US Soccer reaches milestone agreement for equal pay for women’s and men’s teams — plus World Cup prize money

[SI_NYC]

That may be true, it may also depend on where they are in their cycle. A women's world cup qualifying match probably out earns a men's friendly match.

The problem is that the women's world cup because it doesn't draw a large viewership outside of the United States earns pennies on the dollar to what the men's world cup earns. So when FIFA distributes the money from each World Cup to each national federation the money coming in to US soccer from the men's world cup is far far more than that from the women's world cup.

Previously US soccer gave each team an equal percentage of their respective world cup earnings. Hence the men got more money from that.

Now they are pooling both world cups just so they can inflate the women's earnings.

Oddly enough if they had done that in 2018 the men would have been taking pay away from the women and the women would have screamed about it. But now since the men have qualified for 2022 and because they are hosts for 2026 AND the world cup is expanding anyways and they are pretty much guaranteed easy qualification from now on, the men will be forever subsidizing the women's team.

Something like this would normally bug me but considering the men make good pay at their respective clubs and the women don't have the same opportunities, I'm fine with it all. Why folks like women's soccer is beyond me. It's dreadfully boring to watch, imo.

 

[BeepBeepInMyJeep]

I still believe this is mostly sound and fury, a publicity stunt and little more.

Most of our national team guys are either playing with larger clubs in Europe with a handful of designated players in MLS. The $2.5 million qualification bonus for the USMNT (which amounts to about 75k per player? I dont know how they divide it up based on appearances, etc.) is a rounding error for guys like Pulisic, who makes over $10 mil a year. Many of the USMNT guys don't have gigantic salaries ("only" a couple mill a year) yet because many of them are still very early in their careers and will likely be signing more lucrative deals in the near future (Adams, McKinnie, Reyna, Aaronson, Dest and a few others).

France players got $500k a piece for winning the world cup with it's 10 WCQ and 7 WC matches.
Mbappe was offered over $1 million per week by PSG, while he'll take less from Real Madrid due to their financial struggles, it just goes to show you how little most men's national team players actually even care about how much they make from national team duty. The $500k bonus for all of the France players is less than almost what all of their entire selection is making when playing for their club for a month. It's about the prestige, not the money. The women's players need the national team just to make a living.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Yeah was thinking the same as the tv ratings have been very good for the US Women's team.

US viewership of the 2019 Women’s World Cup final was 22% higher than the 2018 men’s final​

US viewership of the 2019 Women's World Cup final was 22% higher than the 2018 men's final

According to a statement from Fox Sports, citing data from Nielsen, approximately 14.3 million U.S. viewers tuned in to the final match on television, compared to 11.4 million for the 2018 Men's World Cup Final, a 22% U.S. viewership boost.

www.cnbc.com

Tbf, nobody gives a f*** over here about two other countries circle jerking over how great their soccer teams are.

U.S. soccer fans are what it's like for Mississippi fans to watch Alabama, LSU and Georgia tickle each other's balls over who is the best football program in the nation every year. (and yes, we're not even Auburn in this scenario, not even close)

But if you put our country in a world final, even if it's the women, then you bet your ass people will tune in to watch.

That's how it works. Sorry not sorry.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Does it bother you that the NFL shares the national revenue equally among the teams even though they don't have equal viewership? They also play in different games, you can tell who is getting more viewership.

The Big Ten also shares their revenue equally among the conference teams rather than basing it on viewership, does that bother you? Who gets more viewership Michigan or Rutgers?

That doesn't bother me because that is a decision that all of the NFL teams made likely because they feel that making sure that each NFL team having an equal chance is better for ratings and profitability.

 

[ThorneStockton]

That doesn't bother me because that is a decision that all of the NFL teams made likely because they feel that making sure that each NFL team having an equal chance is better for ratings and profitability.

But the agreement that the national teams made does bother you because the reason to come to an agreement wasn't likely because of ratings and profitability?

Weird. But that's alright.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

if things were different than they would be the same. If the NFL didnt share revenue maholmes would be playing for the giants.

Really? I think it would be more of a discussion if there was a female pro football league and compare revenue.

We could compare the NBA and WNBA or NCAA Men vs Womens basketball in terms of revenue.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

But the agreement that the national teams made does bother you because the reason to come to an agreement wasn't likely because of ratings and profitability?

Weird. But that's alright.

I feel like the men where pressured to give up their money because if they didn't they would be the targets of the media for not having done so.

Considering it's a small amount of money for many of them I don't entirely blame them for doing so. But it's not a good thing that they can essentially be blackmailed out of giving up their money.

Seriously if the men collectively said no to that provision than the women's team would be on TV singling out the men's players for not forking over their money to them and the media would lap it up and make them bad guys. It's not like the media has been exactly forthcoming with the nuances of this whole equal pay thing anyways.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I feel like the men where pressured to give up their money because if they didn't they would be the targets of the media for not having done so.

Considering it's a small amount of money for many of them I don't entirely blame them for doing so. But it's not a good thing that they can essentially be blackmailed out of giving up their money.

Seriously if the men collectively said no to that provision than the women's team would be on TV singling out the men's players for not forking over their money to them and the media would lap it up and make them bad guys. It's not like the media has been exactly forthcoming with the nuances of this whole equal pay thing anyways.

Ah I get it. It wasn't a real agreement in terms of intent, only a technical agreement that was made under duress.

Have you seen anything that suggests that reflects reality rather than just you projecting how you would feel in their shoes?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Ah I get it. It wasn't a real agreement in terms of intent, only a technical agreement that was made under duress.

Have you seen anything that suggests that reflects reality rather than just you projecting how you would feel in their shoes?

If the possibility of duress wasn't there then I would be much more accepting of it. But that possibility is clearly there so there is no way of knowing. And it's not like they can come out and say that they only did it because they where scared of the media reaction for having refused. That too would get them canceled.

 

[ThorneStockton]

If the possibility of duress wasn't there then I would be much more accepting of it. But that possibility is clearly there so there is no way of knowing. And it's not like they can come out and say that they only did it because they where scared of the media reaction for having refused. That too would get them canceled.

Since it's possible, but no way of knowing. You can just assume.

Not a good look for a jury, but for just a immaterial personal opinion, sure why not? I commend people who are honest about their reasoning, often people are embarrassed to admit their opinions are baseless, emotion based or leaps in logic. We're humans not robots.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Since it's possible, but no way of knowing. You can just assume.

Not a good look for a jury, but for just a immaterial personal opinion, sure why not? I commend people who are honest about their reasoning, often people are embarrassed to admit their opinions are baseless, emotion based or leaps in logic. We're humans not robots.

If you sign a contract and someone has a gun to your head. . . how do we know you wouldn't have signed the contract anyways even if there wasn't a gun to your head.

We recognize by law that the simple possibility of duress means a contract is invalid, even if we can't prove that the duress is what caused them to sign.

What we don't recognize by law is that bad press constitutes duress.

But in this day and age bad press most certainly does constitute duress on any moral level. I'm not sure you could make it legally this way for a multitude of reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that fear of bad press constitutes duress.

I'd give up quite a bit of my own money for no other reason to not have my name dragged through the mud and have people outside my house or the houses of my relatives protesting. I mean if it was a legitimate choice of "give up $500 or experience this" I would fork over that $500.

 

[ThorneStockton]

If you sign a contract and someone has a gun to your head. . . how do we know you wouldn't have signed the contract anyways even if there wasn't a gun to your head.

We recognize by law that the simple possibility of duress means a contract is invalid, even if we can't prove that the duress is what caused them to sign.

What we don't recognize by law is that bad press constitutes duress.

But in this day and age bad press most certainly does constitute duress on any moral level.

Do you know how a contract gets invalidated by duress? First a claim by the victim, then evidence to substantiate the claim.

Of course neither of those exist in this situation. You're just substituting how you would feel in their shoes and presenting it as reality, when there's no basis for it.

I wonder how much thought you've put into bad press = duress? Would just about every settlement with a non disclosure agreement become invalidated? Avoiding bad press, loss of reputation, loss of income, etc. is often a factor to consider when coming to an agreement. You know, weighing the pros and cons, what you give, what you give up, what you avoid.

Claiming bad press could become the new get out of a contract free card. "Of course I signed it! If I didn't, I would have gotten bad press!"

No evidence necessary of course.