Social US Women's National Team Just Want To Be Treated Fairly - The Men's Can't Even Qualify For World Cup

You get paid what you bring in

That would be millions in profit, while U.S Soccer is projected to lose money on the Men's team this year.


In 2015, the women’s team won the World Cup and then embarked on a scheduled 10-city victory tour that yielded an eight-figure bump to U.S. Soccer’s bottom line. As a result, the women brought in more than $23 million in game revenue, about $16 million more than the federation had projected.

After expenses, the women turned a profit of $6.6 million last year. The men? Their profit was just under $2 million.

Looking ahead, U.S. Soccer’s 2017 budget predicts that trend will be repeated: Expecting another Olympic gold medal, and another victory tour, the federation has forecast a profit of more than $5 million for the women’s team in the next fiscal year (on $17.5 million in revenue).

The men? U.S. Soccer figures they will lose about $1 million this year (on only $9 million in revenue).


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html
 
Last edited:
U.S. Women's National Team's Argument for Equal Pay Just Got Stronger
By Jeff Green and Eben Novy-Williams | October 13, 2017

1200x-1.jpg


U.S. Soccer has long justified paying the men’s national team more than the women in part because, it argues, the men’s team earns more money.

That rationale took a beating this week, when the men’s team failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, a shocking result that also hurts U.S. Soccer’s bottom line.


“The women have always been doing the same job as the men, for the same employer, and doing it better -- not, at least as good, but better,” said Jeffrey Kessler, the labor lawyer who is representing the women in the complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “The fact that the men did not make the World Cup just underscores, emphasizes, emphatically emboldens the point.”

As women’s sports have grown more popular, so has the pressure on sports teams to re-examine the pay policy for male and female players. Norway this week said it will pay its men and women’s national soccer players equally for the first time. U.S. Hockey earlier this year said it will do the same.

Relative to their competition, the U.S. women’s team has dramatically out-performed the men. The U.S. women won World Cup titles in 1991, 1999 and 2015, plus Olympic gold medals in 1996, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In that span, the men have advanced past the Round of 16 in just one World Cup, and haven’t won a single Olympic medal. In the past decade, the women’s team’s ranking hasn’t dipped below No. 2; the men haven’t been higher than No. 14 and are currently ranked 28.

“The women’s national team has always been and will continue to be an important part of U.S. Soccer and the overall landscape of the sport in this country,” a spokesman for U.S. said.

Despite their success, the women’s team gets paid less. In the complaint to the EEOC, the women pointed out that they could earn a maximum of $99,000 for 20 games compared to $263,320 for the men. The new contract signed by the women’s team this year narrowed that gap, but the women still earn less, Kessler said.

In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, U.S. soccer spent $49.8 million on the men’s team and $18.8 million on the women’s squad, according to an independent audit. U.S. Soccer had estimated it will have a 2017 net profit of about $5 million from women’s soccer and a $1 million loss for the men’s program. The EEOC said it has no comment on the pay complaint.

Kessler said that, win or lose, revenue for men’s sports should not part of the equation: “The reason they are entitled to equal pay is that they are engaged in equal work.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...er-s-argument-for-equal-pay-just-got-stronger
 
Last edited:
There was an MLS game in Atlanta recently that had over 70k in attendance. I wonder what the largest crowd has been for a woman's pro game. Men are better at sports than women, and therefore draw bigger crowds, and pull in more money. The US men's team also would have won the women's World Cup.
 
I really enjoy watching women's soccer and just watched the nwsl championship. The stadium might have been 15% full, granted it was in a neutral city. The woman's game in America has been around professionally for less than 10 years and is nowhere near the men's as far as skill, talent, speed, established mythos, flow, etc... Do other women's athletes get paid as much as their male counterparts? The answer is no, not if the consumer isn't buying...

Now if the argument is "hey, we're selling as much or more advertisement, tickets, merchandise, influence, etc and we're getting paid a smaller percentage when compared to men in the same sport" then there is justification to speak up...

The women's national team has been more successful than the men's recently but there are many factors including the lack of high quality leagues/talent around the world. It's just not "apples to apples"...
 
I don't know enough about soccer to know if the women have a case here.

But on it's face, performing better relative to competition seems like a weak argument to me, that is only effective because pro sports in general are designed to obscure the fact that the bottom line of the business is selling tickets, tv ads, and merchandise, not winning.

If the men really do earn more, then they are worth more. However, if the difference in earnings is not great, then this is a pr disaster.
 
There was an MLS game in Atlanta recently that had over 70k in attendance. I wonder what the largest crowd has been for a woman's pro game. Men are better at sports than women, and therefore draw bigger crowds, and pull in more money. The US men's team also would have won the women's World Cup.

This announcement from US Soccer is literally one post above your own:

In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, U.S. soccer spent $49.8 million on the men’s team and $18.8 million on the women’s squad, according to an independent audit. U.S. Soccer had estimated it will have a 2017 net profit of about $5 million from women’s soccer and a $1 million loss for the men’s program.

So at the end of the day, who's making more money for U.S Soccer? The net profit or the net loss? o_O

But then again, this is the NATIONAL TEAMS we're talking about. You know, the ones who represents our country in international competitions?

Earlier in the thread, some people said we shouldn't judge the Men's National Teams on their elimination at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Then somebody said we shouldn't judge the Women's National Team's Championship at the 2015 World Cup in Canada.

Something tells me the same excuse is going to be repeated for the 2018 World Cup in Russia (that the Men's team can't even qualify for, after getting wrecked by Trinidad and Tobago during the elimination rounds), and then again for the 2019 World Cup in France where the women will undoubtedly excels, again.







 
Last edited:
This announcement from US Soccer is literally one post above your own:

In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, U.S. soccer spent $49.8 million on the men’s team and $18.8 million on the women’s squad, according to an independent audit. U.S. Soccer had estimated it will have a 2017 net profit of about $5 million from women’s soccer and a $1 million loss for the men’s program.

So at the end of the day, who's making more money for U.S Soccer? o_O

Earlier in the thread, some people said we shouldn't judge the Men's National Teams on the results of the 2014 World Cup. Then somebody said we shouldn't judge the Women's National Team on their 2015 World Cup. Then somebody else said she shouldn't judge this on the 2016 season.

Something tells me the same excuse is going to be repeated for the 2017 season and the 2018 World Cup that the Men's team can't even qualify for, after getting wrecked by Trinidad and Tobago during the elimination rounds.





You'd really have to take an average across years or run projections or something. If there is one bad year (or one good year) then it is misleading to take that as a snapshot trying to represent the bigger picture.

Also I wonder if the womens league would make 5 million profit if it paid them the same as the mens.

There are a lot of factors. Like what percentage of overall revenue is spent on players salary between the two, etc.
 
You'd really have to take an average across years or run projections or something. If there is one bad year (or one good year) then it is misleading to take that as a snapshot trying to represent the bigger picture.

Also I wonder if the womens league would make 5 million profit if it paid them the same as the mens.

There are a lot of factors.

Since this thread is about the National Teams (despite people constantly trying to derail it), would it be fair if we use the teams' success and failures at the most recent World Cups and Olympics as the benchmarks?
 
Last edited:
Since it's the thread is about the National Teams (despite people constantly trying to derail it to MLS teams), would it be fair if we use their success and failures at the World Cups and the Olympics as the benchmarks?

Success in terms of revenue or profit I think would be relevant. As long as it is an apples to apples comparison with some averaging. Seems like that would be the best way to compare the two.

The men are competing in a much more competitive league obviously so just looking at wins seems an odd way to compare when the topic is expenditures.
 
Success in terms of revenue or profit I think would be relevant. As long as it is an apples to apples comparison with some averaging. Seems like that would be the best way to compare the two.

Let's do that then. We'll average out the last two World Cup and the next two World Cup.

- American revenues/profits from the U.S Men's National Team at the previous World Cup 2014 in Brazil vs. U.S Women's National Team at the previous World Cup 2015 in Canada.
- American revenues/profits for the U.S Men's National Team's at the next World Cup 2018 in Russia and the U.S Women's next World Cup 2019 in France.

Any objections to that apple-to-apple comparison?

No? Okay, here's the projections:

in 2015, the women’s team won the World Cup and then embarked on a scheduled 10-city victory tour that yielded an eight-figure bump to U.S. Soccer’s bottom line. As a result, the women brought in more than $23 million in game revenue, about $16 million more than the federation had projected.

After expenses, the women turned a profit of $6.6 million last year. The men? Their profit was just under $2 million.

Looking ahead, U.S. Soccer’s 2017 budget predicts that trend will be repeated: Expecting another Olympic gold medal, and another victory tour, the federation has forecast a profit of more than $5 million for the women’s team in the next fiscal year (on $17.5 million in revenue).

The men? U.S. Soccer figures they will lose about $1 million this year (on only $9 million in revenue).

 
Last edited:
This announcement from US Soccer is literally one post above your own:

In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, U.S. soccer spent $49.8 million on the men’s team and $18.8 million on the women’s squad, according to an independent audit. U.S. Soccer had estimated it will have a 2017 net profit of about $5 million from women’s soccer and a $1 million loss for the men’s program.

So at the end of the day, who's making more money for U.S Soccer? The net profit or the net loss? o_O

But then again, this is the NATIONAL TEAMS we're talking about. You know, the ones who represents our country in international competitions?

Earlier in the thread, some people said we shouldn't judge the Men's National Teams on the results of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Then somebody said we shouldn't judge the Women's National Team's smashing success at the 2015 World Cup in Canada.

Something tells me the same excuse is going to be repeated for the 2018 World Cup in Russia (that the Men's team can't even qualify for, after getting wrecked by Trinidad and Tobago during the elimination rounds), and then again for the 2019 World Cup in France where the women will excels, again.




I'll take a closer look when I'm sober,
 
Let's do that then, revenues and profits from the U.S Women's National Team's last World Cup in Canada 2015 vs. the U.S Men's National Team's at the next World Cup in Russia 2018.

Any objections?

Ah I think I have misunderstood, as others have, and as you have pointed out. This is simply the national team, like drawing talent from pro teams. So if the mens team didn't qualify for 2018 then I assume they won't be making much money and the womens will be making more

That does make a decent case for the women in that aspect of the equation.

I'm assuming the other aspect of the equation is 'how much money should be invested to draw talent and field a competitive team', and to that I wouldn't know

If they have invested more into fielding a competitive mens team and didn't get the results (in revenue) then it isn't a good investment when they fail to qualify. As to what their chances are each year in terms of qualifying I also wouldn't know.
 
In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, U.S. soccer spent $49.8 million on the men’s team and $18.8 million on the women’s squad, according to an independent audit. U.S. Soccer had estimated it will have a 2017 net profit of about $5 million from women’s soccer and a $1 million loss for the men’s program.

So give the women another 6 mil, they can both be at a 1 mil loss and have no complaints
 
Abolish women's soccer. If there's a demand, let someone willing to make money from it create the team.
 
Abolish women's soccer. If there's a demand, let someone willing to make money from it create the team.

Abolish the current World Cup champion (and record profit-generating) U.S Women's National Team because the pathetic Men's National Team failed to even qualify for the World Cup...?

Do you people even think with your brain? Do you even know what this thread is about? o_O



A year from now, which U.S National Team do you think America gonna be cheering for? The one kicking asses in the World Cup, from the Qualifying rounds all the way to the Finals (again), or the one sitting at home with their heads down in shame?

Who sells more jerseys?
I'm guessing the one who actually gonna be representing the USA.

 
Last edited:
Abolish the current World Cup champion (and record profit-generating) U.S Women's National Team because the pathetic Men's National Team failed to even qualify for the World Cup...?

Do you people even think with your brain? Do you even know what this thread is about? o_O



A year from now, which U.S National Team do you think America gonna be cheering for? The one kicking asses in the World Cup, from the Qualifying rounds all the way to the Finals (again), or the one sitting at home with their heads down in shame?


I'm guessing the one who actually gonna be representing the USA.


Then it won't be a problem for them to find an independent financial backer to support them. Right?
 
Then it won't be a problem for them to find an independent financial backer to support them. Right?

Shit, do you even know anything about the sport? Like, the most basic knowledge about how international soccer competitions work in general? :eek:

Which "independent financial backer" sanctioned by CONCACAF are you suggesting to replace the U.S Soccer Federation as the governing body for our U.S National Team? o_O
 
Last edited:
Back
Top