The issue is accounting. This is not a public company. This isn't even a PL club where we know all of the details on revenue, expenses, sponsorship deals, etc.
It's not like there are STAT and GAAP standards for how they report things to the media.
So right now you have one side saying revenue is strictly based on events or game receipts. the other saying revenue needs to factor in sponsorships.
No, not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what the players are wanting. Is it just more pay? Is it to be paid under the exact same structure as the men? Is it to be treated the same as the men, in terms of playing field surfaces, travel, etc.? I no longer know what the main goal or issue is anymore because it feels like the goalposts keep moving.
Both the Federation and Women are going to present their own biased/slanted cases on it. Revenue should factor in everything, but revenue is only relevant for the people saying players should be paid a % of revenue. Some years women have had the advantage, but typically, the men have the advantage. Revenue has nothing to do with making sure women play on grass surfaces and not turf. Revenue doesn't even impact that argument that many make that they should get more because they win more.
It seems to be that there really isn't anything that bad going on, and all that's need is a renegotiation of their CBA when it expires or get US Soccer to agree to a renegotiation now. They are being paid fairly, but maybe they want it structured differently. Maybe they want to be paid more instead of receiving benefits like health insurance, which the men do not receive.
I just wish people would stop acting like it's an apples to apples comparison, just how the NBA and WNBA isn't apples to apples. It's likely in the best interest of the women to receive health insurance through US Soccer, but they also need to understand that, that is apart of their compensation.