I almost spit out a mouthful of sandwich when this came on the deli's TV other day at lunch break, and really think the topic deserves its own thread but will continue here. It's foolish to compare numbers when the teams aren't even in the same league. Just because both are involved in the same occupation doesn't mean they're doing the same "work". An employee in San Francisco is going to be making much less than an employee in Mississippi, doesn't mean they're being discriminated against.
This pay scale is exactly what these women, like most women, requested - more job security and benefits, less risk-based reward. This is one of the fundamental reasons for the national earnings gap in the first place. From - http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/04/01/u-s-soccer-fires-back-womens-claims/
Furthermore, soccer's main audience is outside the US and that's where the sponsors and dollars come from. Compared to men's and women's prize purses, the US women's team actually took home nearly double the prize money when they won the Cup vs the winning men's team. From - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...occer-players-close-to-scoring-equal-pay.html
Also bear in mind when the mainstream news talks about annual earnings that the World Cup takes place once every four years, and Men's and Women's WC take place in different years, so when they tell us that the women's team outearned the men's team in a certain year you can be certain they're using data from a year when the women's WC took place and the men's didn't.
This pay scale is exactly what these women, like most women, requested - more job security and benefits, less risk-based reward. This is one of the fundamental reasons for the national earnings gap in the first place. From - http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/04/01/u-s-soccer-fires-back-womens-claims/
“It quite frankly seems odd, from a legal perspective, that the players are complaining about a compensation system that they insisted upon, including the very economic terms they’re now complaining about,” Sauer said in a statement. “This is a model of compensation structure that the Players’ Association negotiated specifically for in prior negotiations.”
The lawyer went on to point out, “The Players’ Association asked for and received a structure of guaranteed salary and benefits, rather than pursue their compensation on a pay-to-play basis like the men. That whole process involves tradeoffs.”
Sauer also said there are certain benefits and types of compensation that the female players get that the male players don’t get including certain types of severance pay if they are cut and insurance and injury benefits.
Further, federation spokesman Neil Buethe insisted the numbers the women cited in their lawsuit are incorrect.
“During the last four years, the men’s national team revenues have been significantly higher than the women’s national team’s,” the spokesman said. “The numbers provided in the complaint are at times inaccurate, misleading or even both.”
Furthermore, soccer's main audience is outside the US and that's where the sponsors and dollars come from. Compared to men's and women's prize purses, the US women's team actually took home nearly double the prize money when they won the Cup vs the winning men's team. From - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...occer-players-close-to-scoring-equal-pay.html
Friday’s festivities won’t make upset fans forget that the women’s team took home $2 million for their momentous victory, less than a quarter of the $9 million that the U.S. men’s and other teams were awarded last year after losing in the first round of the men’s World Cup. (The Germans, meanwhile, took home $35 million for the championship.)
But the total prize pool for the men’s tournament was $576 million—40 times the $15 million prize pool for the women’s games.
The Women’s World Cup generated $17 million in sponsor revenue compared to the $529 million revenue pile for last year’s (men’s) World Cup tournament.
But if you do the math, the U.S. women’s team pocketed more of that revenue—roughly 11 percent—than the 6.6 percent given to the Germans.
Sunday night’s women’s final saw a record viewership: 25.4 million viewers tuned in to Fox, making it the most-watched soccer game in U.S. history.
...
But they weren’t even in the same ballpark as the men’s tournament, which drew in a global average of 188.4 million TV viewers per game.
There’s been understandable outrage about U.S. women’s soccer players’ meager salaries, with emphasis on the women’s minimum salary of $6,842 compared to the male players’ new $60,000 minimum, up from last season’s $36,500 minimum.
But the women’s salaries would jump considerably if more people were paying to watch women’s sports—and if more people attended the games, and sponsorships sold well.
Coates said that the stars of the U.S. women’s team make considerably more money from endorsement deals than the stars of the U.S. men’s team. And they should, given how much better the women’s team is and how much better-known their players are.
Also bear in mind when the mainstream news talks about annual earnings that the World Cup takes place once every four years, and Men's and Women's WC take place in different years, so when they tell us that the women's team outearned the men's team in a certain year you can be certain they're using data from a year when the women's WC took place and the men's didn't.