EPTThe same argument is in tennis where women get the same amount of money for a grand slam win as men while they bring in a lot less viewers.
2015 - 2016 Football Thread - Page 315
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
The same argument is in tennis where women get the same amount of money for a grand slam win as men while they bring in a lot less viewers. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2722 Posts
| ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On April 01 2016 01:25 RvB wrote: Hardly anyone watches womens football. I don't get why they would have to get the same amount of money. The same argument is in tennis where women get the same amount of money for a grand slam win as men while they bring in a lot less viewers. Not only do women get the same money, they actually play fewer sets too. Women in tennis earn more than men  | ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
On April 01 2016 01:16 Acrofales wrote: Yeah. Not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it makes sense that the women playing for a national squad get the same as men playing for the national squad. On the other hand, their pay comes from TV and stadium money and however FIFA distributes that, and I am going to assume that that is simply far lower for women than for men. Agreed. Except in this case, the USWNT is arguing that they bring in more money than the men. Second paragraph of the article: "The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less." | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On April 01 2016 03:45 Titusmaster6 wrote: Agreed. Except in this case, the USWNT is arguing that they bring in more money than the men. Second paragraph of the article: "The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less." not surprising, they are the better team. | ||
|
Spiller
United States106 Posts
On April 01 2016 03:45 Titusmaster6 wrote: Agreed. Except in this case, the USWNT is arguing that they bring in more money than the men. Second paragraph of the article: "The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid almost four times less." That is a bit misleading though, since last year was a world cup year for the women and not for the men (the women already play more games than the men anyway) , as well as using some tricky accounting methods to get the numbers in their favor (I.E I believe those revenue numbers don't count TV Contracts and the mens world cup TV payout is much more than the womens) You would need to look at revenues over a 4 year period for both men and women, and you would need the totality of all revenues earned by both teams, which do not seem to be available to the public right now. I think the women should have used a different argument besides revenue though, perhaps their success relative to their peers. Of course the mens world cup is going to dwarf the womens world cup TV rights revenue, but that is more due to the fact that non-US countries supply the best teams and often the most eyeballs watching on TV. Meanwhile the Women are one of 3 or 4 countries that make the Womens world cup great, as well as probably providing a larger % of the viewers. I Also saw a tweet that showed the player payout for the World Cup Championship winning team players, both women and men. The Women actually get a higher percentage of the World cup revenue, about 4% to 1%, but of course the actual $ amount is much higher for the men since the World cup revenue is much higher for the men. I definitely agree that the women should be payed more than they are now, but I think basing that argument on Mens vs Womens revenue is a flawed argument, unless the true numbers (I do not necessarily think that those numbers cited in the filing are the true numbers, lawyers are very tricky) show that they do in fact bring in more $ than the men. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
The equal pay thing has gotten out of hand, and is in this case non-sense; you can't compare entire squads with different players, calendars, viewers,etc. and pretend to make some sort of "fair" wage comparison. South american WC qualification standings after 6 matches; 7 competitive teams fighting for 4 and a half spots. ![[image loading]](http://cde.2.trome.pe/ima/0/1/1/4/3/1143756.jpg) | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18194 Posts
On April 01 2016 13:49 GoTuNk! wrote: I hate when people talk about who should get paid what based on arguments they make up to suit their feelings. Football is a business like any other, and the federation decides what people get payed. If they don't like it, they should follow the steps inside the organization to get a raise, not sue their paying hand; no one is forcing them to play. The equal pay thing has gotten out of hand, and is in this case non-sense; you can't compare entire squads with different players, calendars, viewers,etc. and pretend to make some sort of "fair" wage comparison. South american WC qualification standings after 6 matches; 7 competitive teams fighting for 4 and a half spots. of course they can sue. Clearly "whatever the federation decides people get paid" is not what they want to get paid, and presumably the "steps inside the organization" are not working to address that. Now there's an obvious recourse that they did not take, which is to quit the national team (and maybe unionize, so other potential female players join their efforts), but that seems even more draconian than suing their "paying hand". In other news, Brazil is not competitive. A competitive Brazil destroys Paraguay without breaking a sweat. The competitive teams are Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia and, quite surprisingly, Ecuador. | ||
|
malcram
2752 Posts
| ||
|
haitike
Spain2722 Posts
| ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
On April 01 2016 12:03 Spiller wrote: That is a bit misleading though, since last year was a world cup year for the women and not for the men (the women already play more games than the men anyway) , as well as using some tricky accounting methods to get the numbers in their favor (I.E I believe those revenue numbers don't count TV Contracts and the mens world cup TV payout is much more than the womens) You would need to look at revenues over a 4 year period for both men and women, and you would need the totality of all revenues earned by both teams, which do not seem to be available to the public right now. Yes of course. In fact, the total sponsor revenue for the women’s world cup was around $17 million, and the total sponsor revenue for the men’s world cup was around $576 million. I was simply pointing out one of the major things from the article that the USWNT was using to back up their argument. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3993 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
This also doesn't take into account the large amount of benefits (especially health benefits and injury protection) that the WNT gets from the USSF that the MNT doesn't. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2722 Posts
On April 02 2016 01:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: Our women's team may embarrass our men's team, but they still don't make anywhere near as much money as the men do, and if we're going to act on business principles, this means that the men should be making more. And I'm not sure about that. I think that teams eliminated in Men WC group phase has more level of play than Women WC champion. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 02 2016 01:53 haitike wrote: And I'm not sure about that. I think that teams eliminated in Men WC group phase has more level of play than Women WC champion. Well yes, the women's game, in terms of absolute skill, is atrocious compared to the men's game. Our women's team just performs better in their sport compared to the men's team in their sport. This is also why I don't think you can say that the two teams perform the same job. Not only is the competition for the USWNT significantly easier than the competition for the MNT, but the quality of product that's actually put on the field is objectively worse, and this is easily shown whenever a women's team from any country tries to play a U-X men's team and gets trounced. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
Middlesbrough are playing now 1:1 all at Loftus Road. | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On April 02 2016 03:53 Pandemona wrote: Is women's football treated the same as women's basketball in US? xD i hear of many jokes of womens basketball do the footballers get same treatment? let be real, i dont think any women's sports is treated the same as men's sport counterparts. | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18566 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:57 Greg_J wrote: The only exception is tenis also the only sport where women have to do less than the men (play less sets) At least in football the women also play 45x2. | ||
| ||
