Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
El Floppo

Official 2019 Women's World Cup thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

, with Chastain getting the big media attention when she took off her top after scoring the winning penalty in the final

Here is a blast from the past.  How many of you remember this NIKE commercial?  Imagine this being made today with the creep factor performance Kevin Garnett gives :lmao:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37BRG7LUnow

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewlyRetired said:

Just to be clear when I said cash grab, I was referring to US Soccer not the women themselves.  US Soccer makes good money on these type of games.   The women get their normal CBA assigned pay for friendlies.

 

Seems like the perfect time for a strike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewlyRetired said:

Here is a blast from the past.  How many of you remember this NIKE commercial?  Imagine this being made today with the creep factor performance Kevin Garnett gives :lmao:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37BRG7LUnow

:lmao: I don't remember that one but its awesome and bad for so many reasons.

 

Remember this one?  A much better ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liKnJ-ejztw

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 1:18 PM, guru_007 said:

can we go back to the faux outrage over the unequal pay for these 23 ladies please?  that was much more interesting to read.

See you back in four years when interest in women's soccer comes back into the U.S.A.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states/story/3908663/ussf-says-uswnt-has-made-more-than-the-men?src=com

U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro contended Monday that analysis of federation finances showed that it paid members of the women's national team millions of dollars more than members of the men's national team over a period of nearly a decade.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shrug: I think US Soccer is making a mistake.  First line of defense - in court/arbitration - should be that these are not equals.  Sure they play the same game, but the men are objectively better.  This is not a situation of "equal pay for equal work".  This is like a low level manager complaining she does not make as much as a male senior manager - since they are both managers...

 

What they should do, is have the women's team play the men's team each January, and split the annual revenues on the basis of goals scored in that game.

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

:shrug: I think US Soccer is making a mistake.  First line of defense - in court/arbitration - should be that these are not equals.  Sure they play the same game, but the men are objectively better.  This is not a situation of "equal pay for equal work".  This is like a low level manager complaining she does not make as much as a male senior manager - since they are both managers...

 

What they should do, is have the women's team play the men's team each January, and split the annual revenues on the basis of goals scored in that game.

They essentially ARE making that argument though.  They boiled down the financials to show that the men's games makes, on average, more than double what the women's games do.  That even though the women played far more games than the men, that the men actually earned more revenue in the games they did play.  No rational judge is going to view them as equals when it comes to pay based on revenue.

Edited by encaitar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, encaitar said:

They essentially ARE making that argument though.  They boiled down the financials to show that the men's games makes, on average, more than double what the women's games do.  That even though the women played far more games than the men, that the men actually earned more revenue in the games they did play.  No rational judge is going to view them as equals when it comes to pay based on revenue.

I don't see that as the "same" argument - it in essence says, "assuming they are equal" the men generate more revenue, and thus are paid more.

I think the stance should be right up front - These are not remotely equal, or even similar jobs, and or skills.  Thus the disparity in income is not based on gender, but based on objective skill based discrimination.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mr. furley said:

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states/story/3908663/ussf-says-uswnt-has-made-more-than-the-men?src=com

U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro contended Monday that analysis of federation finances showed that it paid members of the women's national team millions of dollars more than members of the men's national team over a period of nearly a decade.

the USWNT representative response to this was "please ignore the club salaries, they are not appropriate to consider".   

They did not explain why, either financially, or with basic reasoning why they should be ignored,  but they are the entire crux of the issue as many of us have been saying for a long time now.

Personally, since the women collective bargained for the salaries with US Soccer, and added in a nasty poison pill hurting others in the NWSL, I think it is fair to consider the salaries a part of their total compensation package.

US Soccer lost this battle long ago though in the public by not immediately stressing the salaries.  Now that so many just want to wave the equal pay flag, they may be screwed.   

The question I have is whether a court will also fall under the same public pressure or will a court see the salaries for what they are.  I don't see any way this stays out of court at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats and kudos to Jill Ellis. A job very well done.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So took the kid to the victory tour game Sat night at the Rose Bowl.  30-40k people there.  3-0 victory over a poor Ireland team.  felt like 80+% possession for the US. 3 nice goals although upon re-watching on tv should have been called back for offside.

Anyway, we were able to get seats close to the field where the subs were warming up for the US.  All the goals were at the other end unfortunately.  When the game ended we were able to get to the fence around the field and my kid got Allie Long to sign her jersey.  She was so excited.  Almost got Press too.  Watched the postgame show and actually could see my girl at the fence on TV.  All in all a pretty good night!

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 12:15 PM, B Maverick said:

So took the kid to the victory tour game Sat night at the Rose Bowl.  30-40k people there.  3-0 victory over a poor Ireland team.  felt like 80+% possession for the US. 3 nice goals although upon re-watching on tv should have been called back for offside.

Anyway, we were able to get seats close to the field where the subs were warming up for the US.  All the goals were at the other end unfortunately.  When the game ended we were able to get to the fence around the field and my kid got Allie Long to sign her jersey.  She was so excited.  Almost got Press too.  Watched the postgame show and actually could see my girl at the fence on TV.  All in all a pretty good night!

Nice! I just bought tickets to take my 10 y.o. daughter to the game in Charlotte in October. Can't wait!.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 9:09 PM, encaitar said:

They essentially ARE making that argument though.  They boiled down the financials to show that the men's games makes, on average, more than double what the women's games do.  That even though the women played far more games than the men, that the men actually earned more revenue in the games they did play.  No rational judge is going to view them as equals when it comes to pay based on revenue.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 9:17 PM, Sinn Fein said:

I don't see that as the "same" argument - it in essence says, "assuming they are equal" the men generate more revenue, and thus are paid more.

I think the stance should be right up front - These are not remotely equal, or even similar jobs, and or skills.  Thus the disparity in income is not based on gender, but based on objective skill based discrimination.

I don't know anything about the history of this whole issue, but reading up a bit today after seeing a headline.  According to this article:

Quote

 

But let's talk about that money. Where does it come from? The biggest revenue streams are TV deals, sponsorship deals and ticket sales. It's tricky to decipher how much the men are bringing in with TV deals and sponsorship deals versus the women because those deals are often sold in bundles. When it comes to ticket sales though, the women have actually raked in more money over the past three years, according to audited financial statements obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

From 2016 to 2018, women's games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men's games. Here's the sneaky caveat: The men actually average higher attendance. Meanwhile, the women have played in more games, which leads to more revenue. The women have also done more promotional and media tours than the men have in that span.

What is a potential solution?

There is one outlined in the lawsuit: The WNTPA proposed a revenue-sharing model to "test the USSF's 'market realities' theory." In that model, player compensation would directly be linked to how much revenue each team generates.

 

So if the total revenue actually is greater (I have no idea if this is accurate and/or the full scope of the situation) for women, why shouldn't they be compensated more in the collective bargaining agreement?  Is an issue that putting on twice as many events leads to much higher costs for the women to generate that revenue, so there is actually less to distribute?  I'm sure that there are many nuances to this whole situation.  

I was initially going to argue for my first point, but now that I am thinking about it, it probably would be apples and oranges to just use revenue and a revenue-sharing model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

 

I don't know anything about the history of this whole issue, but reading up a bit today after seeing a headline.  According to this article:

So if the total revenue actually is greater (I have no idea if this is accurate and/or the full scope of the situation) for women, why shouldn't they be compensated more in the collective bargaining agreement?  Is an issue that putting on twice as many events leads to much higher costs for the women to generate that revenue, so there is actually less to distribute?  I'm sure that there are many nuances to this whole situation.  

I was initially going to argue for my first point, but now that I am thinking about it, it probably would be apples and oranges to just use revenue and a revenue-sharing model.

I tend to focus on the on-field side of this sport... others here have greater breadth of knowledge/nuance on this- but... IMO, as long as the WNT salaries are paid by US Soccer, it's going to be tough to apples anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

Is an issue that putting on twice as many events leads to much higher costs for the women to generate that revenue, so there is actually less to distribute?  I'm sure that there are many nuances to this whole situation.  

I dont think that is a nuance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I dont think that is a nuance. 

meaning essentially the difference between revenue and gross profit?  i guess not for some, but when i see it reported that way and assume that revenue is driving the conversation, it seems like it might be a nuance.  though i was more talking about other nuances in the financial structure that i am not aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

 

I don't know anything about the history of this whole issue, but reading up a bit today after seeing a headline.  According to this article:

So if the total revenue actually is greater (I have no idea if this is accurate and/or the full scope of the situation) for women, why shouldn't they be compensated more in the collective bargaining agreement?  Is an issue that putting on twice as many events leads to much higher costs for the women to generate that revenue, so there is actually less to distribute?  I'm sure that there are many nuances to this whole situation.  

I was initially going to argue for my first point, but now that I am thinking about it, it probably would be apples and oranges to just use revenue and a revenue-sharing model.

the issue is not revenue per say, it is more based on compensation.

US Soccer pays the NWSL salaries for the players.

US Soccer considers the salaries part of the players total compensation.  The players do not.

That is the key point in the whole dispute.  The players made it clear in their public statement that the club salaries that US Soccer pay them should not be considered part of the compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NewlyRetired said:

the issue is not revenue per say, it is more based on compensation.

US Soccer pays the NWSL salaries for the players.

US Soccer considers the salaries part of the players total compensation.  The players do not.

That is the key point in the whole dispute.  The players made it clear in their public statement that the club salaries that US Soccer pay them should not be considered part of the compensation.

They better have a really, really good explanation for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Christo said:

They better have a really, really good explanation for that.

That’s the key point to me.

Do they think the pro league won’t fold if the federation stops paying their salaries? (which I would assume they will if they get their wish and that isn’t considered compensation?

And if the league folds, what are they left with? A traveling futsal team barnstorming around facing off against the women’s soccer equivalent  of the Washington Generals? (pretty much just the superstars getting paid in that case)

Or, I suppose they roll back to the old pre-Dream Team Olympic model and roll with a bunch of NCAA players and probably be almost as good?

And the timing of the whole thing is a double-edged sword. Yes, visibility and enthusiasm are at a peak following the World Cup, but I believe a lot do folks are boarding the “don’t care, talk to me in 4 years” bus.

I totally agree with getting an equal percentage of  any profit generated, but demanding those salaries be excluded doesn’t generate much sympathy from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rustoleum said:

That’s the key point to me.

Do they think the pro league won’t fold if the federation stops paying their salaries? (which I would assume they will if they get their wish and that isn’t considered compensation?

And if the league folds, what are they left with? A traveling futsal team barnstorming around facing off against the women’s soccer equivalent  of the Washington Generals? (pretty much just the superstars getting paid in that case)

 

The women in the national team pool would play in Europe, as almost all of them have done at one time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rustoleum said:

That’s the key point to me.

Do they think the pro league won’t fold if the federation stops paying their salaries? (which I would assume they will if they get their wish and that isn’t considered compensation?

And if the league folds, what are they left with? A traveling futsal team barnstorming around facing off against the women’s soccer equivalent  of the Washington Generals? (pretty much just the superstars getting paid in that case)

Or, I suppose they roll back to the old pre-Dream Team Olympic model and roll with a bunch of NCAA players and probably be almost as good?

And the timing of the whole thing is a double-edged sword. Yes, visibility and enthusiasm are at a peak following the World Cup, but I believe a lot do folks are boarding the “don’t care, talk to me in 4 years” bus.

I totally agree with getting an equal percentage of  any profit generated, but demanding those salaries be excluded doesn’t generate much sympathy from me. 

One argument I've heard is that US Soccer also propped up MLS in is early yeas, invested in it at a loss.  I don't know the details and I'm sure its not apples/apples, as nothing is in this dispute.  If true, I suppose that is somewhat relevant to the discussion where some are now saying the current NWSL investment should be part of equation, but please ignore the historical investment in MLS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything from preventing these women from trying out for the USMNT?  Well besides the fact they get destroyed by 14 yo kids on a routine basis.

Seems like the simple solution is USAM soccer organization and USAW soccer organization.  Those two organizations could pay and schedule as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

One argument I've heard is that US Soccer also propped up MLS in is early yeas, invested in it at a loss.  I don't know the details and I'm sure its not apples/apples, as nothing is in this dispute.  If true, I suppose that is somewhat relevant to the discussion where some are now saying the current NWSL investment should be part of equation, but please ignore the historical investment in MLS.

 

But they still have to go one step further and demontrate why US Soccer's early investment in MLS means that it's current investment in the NWSL should not be a consideration in how much it currently pays the women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

One argument I've heard is that US Soccer also propped up MLS in is early yeas, invested in it at a loss.  I don't know the details and I'm sure its not apples/apples, as nothing is in this dispute.  If true, I suppose that is somewhat relevant to the discussion where some are now saying the current NWSL investment should be part of equation, but please ignore the historical investment in MLS.

This was US Soccer biggest mistake.

Way way way back in the 90's, US Soccer loaned MLS $5m.   As MLS turned the century and was about to go out of business, US Soccer forgave the loan.

Had US Soccer done the same thing with the NWSL, we would not be in this mess.  By paying the players directly, instead of the league, they caused this entire mess.

That being said, US Soccer has invested way more than $5m,  in todays money, in the NWSL so there is no need to ignore anything via MLS's past.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rustoleum said:

Do they think the pro league won’t fold if the federation stops paying their salaries? (which I would assume they will if they get their wish and that isn’t considered compensation?

This is the other half of the mess US Soccer created.

By not paying the league directly a set amount, and instead paying ongoing salaries, they are now stuck in a PR nightmare that the women are beating them over the head with.

US Soccer probably would love to simply redo the CBA, give the women what the want for equality and simply remove the salaries, but then they run the exact risk you mentioned, and that is being blamed for possibly causing the league to fold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

The women in the national team pool would play in Europe, as almost all of them have done at one time. 

This is something that should be encouraged.

It took MLS almost 20 years to pay decent money to players.   No one should expect the NWSL to do it so soon.  US male players for decades had to look all over for a decent wage while MLS was still paying peanuts trying to stay afloat.

The women who can command higher pay outside of the NWSL, should be encouraged to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christo said:

But they still have to go one step further and demontrate why US Soccer's early investment in MLS means that it's current investment in the NWSL should not be a consideration in how much it currently pays the women.

I think they have a hell of a lot more than just that to deal with if they want to establish a claim under the equal pay act, but yeah, this thing just gets more and more convoluted the deeper it gets. The main thing is that the women are winning the public relations war by a large margin as far as I can tell, and that’s probably going to get them a new deal. Their timing was obviously well-executed. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewlyRetired said:

This was US Soccer biggest mistake.

Way way way back in the 90's, US Soccer loaned MLS $5m.   As MLS turned the century and was about to go out of business, US Soccer forgave the loan.

Had US Soccer done the same thing with the NWSL, we would not be in this mess.  By paying the players directly, instead of the league, they caused this entire mess.

That being said, US Soccer has invested way more than $5m,  in todays money, in the NWSL so there is no need to ignore anything via MLS's past.

The entire issue of league support just massively complicates things, one of the reasons being that US Soccer is supporting foreign players as well as US players in these leagues. I guess I don’t really know for certain, but assume us soccer pays or at least subsidizes the league salaries of Sam Kerr and Marta among others. How does that figure into the equal pay lawsuit? When you also consider there’s no way to meaningfully allocate commercial revenue between the men or women, I suppose it’s no wonder the media focuses on easily quantifiable but less meaningful components like gate receipts and per diems. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The entire issue of league support just massively complicates things, one of the reasons being that US Soccer is supporting foreign players as well as US players in these leagues. I guess I don’t really know for certain, but assume us soccer pays or at least subsidizes the league salaries of Sam Kerr and Marta among others. How does that figure into the equal pay lawsuit? When you also consider there’s no way to meaningfully allocate commercial revenue between the men or women, I suppose it’s no wonder the media focuses on easily quantifiable but less meaningful components like gate receipts and per diems. 

 

My understanding is that the USSF and it’s Canadian and Mexican counterparts cover the salaries for their pools. I don’t think any other salaries are paid by an FA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The entire issue of league support just massively complicates things, one of the reasons being that US Soccer is supporting foreign players as well as US players in these leagues. I guess I don’t really know for certain, but assume us soccer pays or at least subsidizes the league salaries of Sam Kerr and Marta among others. How does that figure into the equal pay lawsuit? When you also consider there’s no way to meaningfully allocate commercial revenue between the men or women, I suppose it’s no wonder the media focuses on easily quantifiable but less meaningful components like gate receipts and per diems. 

 

The media doesn't actually want to understand the details of a story it's covering, you say. Hmmmm.

  • Thinking 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

My understanding is that the USSF and it’s Canadian and Mexican counterparts cover the salaries for their pools. I don’t think any other salaries are paid by an FA. 

This is my understanding as well.

Although, Marta's deal is unique I believe.  If I remember correctly, she makes a nominal NWSL salary ($41k) but a bunch of sponsors kicked in a ton of money for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Christo said:

The media doesn't actually want to understand the details of a story it's covering, you say. Hmmmm.

Decent sources for accurate info I've found are @McCannSportsLaw, @turneresq and @ProfBank 

McCann recently moved to SI and I think his stuff has become a bit watered down as a result.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men in Blazers podcast - with interview of Sam Kerr

Apple: https://tinyurl.com/yy5zxp5f
Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/y3hxlerj
SoundCloud: https://tinyurl.com/yxvvxgpu

 

Men in Blazer might not be your thing - but a really good interview with Sam Kerr - starts at 13:00.  Wish she was American.  :kicksrock:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Men in Blazers podcast - with interview of Sam Kerr

Apple: https://tinyurl.com/yy5zxp5f
Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/y3hxlerj
SoundCloud: https://tinyurl.com/yxvvxgpu

 

Men in Blazer might not be your thing - but a really good interview with Sam Kerr - starts at 13:00.  Wish she was American.  :kicksrock:

 

Kerr puts Chicago up 1-0 (over Portland)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.