer games will be swell.