One aspect of the debate on equal pay seems to be the issue of who draws the biggest crowds - and yet seldom is the media's role in creating buzz for events ever factored in to the debate. Media outlets like NYT are critical in making mega-stars of athletes with front page coverage, special sections, cut outs, etc - yet rarely give women such pre-game coverage. Then they have the nerve to reference lower attendance as a justification not to give equal pay. GGrrrhhh!
1
To give readers a better understanding of whether there is disparity in pay based on gender, the Times should examine 2 sports where I believe the women are more popular (although the men are faster, stronger, etc): figure skating and gymnastics. I do not know the answer, but it would seem unfair if the women's teams brought in more revenue but were paid less than the men--and arguably unfair if they were paid the same.
Those women who believe women players deserve the same pay as male players have to help make it happen by buying tickets to women's games; buying their jerseys, watching their games on TV, etc.
The difference is not that the men are much stronger and faster players (though they are)--it is that they deliver the audiences and the purchases that fuel their salaries to be much higher.
This is NOT to say that boys' youth programs deserve more funding than girls' because the boys are stronger and faster--that funding should not be based on skill or economics, but rather on number of participants.
The difference is not that the men are much stronger and faster players (though they are)--it is that they deliver the audiences and the purchases that fuel their salaries to be much higher.
This is NOT to say that boys' youth programs deserve more funding than girls' because the boys are stronger and faster--that funding should not be based on skill or economics, but rather on number of participants.
3
Why don't they pool the money that the men and women bring in and split it equally among the programs? How can there ever be as much attention for women's soccer without the same support that men's soccer has seen all along?
2
Equal work? Men sprint faster, run more, faster pace, shoot faster shots, deliver more amazing breathtaking goals, commit less amateurish mistakes that would make you facepalm yourself (no one in NYT probably watched the 2015 Women's World Cup). As others point out, performance matters in absolute terms and biology sadly makes that hard to overcome. And women have less competition nationally than men. Beating up women in 3rd world countries with no womens' rights is considered an accomplishment? As opposed to men facing the best athletes in soccer crazy cultures of developing countries? Fortunately, the women's competition is getting better (England, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden - hint all developed countries) compared to men's where even N. Korea makes the World Cup and Iceland (Euro 2016 quarterfinalists) do not. That's real competition.
Those saying women's work is equal don't realize that being a big fish in a small pond is different than small fish in a big pond.
And I support fair pay for whatever you negotiate. People forget the pay structure for men players is different than national (club vs country) I think new contract is fair and good, and both feel like they won.
But I don't like when liberal news media flaunts"fake" social justice and heroism without looking at the facts and tries to slant stories to prey on readers' prejudices and their ignorance. I want objective, honest journalism and one NYT article on womens soccer did that but many didn't.
Those saying women's work is equal don't realize that being a big fish in a small pond is different than small fish in a big pond.
And I support fair pay for whatever you negotiate. People forget the pay structure for men players is different than national (club vs country) I think new contract is fair and good, and both feel like they won.
But I don't like when liberal news media flaunts"fake" social justice and heroism without looking at the facts and tries to slant stories to prey on readers' prejudices and their ignorance. I want objective, honest journalism and one NYT article on womens soccer did that but many didn't.
3
Really? So Carli Lloyd's goal from near midfield in the 2015 final doesn't rank with men's play? Would say this post smacks of sexism, but why bother.
4
what does "rank with men's play" mean? The entertainment value is subjective, the raw skill level is not and pretending like it is doesn't help this conversation.
An under 15 boys club team in Dallas beat the USWNT 5-2 just this week in a scrimmage:
http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-bea...
An under 15 boys club team in Dallas beat the USWNT 5-2 just this week in a scrimmage:
http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-bea...
1
Mr. Das closely follows the USWNT narrative of how unfair their pay is compared to the USMNT, but fails to even discuss the reality that the men's team generates significantly more income for US Soccer. There has to be more to it than the fact they are all playing the same sport to automatically guarantee an equal rate of pay. All of the writers for the NYT string together words for articles, but I assume the pay scale varies greatly.
Sure, collectively bargain and do it well. But equal pay is not merited in this situation.
Sure, collectively bargain and do it well. But equal pay is not merited in this situation.
8
"There has to be more to it than the fact they are all playing the same sport to automatically guarantee an equal rate of pay."
Tracy is correct and that is why the women should be paid far higher than the men...they have a far better won/loss record. The men only generate more ratings/money as they are parasites feeding on the global popularity of their far higher skilled opponents. The men's soccer team is the Washington Generals. The women are the Harlem Globetrotters.
Tracy is correct and that is why the women should be paid far higher than the men...they have a far better won/loss record. The men only generate more ratings/money as they are parasites feeding on the global popularity of their far higher skilled opponents. The men's soccer team is the Washington Generals. The women are the Harlem Globetrotters.
2
And where did you get your income statistic. It doesn't appear in this Sports Illustrated article:< https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/04/06/uswnt-us-soccer-wage-discrim....! The article shows somewhat the opposite. Wage discrimination is rampant in sports, and its always the women on the short end.
2
FIFA payouts to US Soccer for the last men's and women's World Cups:
Men, 2014: $9M
Women, 2015: $2M
Men, 2014: $9M
Women, 2015: $2M
2
The men probably draw more viewers worldwide in stadiums and on tv. That is the major reason for their larger bucks. Frankly, the boys are not as entertaining or as good as the women, yet the women do not draw accordingly. When the women start drawing as well as the men worldwide, income will equalize and not before.
The Women's soccer team is in the entertainment business. There is no such thing as equal pat for equal work in this arena. If more people watch their game, they will make more.
6
With more investment in the players, there's more incentive to market Women's soccer more aggressively which, in turn, will bring in more fans.
4
If the USWNT goes for it after intense collaboration that I say YES! When the USWNT collaborates like this, who can stop them?
For the NYT football coverage naysayers, Andrew Das and Rory Smith show how the Times brings its A game in print, online and on Twitter. NMFC
For the NYT football coverage naysayers, Andrew Das and Rory Smith show how the Times brings its A game in print, online and on Twitter. NMFC
1
They did what they should have done from the start. Negotiate an agreement based on what their value is.
Equal pay is an issue when the job is the same, but that isn't the situation here and never was. From the beginning it seemed to be more whining than substance.
A more adult argument would have served everyone better. It was a disservice to women fighting for equal pay where the job is the same.
Equal pay is an issue when the job is the same, but that isn't the situation here and never was. From the beginning it seemed to be more whining than substance.
A more adult argument would have served everyone better. It was a disservice to women fighting for equal pay where the job is the same.
7
Good for US Women's Soccer and it's been a long time coming. I hope the USA women's hockey can work towards the same goals in the future. Congratulations and go USA Women Hockey April 7th @ IIFH 2017!!
5
I've always felt that the argument regarding revenue and WC and Olympic success is a big distraction and in fact completely meaningless to the compensation arguments. Compensation should be based on the work, and the work is the same for both the men and women. End of story. If the women do the same work as the men and lose every game, that shouldn't matter. Sure, I'm not opposed to winning bonuses, but those too should be equal. That's it - shouldn't matter how many tickets are sold, how many ppl view on TV. And I hope the women realize the danger in that line of argument. Because when things don't go so well (and anyone who's been paying attention knows we (the US women) ain't the only show in town anymore! (France, Germany, Japan, England, & more), they're still going to want to get paid - the same.
3
The problem is that the work isn't the same. The men's team rarely gets into the semifinals and finals of he World Cup. The women typically play in the finals, and often win. Thus, the women play more games, and therefore do more work!
I think the argument over equal pay for equal play is flawed.
I do not want to rehash the arguments over why the men's game is so different from the women's game.
Let us only focus on who produces more.
If the women produce more revenue than the men then they should make more.
This is very simple and should be the only argument. The argument over who wins more gold medals is without merit, because the competition is completely different. I imagine there might be an argument that the country benefits from being WC champions in soccer, but I am not sure how we measure that.
As to revenue, I am not sure which team produces more revenue in a WC year, although I suspect the men's competition is tremendously more profitable, unless the WC is played in the US where the revenues might be closer.
In a year in which no WC competition is played, the men's game should be infinitely more profitable, as I understand the women's soccer league has to be subsidized and has gone bankrupt a couple of times.
I do not want to rehash the arguments over why the men's game is so different from the women's game.
Let us only focus on who produces more.
If the women produce more revenue than the men then they should make more.
This is very simple and should be the only argument. The argument over who wins more gold medals is without merit, because the competition is completely different. I imagine there might be an argument that the country benefits from being WC champions in soccer, but I am not sure how we measure that.
As to revenue, I am not sure which team produces more revenue in a WC year, although I suspect the men's competition is tremendously more profitable, unless the WC is played in the US where the revenues might be closer.
In a year in which no WC competition is played, the men's game should be infinitely more profitable, as I understand the women's soccer league has to be subsidized and has gone bankrupt a couple of times.
3
My understanding is that the U.S. women's team produces more revenue in a year than the men's team does because the women's team is so much more successful BUT the men's team gets more money from FIFA (likely because men's soccer is more profitable worldwide and because FIFA is run by horrible people). This article seems to argue that this situation is why the women shifted from an equal to an equitable pay argument, and had more success at negotiating a deal.
4
Why do we even have women's soccer? Why not just have "soccer," and if you can make the team, male or female, you play and get paid what you are worth?
5
Same with track & field them?
Men pull of their shirt=automatic yellow card.
Women pull of their shirts and the men suddenly stop playing...
Could be an interesting dynamic
Women pull of their shirts and the men suddenly stop playing...
Could be an interesting dynamic
1
Thanks, Billie Jean King, for your tireless leadership for pay equity in sport, for Title IX and the Women's Sports Foundation. Without your efforts, we wouldn't be where we are today on so many levels.
8
The argument from the beginning should of been, we want XY and Z. Instead it turned into bearing false witness. Then the kneeling. I just hope I don't have to hear the false accusations for the rest of my life. I'll never watch the game again.
All or nothing is pretty risky
Well done. Well deserved.
10
Great to hear the women and USSF agreed to a deal. The entire process was unnecessarily hostile and the women could have probably got the same deal long ago. This article is confusing because the idea of "Equal Pay" is just not a good way to view the collective bargaining the women were needing to do. I'd like to see more analysis of the changes to the way the NWSL will be subsidized (MLS salaries are not subsidized by USSF) and any changes to USWNT roster rules.
Lost in all the "Equal" talk is that this agreement doesn't cover the vast amount of female soccer players in the NWSL. They do not have a union and the previous USWNT Agreement actually prevented NWSL standouts from getting into the National Team through limits on who can be called up or brought to camp. Does the new Agreement continue that, "We have ours and we are keeping it" system? The previous agreement was very exclusionary and made the situation where USWNT players were extremely well compensated and NWSL or players on the USWNT bubble were working second jobs. There is no men's national team or even club team that has an agreement that guarantees places to players and restricts the competition for spots on the roster or starting line-up. I hope that has drastically changed, and maybe if the NYTimes and other media can get past the easy, "Equal Pay" soundbites and article structure we can hear more about it.
Lost in all the "Equal" talk is that this agreement doesn't cover the vast amount of female soccer players in the NWSL. They do not have a union and the previous USWNT Agreement actually prevented NWSL standouts from getting into the National Team through limits on who can be called up or brought to camp. Does the new Agreement continue that, "We have ours and we are keeping it" system? The previous agreement was very exclusionary and made the situation where USWNT players were extremely well compensated and NWSL or players on the USWNT bubble were working second jobs. There is no men's national team or even club team that has an agreement that guarantees places to players and restricts the competition for spots on the roster or starting line-up. I hope that has drastically changed, and maybe if the NYTimes and other media can get past the easy, "Equal Pay" soundbites and article structure we can hear more about it.
5
"...the deal does not guarantee the equal pay with the men’s national team that the players had made the cornerstone of their campaign for the last year."
The women's national team union is legally barred from representing NWSL players, who aren't members. They can try to look out for their interests, as they align with their own. But -- a lawyer would know better -- pretty sure they can't demand things on their behalf.
It is abundantly clear that the women could NOT have gotten the same deal years ago, as the USSF held the women to a memo that kept in force an agreement with an "expiration date" not long after the LONDON Olympics, then the USSF completely refused to negotiate, at all.
It was the determination of the women, and the willingness for big name and emerging stars to look abroad for better opportunity that brought Gulati to the table.
The women got as good a deal as possible, and probably proportionate to the differences between the men's and women's game, so good for them. Things like meal per diem should absolutely be equal for each gender.
It was the determination of the women, and the willingness for big name and emerging stars to look abroad for better opportunity that brought Gulati to the table.
The women got as good a deal as possible, and probably proportionate to the differences between the men's and women's game, so good for them. Things like meal per diem should absolutely be equal for each gender.
3
Don't know if this was the strategy, but pretty smart to come away with so much and still have "equal pay" in your pocket for next time. If they hammered away at equal pay, they wouldn't have won a lot of the very valuable concessions. Equal pay will come. Now, when it does, it will be the icing on a very rich cake.
8
Remember, ladies, it's not the lack of equal pay that's divisive, it's pointing it out that's divisive.
24
LOL. Point taken.
"Denigrated the record of the men's team?" They pointed out that the men have never won a major championship while the women have won seven (true), and that the women bring in more profits to U.S. Soccer (true).
42
Men's soccer is far faster, more physical, more competitive and difficult.
Our U16 Boys team trounce the Women's National Team. Last time they played the boys beat them 7-1. It's like the people that think UCONN's women's basketball team is great, when in reality they wouldn't advance the ball over the half court line against their men's team.
Women's sports paid for most of my daughter's college degree, but be honest. It's night and day a different game.
Our U16 Boys team trounce the Women's National Team. Last time they played the boys beat them 7-1. It's like the people that think UCONN's women's basketball team is great, when in reality they wouldn't advance the ball over the half court line against their men's team.
Women's sports paid for most of my daughter's college degree, but be honest. It's night and day a different game.
9
How much revenue does the U16 Boys team bring to USA soccer? The US Woman should be paid the same as their male counter parts because they are at the top of their game in their league. Men/Boys playing the Women's team is irrelevant.
Equal pay should be based on their success on the field. Experience is the excuse men use the justify higher wages in traditional job markets. Why should it be different in this case given the fact that US Women have had more success in their runs at World Cups & Olympic Medals.
Equal pay should be based on their success on the field. Experience is the excuse men use the justify higher wages in traditional job markets. Why should it be different in this case given the fact that US Women have had more success in their runs at World Cups & Olympic Medals.
2
That's entirely irrelevant to SRL's comment. Who cares if U16 boys can beat the women's team? That is not their competition. The women's team is playing other women's teams. The men's teams are playing other men's teams. Clearly, the women's team is outperforming the men against their appropriate competition. And, the women's team brought in more money for the federation in recent years (see NYT articles from 4/21/16). In fact, US Soccer itself projected that the men will LOSE money, while the women will bring in profits of several million. It should be a no brainer that they get paid appropriately. After all, in Trump's America, it doesn't matter if you can beat teenage boys. The only thing that matters is the bottom line, and the bottom line says that people want to watch women's soccer (read: winners).
4
Nice comprehensive piece on this positive development. The recognition of their success on the world stage, in the form of compensation and expanding opportunities for future players, is a bright star in this otherwise bleak news environment. Thank you U.S. Women's Soccer Team, in so many ways.
14