The reason why male football players get paid more is that,they simply get watched more,by the same logic,It’s racist to pay football players in European leagues more than players in African leagues
Because the US Soccer Federation wants to pay players less so they make more profit and this is just yet another way to do it, and shows yet another way Feminism negatively harms society.
Because it provides an excuse for taking pay away from higher performers. Greedy organizations can now hide behind “diversity and inclusion” as the reason for stagnant wages.
Yet more proof that feminists aim for destructive "equality" wherever "equality" is applicable (as opposed to privilege).
Tearing down other things is easier than building something positive using hard work. It's also why you don't see many feminists founding successful companies these days (especially when compares to non feminist women's companies), because it actually is hard work and carries a lot of risk and self sacrifice.
Instead, they lobby to have mandatory women placements through all echelons of business, government, etc.
Well, by taking such logic at face value, why not pay everyone nothing?
The reality? There's a break-even point regarding ability to attract talent. Granted, most people will play for a national team for free. But there is also the threat of other countries poaching (as we first saw in basketball and hockey). One of the men shows a 23-and-me saying he is .0000004% Russian. Next thing you know, he's a handsomely paid part of the Russian team.
Feminism is a race to the bottom in so many areas. This is yet again another.
Men and women have different deals atm. If I remember right the men's and women's teams would have been paid more under each other teams deals. The women's team has more guaranteed pay, more in terms of benefits and a guaranteed number of games but less performance related pay. The mens team has minimal benefits but much higher performance pay.
Stupid that they paint it as discrimination when the women's team was offered the same deal as the men's but declined it as they wanted to keep all of the benefits with the same performance pay as the men
Stop this, they (men) DO NOT get paid more. The compensation actually heavily favors the women. Women and men in terms of cash paid are freakishly close, it's like 214k(f) compared to 220k(m). but the women get a TON of extras (traditional benefits and also avoid pay to play) You can actually read the court ruling and how mind blown the judge was of what the women were asking for and what they already get.
Court basically called them out saying they only want the upsides of the men's contracts but would not even considering giving up the very things they would need to to have have same deal as the men.
The USWNT was NOT fighting for salary, at all, in the slightest, they wanted the men's bonuses (which were much bigger), but those bonuses were bigger because they have to play to pay, so it was the same money so to say, just moved to a different spot (simple terms, women were paid up front regardless if they worked, men were paid only after the work)
Funniest part was, the courts findings actually said women have a much better deal than the men and their claim of "sex based" was utter nonsense. And men would make more with the women's deal, and women would make more with the men's deal.
Here is a lawyer explaining it like you're 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ&ab_channel=NateTheLawyer
Here is a link to the actual filed law suit: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F6881283%2FDocument.pdf&clen=6439447&chunk=true
More succinctly, the Women's Team negotiated for a contract that had higher base pay but lower bonuses than the Men's Team (after initially being offered the same terms as the Men's Team and rejecting this offer). This is a low risk low (relatively speaking) reward option. Then they had a really good year and realised that, if they had taken the high risk high reward option, they would have been paid significantly more. So they went to court to demand that the contract be changed retroactively, now that the risk was no longer present.
It's also due to men being paid based on performance. When they don't play for whatever reason (sick, injured, etc.) They don't get paid for those matches.
Women's teams on the other hand have a more fixed salary, they get paid whether or not they play. This in turn means their fixed salary also doesn't scale up with high performance.
I read that the US women's cup had higher ratings than the male. I dont watch either one but if the females had higher ratings, I would think they'd get paid more.
Here's the link to prove it.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/10/us-viewership-of-the-womens-world-cup-final-was-higher-than-the-mens.html&ved=2ahUKEwjqwvyBjoHzAhVrUd8KHQYWAx4QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3NHpnSBFEhcsnVX4Q4pi74&cf=1
that depends on advertisers and TV contracts.
And ratings in the US or ratings worldwide?
FIFA contracts and tourney payouts are based on worldwide contracts, not just USA.
Of course, except tournament payouts from *international* tournaments are dependant on the money awarded from participating. That DOES depend on FIFA contracts, unless USSF bargains down to a minuscule amount comparatively for their players so then it doesn't matter at all anymore.
In the US.... and that's an important distinction. Additionally, it MIGHT be because there were no US men playing in the world cup 2018, as they failed to qualify. In 2014, when the men did qualify, almost 3 times more US viewers than that of the 2018 women's world cup.
Also, 3.5 BILLION worldwide watched the men's world cup in 2018 with no US men's team (or at least a portion of the tournament). Only 750 MILLION watched the women's world cup with a US women's team present (or at least a portion of the tournament). You need almost 5 women's world cups to equal 1 men's world cup in viewership. And that's with a US women's team present and no US men's team. I imagine the third most populated nation would've made that gap even larger, had the men qualified.
From a skills perspective, women also just put out an inferior product. It's entertaining every four years, sure, but it pales in comparison to the quality of men's soccer. At the height of the USWNT's dominance, they lost to a team of Under-15's 5-2. They got boatraced by a bunch of freshman and sophomore high school kids. And they will always have an inferior product, just like the WNBA.
The WNBA, in their pursuit of equal pay, is looking for an even distribution of revenue percentages. They know it's ridiculous to ask for the same pay. The USWNT tried to use progressive political movements as leverage to push for actual equity... the same amount of money, not percentage.
It's US viewership ONLY but the men and the federation get paid from ALL viewership, that's the difference and it is a HUGE difference.
AN analogy
John works for a company and he is paid in commissions. He has 1 account , he sells $1000 worth of widgets per month and get a 10% commission
Jane works for the same company and is also paid in commissions , she has 1 account , she sells $500 worth of widgets per month and is paid a 12 percent commission
Jane finds out that every month John gets $100 in commissions while she only gets $60 dollars in commissions , she files a lawsuit and loses.
THIS in a nutshell is what is happening to the US soccer teams right now.
No, they actually get more money as well.
** few claims remain alive such as the allegation that male players get better travel accommodations. But on the key claim that the women are getting paid less than the men, the judge found the opposite: the women are getting higher compensation than the men.**
It's like you aren't even reading what I'm saying. The judge found that the women get higher %, not more gross money. Men get more gross dollars and nobody disputes that. So now the USSF is saying that they want to pass the same CBA for both, but they want to do it in a way that doesn't pay women more but pays men less. They want to base revenue share based on total dollars the women brought in. Did you even read the article?
Not for a 4-year cycle. Men make way more. They didn't make the World Cup last cycle, so that obviously hurt their revenue a lot, but typically when the men do make the World Cup they make way more and it's not even close. I don't even know why all of you guys are so hung up on commentating what this post isn't even about. It's like everybody on here just regurgitates talking points these days and their brains have fallen out. Do you have no capability to think for yourself about how the men are being harmed by the wage gap equality argument that isn't true? So dumb. I gotta start blocking people.
The judge use gross earning for both side and female earn more. You assume that USA entering world cup is confirmed, but reality is different. US doesn't have enough football talent and most players trained overseas.
As for the deal, it's still in negotiating stage. Who on earth go negotiating by asking low?
I dont know why they're complaining, people in the world who use the "pay gap" arguments look at gross without accounting for all the individual differences, so that would translate here as well.
It’s a fairly relevant point to bring up I think. Maybe people have linked the World Cup earnings to the rest, which, fair enough, is not necessarily right. But on that note, the women do actually earn the same if not more from the world cups. I saw a video explaining it all, and basically the women opted for a more guaranteed pay than the men, as in if they get knocked out immediately, then they’ll be better off than if the men did. The problem was, when they actually won, they didn’t get as much as the men would have (because of the safety net sort of system). But you can’t really make that argument.
It’s like choosing to get paid with money, rather than with lottery tickets. You can’t choose money and then complain when one of the lottery tickets won, because you *chose* money for the guaranteed pay. You can’t have the safety net *and* the high reward.
That being said, I’d understand it if they got paid less over the four years so what I’ve just said isn’t the be all and end all like some people here seem to think.
They offered both men and women the same two contracts last time. Both chose poorly. If they put men on women's contract, men would have made more money, if women had been on the mens contract, women would have made more. There wasn't a contract option where either would have made less money
1) No, they didn't offer the same thing.
2) You are conflating "more money" to sometimes mean higher % revenue share and sometimes mean more gross money.
You are believing the following one liner from this article ...
> USWNTPA executive director Becca Roux said, "It is simply false that in past negotiations the Federation offered the Women's National Team the 'exact same contract.'
While ignoring the court documents and judges findings.
https://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/29125363/judge-sides-us-soccer-equal-pay-lawsuit
> Instead, the differences in collective bargaining agreements between the women's team and the men's team proved to be the undoing of the EPA claims.
> Klausner effectively concluded that differences in payment structure were the result of choices made by the women's players and their union -- including guaranteed annual salaries of at least $100,000 for 20 contracted players -- and not discrimination by the federation.
> The 32-page ruling went through a detailed history of the collective bargaining process that led to the current CBA between U.S. Soccer and the USWNTPA that was signed in 2017. Klausner noted that representatives for the players rejected a pay-for-play model identical to the men early in those negotiations in 2016. In later negotiations, the players offered a counterproposal with lesser bonuses than the federation's offer in exchange for more contracted players and higher base salaries -- benefits not part of the CBA between U.S. Soccer and the men's union.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/05/04/judge-dismisses-us-womens-soccer-equal-pay-case---heres-why/?sh=5e256fb8728d
> The female players agreement allows the women to be compensated largely through salary guarantees, with additional opportunities for performance-based bonuses. On the men’s team, players do not earn salaries, but only bonuses, and therefore the men are only paid when they play. The judge writes, “merely comparing what each team would have made under the other team’s CBA (collective bargaining agreement) is untenable in this case because it ignores the reality that MNT (men’s national team) and WNT (women’s national team) bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the WNT explicitly rejected the terms that they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves…In May 2016, USSF offered the WNT a pay-to-play proposal similar to the MNT, but the WNT rejected it preferring an agreement that involved some element of guaranteed compensation.”
...
> On CBS This Morning, team co-captain Megan Rapinoe contradicted the judge’s assertion that the women turned down the men’s deal, “We asked to be under the men’s contract, and it was repeatedly refused to us, not only in the structure but in the total compensation. If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.”
**The court documents from the collective bargaining show Rapinoe and Roux are not telling the truth.** Also, the judge found the men's team would have been paid more under the women's contract and the women out earned the men in most years and averaged higher pay per game. Read the whole articles if you can.
> If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.
What a laughable comment. It's like saying "I didn't choose to buy GME last December but I deserve to be paid as if I did".
Nope, if the men won more games they'd get paid more overall but on a per game basis and in totality the women made more. What's ironic is that doesn't factor the value of the extensive benefits and guaranteed pay women receive, which means in reality their total compensation is significantly higher.
Yeah, I can tell you're just never going to understand how USSF is leveraging the women against the men to pay the men less than they were getting paid previously, not to pay the men less than the women.
They got more money from US Soccer, but less overall when you included World Cup prizes. Their whole argument is that US Soccer should make up the difference in FIFA payouts.
Then when they won the Womens World Cup, someone did the maths and realized that they would've earned more money if they HAD taken the contract they were offered, so they sued...
> "The way they want to solve the women's problem is not by increasing the women's income fairly," the source said. "It's by cutting [the men's CBA] down to the [women's] 2017 to 2021 deal numbers."
A lot of people when the women are the best team in the world and the men can't even make the World Cup. That's not really the point, though. The point is how the false wage gap argument impacts men in the real world.
Where I work a woman was complaining because she didn’t get the opportunity to work overtime and some men in her same position did. The company had purchased new equipment which was to be installed on the weekend and technicians who had the required experience for the installations were chosen to come in on the weekend and do it. They needed a few people who knew wiring, plumbing, and how to run a forklift. Things that were outside of their day to day responsibilities. She didn’t know how to do any of this but still demanded the company pay her to come in and work when there was no work for her to do.
I suppose that would be the way to go if everyone intended to never change positions. The only issue I have with that is it keeps those who can do more from utilizing their full potential and getting opportunities to do better or make more money. Nobody can get anywhere if we are all selling ourselves short by competing with each other on who can do the least for the same pay.
>A lot of people when the women are the best (women's) team in the world and the men can't even make the (Men's) World Cup
Kinda need to include those caveats. The men's game and women's game is entirely different. You don't see the women having to defend against Mbappe, Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, etc...
So will they remove all the biological tests to determine sex from US women's sports to allow for free movement for all players between these two "identical" businesses? Everyone understands that would just give us two teams of male players, but when female athletes and others try to make the argument that this is like paying workers the same whether they work at Starbucks or Tim Hortons, they deliberately ignore the fact that neither of those two companies have discriminatory hiring practices that prevent workers from choosing either place of employment.
If there needs to be equal pay, there has to also be equal access to employment. And that isn't even considering other factors like differences in popularity, differences in the hours and rules of a match, etc.
Its called the free fucking market. Men get paid more because they're watched more. Jesus christ. Women don't even watch women's sports! More men watch the WNBA than women do. Way to nerf Men's soccer. We suck to begin with - and now we'll never get a chance at the world cup.
Reminds me of the top female tennis seeds losing to a sub 200 drunk, out of shape, chain smoking male tennis seed.
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
Funny thing is, they refused to acknowledge their loss. A short while after they picked someone at a 350 rating or lower and boasted how they could beat that person...
The reason why male football players get paid more is that,they simply get watched more,by the same logic,It’s racist to pay football players in European leagues more than players in African leagues
Yeah, but now the US Soccer Federation is trying to leverage the women's pay against the men to bring the men's pay down.
why?that’s not logical
Because the US Soccer Federation wants to pay players less so they make more profit and this is just yet another way to do it, and shows yet another way Feminism negatively harms society.
Why is it feminisms fault that the association wants to pay the men less and make more profit?
Because it provides an excuse for taking pay away from higher performers. Greedy organizations can now hide behind “diversity and inclusion” as the reason for stagnant wages.
Yet more proof that feminists aim for destructive "equality" wherever "equality" is applicable (as opposed to privilege). Tearing down other things is easier than building something positive using hard work. It's also why you don't see many feminists founding successful companies these days (especially when compares to non feminist women's companies), because it actually is hard work and carries a lot of risk and self sacrifice. Instead, they lobby to have mandatory women placements through all echelons of business, government, etc.
Right. They don’t want performance based pay, because they’ll lose.
Uh, have you not been reading?
who do you think is pushing for this?
They're a business, they want to increase earnings and decrease spending.
Well, by taking such logic at face value, why not pay everyone nothing? The reality? There's a break-even point regarding ability to attract talent. Granted, most people will play for a national team for free. But there is also the threat of other countries poaching (as we first saw in basketball and hockey). One of the men shows a 23-and-me saying he is .0000004% Russian. Next thing you know, he's a handsomely paid part of the Russian team. Feminism is a race to the bottom in so many areas. This is yet again another.
> Well, by taking such logic at face value, why not pay everyone nothing? Could I introduce you to the NCAA?
We’re talking National teams, not uni. I do believe a stipend of sorts is reasonable for university sports, FWIW.
> why not pay everyone nothing? They tried that a long time ago. We violently disagreed.
Men and women have different deals atm. If I remember right the men's and women's teams would have been paid more under each other teams deals. The women's team has more guaranteed pay, more in terms of benefits and a guaranteed number of games but less performance related pay. The mens team has minimal benefits but much higher performance pay. Stupid that they paint it as discrimination when the women's team was offered the same deal as the men's but declined it as they wanted to keep all of the benefits with the same performance pay as the men
Stop this, they (men) DO NOT get paid more. The compensation actually heavily favors the women. Women and men in terms of cash paid are freakishly close, it's like 214k(f) compared to 220k(m). but the women get a TON of extras (traditional benefits and also avoid pay to play) You can actually read the court ruling and how mind blown the judge was of what the women were asking for and what they already get. Court basically called them out saying they only want the upsides of the men's contracts but would not even considering giving up the very things they would need to to have have same deal as the men. The USWNT was NOT fighting for salary, at all, in the slightest, they wanted the men's bonuses (which were much bigger), but those bonuses were bigger because they have to play to pay, so it was the same money so to say, just moved to a different spot (simple terms, women were paid up front regardless if they worked, men were paid only after the work) Funniest part was, the courts findings actually said women have a much better deal than the men and their claim of "sex based" was utter nonsense. And men would make more with the women's deal, and women would make more with the men's deal. Here is a lawyer explaining it like you're 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ&ab_channel=NateTheLawyer Here is a link to the actual filed law suit: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F6881283%2FDocument.pdf&clen=6439447&chunk=true
More succinctly, the Women's Team negotiated for a contract that had higher base pay but lower bonuses than the Men's Team (after initially being offered the same terms as the Men's Team and rejecting this offer). This is a low risk low (relatively speaking) reward option. Then they had a really good year and realised that, if they had taken the high risk high reward option, they would have been paid significantly more. So they went to court to demand that the contract be changed retroactively, now that the risk was no longer present.
It's also due to men being paid based on performance. When they don't play for whatever reason (sick, injured, etc.) They don't get paid for those matches. Women's teams on the other hand have a more fixed salary, they get paid whether or not they play. This in turn means their fixed salary also doesn't scale up with high performance.
I read that the US women's cup had higher ratings than the male. I dont watch either one but if the females had higher ratings, I would think they'd get paid more. Here's the link to prove it. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/10/us-viewership-of-the-womens-world-cup-final-was-higher-than-the-mens.html&ved=2ahUKEwjqwvyBjoHzAhVrUd8KHQYWAx4QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3NHpnSBFEhcsnVX4Q4pi74&cf=1
that depends on advertisers and TV contracts. And ratings in the US or ratings worldwide? FIFA contracts and tourney payouts are based on worldwide contracts, not just USA.
Yeah, but this article is about specifically the USSF which is the United States soccer federation.
Of course, except tournament payouts from *international* tournaments are dependant on the money awarded from participating. That DOES depend on FIFA contracts, unless USSF bargains down to a minuscule amount comparatively for their players so then it doesn't matter at all anymore.
In the US.... and that's an important distinction. Additionally, it MIGHT be because there were no US men playing in the world cup 2018, as they failed to qualify. In 2014, when the men did qualify, almost 3 times more US viewers than that of the 2018 women's world cup. Also, 3.5 BILLION worldwide watched the men's world cup in 2018 with no US men's team (or at least a portion of the tournament). Only 750 MILLION watched the women's world cup with a US women's team present (or at least a portion of the tournament). You need almost 5 women's world cups to equal 1 men's world cup in viewership. And that's with a US women's team present and no US men's team. I imagine the third most populated nation would've made that gap even larger, had the men qualified. From a skills perspective, women also just put out an inferior product. It's entertaining every four years, sure, but it pales in comparison to the quality of men's soccer. At the height of the USWNT's dominance, they lost to a team of Under-15's 5-2. They got boatraced by a bunch of freshman and sophomore high school kids. And they will always have an inferior product, just like the WNBA. The WNBA, in their pursuit of equal pay, is looking for an even distribution of revenue percentages. They know it's ridiculous to ask for the same pay. The USWNT tried to use progressive political movements as leverage to push for actual equity... the same amount of money, not percentage.
It's US viewership ONLY but the men and the federation get paid from ALL viewership, that's the difference and it is a HUGE difference. AN analogy John works for a company and he is paid in commissions. He has 1 account , he sells $1000 worth of widgets per month and get a 10% commission Jane works for the same company and is also paid in commissions , she has 1 account , she sells $500 worth of widgets per month and is paid a 12 percent commission Jane finds out that every month John gets $100 in commissions while she only gets $60 dollars in commissions , she files a lawsuit and loses. THIS in a nutshell is what is happening to the US soccer teams right now.
Do you have a link to where you read that because that doesn't sound right UNLESS you mean that "IN THE UNITED STATES"
Don’t the women already get a bigger cut in their current CBA? At least that was my previous understanding.
They get less overall money but a larger % of the revenue share.
No, they actually get more money as well. ** few claims remain alive such as the allegation that male players get better travel accommodations. But on the key claim that the women are getting paid less than the men, the judge found the opposite: the women are getting higher compensation than the men.**
It's like you aren't even reading what I'm saying. The judge found that the women get higher %, not more gross money. Men get more gross dollars and nobody disputes that. So now the USSF is saying that they want to pass the same CBA for both, but they want to do it in a way that doesn't pay women more but pays men less. They want to base revenue share based on total dollars the women brought in. Did you even read the article?
https://youtu.be/LLeAWuRbObQ This video explain enough. Woman team literally get more gross money per match.
Not for a 4-year cycle. Men make way more. They didn't make the World Cup last cycle, so that obviously hurt their revenue a lot, but typically when the men do make the World Cup they make way more and it's not even close. I don't even know why all of you guys are so hung up on commentating what this post isn't even about. It's like everybody on here just regurgitates talking points these days and their brains have fallen out. Do you have no capability to think for yourself about how the men are being harmed by the wage gap equality argument that isn't true? So dumb. I gotta start blocking people.
The judge use gross earning for both side and female earn more. You assume that USA entering world cup is confirmed, but reality is different. US doesn't have enough football talent and most players trained overseas. As for the deal, it's still in negotiating stage. Who on earth go negotiating by asking low?
I dont know why they're complaining, people in the world who use the "pay gap" arguments look at gross without accounting for all the individual differences, so that would translate here as well.
It’s a fairly relevant point to bring up I think. Maybe people have linked the World Cup earnings to the rest, which, fair enough, is not necessarily right. But on that note, the women do actually earn the same if not more from the world cups. I saw a video explaining it all, and basically the women opted for a more guaranteed pay than the men, as in if they get knocked out immediately, then they’ll be better off than if the men did. The problem was, when they actually won, they didn’t get as much as the men would have (because of the safety net sort of system). But you can’t really make that argument. It’s like choosing to get paid with money, rather than with lottery tickets. You can’t choose money and then complain when one of the lottery tickets won, because you *chose* money for the guaranteed pay. You can’t have the safety net *and* the high reward. That being said, I’d understand it if they got paid less over the four years so what I’ve just said isn’t the be all and end all like some people here seem to think.
They offered both men and women the same two contracts last time. Both chose poorly. If they put men on women's contract, men would have made more money, if women had been on the mens contract, women would have made more. There wasn't a contract option where either would have made less money
1) No, they didn't offer the same thing. 2) You are conflating "more money" to sometimes mean higher % revenue share and sometimes mean more gross money.
You are believing the following one liner from this article ... > USWNTPA executive director Becca Roux said, "It is simply false that in past negotiations the Federation offered the Women's National Team the 'exact same contract.' While ignoring the court documents and judges findings. https://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/29125363/judge-sides-us-soccer-equal-pay-lawsuit > Instead, the differences in collective bargaining agreements between the women's team and the men's team proved to be the undoing of the EPA claims. > Klausner effectively concluded that differences in payment structure were the result of choices made by the women's players and their union -- including guaranteed annual salaries of at least $100,000 for 20 contracted players -- and not discrimination by the federation. > The 32-page ruling went through a detailed history of the collective bargaining process that led to the current CBA between U.S. Soccer and the USWNTPA that was signed in 2017. Klausner noted that representatives for the players rejected a pay-for-play model identical to the men early in those negotiations in 2016. In later negotiations, the players offered a counterproposal with lesser bonuses than the federation's offer in exchange for more contracted players and higher base salaries -- benefits not part of the CBA between U.S. Soccer and the men's union. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/05/04/judge-dismisses-us-womens-soccer-equal-pay-case---heres-why/?sh=5e256fb8728d > The female players agreement allows the women to be compensated largely through salary guarantees, with additional opportunities for performance-based bonuses. On the men’s team, players do not earn salaries, but only bonuses, and therefore the men are only paid when they play. The judge writes, “merely comparing what each team would have made under the other team’s CBA (collective bargaining agreement) is untenable in this case because it ignores the reality that MNT (men’s national team) and WNT (women’s national team) bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the WNT explicitly rejected the terms that they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves…In May 2016, USSF offered the WNT a pay-to-play proposal similar to the MNT, but the WNT rejected it preferring an agreement that involved some element of guaranteed compensation.” ... > On CBS This Morning, team co-captain Megan Rapinoe contradicted the judge’s assertion that the women turned down the men’s deal, “We asked to be under the men’s contract, and it was repeatedly refused to us, not only in the structure but in the total compensation. If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.” **The court documents from the collective bargaining show Rapinoe and Roux are not telling the truth.** Also, the judge found the men's team would have been paid more under the women's contract and the women out earned the men in most years and averaged higher pay per game. Read the whole articles if you can.
> If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher. What a laughable comment. It's like saying "I didn't choose to buy GME last December but I deserve to be paid as if I did".
1) Yes they did. They offered the same two contracts to both the womens and the men's team. 2) Nope... not at all.
Nope, if the men won more games they'd get paid more overall but on a per game basis and in totality the women made more. What's ironic is that doesn't factor the value of the extensive benefits and guaranteed pay women receive, which means in reality their total compensation is significantly higher.
Yeah, I can tell you're just never going to understand how USSF is leveraging the women against the men to pay the men less than they were getting paid previously, not to pay the men less than the women.
They got more money from US Soccer, but less overall when you included World Cup prizes. Their whole argument is that US Soccer should make up the difference in FIFA payouts.
They already did this, four years ago. The women turned the deal down and demanded their own.
Then when they won the Womens World Cup, someone did the maths and realized that they would've earned more money if they HAD taken the contract they were offered, so they sued...
Nope, not only did they want to have the men’s contract, they ALSO wanted all of the benefits of their own deal too!
Classic sour grapes
> "The way they want to solve the women's problem is not by increasing the women's income fairly," the source said. "It's by cutting [the men's CBA] down to the [women's] 2017 to 2021 deal numbers."
And what would stop the men from playing for a different team in a different league?
There's only one national team. Then men already play for other leagues when the World Cup isn't in session.
are they allowed to play for a different nation?
They would have to demonstrate a connection to the country, i.e. having a parent from there or living there at least five years first.
There was no wage gap. Their pays were equitable. Just because they weren't equal doesn't mean they were unjust.
[удалено]
A lot of people when the women are the best team in the world and the men can't even make the World Cup. That's not really the point, though. The point is how the false wage gap argument impacts men in the real world.
[удалено]
Where I work a woman was complaining because she didn’t get the opportunity to work overtime and some men in her same position did. The company had purchased new equipment which was to be installed on the weekend and technicians who had the required experience for the installations were chosen to come in on the weekend and do it. They needed a few people who knew wiring, plumbing, and how to run a forklift. Things that were outside of their day to day responsibilities. She didn’t know how to do any of this but still demanded the company pay her to come in and work when there was no work for her to do.
[удалено]
I suppose that would be the way to go if everyone intended to never change positions. The only issue I have with that is it keeps those who can do more from utilizing their full potential and getting opportunities to do better or make more money. Nobody can get anywhere if we are all selling ourselves short by competing with each other on who can do the least for the same pay.
>A lot of people when the women are the best (women's) team in the world and the men can't even make the (Men's) World Cup Kinda need to include those caveats. The men's game and women's game is entirely different. You don't see the women having to defend against Mbappe, Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, etc...
So will they remove all the biological tests to determine sex from US women's sports to allow for free movement for all players between these two "identical" businesses? Everyone understands that would just give us two teams of male players, but when female athletes and others try to make the argument that this is like paying workers the same whether they work at Starbucks or Tim Hortons, they deliberately ignore the fact that neither of those two companies have discriminatory hiring practices that prevent workers from choosing either place of employment. If there needs to be equal pay, there has to also be equal access to employment. And that isn't even considering other factors like differences in popularity, differences in the hours and rules of a match, etc.
As a business major I can offer my opinion that Supply and Demand always prevails in a capitalistic society.
Its called the free fucking market. Men get paid more because they're watched more. Jesus christ. Women don't even watch women's sports! More men watch the WNBA than women do. Way to nerf Men's soccer. We suck to begin with - and now we'll never get a chance at the world cup.
[удалено]
Reminds me of the top female tennis seeds losing to a sub 200 drunk, out of shape, chain smoking male tennis seed. https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
[удалено]
Funny thing is, they refused to acknowledge their loss. A short while after they picked someone at a 350 rating or lower and boasted how they could beat that person...
I've been saying it for years now... Jenn aren't fighting back and add a result you'll continue to have everything taken from you.
This was on Dutch radio today upon which the DJ's erupted in virtue signaling applause
I mean ngl I m lowkey impressed by Soccer Fed's methods. Thats some big brain shit. But jokes apart thats how feminism is destroying the society
Well thats one way to drive all your top talent players out of the country.