Intellectual dishonesty flows through this article. The 2015 women's world cup brought in $73 million in revenue. The men's world cup brought in $6 billion.
The women's world cup is *expected* to bring $131 million during this cycle but not even 2.5% of the men's revenue.
True equality would mean the men get a raise while the women slash their pay.
5
Women’s soccer is a third tier sport in the US, like men’s lacrosse, track and field (men’s and women’s), professional beach volley ball and Nordic skiing. The pay is, logically, similar.
4
The women soccer players play more games and have greater attendance. Therefore,as entertainers, they should be paid more than the men. In tennis, however, women play less games and have less attendance. They also seek equal pay.
If pay were based on ability, women soccer players wouldn't merit more than a minor league's men team. Although the best in the world in comparison to other women's team, the U.S. women's team is not even as fast or strong or dangerous as the worst MLS team, which is far from the best men's league in the world. But sheer athletic ability is the wrong way to frame the pay argument for the U.S. women's team. In this case sport is best understood as entertainment, and on those terms the U.S. women's team draws tv audiences equal to many men's games and more than the U.S. men's team, which, even though it would wipe out the women in a head-to-head match, are nowhere near as compelling when it comes to American viewers. In other words, the women have an argument, and I say this as someone who finds the sport excruciatingly boring.
2
Here we have the usual exaggerations backing feminist whines for equal pay: female players are "superstars", they make as many sacrifices as men, and they play "better".
The same people would advance that if a female employee in a sales department puts in the same hours as a male , but only brings in 10% of the revenue he does, she should still be paid the same and be called a "hero" because of the hours she spends failing to catch up.
Likewise, the kids in the local minor league team aren't as rich as the top major league players because nobody is going to pay to watch them play, while millions will to watch ML baseball.
No, male and female leagues do NOT "play the same", and with regards to the gender pay gap, do not create the same revenue. People buy tickets or watch TV to see men play, because they play at an extremely competitive level. US Soccer women play perhaps at the level of a local amateur men's team at best.
To claim that the US women's team plays better than the men's team because they win against comparatively mediocre female players while the men play in an incomparably competitive league is a mendacious distortion of logic. The reason there IS a women's league is that if teams were coed AND fully competitive, there would be no pro women players at all. It follows that the moneymaker in the business, the power to sell tickets & merchandise and garner rights & ad revenue, disproportionately rewards men.
Want to be paid the same? Make the same revenue.
3
I wonder about this. The American women's team is successful because there is vastly less competition in women's than men's soccer. If they played the men, they would lose badly. So why precisely do they deserve to be paid the same amount? Wouldn't it make more success to move toward a model of gender-neutral soccer, and let the best players succeed regardless of their sex?
3
So the women generate the vast majority of the revenue for the US Soccer Federation and get paid a fraction of their worth? This is ridiculous from a business and moral perspective. To the hundreds of thousands of parents out there with girls in soccer, start tweeting at US Soccer's sponsors like Secret, Coca-Cola, AT&T, Johnson & Johnson, Deloit , Volkswagon, PowerAide, Cutter and more. Get loud. https://www.ussoccer.com/sponsors-and-partners
1
I think that it is up to the sponsors. Nike and Coke should at least be paying the World Cup Champions the big bucks.
1
Be careful what you wish for. This Is a sport that in the US is played by mostly suburban young women who, like the rest of their generation male and female, have been brought up with high expectations about their self-worth. US national team members already reap rewards beyond those of nearly any other women's team sport anywhere in the world. I am in Latin America right now and can tell you that the women’s World Cup commands much less media interest than “lesser” men’s completions such as the Copa Oro, Copa America, “boys” U20, or European national team completions. Should nations down here, or in say Africa, ever succeed in devoting the resources to their women that we do in the US, it is highly probable that the current US women’s team success in an unbalanced playing field will be viewed as something of an aberration in hind sight. That scenario would represent true equality, and I am hopeful that one day we will see it, but not only in the US.
4
For Wambach to suggest that she is as valuable a presence as Kobe Bryant is ridiculous and vainglorious. In all sports and business the customer has the money. Revenues produced by the sport in question determine how much the players can be paid. Don't people know this?
I love to watch women's tennis and think they should be paid almost as much as men. Not the same as they only play two out of three sets where men play three out of five sets. Women's tennis also has some stars who have captured the world's attention such as the Williams sisters which generates more revenue for the sport.
I love to watch the PGA but never watch the LPGA. I just don't find it interesting. The LPGA only has a couple of stars who've captured world wide attention. As a result LPGA revenues are much less and thus the pay is less.
In what sports should women make more than men? Women's gymnastics and women's figure skating come to mind.
3
I just wonder how many follow soccer here and of those who love the game, how many follow men world cup (biggest sport event on earth) vs. the woman?
Sporting events make money by sponsors (advertisers) and the rating (viewership) is what decides how much money is generated, which trickles down tot he players, men or women! Period!
Equal pay!
Why not pay everyone equally; employees in every company, actors in every movie, singers of any songs, health providers and their administrators in every clinic...
The seekers of equality in print and media, are the nihilist of human diversities and differences.
My favorite soccer team is the US Woman team and I love every ball-pass and the last 13 goals they had on their first fiery match.
Go US Women... Go Champs!
4
This is totally apples and oranges. Men and women soccer players are in separate businesses, positions, and certainly do not compete with each other.
6
OK, let's settle this yearly. One Game . . . Men vs Women . . . Winner take All. Fair is Fair.
6
Men's soccer: HUGE global sport with billions and billions in revenue that includes big broadcasting contracts. You have to qualify to even participate in the World Cup by beating really good competition, and advancing in the World Cup is extremely difficult. Even modest success in the Cup earns teams a payment of millions of dollars. The best global players earn tens of millions playing for their league clubs. The US men only get paid by US Soccer for the games they play for the US team, and most players only play a portion of the US team's games. They all strive for spots on US pro league teams or teams overseas.
Women's soccer: Modestly popular in the US during the run up to the women's World Cup, but still a very minor draw here and a trivial sport in most other countries. Global revenues are miniscule compared to men's soccer and there is minimal opportunity to play the pro game for big dollars because the money and interest aren't there, here or overseas. The US women get a salary from US Soccer as well as game payments.
It's like comparing a single A baseball team to the Yankees or a minor sport like lacrosse to pro basketball. There is no comparison. I assume that everyone is aware that the greatest women's soccer players in the world can't compete with a good developmental team of teenage boys. This equality thing is nuts.
8
@Teal "I assume that everyone is aware that the greatest women's soccer players in the world can't compete with a good developmental team of teenage boys."
Evidently not. The author seems to believe that if the US Women's team beats more mediocre foreign female teams than the Men's team beats competitive foreign Men's teams, that means that the Women's team is better than the Men's. Even my 5 year-old niece gets the failed logic. Full-grown adult Feminists, on the other hand, do not. That must mean something.
2
i'm really curious to see how the USWNT would do against any men's team. there is probably an argument that is in the back of people's minds, "well, it is a different level of play for men, and I would love for the women's team to be able to shut that down.
2
If you're titling the article "Women's team", you're contributing the disparity and keeping separate. They are pretty much the best team in the world (with amount of goals) and should be treated the same as their colleagues.
@Julia Would you therefore support integrating the men's and women's teams?
4
@Julia It's probably too late to inculcate Common Sense, but do you really believe the "best team in the world" (the US Women's team) is actually better than, according to your logic, the second-best Men's team? (I see big disappointments ahead).
2
The suggestion in the article that the teams can't even be compared because "The women are way, way better" is a red herring - I suppose meant to anger anyone that is rational.
Public funds could be split equally (or perhaps the women could even receive more or the public funds because of their success); non-designated sponsorships, donations and other non-traceable amounts divided equally; otherwise money should go to the team that generated the funds. It's not clear to me that the women aren't asking for a share the revenue generated by the men. Asking for "equal pay" straight up, seems to indicate the women don't really want their pay linked to "revenue".
And feminists should perhaps stop about worrying the salary differences among female soccer players like Abby Wambach, Kobe Bryant, and Peyton Manning and more on the salary differences among almost everybody, Kobe Bryant, and Peyton Manning. It's a legitimate political blind spot that people like Trump speak to.
1
many men argue that the women should be paid less because the fans spend more watching men's soccer. that same logic means that they should agree that all consumer product companies should pay women more money than men because most consumer products are bought by women, NOT MEN.
1
@john boeger
Soccer is the product. If more people (men or women) spend more on men's soccer than women's soccer, then there is more revenue to divide among the people producing men's soccer - and here we are talking about players. If more people (men or women) by more Big Macs than Whoppers, then McDonald's has more money than Burger King. Are you really suggesting McDonald's give some of it's revenue to Burger King - because Whoppers are "way, way better".
6
To say that pay should be "based only on the revenue they and their league generate" is merely another fact of discrimination, albeit a different kind.
TV Networks earn money off advertising. The "big" sports have tons of built-in advertising time. Heck, American football even has TV time-outs (as do other sports). This is not done in Soccer (Football). The average American football game takes has 20 minutes of action spread out over 4 hours of play. That equals LOTS of advertising. Overseas, Soccer (Football) advertising is generated from things other than 15-30 second video advertising. In the US, networks have decided to not bother.
Since Networks can fill a sport with more video advertising time, they PROMOTE that sport far more than any other to boost their profit. It has nothing to do with how many fans there really are trying to watch the game. And it has nothing to do with how much revenue the Networks COULD get, if they just tried a little harder and actually PROMOTED the games equally.
Maybe all soccer leagues should sue networks for discrimination in not equally promoting all sports... This would change the player compensation dramatically.
Luckily the internet is changing everything. Therefore these women have every right to sue. And they should. The narrow-minded business model of the large Networks is antique. And there is no reason that one sport should be promoted more or less than any other.
1
Let us also not forget all the freebies that are given to other sports... the cushy stadium deals and tax breaks. Yes, Soccer (Football) gets some crumbs for these deals too... but that is all... they are crumbs. Meanwhile American football and baseball are getting insane and unsustainable deals. Luckily cities are starting to wise up a little, and no longer buying into these scams.
1
@kmsa " It has nothing to do with how many fans there really are trying to watch the game."
Yes it does. If no one were to watch these games, the advertisers would pull out, and the players would be paid less. It is BECAUSE there are so many people spending time in front of their screens for these games that so much ad revenue is generated, etc...
You may not be aware, but Soccer in the US just isn't as popular compared to Football, Baseball, or Basketball than elsewhere on the planet. Marketers have been trying to push Soccer into the mainstream since the 70's (Pelé played for NY, with limited success); the most recent attempt being the World Cup hosted in the US. Soccer was an anecdotal sport mostly played in public parks in Hispanic neighborhoods until then; the commercial effort put into the launch gave us phrases like "Soccer moms" and a host of junior soccer teams, but nothing near the success soccer has, in even the rest of the Western world.
2
Clearly, the women should be fighting for the right to play for the men's team. With such great players added to the team, the men's team should easily win the next World Cup.
21
@Bob I always hear cricket noises when this suggestion is made.
5
@Bob This would be the only valid way to settle claims from both sides of the debate, as it would address the Feminist claim for Equality. Evidently, if they're the best players in the world, they should outperform every male team that's not "the best in the world", not to mention their male teammates....
Silly. What women soccer players get paid is, and must be, based only on the revenue they and their league generate, not on parity with men's salaries. Nor will the league survive if there is a huge discrepancy between what soccer players in the US are paid, and what their counterparts in other countries are paid. Likewise, professional male lacrosse players are paid based on what their league can afford, not based on parity with professional baseball or football. In the end, this is simply a sport activity that exists on the margin of popularity and profit, like track and field, lacrosse, archery, and tiddly winks.
88
@Kent Kraus
This suit is not about league salaries. This suit is about the payment that the US Soccer Federation, the national organizing body, pays for performance on the national teams.
E.g., a man who plays on the US national team makes X dollars for winning a game
A woman who plays on the US national team makes a number much less than that for winning a game.
This is not about league play. Even if the MLS and NWSL fold tomorrow, the national teams will continue to exist. You are making an argument about league salaries that is not germane to the lawsuit filed by the women.
Consider the case of the olympics, which is a lower-level competition for soccer players, but the highest level for most other sports: An athlete who wins a gold medal is awarded $37,500 by the US olympic committee. Didn't matter if the athlete was a man or woman. Didn't matter the sport (e.g., the archery athletes go the same bonus).
Now, consider the bonus paid to an athlete for their team making it to the world cup (the premier international soccer competition for national teams).
Men (would have) split a bonus pool of $3mil.
Women split a bonus pool of $300,000.
Why does the Olympic committee think women and men should be paid equally, that different sports should be paid equally?
Why should that be different for soccer players representing our nation on the world's stage?
17
@Kent Kraus you are conflating two different issues. The pay discrepancies are not from league play, they are for USWNT salaries. They are alleging that the USWNT brings in significantly more revenue to the U.S. Soccor Foundation than the men's team does. The women's national team is certainly more accomplished, well known and popular by far then the men's team. Besides, its a basic equity and civil rights principal that one receives equal pay for equal work. In fact, if income to the Federation were the only test, the woman should be making significantly more than the men. What has the U.S. Men's team ever really accomplished? They didn't even qualify for the World Cup last time out. This shouldn't even be that controversial.
10
@Kent Kraus
What's "silly" is that you obviously didn't read the article. Besides the fact that you got the leagues wrong, it speaks to one of your most important points. The women's team brings in more money, but get paid less. I agree with you that it should be based on value, but the women's team has greater value, but they still get paid less.
8
The argument for equal pay is facile. This is about fair pay not equal pay. Lets compare apples to apples. The mens national team is overpaid. That's an objective statement based on attendance and team performance. The women's team is underpaid based on the same criteria.
US Soccer's focus is on suburban middle-class boys who feed the college system. Women and minorities are an afterthought. Women deserve a much bigger voice, fair pay for the national team and give them a chance to set the direction of the game in the US. The men do not seem to be up to the task.
56
@Mickey I think you have really hit the nail on the head. While the case for "equal" pay may be controversial, there is a clear case for commensurate pay. The differential is so egregious as to be a complete absurdity! Thank you.
5
Equal pay? That is ludicrous in the extreme. Perhaps, they should learn to play at least half as well as men do for starters, and then talk about equal pay. The quality of women's game is just dismal - that is why so few people want to watch it. I just watched a Women's World Cap game between two highly ranked teams and what a sorry spectacle that was – slow and skill-less affair filled with errors – and I am not planning to watch another one. That "Best Women's Soccer Team in the World" would be handily beaten by any recreational pub team made entirely of amateurs whose pay is exactly zero. Based on a fair comparison those women players are lucky to be paid at all. Where did they get the idea that they deserve the same pay as male stars who are watched by millions and generate billions dollars in revenue? And who could actually play. What arrogance.
66
@David The number of English language viewers (presumably mostly American since US was dominant) for the US Women was very close to the mens' numbers. That is where US Soccer's revenue is derived. So US Women are "watched by millions" which seems to be your standard. The fact that they could be beaten by a "pub" team, even if it were true, matters not at all...they are entertainers. There are 100 Opera stars who can sing better than the top rock stars...doesn't mean they deserve equal pay. It's all about getting eyes on the TV screen or in the seats, and those numbers are close between American Women and Men.
18
And when is the last time the men won a World Cup?
8
@Phil
What else was on, Phil?
Truth be told, if there really were millions and millions of womens' soccer fans in the United States (outside of the co-ed rec soccer leagues for the grade-school and middle-school levels) then the women would have the money. Their demands could be met.
Soccer is growing but not well supported in the US yet, by advertisers, media or fans. There are a lot of things that people watch on (free) tv that would not draw eyeballs if the tickets were priced to pay for the salaries these women think the market owes them.
6
Love the mansplaining about "markets", how pro sports work and blah, blah, blah. Let's be clear: The US Women's Soccer Team has been more successful, fan friendly and interesting, and put a better product on the pitch than the US Men's Soccer Team has for the last 20 years or so. (Period. Underscore. Bold face lettering.). Time to motivate those boys a bit and cut their salaries.
PS--I'm guessing most of the commenters here secretly think they could outplay the "ladies", and what I wouldn't give to watch that play out.
3
@Laura
I couldn’t outplay the ladies, but plenty of boys’ teams have done so. You could look it up.
5
The level of insecurity displayed by the vast majority of the men commenting here is enlightening. So afraid that they might be forced to share equality with "the little lady". Pathetic.
6
True equality means men playing in the same leagues as women. Can you handle that? Because it means there will be zero professional female athletes.
4
The amount of misogynistic vitriol in many of these comments is astonishing and has prompted me, a NYT reader of many years, to post my first comment.
My message is for the players. This needs to be said. Ladies, ignore the haters. They are small of spirit and small of heart, and their emotional capacity extends no further than the hatred they carelessly spew at you. You scare them. You threaten them. You remind them of everything they think they deserve but didn't get. This makes them very angry. They have no tools with which to express their own bitter pain than fierce anger, which they direct squarely at you.
But you all, you have superpowers. I know it. I can feel it. You soar right over the heads of the haters as they curse you.
You are absolutely right to file this lawsuit. I believe in you. I believe in what you are fighting for. Use your power. Use your voice. Stand up for equality. I am with you. It's about time.
112
@Christine
Also a reader of many years, and this is my first comment.
OUTSTANDINGLY WELL SAID! Cheers to you and to the USA Women!
7
@Christine
So an editor of a small town weekly newspaper should make the same pay as the editor of the NYTIMES, right?
The men’s game generates vastly more than the women’s game. They therefore are paid more.
Simple, logical economics. Free market system.
16
No one wants to watch women play, other than their families. The attendance figures are the definitive measure of the relative unimportance of female athletes. They need to spend more time in the kitchen.
12
@No
These "kitchen" comments are inappropriate. On the contrary, they need to organize leagues and play more to raise their level. It takes time, maybe a couple of generations. Cooking (which I love) is optional.
5
Wow, did I wake up back in the 1950's? No, but it sounds like somebody else lives there. You might want to check your figures before shooting off your mouth about how NOBODY wants to watch women's soccer. In the 1999 (yes, 20 years ago) the Women's World Cup, hosted by the US, set record attendance figures. The average attendance per game was 37,319 - a record that still stands today - with a total attendance of 1,194,215. That record did fall to Canada in 2015.
Now about the kitchen...I love to cook, but I don't want to live there. Nor do I want to spend my days cleaning house & doing needlepoint while I eagerly await my husband's return from work. Before you disappear back down your time-warp rabbit hole, newsflash - the world has changed. I suggest YOU learn to cook. Jaques Pépin does, as do many, many other men, famous or not. You just might like it.
1
@Davis Bliss
You successfully bit the hook, bravo.
All these guys on this forum say that this is business and pure market value. They don't say that the business is made to favor the men. Men are the executives, for the most part, who decide where and when advertising dollars are to be spent. Women are still taught from a young age to be supportive of men in their athletic pursuits, hello cheerleaders. The patriarchal culture is exhausting. Nevertheless, I am hopeful, there is change on the horizon.
27
@Lena "They don't say that the business is made to favor the men." So is biology, as far as most sports are concerned.
6
The “on field success” of the teams is wholly irrelevant. My baseball team won my league championship. The Baltimore Orioles lost 115 games. Yet the Orioles make far more than my over 40 men’s team?
Why? Because players are paid based on the market, not skill or success. The only arguments in this article should be related to marketability and profits. Comparing a soccer player I’ve never heard of to Kobe Bryant is ludicrous.
Ultimately, the USWNT collectively bargained their current salaries. If they think they have economic leverage to earn more, then use it. Ultimately, if they strike, the powers that be will pay them what they deserve economically (whatever provides profits).
But paying them what they “deserve” by comparing them to men, who have different global markets and interest, is simply silly.
3
If you want equal payment in soccer Women you should scream or ask to the public to the fanatics they pay the salary of the Golden players in the men’s soccers team! I don’t see the stadium full in the WWC that the biggest example.
If the women soccer team wants equality they could have show it in the Thai game.
2
Just watched the 13-0 win over Thailand. And there were some television commentators suggesting the US should have invoked a mercy rule and pulled back a bit.
I can't imagine a similar suggestion being made about a men's team in any sport.
Women in sports should get respect.
Money = Respect
1
@John S
It’s complete nonsense to suggest that men’s teams in international competition are never told they should go easy on an overmatched opponent. Watch USA basketball. Happens all the time. (I bet you knew, but chose to ignore, that fact).
We owe the women great respect for their many accomplishments. We will owe them equal money when their sport earns equal revenue. They are paid by the federation because their sport earns so much less that they need to be paid from somewhere. The men’s sport earns so much more that the federation pays them nothing at all. Their sport actually is profitable, and can pay its own players. Like any business, they are paid what they earn. The women’s game is subsidized.
4
Watch sports then. I'm so sick and tired of people making this a political and gender issue.If you actually watched sports you would know this is considered common courtesy.
4
@John S
Would you suggest that the editor of a rural weekly newspaper be paid the same as the article editor of the NYTimes? They’re both newspaper editors. Even though one paper generates far more revenue than the other, you seem to suggest the two editors deserve the same pay.
4
Chelsea paid $73M for transfer rights to Christian Pulsic and he plays in a league where the AVERAGE player gets $3.3M.
Alex Morgan is the highest paid female player at ~$300k.
How much do you think each should be paid for the 50 or 70 days a year they spend with the US national teams?
I'm glad the WNT is pushing for better pay, amenities znc playing conditions.
I just don't see how you justify "equal pay".
5
Has anyone in the American women's soccer team taken a walk down, say, an Italian street during a men's world cup game? There's nobody on the street. It looks like an episode from the Twilight Zone. The whole country parks itself in front of a TV, even if they're playing a non-contender like the US men.
For the women's games? Life goes on as normal.
Please, please, quit lumping yourselves in with all of the women who work for a wage for less than men. Be glad you're paid to play a game. As we all learned during the baseball strike and the hockey lockouts, you are extremely expendable. The people that keep our lights on and our refrigerators stocked? We actually need those people.
8
Did anyone see the game today? The Thai goalkeeper couldn’t even reach the top of the goal frame.
They are playing against amateurs in a bizarre approximation of real football. Let’s not pretend this is as good entertainment as men’s football.
9
Forget equal pay. Pay according to revenue.
“According to a budget report from the U.S. Soccer Federation, the women's team is projected to bring in more than $17 million in revenues, including a $5 million surplus for fiscal year 2017, nearly doubling their male counterparts, who are expected to run a deficit.”
8
The pay for national teams is logically determined by the market value of players. The US professional men's league has a per-team salary cap of about $4.2M. The women's league has a salary cap of about $420K. That pretty much makes the call for equal pay a joke.
4
The crux of the lawsuit is financial. Equal pay with the US Men's National Team. In their defense, US Soccer will no doubt present financial data on attendance, costs, and revenue generation for both teams. It's a shame that this article presents none of that. The authors spent a considerable amount of time in research, yet they presented very little financial data. So how can we make an informed opinion?
8
The winners of the men’s 2014 World Cup made more than 10 times than the winners of the women’s World Cup in 2015. By measure of revenue generated, the men were underpaid and the women overpaid.
6
How do they compare with the pay of other women's teams in the world? That's the relevant metric, not USMNT. (Sorry if this is discussed after the first several paragraphs).
Also, has there been a case of a woman playing on the men's team (ie. The actual National team?) Are they disallowed? They could get the same pay if they made the cut.
The real issue is they have no commercially viable league. That's where real pay happens. In pro sport you don't get paid for effort and sacrifice.
6
The amount of resources spent world-wide on mens soccer is astronomical. Women's soccer? Much less so. Part of the funding discrepancy has to do with the compensation paid to the national teams and nations that make it to the mens world cup. Its a lot. A real heck of a lot.
So national men's teams are better funded and their countries seek out and train the best players. The same cannot be said for the women's teams around the world. Its kinda a side project for most countries, although that's changing, slowly and inconsistently.
That is all to say, when the US men don't make the cut or lose before the finals, they are losing to very good, well financed, and well trained teams. When the women win the finals, they are winning against teams that are not good. That is changing, but the parity of competition isn't there for the women yet. If and when it gets there, the US women will lose more, and will probably be less popular as a result. That should scare the players who are now trying to tie their to wins and losses: we win more than the men so we should make the same or more. What happens if they start losing, not for lack of effort or talent, but because other teams play better? Sounds like a bad deal for future generations, but great for the players right now.
All that aside, I say good for the women players if they squeeze more money out for themselves. But leave gender discrimination arguments for a situation to which they are better suited.
5
Comparing men's soccer with women's soccer makes no sense.
USWNT Soccer employs *44* women soccer players. They are full time employees with benefits - and they are paid whether they play or not.
USMNT does not employ male soccer players. Men who play for the national team do so as independent contractors. They are only paid if they play.
5
The solution is simple. Both Men and Women should get the same percentage of the gate. Equal.
4
@Tony
Actually, the women now make a larger percentage of their gate than the men do of their gate. So, it’s clear that it’s the men who deserve the raise.
3
Pay is not based on revenue or relative skill or even absolute skill. It is based on anticipated marginal outcomes. What matters is what people expect your labor will generate for them when compared to what would happen if they hired the next best person and what that second best option would cost.
As we all know, we separate men and women in sports. This creates a dedicated space for women to compete, protected from male competitors. That makes them entirely different marketplaces and any comparisons between the two ridiculous. This is a terrible cause for someone wanting to advance equal pay to take on, it makes the cause look irrational and not grounded by reality.
7
It's revenue, revenue, revenue.
2
Sports pay is based solely on the number of spectators, and hence advertising dollars, you attract.
This is why the purses on the Web.Com Tour are 10% of the purses on the PGA Tour. Millions of people want to watch Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy, but only a few people want to watch Jonathan Randolph and Maverick McNealy.
4
13-0
Let's stop comparing men's and women's soccer as if they are apples-to-apples.
I'm all for paying the WNT more. I'm also in favor of paying the MNT less. But I definitely don't think it should be based solely on their record.
I'm sure there's a USWNT that is even more successful than our soccer team but will never get paid the same because they compete in luge or field hockey or sailing.
2
The best "women's" soccer team? I think you are not understanding the issue or the power of your words. It is the best US soccer team. When you understand *that*, you understand how extreme the in equity is.
2
@Sue
Should the women's team play the men's team, I think we would see just how wrong you are.
3
@Sue
If you’re saying the women are “ the best US soccer team, that means you are saying they could beat the men’s team. That happens not to be true. The women’s team has played boys’ teams, and lost. But then you likely knew, but ignored, that fact.
3
I have a solution to the paid difference between the men and women’s team. LOWER the amount the men get because they are not really any good so they just don’t deserve 406,000 per year. With that reduction give it to the women because they are deserving of a raise. The ideal level would be to pay each the same amount with a small bonus to the better of the two teams.
@Terry
The men already get a smaller period their gate than the women do of theirs. It is the men who deserve the raise. They also would deserve more under you unfair system, since they are the vastly better team.
2
Check out Adam Silver (marketing for NBA) in his 2018 article on this topic:
1). The NBA gets way more $ into promotion of their games
2). WNBA games are in summer, when one would expect low fan support
3). Young women peers of players in WNBA are not the fan base of the WNBA, older men are the fan base
4). Salaries to players are based on a percentage of income of each league
2
Let's abolish gender segregation in sports and let the best athletes rise to the top. As a bonus, this would also end the controversy over transgender athletes.
3
You’d destroy and eliminate almost every women’s league in the process.
3
Thirteen to zero.
3
The most recent Sports Illustrated gave extended coverage to American women's soccer, focusing both on its history and the present team. Women have been playing soccer for more than a century. In Britain, during WWI, they had a wildly popular "League of Their Own." But, in a number of countries, women's soccer was banned purportedly because it might be detrimental to women's health.
By the 1960's, things had changed and women's soccer made a major comeback in Europe. In the US, Title IX gave a major boost to the sport. But professional women's soccer didn't take off until FIFA absorbed them, under the leadership of the notorious and blatantly sexist Sepp Blatter.
The US had its own separate history, which is mostly about how they rose to the level of, and quickly surpassed European soccer. But the playing field for the Americans, like everyone else, has always been owned by FIFA,which does little to promote the women.
All along the way, women's soccer has had a pretty good following. Still, every step forward has been difficult and controversial. And progress has consistently involved more or less ambivalent men. The lawsuit for equal pay is more than a financial dispute. The US women are challenging the male dominance of the sport. As with all other efforts of women to promote their interests in socer, this one is both difficult and controversial.
5
I read below that worldwide. men's soccer revenue vastly outpaces that of women's soccer -- even what's left to pay the athletes after all the grifters and grafters take their cut.
The story says the plaintiff women are saying that in the U.S., women's soccer far outpaces men's soccer in revenues (and that the gifters and grafters who run soccer dispute that; until someone proves otherwise, I believe the plaintiffs over the g's and g's).
So: on the reasonable basis that pay in a sport must be generally linked to revenue in that sport, U.S. women's soccer players should receive far more pay than the men. Elsewhere in the world, it seems that it should be the other way around, based on revenues.
Which creates an interesting situation: that by these lights, American women should be paid far more than their foreign competitors.
They don't deserve equal pay technically, but they should get it anyway. Divide the revenue and move on.
4
Usually I don't believe in the revenue argument. In general men and women should be paid the same when they perform equal work. This is why I am against equal pay for men and women for tennis, as the men play more sets. In events where men and women play the same number of sets they should be paid the same. The problem comes in because sports are not really classified as work, they are a business and in a business you are and should be paid according to your demand. If the demand and viewership for both products is the same then yes they should be considered for equal pay.
1
As a commenter has said below, the article would have been more convicing if the author had written "better record than" the male team instead of "better than". The US women soccer team is far from the average level of a male team. For instance:
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
However if the player had said that she wanted the federation to spend more money for the continous formation of female players so that the US reaches the critical mass that would make possible a much stronger national team in the next future, and if she had pointed out, with just pride, that the current team's sporting achievements and financial revenue have shown that this goal is attainable, I would have applauded.
7
The comments on this thread, nearly all from men, are nauseating. I don't think 10% of you READ the actual article. The women play more games. They win more. The sell more tickets. Get on board, gentlemen. Your arguments fly in the face of facts. If anything, the US Women's soccer team should be paid MORE than the men based on all of your "meritocracy" arguments. This isn't a close call. PAY. THE. WOMEN. MORE.
12
@Laura The critical point is that if the women generate more revenue, then they should absolutely be paid more. This article states that the women claim they generate more value (not revenue) but that the US soccer federation disputes that.
It seems this argument could be settled pretty easily. Just add up revenue from ticket sales, tv rights, merchandising etc for both and work it out.
The way the women are claiming they generate more value (not revenue) seems pretty suspicious. They’re saying that the federation expected to lose money on both teams but generated a profit because the women had unexpected success. That’s not the same as generating more revenue in absolute terms. Profit is what is left after paying expenses, so higher expenses will offset the benefits of higher revenue.
It’s pretty clear from the way this article is written that the men’s team generates more revenue than the women’s team, although the latter may be more profitable. That seems to call for a review of the men’s team’s costs relative to the women’s. Which could mean lower pay for the men to achieve profitability.
It doesn’t mean the women should be paid more. And no, people don’t deserve greater pay simply because they work longer hours. And neither is relative success in competition the basis for higher pay. Many sports (like many occupations) don’t generate viewership or revenue. Practitioners of those sports don’t have a case for higher pay because footballers get paid more.
5
The abysmal performance of the men's team notwithstanding, they still draw viewers, which equates to advertising dollars. What the article was missing was an explanation of how revenue is divided between teams. If US plays Italy and the entire country is glued to the TV (as some other poster suggested), does the US team share in that revenue? If so, then clearly the men's team generates more revenue. If not, then it sounds like the women's team may generate more revenue. The article left out a lot of pertinent information which should prevent anyone from forming an opinion. Which is a shame, because the issue demands attention.
I am tired of the economics and revenue arguments when the US Federation’s purported mission is to grow the game in the USA. The Federation’s Board contractually ceded much of the revenue-generating promotional control to a related third party, acronym SUM. SUM enters into TV contracts that bundle the men’s tv rights with Major League Soccer, result being that more revenue is generated by MNT on TV rights than WNT on the books. Turns out many (most) on the Fed’s Board or family members have financial ties to MLS. The decisions regarding revenue are managed in a way benefit MLS which in turn financially benefit those in charge who are tied to the men’s pro league.
4
@Liz
The women are paid by the federation.
The men are paid nothing by the federation. Their pay comes from generating far greater revenue. They earn more because their game makes more money.
5
For the people who are making the analogy of women’s-soccer-to-men’s soccer is like janitor-to-doctor: here’s the thing. It’s true that obviously there are differences in the two divisions, but it’s more like comparing a freshman on the premed track with a doctor with an MD. It’s the same fundamental sport; they’re going through the same fundamental experiences. It’s just that women’s soccer is so new in comparison to men’s (and honestly, faces so many more challenges, like the struggle of even continuing to exist, as shown by the multiple failed professional leagues). It needs time to grow into something that can generate billions of dollars in revenue, and it’ll be hard to progress if its players—forget about earning equal pay—can’t even make enough to sustain themselves after they retire.
Frankly, people need to accept that even if women on average aren’t as athletic as men, top tier women may still be able to compete on equal footing (and they’re improving, too, as the up-comers are already breaking records). Trying to stick to the old argument of “get-what-you-deserve” while ignoring the towering disadvantages one group has to face is inane.
7
I don’t think the disadvantages are unique to women though — they are unique to any upstart league, where there’s a lot of different entertainment options vying for your dollar. For example, look at all of the upstart NFL competition leagues that have come and gone, and basketball. It’s nothing about gender inequality — its just about how hard it is to start a league that makes money.
1
When my 15 year old soccer player son says he loves watching the US Women's team play for their great skill and speed rather than the Men's team, it is time to think about the role models these women are becoming to the young players and give them their dues. Whoever argues that men players get paid more because of the revenue they generate then stop marketing their lousy performance and start talking about the super performance of our women's team.
8
Ahhh. The US and it's navel-gazing sports that no-else in the world cares a fig about (despite the fact they're called 'The World Series' etc). When it comes to team games that the rest of the world actually cares about (soccer and rugby), the mens' teams fall short. That is such a wasted opportunity in terms of relationship building - that's the important kind of stuff you can't put a dollar sign on.
At a time when the US has managed to squander its respect around the world and replace it with disgust, our Women's soccer team are some of the best ambassadors we could wish for. They should be paid for that if nothing else.
9
Women's tennis broke through beginning with the formation of the WTA. Why doesn't women's soccer do something similar? That is, break away from the USSF and form their own organizing body, seek their own coporate supporters, organize their own professional league, etc. Then they can share the fruits of their success and not have to share anything with the obviously inferior USMNT.
I think we know why they don't do this.
7
I'll be honest.
I don't watch women's soccer. It's slow, boring and it's like watching a bunch of teenage boys play. US Women only do well relative to other women, most of whom have much fewer resources or impoverished or cultural repression of women (NYT just covered Jamaica).
In fact, in closed matches, the US Women lose to U-17 boys. The problem is, biology is really hard to overcome. Mother nature cannot be beat. And having watched women's games, it can be hard on the eyes, especially since many more flops and flukes occur.
Men's is more entertaining, it's bigger worldwide audience. If you look at viewership between 2018 Russia and 2019 France, well that explains the pay disparity. Then look at club soccer. Most people know Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona. How many women clubs do people know of? Celebrities, stars?
Men simply draw bigger crowds cause more sports fans are men. The games are more intense, entertaining and competitive. Watching US women beat women from 3rd world countries with no resources isn't fun at all, no competition. But men, even poor countries can hold their own against developed nations. Notice for women, the richer a country is, the better they perform.
Simply, more people watch men's sports, and so, men get more revenue. Not just soccer but almost all sports.
Why don't I see NYT write how WNBA players should be paid the same? Or female ice hockey players? Or female softball players? You know the truth, just can't handle it.
9
With all due respect - have the US Men's team ever gotten 90,000 plus into a stadium?
3
Professional sport is not a continuation of title ix driven college equality. Fan support as measured by economic result will dictate compensation for participants. Professional sports are entertainment and compete with other substitutes for precious consumer dollars. The market, with its flaws, is the best mechanism for determining what we desire and what we are willing to pay.
17
This is such an interesting case because it all hinges on revenue generation. The article here glosses over the revenue component, but that’s all it really comes down to. Does the USMNT generate greater direct revenue from ticket sales/merchandise sales/TV contracts than the USWNT? That’s almost a certainty (soccer is a highly cyclical sport—major international tournaments occur every 2-4 years, with qualifying games in-between—so cherrypicking one year’s revenue contribution is highly disingenuous). However, how much of USMNT revenue is derived from fandom created by USWNT success? How many young girls grow up playing soccer because they watched Abby Wambach play—and because they grew up in the sport, how many of those pay for USMNT tickets, USMNT jerseys, watch USMNT games, and implore their friends/family to do the same? There’s a real argument that the USWNT’s undeniable success trickles into the USMNT’s revenue generation. The problem is that contribution is EXTREMELY difficult to quantify. But I do know this: it isn’t fair, equitable, or ethical for USMNT players to fully reap the intangible rewards generated by USWNT success. It’ll be fascinating to see how this plays out in the future.
2
@Alexan
My daughter played soccer from age 5 through high school. She played on travel teams, and went to a soccer camp at UNC, and another one with Mia Hamm.
She does not go to soccer games, and does not wear soccer gear. She has moved on to triathlons and marathons.
Her husband is a baseball guy. Coaches HS baseball, goes to about a dozen Yankee games a year, and will be going to some college baseball game this weekend in Ohio or someplace like that. He wears all sorts of baseball gear.
He is a huge fan of the sport, and spends a lot of money on sports of all kinds. She is an athlete who spends on gear. She did a half marathon this weekend, and will spend on gear that suits her. The running shoes she likes, the running clothes that work, an Apple watch, etc.,
To me, they are a perfect example of why mens sports pay more: he spends money on professional sports stuff, she doesn’t. There is no way to square that circle.
9
@Sailor Sam I think this misses the point I was trying to make (and perhaps that’s my fault for not articulating it well enough in the initial post).
The Women’s team’s historical success has created an “intangible asset” the provides a significant benefit to the men’s team’s ability to generate revenue. There are more fans because of the Women’s historical success. There is more awareness of the sport. The sport’s brand itself in the US is stronger because of Women’s success. The USSF has to take that into account when assessing compensation the same way that Apple has to take into account the importance of brand management when assessing the cost of marketing campaigns, even if those campaigns are extremely difficult to tie to Apple’s incremental revenue. I’m not saying that Women/Men pay should be an even split. I’m saying it’s not as simple as tying their compensation to direct revenue generation.
3
Top pay in sports goes to top performers.
I have no issues with females, equality or open mindedness.
Equal opportunity, equal pay for equal performance is the only correct solution.
Male leagues have better athletes, head to head, than women's leagues.
Women athletes are not the top athletes in their sports.
I've cheered Billy Jean King, Riffian and pulled really hard for Anika but women's sports are not equal to the skill level of men's sports. They are lesser athletes and although I dislike phrasing it this way they are the "minor leagues."
You can contrive any other metric you'd like but lesser performers get lesser pay in every field I can think of. Shifting some money from the minors to support the highest level of competition draws more people to the sport, and the sport as a whole grows in popularity and everyone benefits.
If you're going to point to and covet the rewards of someone else it might be a good idea to earn it with equal quality.
5
A couple of years ago, USA women national team was beaten by under-15 years old boys from Dallas FC . That is how "good" they are.
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
13
Pay the women in the lpga the same while they’re at it.
@mark
But not if the revenue isn't even close. Take the Ryder Cup and Solheim Cup. NBC pays "a gazillion" dollars to broadcast the Ryder Cup, while the LPGA actually has to pay NBC to broadcast the Solheim Cup. Certainly that is neither right nor fair, but paying the women the same as the men doesn't work in this model.
5
The feminists (Billy Jean King) in women's tennis got equal pay in the Slams performing less work with a lower skill set while the men toiled playing best of five sets! Shame!
16
@Max de Winter
I am a tennis player, and I watch all of the majors. I get as much satisfaction from watching the top men compete as I do watching the top women.
Since I view professional sports as entertainment, I feel I get equal value whether it is the men or the women playing. I would rather watch a woman’s quarter final match than a men’s qualifying match even if the man could beat the woman in a match.
Tennis is, so far, the only sport like that.
1
Just convert the men’s and women’s teams so that either men or women can be full members on either team with no quota or gender preferences.
The idea of different leagues for men and women is antiquated.
Separate but equal was a failed and immoral policy when applied to race. The time has long passed to end separate but equal based on sex or gender.
5
@Richard P M
richard
while I like the idea, in sports due to the physical differences it is almost impossible for male and females to compete in the same event on an even basis. ost of the time the male is more dominant, though there are a few sports where the women do better.
nothing sexist about having separate games for the sexes, it really does make it even.
3
Just as fair pay for professional and semi-professional women soccer players is an issue that must be faced so is the overwhelmingly WHITE character of women's soccer in the U.S. and among its world cup teams in the past and present and no doubt well into the future if no corrective action is taken.
2
Feminism is kind of like communism but with all the work taken out of it. Plus, like the latter, it doesn’t make economic sense when compared to capitalism & competitiveness. Wouldn’t it be more equal (in these gender-neutral times) and considerate of both sexes to compete with and against each other from the get go, thereby allowing the performance of the individual(s) to hold sway over our interests & wallets?
12
“It is wrong for us to be paid and valued less for our work because of our gender.”
True.
But if you are paid less because your sport is less profitable because of smaller audiences, it has NOTHING to do with your gender.
13
Equal pay for equal work. So, let's make the women play best-of-five, or the men play best-of-three, in pro tennis. Fair's fair.
11
I can only read so many of these comments. I am shocked at the level of sexism, by the misogyny, the insults and the kind of thinking that harks back to the 50's or 60's. What holes did these guys crawl out of? Or am I just a liberal "snowflake" with blinders on who thought some things had changed, that we were better than thinking like this in 2019?
20 years ago the US Women's National Team won the World Cup, on US soil. Not only did they score a spectacular win, but they also set attendance records per game and for the tournament. The per game record still stands today. Just a quick reminder - the USMNT failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup
7
@Davis Bliss
It is not misogyny to point out that the pay in soccer is directly connected to the revenue generated. Men’s soccer currently generates far more revenue, therefore the pay is higher for those involved. Simple economics, not misogyny.
12
To all the uppity lads depicting professional female soccer as equivalent to a bland pick-up game in a trucker's parking lot in Boise, Idaho...
You've seen Sam Kerr play, right???
The arrogance in the comments here is hideous. And your arguments so wrong-headed. There is a broader debate here worth having: should pay for professional sport be about the viewership dollars pulled in or about the job itself? Are you suggesting that for men's games that get low viewership figures, those male players should be payed less for that game than they are for other games with higher viewing figures?
The job of professional football is to play football at a level deemed by those bodies who appraise such things to be exceptional. It is not to pull in viewers. As such, those who do the same job (play football at an exceptional level) should get the same pay.
2
@Lex
Pro sports are businesses. Some businesses generate more revenue than other businesses. Those that generate more revenue pay those involved in the business more income.
That’s all there is to it.
Your notion that all those involved in an endeavor should get the same pay, no matter on what level they are involved, is silly(and I suspect you know that). I made some of my career as an actor and singer. When I worked in NY in theater, I made more than I did when I worked in Tulsa. That’s because in NY the tickets cost more, and everyone makes a bigger paycheck than when they work in Tulsa. More revenue=higher pay.
8
@Lex
Look at what happened to NBA salaries, or really any of the big four team sport salaries (baseball, football, hockey, basketball) once broadcast and cable tv picked them up and more and more viewers watched.
The players and owners made more money. If the sport is niche, bowling, lacrosse, bodybuilding, rodeo, target shooting, etc, the top performers will make less money even though they are working just as hard at their sport as other professionals.
So yes, if you are a man who goes into a sport fewer people watch all else equal you WILL earn less money.
This is also true in other endeavors. A writer who creates expert histories on 10th century Romanesque architectural standards is not going to earn as much $$$ as Stephen King, even though objectively he might be just as skilled.
That's how things work. If there's not the money coming in from attendance, advertising, television, merchandising, to pay less popular performers, where do you think that money should come from?
5
Here are a few facts.
The men's salaries are paid by their teams not by the federation.
if they do not have a team, unlike the women, they have no salary.
The women's are directly employed by the federation year round.
The present women's league, on its third incarnation and constantly on the brink of collapse, is now subsidized by the Canadian, Mexican and US federations, without this support, it would no longer exist.
Big European women's teams are sponsored by corporations and command large followings, it doesn't happen here.
FIFA's prize money awards are based on tournament's revenue, and based on the semi-empty stadiums, the women's World Cup will generate a small fraction of last year's Russia World Cup, if it breaks even.
When called up, USMNT get per diem and bonuses for draws and victories, a along with a share of tournament's prize money.
USMNT should get the same. In addition to their already secured federation's and league's salaries.
Alex Morgan makes hundreds of dollars more than most of her teammates, I suppose due to performance and higher profile having to do nothing with gender inequality.
Amy Wambach said that when she and Payton Manning together went up to the stage to pick up an award, she could not help but think that they were both stars in their respective sports but that unlike her, Payton was financially set for life.
What she did not say is "I wish I had practiced a more profitable sport, like tennis".
8
@Sal - "Big European women's teams are sponsored by corporations and command large followings, it doesn't happen here."
And still, the European ladies make a lot less than their American counterparts. Even with the USMNT/USWNT pay disparity, American female players are millionaires compared to the rest of the world.
4
Women haven’t even had a world cup to play in until 1991. Women still can’t play soccer professionally, or at all, in many countries across the world. So to say that there is no interest, no butts in seats, well a large chuck of the population cant even access those seats for a variety of reasons. There are so many historical reasons why women’s soccer cannot be as “popular” (popular being a measure of eyeballs on screens and butts in seats) as men’s soccer when the half of the population that would “deign” to watch the women’s team play have no access to do so.
If your complaint is they aren’t as good as the men, well there hasn’t been the investment in the women’s game that there has in men in America or elsewhere. The amount that has been invested in promoting women’s soccer to the same levels as the men, around the world and in America, has been paltry - small example, but there was a time where the American men’s team only played on grass fields and the women were relegated to turf (turf has shown to generate more injuries).
So I guess this is a chicken of the egg situation here. Many men in this comment thread are suggesting you have to conjure this fan base out of nothing before you can get paid for your success. The women’s team is saying we are conjuring this out of nothing and we still can’t get an investment in our growth.
2
Well said! Thank you! My husband and I will be going to France to support our women’s team and all the world’s women. I wouldn’t have had this opportunity when I was younger because it didn’t exist. My husband has wanted a women’s US National Team jersey for years but they didn’t make them in men’s sizing until now. So, now he’ll have his jersey when we’re cheering in France. The fans are here and growing. US Soccer and FIFA needs to create a market like they have done for men: reduce the barriers, advertise, invest! We support you!!! Go, ladies!
1
Equality means there is no discrimination based on sex; it also means you get paid what you’re worth and that, in the free market, is equal to revenue. If you generate more, you should be paid more. But if you generate less, because less people buy your product, then you don’t get the same amount as other generating more. That’s gender equality.
68
@Dave great point! You just made the case for paying the women's team the same (or more than) the men's team. Did you miss the point about the federation revising their numbers from a loss of $429,929 to a $17.7mm profit because of the Women's National Team performance?
23
@Emily
The federation doesn’t pay the men. Their teams do. So since the men are paid nothing by the federation, and using your logic, the women should also be paid nothing by the federation.
11
@Emily remember that this is a global market, and that explains why the market for female soccer players is a lot softer than the male market. The fact is that female athletes do receive a very high level of societal support in the US compared to other countries, and that is why US women dominate soccer (as well as tennis and many other sports). To put it bluntly, many other cultures really couldn't care less about women's soccer, and therefore there is not much demand for female talent in the global market. There is, on the other hand, a great deal of demand for male soccer talent, which means that if we want to have even the slightest chance of building a good US men's soccer team, we will need to pay men competitively. Yes, this feels unfair, but I want to make the important point that the disparity here is not driven by active discrimination--rather it is driven by basic rules of supply and demand. I guess the question here is whether the pay for women should be driven by the demand for men.
To tilt the balance of supply and demand in US women's favor, one of two things would need to happen 1) global interest in and demand for female soccer talent would need to grow, or 2) intra-US women's soccer games would need to generate more revenue (because that is not a global league, it is immune from the global economic forces).
10
Yes, there are differences between the men and the women's game. Yes, the women's game might be a smaller commercial market.
But have any of these commenters thought about WHY the women's style of play is not as valued as the mens game, or bring in as much $$$? Maybe because our patriarchical societies have not allowed/ or encouraged women sports. It wasn't until Title IX in the 1970s in the US that opened the door for women to play sports.
Comparing the two markets is like comparing apples and oranges. Men have had an eternal headstart, vs. the 40 something years women have been in the game. Just waiting for some of these commentators to say that these women should get back into the kitchen.
3
@Lauren
As I mentioned above, my daughter played soccer from age 5 through high school and on competitive travel teams. For each of the age groups she played, the boy’s age group was measurably better.
She also played basketball on a competitive team. When the girls would scrimmage against same age boys on a town team, even though the boys were faster and stronger, the girls team handily beat them. The girls level of fitness was higher, the girls ran plays, the girls played team defense, boxed out, etc. But in tournaments where equally competitive boys teams played, the boys were just better. They too were fit, they too ran plays and played team defense. But the same age boys were stronger, faster, could jump higher, and could shoot accurately from further out.
And none of these kids got paid, and, believe me, it cost the parents about the same.
1
@Lauren
Women are never going to be as big, strong, or as fast as men.
Sports reward size, speed and strength along with a few other traits.
Comparing women's sports to men's sports IS like comparing apples to oranges which is why I wish women would stop doing it.
2
@Sailor Sam I'm not arguing that men are stronger/faster/etc. The men and women play a different game. BUT different does not necessarily mean one or other is better in an egalitarian society. My point was that the framework in which we value the game has been created by men.
The US men's team failed to qualify for the World Cup and are devoid of personally, charisma and leadership. The women's team is deep with talent and full of inspirational stories, passion and talent. Give them 5x the salary. When the men's team can do better than 5th in North America and shows they care even a little about their fans consider a change.
3
@Todd - The difference in performance from both teams speaks more about the competition they have to face than their own quality. The U.S. is the only country in the world where soccer is considered a women's sport. Literally everywhere else, it's the opposite.
Do you want to know which one of those teams is actually better? Make them play against each other. Any other means of comparison is pure speculation.
6
The women should continue fighting for more pay. However, it seems they do this by denigrating their male compatriots by categorizing them as an inferior product. If you open the books and you generate as much money then I will say yes to equal pay. I doubt that the women even come close despite the media coverage very four years. If the US men played Argentina in a friendly at the Meadowlands with Messi in uniform they would generate more at the turnstiles than a US women vs Argentina’s females. Men’s soccer is a bigger brand. That should not deter the progress made in the women’s game nor should they stop fighting for more money. Also, sorry there are a number of female tennis players who should have been on that ESPY stage instead of Wambach who have fought the same equality fight for years.
5
Why don't minor league baseball players get paid as much as major league players? I'm sure they work just as hard at their sport. Seems unfair, doesn't it?
14
The U.S. women’s soccer team outperforms the men’s team when it comes to victories, domestic viewership, and name recognition. Its members are stars, consistently ranked No. 1 in the world, and they make millions of dollars for their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation. And yet, the earn significantly less than their male counterparts.
2
@Brendan - I believe the answer to this conundrum lies with the sponsors. It would be interesting to see what they have to say.
2
I think the line in the article, "The women are way, way better" should have been edited to be more precise, something like "The women's record is way, way better."
Then maybe there wouldn't be so many commenters fixated on how the women's team couldn't beat the men's team, and so on.
This is about professional athletes at the top of their sport fighting to be paid what they're worth. If someone's making money here, shouldn't the players be well-compensated?
Much of the interest in the soccer World Cup is driven by nationalism, and that's much more true of the women's tournament than for the men's tournament. If the teams in this tournament were just teams of professional women soccer players not representing countries, the number of people paying any attention would go down by a factor of ten, at least.
And as America becomes more tribal, and with American patriotism even vilified, the number of Americans who give a hoot about a team representing America will shrink.
2
Will someone explain to me why after centuries of gender discrimination women need to continue to be paid less because men got all that extra time to get to this level? So maybe to be fair we freeze men’s salaries until we catch up?
4
The idea that the featured player (whose name I don't even recall after having just read this article) is on par with Peyton Manning and Kobe Bryant - two household names who received millions in marketing dollars - is ludicrous.
As is the assertion that the women are "better" than the men because they've won more.
There is a simple solution - field a single soccer team open to all - men, women, non-binary, transgender, etc. But I'm guessing that wouldn't satisfy these players because they wouldn't be able to play on such a team.
The beauty of capitalism is that the market sets the value for your services. If the women players are generating more money, they should get the benefit. These players should refuse to play unless paid what they think they're worth. If other players who are equally as good don't step up, the federation will pay. But this article doesn't get into those facts with any specificity at all, so we are left wondering - do the women actually generate more money than the men? Are the women subsidizing the men. That would be an article worth reading.
7
@Citizen The way the article describes the value addition (not revenue) of the women - as having turned a small loss into a profit - rather than simply listing the revenue and costs of each team tells me that the women generate less revenue than the men and have to resort to this convoluted argument to sidestep the simple question. And the fact that this article elides the issue bolsters my contention.
3
The only thing they're battling against is the fact that people don't want to pay to see their games. Women's soccer will always be a money-losing niche.
5
@Blarp
Women soccer is watched by millions more people than mens soccer. Women have added disproportionately more money to the Federation than the mens teams and actually won more games. Pay the women at the very least equal pay for their superior talents.
2
These women don't simply show up as little kids to begin playing the game. As they have shown some talent and desire to want to play, the "pay to play" system that has ruined soccer here in the states - kicks in.
Meaning, as these young girls grow up, their families are footing the bill in most cases to get them on comp teams that travel and have paid coaches.
They hope to make their high school teams - even moving to get to a school with a known good girls program.
Then, the next step, if they can continue to improve and avoid the politics of the system they have come up through, is to land a college scholarship.
From there, they are in the dual track of having been scouted by the U.S. Soccer Federation as far back as when they were in their early teens.
What part of any of this does not require the same time, training, financial investment and commitment as the men's team?
Our family has been to see both the men's and women's teams play over the years and, frankly, my kids, a son and two daughters, now grown, always preferred the chance to go see the women play.
The matches were always sold out. The atmosphere was always more fun and lively and the footy was always top class - and the women always won, even in very hard-fought matches against the likes of Mexico and Brazil.
The men's team is a rolling disaster. They lose to the likes of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, the latter having blocked them from getting to the World Cup.
Pay the women!
3
For an outside perspective, as a Canadian, we are well aware of another angle: all the money and endorsements and commercial value comes from the U.S., and, as a long-time watcher of all football, men's and women's, it often appears that the officials and organizers favor the Americans in order to ensure exposure in the most important sports market. In the most blatant example, at the 2012 Olympics, Canada was leading 3-2 when Norwegian referee Christina Pedersen called the Canadian goalie for taking too long to get rid of the ball. Have you ever seen that called before in a World Cup or Olympic match? Nobody has. But video shows American forwards screaming at the referee seconds before the call. And that is only one example of many. Yes, some of the glory of the American team is earned, but some of it is privilege.
3
@Bill Van Dyk
Oh, please. You get 20 seconds to offload the ball by tule. Most refs allow way more than that. You had a hard-fought 1-0 win yesterday. Enjoy it. Sheesh.
1
@Bill Van Dyk "...referee Christina Pedersen called the Canadian goalie for taking too long to get rid of the ball. Have you ever seen that called before in a World Cup or Olympic match?"
Absolutely. In fact, that is the most common cause of yellow cards given to goalies in World Cups and other competitions, both male and female.
1
The claim for equal pay by professional players is valid and legitimate.
One of the reasons why the men’s program is inferior, however, is the dearth of Division I men’s soccer programs. Title IX requires equal numbers of female athletes, and men’s football consumes a vast amount of the male quota. That leaves men’s collegiate soccer programs few and far between.
1
@Michael McLemore
A) The men's program isn't "inferior." The quality of the competition in the men's game is higher and as such notable results are harder to come by. The women by example have been able to breeze by their women counterpart largely on the strenght of better support from their home federation (though the gap is steadily closing), which unlike many others elsewhere, actually took the women's game seriously. That focus has led to better training and fitness- still the USWNT's strength, rather than natural ability.
2) The "dearth" of Division I men's programs actually doesn't hamper the development of professionals. No offense, but it's clear from your comments that you know little about the sport- at least the sport as it exists in the US. Colleges don't develop professional soccer players, full-time academies do. Many college players still get drafted into the MLS, but few excel professionally, and even fewer attract or keep the interests of foreign clubs.
4
For what it's worth, the USWNT is probably the leading light of women's sports on the US, and definitely the most influential women's team sport. When I was growing up, Mia Hamm, Brandi Chastain, and the rest of that team became household names as they won the Women's World Cup. They got a lot of attention, and rightfully so, for their efforts. Abby Wambach has been an icon of US sports for a very long time for a reason as well. Their jerseys sell and are recognized all over the place.
Their success has also pushed better development of women's soccer in other countries as they sought to knock the US off its pedestal.
They deserve to get paid for their efforts.
7
@Dave However, watch the US women's soccer league and see how many fans attend. Not much interest even by women.
Watch an NFL game and see the difference. Watch a soccer game in the English Premiere League and see the difference. Watch a soccer game in the German Bundasliga and see the difference.
5
Gender discrepancies in pay are important and should be addressed. However, it is reasonable to compare the percentage of ticket and merchandise sales rather than absolute number for salary equivalence calculations. Most male soccer players in the US top league get paid less than those in top European leagues--same principle. Soccer, along with all sports, is entertainment. An equal percentage rule also works well for other types of entertainment such as film. In that setting, male and female leads would get the same absolute pay because the associated revenue is the same. If your performance draws few or many people, you should be reimbursed proportionately and in a gender-blind fashion.
8
Let’s talk ROI. The Federation has done so little to create buzz for the team that it’s no wonder Americans don’t know how entertaining the games are to watch and how talented the players are. Five minutes into watching FS1’s television coverage of the World Cup, it’s apparent the effect that great cameras have in the enjoyment of watching. The NWSL is painful to watch on television due to the fixed angle, low definition cameras. Thank God I live in Portland and can watch live in an amazing stadium experience.
Popularity of modern athletes and teams are created narratives with heavy investments. It is absurd that the Federation and all the nay-sayers refuse to acknowledge this.
8
It is instructive that the litigants in this matter choose to ignore the market realities of the matter. Male soccer generates much more revenue than female soccer. That is why males earn more money. It is not more complicated than that. But the litigants choose to ignore that fact and make this a dispute about gender. I recall this axiom about litigations; when the facts are on your side argue the facts, when the law is on your side argue the law, when neither is on your side make things up.
22
@Donald Smith: May I quote the article?
It cites numbers from the 2016 fiscal year that indicate that the federation had expected a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929, but that largely because of the women’s team’s successes it revised its projections to a $17.7 million profit.
10
@Frank O Turning a loss into a profit isn’t the same thing as generating more revenue. Clearly the women don’t generate more revenue so they need to make this convoluted and dubious argument (based on just 1 year’s outcome) to bolster their case.
2
I am astounded at the number of comments that say that the women should not be paid the same as men because the men's game is superior -- men are bigger, stronger, and faster. Male youth teams would easily beat the US women's team ... etc.
By that logic, I think horses should be paid more than human sprinters. There's no comparison: not a SINGLE human runner could go faster than the most washed-up thoroughbred.
I am old enough to remember when similar arguments dominated discussions about women's and men's tennis. It led to the absurdity of the contest between Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Haven't we matured a bit since 1973? It appears not.
15
@Cynthia
There are lots of people who pay attention to women's tennis.
There are few people who pay any attention to women's soccer, except when there's a competition between nations, like at the Olympics or the World Cup, and even then the amount of interest is nothing like what it is for men's soccer.
If women cared as much about women's soccer as men care about men's soccer, then the best women soccer players would be making tons of money, but hardly anyone cares about women's soccer.
18
@Cynthiashould lpga players who are the best women golfers get the same purse as the men’s?
2
@Cynthia Your comments about tennis are off base. The King-Riggs match was an idea of Riggs to increase the exposure and popularity of both men's and women's tennis. Riggs was the consummate showman who wanted to do whatever he could to increase the popularity of tennis (and, presumably, fatten his wallet). It really had nothing to do with a "battle of the sexes".
If you look at current day men's and women's soccer, women are paid equally to men in 4 tournaments - the majors. Outside of the 4 majors, the prize money on the women's tour is about 2/3 of the men's prize money due to the much greater popularity of the men's game. If you watch pro tennis, take a look at the typical audience size of the men's matches vs. the women's matches, and you will see why.
As a tennis player, I actually find the women's game more interesting since the play is much more similar to the ability level and style of recreational tennis and therefore more educational. In terms of athleticism, however, there is no comparison between the men and women.
2
I’m a male and a huge soccer fan. I love the beautiful game. In terms of football I stick to my teams and support them through thick and thin. In all fairness, our women play a better style of football than the men and are more fun to watch, better skilled as a team and more cohesive. I’m sure I’m not alone on this that they deserve equal pay (and believe our men get too much of the share for the poor quality and internal mess that comes with it).
14
People are pointing out the revenue disparity between the men and women's game as justification for the pay gap.
That's fine, at the club level. Men's and women's professional clubs (effectively their day jobs) will pay vastly different wages because of the differing economics. What's at issue here is that, US Soccer, our governing body for the sport, is paying the women far less despite the fact that the economic gap between the men's and women's national team isn't that large, plus, the women are far more successful on the pitch then the men.
US Soccer should pay the women on a level commensurate with the men, period. The club game is a totally different kettle of fish, but US Soccer should promote the national interest and promote gender equality. The women are the poster people for the sport in the country too, because the men's program has been in the wilderness for a few years now.
28
@Brian Actually Brian, thanks for the good analysis. I am a supporter of the women's game. I have coached my girls for many years. But, as you mentioned, I am looking at the revenue disparity as an argument against, not for. But your point is cogent and well made, and I agree with you. Thanks.
2
@Brian Just where do you think the money comes from for the US national teams? The USMNT gets a share of FIFA's Men's World Cup money. That is a vastly deeper pool of funds than the Women's World Cup generates.
5
@Charles G.
That's only a small portion of the funds that US soccer has it's disposal, and doesn't take into account all of the other sources of revenue that generate the federation budget. US Soccer is essentially run as a business that's sitting on a huge surplus that has also largely been driven by the success of the US women's teams. Besides, it's never a guarantee given the state of the US men's program that we'll even qualify for each cycle.
Frankly, I think it's myopic to take a wholly economically driven view towards determining wages for the players in this context. The economic gap between the men's and women's national teams aren't even that large to begin with, and the national team should be an avatar for our nation and the values that we hold sacred. I'm not for sacrificing fairness at the altar of purely economic considerations.
1
Until women’s soccer can bring in the same number of paying fans, sell as much merchandise and sell broadcasting rights for the same amount, they will never get paid the same. Not sure why this is so complicated. People look at this like gender is the only variable at play.
37
Ignoring market realities is never a great way to handle an economic decision. Men are paid more in their home soccer leagues than women due to the higher revenue of those leagues. That helps set the market for what men/women are paid for national team service. Chelsea just paid $73M transfer fee for Christian Pulisic. That is market check and reflects market based reality. What woman soccer player has commanded that? I enjoy the women’s soccer team and wish them well. Perhaps they are underpaid, i don t know; but i do know that the market says men at the top levels of the sport are paid much higher because that is the market.
17
don't quite understand what club data has anything to do with this - we're talking about the national team setup, no?
1
There is only one American girl (that I am aware of) whose soccer ability you can compare to the boys.
Her name is Olivia Moultrie and she is 13 yo. She already has a professional contract.
Her soccer path is similar to what many boys accomplish, specially abroad.
That is the reason the men play so much better than the women. This month there were many opportunities to watch quality soccer with the men U20 world cup in Poland, the U23 confederations game in Toulon and, obviously the Women's World Cup in France.
Any objective observer would agree that the men's play a much better game; not because of superior strength or velocity, but because they have put the time in to develop their skills. In time, the US might develop players like Moultrie whose skill would parallel those of men.
The US women's team plays better than most of the competition. This is because the US Federation is supporting the domestic league and because the college system in the US provides a good development ground, although it obviously starts way too late.
There is less than a handful of other teams in the world where women's soccer is taken seriously and the quality of their game shows it.
5
@El Lucho. I got to disagree. Women have quality, Men do not. Men have quantity. Women do not. I, and many other people prefer the quality. Quantity will come.
2
@Alexander Brooks-Major II
I am not sure how you measure quality.
The USWNT have lost several times playing against boys (not men) teams.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sports/comments/3ceeih/the_us_mens_u17_soccer_team_played_the_uswnt/
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
3
@El Lucho I'm troubled by your argument that men "have put in the time to develop their skills." Are you insinuating that the women haven't? That seems out of touch.
1
When it comes to business, the creative world, academia, or a space launch women should earn just as much as a man! However sports is an entire different animal. Women simply cannot physically operate on the same level as men. If it's soccer,
basketball, golf, tennis or boxing the skill level isn't comparable. In tennis women make equal money in the Slams performing less work when the men play best of five. Look at the French Open semis where the four women had zero Slams amongst them where the men had 53! Serena as arguably the greatest woman to play the game wouldn't be able to beat the current men's NCAA champion! If the men boycotted the upcoming U.S. Open the attendance would be dismal! All that being said the soccer gals should make more than they're earning but not equal!
8
The level of play between men's and women's soccer is like night and day. Men in the US Major League Soccer or MLS do not get paid the same as those in elite leagues such as the German Bundasliga or England's Premiere League. The reasons are level of play and ticket revenue and even US MLS soccer reflects that. But you don't see men in MLS complaining about not being paid the same as elite European soccer leagues. Why? The level of play and viewership is not the same as the European or South American countries.
If you have ever watched these elite league games you will see maxed out stadiums with majority of attendees being men. Men support these games with game tickets purchases, purchase of merchandise, and high numbers of viewership. All of these generate revenue.
Look at women's soccer in the USA. The games are rarely broadcasted on any major networks. Look at the stadiums when women's soccer games are played. They are mostly empty even when the USWNT plays. I know. I watch the games.
Why aren't women supporting women's soccer? Men support men's sports by purchasing game tickets, merchandise, and providing significant viewership but women don't support their own sports but here they are complaining.
Men have been building up men's professional sports and leagues for decades. It takes hard work and not just sympathy.
20
Take a look at the attendance in the stands as you watch the women's World Cup. Not half full.
In 2010 the Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, the men's almost $4 billion. Pay is relative to revenue generated. Period.
25
Seems like it is only discrimination if you can prove that as a proportion of revenue the women are paid less. The NYTimes continues to write articles on this topic, yet that central figure still remains elusive (or some nebulous attempt is put forward as in this article). How much money does the men's team generate and how does that compare to what the women's team generates? I love our USWMNT, I think all the players are an inspiration, but I'd be a fool to think that money comes out of thin air. In the end, this seems to me an issue of the popularity of soccer, in particular, women's soccer, in the US and the economics of sports more than an issue of deliberate discrimination. Or, prove me wrong and get some unambiguous revenue figures.
9
It’s astonishing to see all the misogyny in the comments. It makes me wonder about the mothers who raised these guys.
13
@EP
Truth telling is not misogyny. Men’s sports generate far more revenue than women’s sports. Men’s higher pay reflects that fact, not some misogyny myth.
7
As soon as a female athlete can compete against the best male athletes, I will believe it is prejudice and not reality.
1
So all this is about the money after all, not the love of the sport.
5
"no team in the history of the Women’s World Cup has ever won back-to-back titles,"
Germany Won Back to Back Titles in 2003 and in 2007.
9
Some here have suggested that, if the women want the same pay as the men, then they should try playing against the men.
Of course everyone with even a tenuous grasp of reality knows that there’s not a woman in the world who could be competitive against the best men in soccer (or just about any other sport).
But if you put “sex segregation in sports” into Google, you’ll find that there are quite a few lunatics out there who don’t think there should be separate competitions for men and women. Some of them are university professors.
5
@Thomas Martin let them compete with whomever they want. Make the Oscars, Olympics, Formula1, Yachting, Math, Spelling Bees etc be completely gender free and sexless. What’s between our legs shouldn’t deter us from competing with those who haven’t the same. Human sports, universal competition. Let the wheat separate from the chaff, let the cream rise to the top, let the apple fall where it may. That’s a sportspersonship, LOL, Just Kidding. We all know men are better, faster, stronger, smarter, like the Daft Punx song.
I guess it depends on the definition of "equal." Equal does not necessarily mean the "same."
1
It's misogyny when a female doctor, factory worker, day laborer, or manager makes less than a male doing the same job. A female soccer player? Not really. This is about the US Women wanting more money, not about gender parity. They are making a mockery of the equal pay/equal work issue.
11
This is one of the worst articles I’ve ever read.
Saying the women are better than the men’s team is demonstrably and totally false; they play in separate leagues and the fact one has a better record relative to the same-gender teams they play isn’t really a basis of comparison. It’s like saying the team that wins the little league World Series is better than a Major League team that finishes in last place. It’s ludicrous and they are to comparable in any respect.
The women also get a greater percentage of revenue in their league than do the men.
The fact that the the women’s professional league has been running for seven years and is the longest lived league in women’s sports is a good indicator that women’s professional leagues simply do not compare in audience and revenue in any way to men’s professional sports leagues.
This is not to diminish the success and influence these women have had; it’s simply to state an obvious fact that the article should have but instead ignores like the proverbial Elephant in the room in order to maintain its ludicrous and demonstrably absurd narrative.
23
They have a equal pay. They are about as good as a solid U15 boys youth team. Those kids don't get paid, the women do. I guess the women are overpaid then?
12
Their soccer peers are the under 16 boys team (who would still shut them out). They should be paid the same as their soccer peers plus a cut of the tv revenue.
12
This is not about equal pay for equal work. Women's soccer is not men's soccer. In fact, this movement seems likely to set back the legitimate complaints women have about equal pay.
11
How about pooling all the salaries from all the players of all the nations participating and then divide it evenly ? Let me guess that sort of parity would not go over with the plaintiffs.
4
@Suburban Cowboy only if the men's teams follow the same formula.
1
not having access to "the books" to know the real numbers. Pay each team the same percentage of revenue generated by the team. Similar to the NFL. X dollars of revenue x the equal percentage for each team in salaries. If the mens team generates more, then the players will be paid more. If the womens team generates an equal or better amount of revenue, then they get paid the same or more than the men.
8
Women's soccer generates much less interest and revenue, and correspondingly they make less. What's wrong with it?
29
@Brian from the article:
"The suit also claims that “during the period relevant to this case,” the women’s team earned more for U.S. Soccer than the men’s team did. It cites numbers from the 2016 fiscal year that indicate that the federation had expected a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929, but that largely because of the women’s team’s successes it revised its projections to a $17.7 million profit."
7
WRONG. Going back to the 1994 Women's World Cup, hosted by the US, the team set attendance records per game and for the match. The per game record still stands. Over 60,000 people for a "friendly" between #1 USA and #20 Belgium? And nobody's interested...
2
@SDC
This is a disingenuous response. That figure cited almost certainly does not include television revenue. The most recent women's World Cup generated something like $73 million, while the most recent men's World Cup generated about $4 billion. These are the pertinent numbers.
How about a shootout to settle this once and for all? Have the U.S women’s team play the men’s team and if the women win or tie they get equal compensation.
6
The US Men's Team are often inadequate in international competition & painful to watch. They also FAILED TO QUALIFY for the 2018 World Cup. That's never happened to the Women's National Team.
I've always thought that shoot-outs are kind of a joke when used to evaluate a team's excellence, or to break a tie. One good (or lucky) kick does not a good player, or team, make.
4
How about the best of seven then? That should separate the men from the boys. The revenue would be huge and would be split evenly.
1
Why don't we just eliminate separate men's and women's sports? Everything's open to everybody. The cream will rise to the top, and get paid more, accordingly. Plus we won't have any issues about transgender athletes competing in the "wrong" sport. Simple.
15
@Dave
That would be like eliminating the weight categories in boxing ....
Nothing to do with gender. Forget the money part for a moment, one has to have a level playing field in order to practice and enjoy a sport.
3
@Dave We do that in Skeet, trap, and sporing clays shooting. Sometimes a woman wins.
1
As someone who watches men's and women's international soccer, I find the numbers in this article a little disingenuous. While the women's team is probably one of the best the US has in all of the sports available, the coverage and following is not one of the best in the country. If the numbers and ideas that the woman's team does in fact generate as much if not more revenue than the men's team, then yes you have a case. However you are still not accounting for the potential revenue. Would the men's team generate more for US Soccer if they grew and became consistent contenders that the women's team is? Unfortunately I would say yes.
Also, if you are being misleading as I suspect in the article and omitting key facts, then that does not change reality and the case implodes a bit.
9
@Jeff
The men's team would generate more revenue if they became the consistent contenders that the women's team already is. But why should they bother since they are already being payed more than 2x the salary of the more competitive female players?
7
I can't stand to watch the men's national team play. It is unclear what game they are playing. But the women are magnificent and are a pleasure to watch. I wish the nationaal federation would bring in an outside auditor to determine the returns from the men's and women's teams so we could tell by how much the women are underpaid.
14
Or how much the men are overpaid ?
4
The women remind us why soccer is called "the beautiful game". The men are painful to watch, and are embarrassing on the international stage.
2
What more can one say. They’ve said it all and well. Their actions speak much more forcefully than others’ words. I’ll watch their play in wonder at their skill and dedication. They will win of the field; they have already won our admiration, may the greater goal be won soon.
3
FIFA and US Soccer are so unfair. The women should set up their own organization. Which they could, of course. But they don't, because what they have now and what they will receive in the foreseeable future as an adjunct of the much more popular men's game is so much greater than they could bring in on their own.
.
Yes, the women are talented. So am I. They make more than I do, because I'm not a top professional women's soccer player. I'm just someone with a PhD in Chemical Engineering. Is that unfair? Perhaps, but I understand the business of sports and celebrity that drive it. The women may wish they were part of a more popular sport like men's soccer, but they aren't, which is unfair. But look on the bright side -- they make more than 99% of sportsmen and women, and they get to play a children's game for a living.
16
@Tom Meadowcroft are you sure thatmen's soccer as played by the national team is more popular than the women's? not me. about the only thing making the men's professional league watchable are the over-the-hill foreign players coming for the last paychecks, not members of US men's national team.
6
Bravo, great article. The women’s focus, strength and resolve are clear. Rapinoe is a natural leader with a brilliant future.
I wish them all a well deserved win in this fight.
10
Aren't we women, who at the end are largely at fault, for raising sexist children from day one allowing patriarchal mentality into social system to rule for generations...?
Well, let's start to change that mentality....
Remember: Women use both sides of the brain to process emotions, men just one. So use them both!
1
@Think bout it
Isn't that what they are doing by raising the lawsuits?
1
I think the solution is simple. Have them open the men's world cup to female players if they want to play.
9
"The women (USWNT) are way, way better (than the USMNT)"
No! They are not! When the USWNT play against men, even young high school aged men, they get their doors blown off.
The author (and perhaps plaintiffs) conflate better relative success by the USWNT competing against women's teams than USMNT against men's teams with the false notion that the USWNT would directly beat the USMNT.
In fact the USMNT would easily win the Women's World Cup every year were they allowed to play in it. The USWNT would not qualify for the men's World Cup if they had to play other national men's teams.
Both teams are playing soccer but the standard of competition is much different in the two tournaments. More specifically, it's lower in the women's competition. They are not doing equal work to the men, the men's competition is much more difficult. This is a significant factor in why revenues for the women are much lower, about $131 million TV versus $5 billion.
The US women actually get a similar percentage of their tournament revenue versus the US men and their tournament revenue, and it is mandated in their contract their percentage is no less than the men's.
Real gender based pay discrimination is wrong and worth fighting against. But their situation is not pay discrimination. It's people in a lower level competition expressing jealousy for the greater interest and money in a higher level one, and coveting the money earned by teams good enough to play in the higher level one.
22
They play much like the MLS teams play. Why is the play lacking the intensity and aggressiveness of European and English men's soccer? Still, since the play is similar shouldn't the pay be similar?
1
"Market realities" will be used as a defense by the association. Which is a euphemism for how much money the different teams take in determines how much the players get paid. With the pro leagues, I agree with this. There are more people watching MLS than are watching NWSL. But given that the women on the National team are at the top of THEIR game in the world, the association should divy up the National Team payouts equally. But one must ask why an average men's team (relative to other men's teams) draws more spectators than an elite women's team. At some level the spectators are drawn to the team whose players are stronger, faster, and (dare I say, more skilled). Most men will always patronize the men's sport for those reasons. To those who argue that the women are just as good, that is simply not true. Put the women's U.S. National team up against a boys High School state championship soccer team. The boys would hold their own.
4
@Steve
Do you have any proof that a high school boy's soccer team can beat the USWNT?
@Michelle They've done it. https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
1
The women's soccer team has been world dominant for decades; its stars are true stars in every sense of the word and should be paid accordingly. Among people who don't follow soccer closely, who can name a dozen U.S. team male stars? I can't name even one, while I can rattle off women's names going back to '99. More importantly, so can my daughter.
24
@Nancy penny
My daughter played soccer, so I have watched the women play and win a lot. That being said, it is entertainment, so receipts matter. I would pay more to see The Eagles in concert than the Go-Gos, although I would have paid more to see The Supremes in concert than The Turtles.
It is entertainment.
8
[[“Kobe and Peyton walked away from their careers with something I didn’t have: enormous bank accounts,” Wambach said. “Because of that, they had something else I didn’t have: freedom. Their hustling days were over; mine were just beginning.”]]
In America, football and basketball are more lucrative than soccer. Kobe sells sneakers and Peyton sells beer...what does (women's) soccer sell in the U.S.?
16
I think, after reading the comments, that most would agree that "Equal Pay" means that both teams receive about the same percent of what they bring in. The problem is to determine exactly how to attribute the incoming revenue. Perhaps an external auditor is needed.
As per the premise that the women's team is "better", the author needs a dose of reality. The competitive female soccer level is dismal. For instance, the female Australian national team (Matildas) was famously defeated 7-0 by a team of under-15 boys in 2016. However the Matildas were qualified for the Olympics.
Matildas Beaten 7-0 By Newcastle Jets Under-15 Boys Team
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/05/25/matildas-beaten-7-0-by-newcastle-jets-under-15-boys-team_a_21383895/
14
Why don't they challenge the men's team to show the world just how good they are against a very, very average men's team?
12
US women dominate female soccer because they are physically bigger and stronger than females from other countries.
3
I am happy if you also pay me as much as any of these people make for striking a ball for 90 minutes. I have a PhD in economics, a MSc in software development, and 15+ years of experience, yet I earn nothing compared to professional athletes, male or female.
8
They currently earn 10 percent of what the men’s team makes. 10 percent! It’s an insult and a joke. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of their ability, they are the best in their sport and represent this country with pride. It’s an absolute disgrace and a glaring example of gender inequality.
15
They should dump the men and pay themselves whatever they want. That would be true power. Maybe hey could subsidize the men if they felt generous.
2
I am for equal pay if they simply bring the men’s pay down to what the women get. We need to stop overcompensating athletes period, irrespective of gender.
8
Minor league baseball teams don’t expect to get paid what the majors get. It’s about the value you bring and the level of competition you play against. Simply winning a lot doesn’t matter if it’s not against the highest level. That level exists in professional men’s sports.
11
It's not just about pay. The women need to be allowed better conditions too. Women's teams in general rarely get to play on actual grass; they're usually stuck on astroturf, which tears up the legs. This makes female players worldwide less likely to perform dramatic moves (though they frequently do anyway). Men's teams don't get stuck on astroturf.
6
What I find strange is women pro tennis players only have to win two out of three sets while men have to win three out of five sets to be Grand Slam champions. However the women receive equal pay for less work.
Hey complainers, life is not fair!
Get used to it.
8
@philipe
The tennis industry found a way to incorporate women’s tennis with men’s tennis in such a way as to make them indistinguishable from one another during tournaments. It works for tennis, for sure.
But should some lower seed man get the same purse as the woman’s champ just because he could beat her in a one on one match? I don’t think so. That is not what the paying customers want to see.
In tennis, they have found a way to divide up tournament income so that the women make as much as the men, and people buy a ticket for the tournament. Soccer, and basketball for that matter, can’t work that way.
@philipe Whose fault is it that women only play 3 sets? I'm pretty sure the reason for you will be interesting.
@Michelle
I bet it was those evil, uncaring, misogynistic, paternalistic men.
Oh the pain and guilt of being a male!
1
I sat in Athens, GA in 1996 and watched the US women win the gold medal in the Olympics with around 40K people - most of whom knew nothing about soccer. The sound was deafening when they won.
These women are far more than soccer players. This team has been breaking new ground for a long time and I know that they will prevail in getting the pay they deserve. Accolades don't pay the mortgage.
Go Team USA (on both fronts)!!!!
10
Average game attendance for a major league men’s soccer game in the United States is 21,692. Average attendance for a woman’s major league soccer game in the United States is 6024.
And the article says any pay discrepancy between men and women is merely gender discrimination and has absolutely nothing to do with gate receipts, correct?
Anyone out there ever heard of the term “reality”?
15
They play sports. They kick a ball in a net. They run. They are amazingly physical women. What are they contributing to the intellectual health of the nation? What problems is their work accomplishing?
The problem isn't that these women aren't paid enough or worshipped enough in society. (A graduation speaker: a soccer athlete? Seriously -- all that study, and you get an athlete to tell you her money troubles? Wow.)
The problem is that all entertainers are way overpaid for their contributions. These ladies should be grateful for all they already have. And work to have a career to fall back on once their bodies fail, and the athleticism that carried them from childhood on ends. "Put away the childish games and focus on the adult world now". Good luck with the studies!
8
I’m completely supportive of women in athletics, but isn’t pay in the professional sphere subject to the market? Like the actors and actresses who drive viewership, professional athletes are subject to the same levers. Is someone suggesting that the state interfere and steal the teams and leagues from private owners? It’s a business for gosh sakes. Pay is directly related to # of paying fans (seats, tickets, eyeballs on screens, merch).
7
Let's be clear: The women are the best in the world at women's soccer, but they are quite far from the best in the world. This is why womens and mens sports are differentiated, perhaps then, women and men should be compensated according to their overall market value, and who and what brings in the value, aught to be compensated accordingly. As such, let's stop making these intellectually dishonest men and women should be paid the same arguments. Can we?
85
@DNF
I must disagree with your criticism of my premise. If the objective of US soccer is to "grow the sport of soccer" and whatever that entails....which I'd bet has to do -with earnings, then, as you argue, players should be compensated nothing since its purpose is growth. Is this not problematic? Players need to be compensated for their time and dedication to the sport, which of course, should be commensurate with the value that they bring to the "growth" of the sport. Again - men's soccer brings much more in terms of "growth" than women's soccer by any measure I can think of, and they should be compensated as such.
10
@Jason: Consider the last World Cups. The womens' team are world champions (again!); the mens' team didn't even qualify to compete. Which team do you think had more TV viewers, and more advertising revenue? Which one brought in more more money to US Soccer? You might re-read the article.
When I think United States Soccer, I sure don't think of the mens' team.
22
@DNF If women wanted to see their sports grow, then women should attend their games, buy their merchandise, and provide viewership. This is what men do with men's sports. Men put their money where their mouth is when it comes to sports.
Women, well spend more on yoga pants, leggings, purses, make up, salons, etc... This is why there are more women's clothing stores than men by a factor of 1,000. Women speak with their purses (money) and it is not at women's sport games that's for sure.
Watch men's soccer at major leagues for other countries. Those stadiums are giant and filled to the max with mainly male sports fans. Women's soccer in the USA are empty stadiums and with little or no women buying tickets or merchandise which is the major reason major networks don't carry those games. There is simply no significant viewership even by women of women soccer.
12
This should be simple. Which team sells more tickets?
Considering their results, I'm not sure the mens team members should even be able to keep their jobs.
3
Men’s league average attendance: 22,000
Women’s league attendance: 6,000
2
Ratify the Constitution and pass the ERA Amendment and this ends.
Of course, that won't happen. So these women and millions of other deserving women will continue to suffer
Simple as that.
8
Pay ‘em more, a lot more.
So much more enjoyable to watch then the men.
11
They must be allowed to try out for the “men’s” team. It would solve the problem.
5
So the very best American women want to be paid the same as the very best American men.
What are the audience numbers? I’m willing to be corrected, but I suspect men’s soccer has far higher revenues than women’s. Hence the higher pay.
This is like insisting that the very best male and female fashion models get the same pay, even though there seems to be far less interest in male models which means, the pay for male models is, not surprisingly, far lower. Except, that’s ok, because it’s men who are paid less.
By the way, I’m a big fan of women’s soccer, but demanding pay out of all relationship to the market is a bit barmy.
10
I suspect that women's soccer is sort of like ice skating or downhill skiing. It's fun to watch every 4 years, but very few viewers follow it week in and week out as they do with the established professional leagues such as baseball, basketball and football (or their college teams). In fact I've never met anyone, male or female, who follows female soccer outside of the World Cup. Part of me thinks that the media is trying to use feminist and social justice lingo to browbeat viewers in to watching something that very few people, male or female, care about. And what gives anyone the entitlement to a luxurious living as a professional athlete anyway ?
8
@Joe
I notice you left men's soccer of the list of established professional leagues....
1
Maybe the framing of the argument is wrong. Perhaps it’s not that the women should be paid more, but the men should be paid less.
We have one of the largest pools to draw from, the most advanced training and the most wealth to put into the men’s team, but they lose to Trinidad, Jamaica, Venezuela. Seriously, Trinidad and Tobago, with the population and land area near the size of Rhode Island, with a per capital GDP of $16k vs US per capital GDP of $52k beat the USMNT to keep us from the World Cup. And now the much derided socialist failure of a country, Venezuela, beats us handily in a friendly leading up to the Gold Cup. Jamaica can barely support their team, and had suspended the woman’s team for lack of funding, also just beat USMNt pretty badly. The difference is that the men can go back to their leagues despite their embarrassing play and make a ton of money. Women can’t.
I’m on board with equal pay per game for the National teams. Raise the women’s a bit, lower the men’s. The further you get in the tournaments, the more you make. The men still have an advantage as there are more tournaments to play, but at least make the World Cup more level.
37
@SXM True, the US men's team loses all the time to tiny countries. However, these are tiny countries where soccer is clearly the #1 sport. In America, soccer's popularity is growing, but is still distantly behind the big 4. And it's not like soccer gets to choose from the point guards, center fielders and wide receivers that didn't make the pros; to be a pro-soccer player, you have to start young, and work hard and train throughout your childhood and teen years to master the skills.
People really don't do that in America. They do play it (it's a popular kid's game), but all the serious training and work goes to football, baseball, and basketball.
4
@SXM Wrong comparison. The primary sport in this country (USA) is football (NFL). Nothing else compares to the amount of time, money, and national attention given to this sport.
In the USA, soccer is viewed as a sport played mostly by foreigners.
In all other countries, soccer is given the same amount of time, money, and national attention as we do football (NFL).
Penalizing men's sports for the lake of revenue from women's sports isn't right.
Women don't sponsor much their own soccer leagues. Women don't buy game tickets, merchandise, or even provide much viewership. Games for women league soccer games are always near empty. Where are the women supporting their own sports? At the mall? At the salon?
5
@SXM ALL sports players should be paid much less. Their value to the nation is miniscule.
1
If there was ever a case for unequal compensation, this is it.
The US women are far more successful and popular than the US men. Their compensation ought to reflect that difference just as NBA vs WNBA is.
5
If women's sports are bringing in equal revenue, equal attendance and equal sponsorship, then women should be paid equal. If they're not, too bad. The WNBA vs the NBA is always a very clear example of this.
4
The comments on this article make me feel physically ill. Gentlemen who think women are a bit too sensitive about the “patriarchy” listen carefully: yes, men are objectively slightly faster and stronger then women as a whole. These are qualities our patriarchal society has decided are valuable and most be revered, prized and heavily compensated. Women give birth, which is something men cannot do. We are taught that this fact is a source of shame, secrecy and needs to be adjudicated by men. Across many portions of the world women are sent away and isolated when they menstruate. I think it’s a fair argument to say that the ability to give birth is at least an equally important physically skill to relative strength and speed. If a man gave birth one time even if it didn’t “go well” or he wasn’t as skillful as a woman he would be revered and worshipped. These women play world class soccer and because they are less fast or strong than men are mocked. What we are, what we do is not valued fairly. That is the patriarchy.
130
@KelleyL "yes, men are objectively slightly faster and stronger then women as a whole. These are qualities our patriarchal society has decided are valuable and most be revered, "
But we're talking about sports here. You may contest whether these qualities should be revered society-wide, but it is clearly appropriate for such qualities to be valued in athletic competition.
50
@KelleyL First of all, we are talking about the sporting arena. Second of all, the US women do not play nearly at the level of what is considered world class for men. This is supposedly an issue of equal pay for equal work, but I see a seriously inferior product in quality of play when I watch women's soccer. (However, I do believe women should receive the same per diem as men within the US soccer program, and I do believe that pay should be somewhat tied to revenue. If the women do, in fact, make more money as a team, they should make more as individuals.)
26
@KelleyL
"slightly faster and stronger [than] women as a whole"...
"slightly?"
I am sure that it must then only be discrimination that explains the shameful paucity of NFL female middle linebackers.
There is no reason to mock anyone for physical differences that are biologically fixed. But men's greater speed and strength is relevant to the vast majority of sport. It why men's sports have greater viewership among men and women. And it is why with notable exceptions women's sports are not anywhere near as popular as men's sports. And that is why women team athletes don't earn as much money.
Unless and until someone is willing to pay money to the woman who can have the quickest and least complicated labor, women's ability to give birth is utterly irrelevant to competitive sports.
29
This is more of an opinion piece. The idea that women are working harder than men is highly debatable. The supposed evidence is that they won world cups . but it may be just that the women’s game is not as competitive. The logical contortions in these arguments are too much...
Just separate the governing bodies of mens and women’s and let them each make their own money. This is kinda like Oracle saying they should be making as much money as Microsoft. Sell better product.
5
This article sensationalizing the issues and does a poor job of stating facts. To say that the women's team is "way, way better" than the men is one example. If the women played the men, the score would be (at least) 20-0 in favor of the men.
The level of competition in the world between different countries for women's soccer is nowhere near as strong as for men. The level of speed and skill is not nearly as high either. Should MLS players get the same pay as premier league players? They are both doing the same "work".
Let the women get paid according to the revenue they generate, though there are likely subtleties in determining just how much that is.
3
Different revenue, different salaries.
Next.
5
Equal compensation for lesser revenue?
I like it! Can I get some?
5
Men make more money because they provide a more reliable, and larger, revenue stream, it has nothing to do with gender.
We all want to think everything is equal in this world, but it's not, and it's folly to pursue such silliness.
Just play the game and win, as always, sadly, it always comes down to money
4
"This is true in at least one sense: The women are way, way better"
Let's not go overboard here. Most women's world cup teams could be easily beaten by a boys high school team, and the US mens team would trounce the women's team. In no way, shape or form is the women's team better. Their *results* may have been better, but that's only because the competition is terrible compared to what the men face.
3
The US men dived into a much deeper pool. There is no comparison.
2
Paraphrasing:
"The Women's team is way, way better than the Men's team, because the women advanced further than the men did in different tournaments."
Shocking analysis.
Also not mentioned in the article is the degree to which the Women's team is supported by the USSF relative to the Men's team. Sure, the average MNT player makes more than the average WNT player, but once qualified, a WNT player is put into a "national team pool" and becomes eligible for selection for national team games.
The men go through much the same process, however the pay system is starkly different. WNT players in the pool are paid a stipend regardless as to whether they are chosen for a match or not. So WNT Player A who plays in this World Cup gets a stipend, and Player B, who's sitting at home also collects a stipend. MNT players on the other hand only get paid (no stipends) match appearance fees- meaning unless they are selected for a match they receive no compensation.
Why the disparity? Well the womens' game has no domestic league to employ and financially sustain women players. Successive attempts at establishing a women's league has failed. All of the "popularity" of the women's game fades when it comes to butts in seats and ticket sales. So the USSF has propped up the women's game and kept every single woman in the national pool employed.
Compare and contrast with a thriving men's domestic league (MLS), and the "popularity" and "way, way better" argument falls by the wayside.
8
@The Artist FKA Bakes
You do know that the National Women's Soccer League exists, right?
Founded in 2012? Has 9 teams?
I agree that in my field of expertise women should have same pay, period. In sports they should be paid accordingly to the crowd and sponsors they fetch. Maybe the article would be more honest if it had put side by side the revenues and crowds each generate. Here an example: Men's 2018 World Soccer Cup: 3.2 billion expectators. Women's 2015 World Soccer Cup: less than 100 Millions expectators.
5
"(The 2015 final in Canada, between the United States and Japan, averaged 23 million English-language viewers in the States, six million more than the 2014 Men’s World Cup final.)"
Why exclude the over 9 million Spanish speaking US viewers who watched the 2014 final on Univision rather than ABC? Telemundo's Spanish broadcast of the women's final in 2014 had a viewership under 2 million.
5
@David
I also wondered why the statistic was on "English spleaking viewers" only. Now I know.
it’s really important that journalists be deliberate in the way they write about women athletes - the pay disparity, and the lack of national interest in women’s sports is only perpetuated by focusing on the athlete’s appearance. i thought the choice to discuss one athlete’s visual similarity to an actress and to describe another’s ability as “elegant but deadly” was a questionable choice - not the kind of writing we see in articles about athletes in men’s sports.
6
I think Abby Wambach and Litzy Goodman have let themselves get carried away. Abby Wambach was one of the most successful women’s soccer players in the world at the time. I’d conservatively guess she wasn’t even one of the 1000 best soccer players in the world on her best day. As was pointed out by my thirteen year old daughter who was watching yesterday, “The women’s game is so much slower than the men’s game. The men look so much better.” The US Women’s team has indeed had much more success than the US Men’s team. But they also play vastly inferior teams. And the money collected by the Men’s World Cup and the Women’s World Cup are orders of magnitude different. And I very much suspect the same is true for the U.S. domestic league men’s and women’s soccer teams.
I don’t see anything heroic in this lawsuit. The women simply want more money. And their argument hinges on “gender equality and fairness” when there is no equating the speed, grace and physicality of the men’s and women’s games. A female sales rep or attorney plays on the same field as men. Therefore the equal pay for “equal results” argument makes perfect sense. However, these women aren’t playing in the same sandbox as the men they keep comparing themselves to. To me this is as if Major League Soccer players demanded to paid the same as their peers in the English Premier League because they play the same game and put in the same amount of work.
9
@It’s News Here -
"A female sales rep or attorney plays on the same field as men. Therefore the equal pay for 'equal results' argument makes perfect sense."
Really? We've listened to men argue for years and try every tactic possible to prove that it doesn't "make perfect sense". We're making progress, but please don't pretend that it hasn't been a tough fight to get this far.
It's really difficult to understand the situation as something other than straight out discrimination.
That said, it would be helpful to know who pays the players for both teams. What is the source of those funds, who makes the decisions and how those decisions are reached.
Absent that information, we have no way to know whether the women's players are a result of the marketplace or a result of bias. The reality for professional women's sports is that they do not attract the fan base needed to generate revenues and profits commensurate with men's sports if the NBA is any example.
That said, if the US Soccer Federation is the sole decision-maker for both teams, then hammer them.
1
I love soccer and enjoy watching the women play, but soccer in this country is not considered a major sport for either men or women. It's all a matter of economics. The men's league is basically limping through and really doesn't draw any major crowds like Europe or the rest of the dominant soccer world, but it does draw more than the women's league. The bottom line is that unfortunately women's league soccer does not make a lot of money compared to the men's league so their salaries will be proportionally lower. It's a matter of economics and not discrimination.
3
Serena Williams, who is quoted here as supporting equal pay, has rejected suggestions that she play a public match against one of the best male players.
16
@Tennis Fan
Serena and Venus played against a very low ranking man many years ago, whose training for the day was a walk in the morning and a can of beer. You can google it, and then you will understand why they will never play a one to one match against a man.
That that does detract from the fact that the Williams sisters are amazing athletes that have all my respect and admiration.
3
I couldn't care less about men's soccer. I love sport and competition, but the market is saturated by following a baseball, football and basketball team. Woman's soccer though always piques my interest because they are consistently very good, have had some iconic moments and play a sport which doesn't suffer due to the fact that they just can't run as fast or jump as high as their male contemporaries which is why the WNBA just can't catch on. Woman's soccer to me is quite fun and easy to support.
I just don't understand why we can't pay them commensurate with their male contemporaries, especially since said males aren't as good.
5
So glad to see that many commenters are not buying this. I don’t know a single person that doesn’t believe in being paid fairly. In this case, if men bring in more soccer revenue, then they should be paid more. People, you and i, are what make the difference in their pay through ticket prices, jersey sales, etc. it is a marketplace.
55
They do not deserve "equal pay". They deserve what they can earn in the free marketplace. The Women's World Cup four years ago generated $73 million in revenue. The Men's World Cup generated over $4 BILLION in revenue. That's nearly 55 times as much money. And you're going to argue with a straight face that the women should be paid equally? Give me a break.
That's like saying the janitor at a pharmaceutical company should be paid as much as the PhD in chemical engineering because they're both equally good at their jobs.
111
I am not a fan of any spectator sport and I am outraged by the huge compensation to players in baseball, football, and basketball (I think the same about performers in other entertainment industries like TV, movies, and music). But that excessive pay results from 2 factors. The primary factor is that the government has created monopolies for the performers and their employers via copyright laws. The second factor is the public's foolish disease-like affliction of celebrity worship.
Compensation of players is a function of the ability of the team to draw paying customers to watch them play, and the amount those paying customers are willing to pay. The only relevance of the sports performance level of individual players is to comparison of their compensation versus that of other members of their team. Therefore, regardless how superb may be the abilities of female soccer players, their compensation level will be a function of their ability to draw paying customers to watch them pay. The compensation received by players in other sports, or other leagues of the same sporis entirely irrelevant.
Furthermore, the demands by women players for pay equal to that of male players (even in the same sport) has no validity for another reason. If women were equal as players, then they should not be beneficiaries of special treatment and privilege to have their own gender specific teams and leagues....they should have to compete against men to play on teams open to both genders.
7
@Errol - Well, I agree with your first paragraph.
Whilst I ardently support equal pay for women I believe women need to be realistic about their standings in world soccer. We shouldn't read too much into one result, but 2 or 3 years ago the Australian women's national team played the Australian boys under 15 team. The boys won 6-0.
Match the winners of this tournament against the best team in the world, France, who won the (men's) world cup in 2018, then make a determination on pay.
I've watched one game in this tournament so far (Australia vs Italy) and the standard was not good at all compared to the best men. Women are not yet anywhere near the skill levels of men. I hope that changes, but I have to wonder what calls calls for equality mean? Equal pay for a day's work, or pay commensurate with skill? The two are quite disparate.
Good luck to the women and I really hope this is the start of something really big, but we're not there yet.
22
Sorry Ladies this is a popularity contest. Women's Soccer is hardly as popular as mens. Europe has how many leagues in how many countries ? I haven't seen a women's league. The US leagues of note are mens leagues. It's obvious the women don't have the lower body strength of the men, they don't run as fast or kick as far. Are they the best in "their" world, yes. Not as popular, not as good, you usually don't get equal pay for less interest. Despite the press trying to make the women's game popular, watching the Women's World Cup you may notice empty stands and small crowds, not exactly the way to make equal pay, it's not the same job.
46
They aren’t in fact the best in the world. Granted there are biochemical reasons they could never be, but the same is true for most of us.
20
The best college soccer players should be paid millions. After all, they’re the best and it’s soccer.
The best high school players should be given multi million dollar salaries. After all, they’re the best and it’s soccer.
The best under-12 players, should be paid about $40 million per year, after all... etc.
42
I kind of feel like we shouldn't be paying either of the US National teams. I don't think the Dream Team got paid to play in the Olympics. If you don't want to volunteer to represent your country, don't.
11
@Benjo I can agree about the men, but women national team players have to be paid. The women who are in the team are paid to be part of the team regardless, because pay in women's soccer (especially in the US) is dismal. It's business, not discrimination. The women's league doesn't make enough money. The different economics can be summed up with one number: $73 million That's the amount Chelsea paid Borussa Dortmund for the services of US national team player Christian Pulisic. FIFA published it's first report on women's transfers in 2018: "So far, 577 international transfers of professional female players have been completed around the world, with about USD 0.5 million spent on transfer fees."
5
Perhaps it would be fairer to have only a single national team that was coed.
That way the best players would be playing and also earning salaries comparable to the money they generate.
Of course the down side would be the team would look the exact same as it does now because the level of competition between the men’s and women’s teams is like comparing top level athletes to little leaguers.
This is not about winning, it’s the level of competition.
I certainly support women’s sports, but the notion of top men and women soccer players having similar skill levels is fantasy. Same in basketball, etc.
If the player had the skills, people would pay their hard earned money to go see them play. If they played the men’s team once, the women’s credibility as being the best at their craft would be destroyed and they would be run off the field.
Equal skills, equal pay. Show me the woman pro that can play with the men.
30
@galtsgultch The Williams sisters. Would happily would watch them play against men.
The golden era of US women's soccer is fading fast. Other teams are getting better and are expected to beat the US team in the World Cup. Secondly, nobody is forcing them to play for less. Most people who are dissatisfied with their pay demand raises and if they do not get them, they strike or quit.
I fully believe in equal pay for equal work. I demand and get higher pay than some of my male colleagues because my skills are better and I have more experience this can do the job better. From the employer's perspective the work is not equal even though the job description is the same. The ones that get paid more than me do the job better. When I compare like skills and experience, we are paid the same.
16
@skramsv "nobody is forcing them to play for less." It's notable that the woman who won the award as the best soccer player in the world this year, Norway's Hegerberg, refused to play for her national team because of unequal conditions with the men's team.
4
Just what is your point? These women have won more than the men. Brought in more money. And are paid less. That is not equitable.
1
@skramsv - Interesting tactic you're suggesting. Instead of fighting for better pay, just quit and let the sport die. Hey, that's one way to beat back all those nasty ladies who seem to expect something called equality and that so many men are so afraid of.
I played "AA" ice hockey when I was 14. The local women's team wanted to play a no-contact exhibition match. My team were all 14 year olds, they were 16-18. Our coach refused. They played the team down from ours, consisting entirely of players who were cut from our team, and that team beat the girls 14-0--this is a MASSIVE blowout in ice hockey that only occurs in youth leagues where teams are mismatched. Keep in mind that this was an "A" team and it goes up to "AAA" which is a different world altogether.
That girls team won the women's national championship for 18 and under that year.
29
@Ben L.
True. Your point is, in straight soccer competition, their are many many many men who could outplay and outcompete these women. Most women like to watch physical male athletes. They are attracted to watching men compete. Most women are not attracted to watching other women physically compete against other women. (Girls excuded -- girls watch, not because they are attracted to the women or their play, necessarily, but because they see themselves out there playing. Do they continue to support womens' leagues when their own playing days are done? Not in great numbers, as they are supporting their own sons and daughters and also, watching professional male athletes compete.)
Unless and until you can grow the spectators of women and men watching women athletes, then it will always be non equal. Stop whining for a false equality where you "demand" to make what the men bring in. Be happy to split up the pot of what the women sports make, without being subsidized by mens teams. That's equality, truly.
3
The 2018 men’s World Cup generated $6 billion in revenue and the players got 9% of it.
The last women’s World Cup brought in $73 million and its players got 13% of it.
Why are they complaining again? It seems like they want the men’s game to subsidize them, like the NBA does with the WNBA (which hasn’t made a profit in any year since its creation in 1997).
91
Actually, it sounds like in both instances, the players should get a bigger cut...
6
Oh no. Women demanding a bigger share of the pie. The sky is falling. Get over it. The women are better than the men and deserve equal pay. As to the WNBA. The NBA set the league up initially and have suppressed players salaries since the start. These women are world class athletes who should be able to support themselves playing. The male players, even the weakest, make millions. That is inequitable.
13
If you look at the WNBA’s attendance numbers and TV ratings, you would realize that league should’ve folded a LONG time ago.
The WNBA has lost money in each of its 22 years of existence. In 2017, it operated at a $12 million loss.
The NBA keeps it afloat by subsidizing it, despite opposition from most owners (it was David Stern’s baby).
4
A few facts. This article states that the 2015 Women's Final and the 2014 Men's Final received 23 million and 17 million U.S. viewers respectively. A 2015 NY Times article gave the numbers of 26.7 million and 26.5 million respectively. In any case, I have to believe the vast majority of the American viewers for the Women's World Cup were only watching because the Americans were playing. The U.S Men's team did not play in the 2014 Men's World Cup Final (Germany vs. Argentina) so comparing the American viewers for the two world cups is quite unfair.
Worldwide, the Men's World Cup Final regularly brings in 2 billion viewers. The 2015 Women's Final recorded only 61 million viewers.
During the 4-year periods leading up to the 2014 and 2015 World Cups, the U.S. men's soccer team brought in $60 million in revenue while the U.S. women's team brought in only $51 million, even though the women won the World Cup.
Recently, women on the U.S. team complained that the winning men's team made more than 17 times more money than the winning U.S. women's team---$2 million vs $35 million. But keep in mind that the 2010 Men's World Cup brought in 50 times more revenue than the 2011 Women's World Cup---$73 million vs $3.7 billion. The women collected 13% of the total revenue, while the men only received 9%.
Why do the media always leave out such context?
151
@Chan Yee
Sorry. My bad. I apologize. I mixed up the years and moved a decimal point in the last big paragraph. Always in a hurry. Here is the corrected data, with much the same effect:
The 2011 Women’s World Cup winners received $1 million in prize money, while the 2010 men’s winners received $30 million---30 times more. But keep in mind that the 2010 Men's World Cup brought in 50 times more revenue than the 2011 Women's World Cup---$73 million vs $3.7 billion. The women collected 1.37% of their total revenue, while the men received 0.81%.
5
@Chan Yee
Because it destroys the victim culture. This is not unlike being commission sales representatives. We get paid the same commission on everything we sell (equal pay). You are out there selling 12hours a day 7 days a week. I only sell 8 hours for 4 days a week. At the end of the month I scream discrimination because your commission check is bigger.
14
@Chan Yee
Men's soccer is publicized close to 10 times more than women's soccer. The US men's team gets nearly 5x the advertising for barely making it through the 1st round; the women's team frequently makes the championship round and only then do they get advertised as much as the men's team during their final game.
These ratios are similar world-wide.
13
The women are doing much better than the men and their games are watched more than the men. They should be paid more than what they are paid now. Should we start docking the men's pay until they can win some games? We should be proud of the women's team and pay them accordingly.
21
@hilary
Not we, hilary, you.
If you support them, why don't you stop typing and write a check? You support your charities with your dollars; I can find needier women and children to support with mine than professional US womens' soccer players...
Maybe you need to work a little harder to gain some extra dollars to help the athletes be paid equally?
1
@hilary So your solution is to always take from men to fix women's problems?
If you think women soccer players should be paid better, then why don't you attend their league games and buy their merchandise?
Do you even play soccer?
I grew up playing soccer in Central America and the USA for almost 30 years. I coached for many years. I watch major European soccer leagues, and the USWNT team.
Men support their teams through game ticket purchases, merchandise, and viewership. I don't see women doing the same for women soccer leagues. Just look at the women's league games and attendance at these stadiums. Women aren't attending these game in any significant numbers much less buying merchandise to support women soccer players.
Instead of blaming male sports fans and male leagues, maybe you should speak with your wallet when it comes to women sports.
1
I will always support gender equality including in sports wholeheartedly. My bone with USWNT is the lack of diversity and seemingly white privilege. My Clintonian credo is: make the team look like America, and we will come. America is not a suburb!
2
@Charles
If the team looked like America, the majority of the players would be obese. America is not a pretty suburb of fit people!
3
How about creating 2 different soccer associations, one for men, and one for women, and they can each follow their own path.
71
A women’s version of FIFA would ideal, like the WTA in Tennis. But they don’t want that because it would expose the unpopularity and lack of resources of women’s soccer globally... So they’re trying to piggyback on the men’s game, like the WNBA being subsidized by the NBA (yet they’re also complaining about that too).
This wouldn’t be a problem if women watched the games and bought tickets & merchandise... but they don’t.
14
No, the women are not better. Nobody seriously thinks that the women's team could beat the men's team. So why do they deserve to be equally paid? They do not have comparable market value - their professional leagues consistently fold because they are not as desired by the public.
If you want to say that they are different sports, fine, but is there any reason that they should make more than the national gymnastics team?
73
Unfortunately, sports have become big business. If the women's game does not generate the same revenue as the men's, the salary for women will be lower than that for men. Simple economics. Sad but true. When everything is measured by money, the true value of the endeavor is irrelevant. Of course, men and women should receive equal compensation.
7
@David
The article clearly states women generate more revenue than the men.
Read the article and stop arrogantly assuming. That’s sexist.
By your measure, the men should be paid far less and the women far more.
1
What is the true value of an endeavor in monetary terms except what that endeavor can generate in monetary terms? What is the monetary value of your house other than what it can fetch in the market?
The only valid basis for paying men more or women more is how much money they bring in. If the women’s soccer team brings in more revenue, the players should be paid more on their next contract.
The NBA generates far more income than the WBA, so NBA players deserve to get paid more.
25
So I guess that champion Single A baseball players deserve the same pay as major leaguers, since they are the best at their division and level of competition? While we're at it, why doesn't the best McDonalds chef make the same amount as the chefs at Eleven Madison Park? This premise is absurd. Women are free to play in the top division in the world, which is men's soccer, if they are skilled enough, strong enough, and athletic enough to do so. There is not equal work here. The men play against much better competition than women do.
157
@Jake
Stop Making Sense!
9
@Jane
Lets have a match between the two teams then, I'm sure the world champion Women's team would wipe the floor with the Men's team correct?
14
@Jane
You know very well that the women's team would have never qualified to the men's Olympics, so this argument has no value in determining compensation.
There is the statement that women players are payed unfairly based on the revenue brought by their matches. True or false? I can't say from the info in the article.
5
As other commenters have said, salaries should be based on revenues generated. At this point the Women's USA team is dead to me, ever since Rapinoe, a beneficiary of all our country has to offer, took aknee during the National Anthem. She's just lucky that our soldiers and sailors don't take a knee in the battle to preserveourfreefoms. She has every right to take a knee; I have every right to root against her and her team.
8
I always believed the market dictated what athletes of any sport would ultimately be paid. I don't follow soccer but I'm pretty sure It's revenue in the Divided States is small relative to football, basketball, baseball and possibly hockey.If the demand is not there, where is the revenue to pay the women supposed to come from? I can't imagine women's soccer, or any other sport outdrawing men's competition. At the professional level, most interested fans want to pay to see the best athletes as a rule. The best athletes in any given sport are men. With limited funds available and entertainment possibilities extensive, women's sports face a very ominous challenge: gaining a large enough following to pay better wages. I even doubt that if men's tennis disappeared, the women's game would survive economically for long. People want to see the Best athletes perform. Men are better athletes. This is not a putdown of women's sports. It is reality.
15
@KB - What decade are you living in? It's certainly not one in the 21st century.
The question is whether or not the salaries and bonuses should be based solely upon the revenue generated by the Women's national team or the US federation income for both the Men's and Women's national teams. Although I am not privy to the income that each national team generates, I think that it's a reasonable assumption that the Women's team simply does not generate the same revenue as the Men's game; whether it's payments from FIFA or monies from gate receipts and television viewership. You just have to look at the attendance for many of the Women's World Cup games this weekend and see substantial numbers of empty seats for these group matches. The Men's World Cup games often have very few seats available.
But clearly the Women work just as hard - and have achieved greater success - than the Men and that has to be worth something.
So which of these two standards is the appropriate one for determining pay?
16
I believe that by virtue of their greater success the women's games generate far better TV viewers ratings than the men's.
7
@Rob D Perhaps over the last few years, when they are going through their final "Golden Generation" years. However, overall, the men generate far more in revenue than the women. The men's tournament generates over $6 billion in revenue. As such, the men's teams collect larger prize money.
11
@Rob D
Only in the US are tv ratings better and that is due in part to the fact that the US women's team won. But they are not paid on TV ratings alone nor should they be.
5
I am a strong supporter of gender equity as far as salaries for comparable jobs and experience are concerned.
I wonder if anyone can provide the TV advertiser rates for women’s and men’s soccer play in World Cup play. Someone once told me that the TV ad rates for men’s WC play were higher than women’s, but I have no way to verify that.
It would also be interesting to know if top women soccer players have corporate sponsors and whether the sponsorships pay the same for women and men players.
10
I believe that the premise that the US female soccer team is "better" than the male soccer team, because the female team ranks much higher in women's soccer tournaments, only reflects the fact that the competitive men's soccer level is much, much higher than the competitive women's soccer level.
In this case yes, there are two very different jobs.
112
@S.G. - Your argument could be applied to Women's Track and Field, Basketball, Tennis, etc. But the real issue is how the proceeds/profits are shared between the athletes who bring in the spectators and the organization that pays them (just like in the NCAA, where the athletes get zilch). If the women's team is generating revenue, they need to be paid accordingly.
Professional male athletes have had to organize to get their fair share of the money they bring in: if not, they would still be paid what they were making in the 1950s, adjusted for inflation. It's time women soccer players did so as well.
30
@PMN
Agree. I am all for fair pay, equal share of the revenues- however, we will need five auditors to determine what the revenues are and where they come from, hence the lawsuit. My issue was solely with the "better" qualification for the female team.
1
Kicking around a black and white ball on a field, man or woman, is the same job. Whether they can argue for equal pay in a national and global environment which favors men and men's game is another story.
1
Here is a letter to the editor I wrote in 1992:
To the Sports Editor:
After reading Keir Radnedge's "Stop Sniping. U.S. Deserves World Cup" (The Times, March 22), I realized that I must continue my sniping at an even greater rate.
There is no exposure to world-class soccer in this country, and that is the bottom line. On weekends, Americans are bombarded on television with golf, bowling, tennis, etc., but there's nothing on the major networks about the most loved sport in the world. Even the American women, who won the first women's World Cup, got little or no coverage. This was disgraceful and insulting.
Why aren't we building stadiums as most hosting countries have done in the past? Why aren't we educating the American public about soccer? After the 1990 Cup was held in Italy, the biggest criticism from the people and press was that there weren't enough goals scored. Americans wanted more goals and less tied games in soccer. And yet, after last year's World Series, the media and public rejoiced at the tension and pressure of extra-inning tied ball games. Unless the media start accurately reporting soccer and understanding the sport, there will be no hope for the United States. MICHAEL MAZZARIELLO Brooklyn
5
Maybe when soccer players stop faking injuries and flopping around on the turf Americans will become interested. Our hockey players lose teeth and continue playing, football players break limbs and continue playing.
8
@Mickey
I loved watching Pele play. When he quit I quit watching. I did not watch a football match until I moved to Europe in the early 2000s. The Premier and Bundas leagues are interesting to watch, which is in stark contrast to US leagues. I found the Brasil football leagues fun to watch. American soccer is boring even with the imports. But each to their own. Many find the sporting events I like to be boring.
If the Americans would start playing football matches instead of soccer, I might start watching a few. This means elevating quality of the plays and strategies, ditching the act hurt get indignant mentality, and stop the racism that is so prevalent in US Soccer.
Very True. I'm Asian and came to America when I was 11yrs old and I don't even like soccer because its too boring. low scoring, ball just bounce back and forth, fan have no close contact with players, players make fake injury and w/in seconds bounce back up and run like he is fresh and alive. Soccer in America is not even in the top five. NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, Mens Golf, Nascar's racing, etc. Need I say more?
2
Pay the ladies like the men. Why not? The ladies are actually a better team. They have produced results in World Cup play than the men can only dream of. As a fan of the Italian national men’s team, I am totally psyched to watch the Italian woman as they pulled off the biggest upset in woman’s World Cup history yesterday. Pay the ladies their worth already. As I stated, they are way better than the men’s team and deserve equal pay.
47
@Mickey If the men and women teams played, the score would likely be something like 30-0, if not more lopsided. The ladies are not a better team. They are better relative to their level of competition. A Division III men's team would destroy the U.S. women's soccer team.
49
Let's have the women's team play the men's team. Just to see if your assumptions hold up in reality.
34
@Mickey It is based on revenue and the men's World Cup generates an obscene level of money. It has everything to do with economics, and nothing to do with success on the field. Soccer like most sports, is a business.
21
Women are not as good as men at soccer, basketball, baseball, or football, and fans are much less interested in watching them as they are men. Therefore female athletes in these sports get paid much less. It's not about "sexism" but about real differences in performance between the sexes. Fans enjoy watching female figure skaters as much or more than their male counterparts, so there is probably not a sex difference in pay in that sport.
18
@Beliavsky
Did you read the article?
"The 2019 Women’s World Cup is expected to be the most watched in history. In the United States, these matches will most likely be among the highest-rated soccer games ever played. (The 2015 final in Canada, between the United States and Japan, averaged 23 million English-language viewers in the States, six million more than the 2014 Men’s World Cup final.)"
It sounds to me as though the "fans" are very much interested in watching women play soccer.
47
@Beliavsky, No one is comparing the men's and women's teams physically. Of course the men's team would wallop the women's. That's not the point. The point is that the womens team is far more successful and far more popular and brings in more revenue. The TV ratings are much better for the women's games. They are better ambassadors for the game too.
18
Hope Solo is really a great ambassador...
6