Billdo
Registered User
So in total if everything is broken down like a lot of you guys have done, men's soccer in total has more value than women's, correct?
Are you reading my posts at all?So in total if everything is broken down like a lot of you guys have done, men's soccer in total has more value than women's, correct?
Also consider that the men have to play WAY, WAY more games for FIFA World Cup qualifications which are brutally competitive, versus the Women.
Why?
WARNING: Potential Trigger alert (total sarcasm).
Because globally the men's game is ridiculously competitive, and the politically incorrect thing that is 100% true but that you are never, never, never, never, never going to hear in the media is that the women's game really isn't very competitive, with only about 6 teams that have a chance to win (USA, France, Sweden, England, Japan, Germany) at the start of the tournament*. Is that "fair" too? In a way, the women's game is sort of a sham at the moment. Worse than NBA basketball.
* I think I may be being charitable here too, it might be more like 4 or 5 at best.
And were in the actual World cup finals.Netherlands have a good team too, they won the 2017 Euro tournament.
Are you reading my posts at all?
I agree and the US women generate more then the US men.I am, yes. Shouldn't whoever produces the most revenue have the highest pay? I guess that's all I'm thinking about. It seems pretty cut and dry to me but I think I'm looking at this too simplistically.
And OK the women being great does coincide with the men being terrible. So for the past 3 years,(but it truly does goes beyond that given the US women are 2 time champs and as you noted had HUGE ratings in Vancouver) the women are out generating the men, yet make way less. Who in their right minds would not fight against that?
Netherlands have a good team too, they won the 2017 Euro tournament.
Why would we not place more relevance on the most recent 3 years? OK 20 years ago men made more $$$, wasn't AOL huge 20 years ago too?One other thing that should be noted as it's never pointed out.
You keep hearing how, "over the last 3 years the women earned slightly more in gate" than the men, which is true, but 2 of those 3 years the men earned more. Getting back to my media bias point, that odd phrasing de facto points to bias. You can point out the fact that the men & women earned about the same in that time-period while simultaneously noting that the men earned more in 2 of those 3 years.
But the more obvious bias is in the "cherry picking" of that very 3 year time-frame!
Q) Why do we repeatedly only keep hearing about those 3 years in the media? Seems odd right? Such a repeated focus on only this very specific 3 year time-frame in story after story.
A) Because in the preceding few years before that, the men made WAY, WAY more money than the women.
Again, I hate to pee in anyone's Cheerios, but I loathe media bias and always try to figure out the truth for myself. And the "truth" is, the media is getting very crafty trying to push this "pay equality" narrative.
Why would we not place more relevance on the most recent 3 years? OK 20 years ago men made more $$$, wasn't AOL huge 20 years ago too?
did the men make WAY more $$$ 4 years ago?
The media bias argument rings hollow when you have posted certain facts, like recent world cup revenue's, or the difficulty in qualifying for the respective tournaments, which turn out to be irrelevant to the argument.
it's great that you can find a couple people saying globally it should be equal. But there are certainly not many. The debate is US women vs US men.Yes. Many millions of dollars more in fact!
Kind of odd how that year specifically gets repeatedly left off various media outlet's analysis isn't it? FYI, the year before that the men also made many millions of dollars more as well.
What about the fact the women receive a guaranteed annual salary and the men dont. Do you think that's "fair" treatment?
This comment suggests you dont understand the world cup math & how it works.
Again, there are many claiming men and women should be paid the same at the world cup level as well, when you women's cup brought in a bit over 100 million, and the men's world cup brought in 6 BILLION, and player payment is directly linked to revenue. Anyone who understands that and yet STILL claims men & women should be paid the same, can only be pushing an agenda of bias.
Edit: and some actual #'s pertaining to 4-5-6 years ago would be helpful.
I mean, you know you can look that up for yourself? In 2015 the men brought in $12M more than the women, and 2014 the men brought in $8M more than the women.
Golly, that seems like it might be significant on a 23 person squad.
But yeah, there's nothing "biased" at all about every flippin' American media outlet saying, "over the last 3 years the women brought in more". Especially when "more" was really basically a tie, but I digress. Nope, no clear & obvious media narrative being pushed at all. lol
Ha, I used the same phrase above.
But as I ask above, how many years do the women have to out generate the men before their argument becomes legitimate in your eyes? 3 is apparently laughable. Is 5 years enough?
Would the women give up guaranteed money to make more money overall? I'd say yes.Do you think the women would trade their current situation in to have non-guaranteed money and earn the same ratio of payout as the men? If yes, then it wouldn’t matter the timeframes.
Would the women give up guaranteed money to make more money overall? I'd say yes.
Not sure how that makes the time frame inconsequential though.
Given the women dominate the men in TV ratings, the bundling of sponsorship $$$ is some book keeping that tilts heavily against the women.
They do? When are the women ever ON TV other than the World Cup? The men get a lot more TV time than the women in general, both national team wise and league-wise.
These are the two things about the women pushing the whole pay discrimination angle that bother me:If they’re willing to take the same percentage as the men then the difference in total revenue between the 2 won’t matter, they’ll be earning the same as the men no matter what.
Historically, they would be giving up money under this system but it would be a bet on themselves going forward.
These are the two things about the women pushing the whole pay discrimination angle that bother me:
1) It was their union who agreed to this deal, which at the time was favorable to them in that players got a guaranteed salary even if they didn't make the squad and very few could make a living on a club team. Next time if they ask for the same deal as the men problem solved. Unfortunately that would cause quite a few players to lose their main source of income (the salary).
2) It distracts from things where they have a completely legit gripe over inferior lodging, per diems, field conditions, travel ect. That's what they should be focusing on because that is totally unacceptable and total BS by USSF.