pantherclub
Footballguy
Last year, the men's World Cup generated $6 billion, and gave about 7 percent to the teams. The 2019 Women's World Cup made $131 million, and gave out more than 20 percent to the teams.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Official US Women's soccer thread: Gold Cup Final- US 1 - Brazil 0! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter El Floppo
- Start date
pantherclub
Footballguy
Not that it matters but I just saw this team lost to a Dallas 15&under squad 2 years ago 5-2. Thats insane to me.
Poke_4_Life
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
Its such a stupid talking point. Its just simple economics.
Ned
Footballguy
Her speed at 34 is impressive. She closed down quite a few players yesterday very quickly.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Its actually very far from simple, which is the main problem with sports journalists and twitter warriors trying to weigh in on the issue. Its near-impossible to compare revenues or salaries/wages between the men and women on an apples/apples basis. There are some obvious inequities which can and should be addressed, although there are valid reasons even for those (like the per-diems). For those interested, Andrew Das did a decent piece on some of the main issues two years ago when the current lawsuit was first initiated at the EEOC stage: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html
pantherclub
Footballguy
Jayrod
Footballguy
Capella
Footballguy
B Maverick
Footballguy
So what was the foul called to give the PK? I was at the bar and couldn't hear it. The discussion on the radio this morning was dangerous play. Problem is that carries an indirect free kick with it and not a PK. So if thats all it was, the PK shouldnt have been given.
And now lets talk about the fact that Ertz & Lavelle had better tournaments and were way more deserving of the golden ball for tourney's best player. Heck most of the US team was more deserving.
And now lets talk about the fact that Ertz & Lavelle had better tournaments and were way more deserving of the golden ball for tourney's best player. Heck most of the US team was more deserving.
bigbottom
Footballguy
If there is physical contact, I believe it becomes a direct free kick (or penalty kick).
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
identikit
Footballguy
I believe it was because an opponent hit Alex Morgan's shoulder with her cleats.
Plenty dangerous.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
How would that even be possible to calculate? The question itself raises multiple questions illustrating my point. Who are "they"? The player pool for the men and women is different. Men get game bonuses and other pay only when they are called up, whereas the women's player pool is interpreted much more broadly. What does it even mean to say "the exact same thing"? Men earn most of their pay from their clubs, private business entities located all over the world, whereas US soccer pays all the women's comp, including their NWSL club salaries. Some of that pay goes to non-US players, like Marta who plays for Orlando. Even within the women's team, the comp varies widely from a player like Rapinoe who earns several million to squad plyers who earn less than $50k. Do you mean on a per game basis, annual salary (which doesn't really exist) percentage of revenue or some other measure of "exact same thing"? None of these is readily calculable on a relative basis as between the men and women. Take sponsorship money just for one example. Nike pays millions a year to US soccer for rights to use the crest and design the shirts. How much of that do you allocate to men and women? How much goes to the thousands of us soccer sanctioned youth programs? It's impossible to say what would be "the exact same amount."
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Very true, but they didn't score the goals, nor were they the leaders of their team. But those two dominated more than any of the bigger names IMO.
EYLive
Footballguy
Capella
Footballguy
You mean the World Cup that the USMNT didn’t participate in because they are terrible and lost to Trinidad and Tobago when all they needed was a tie to qualify? Against T&T who only had one win in the hex before that game? Yes, tell me more about how that team deserves way more money than the USWNT does.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that the US women deserve equal treatment, not that every international women's soccer player should be paid the same as every international men's soccer player. The women have filed a lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation (not FIFA/the World Cup) making this claim, which is the source of the rallying cry. The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both published detailed analyses of the claim; either source is vastly superior to a misogynistic twitter account.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Even if it the foul occurred in the box? (Serious question -- I always thought that any foul in the box was a PK but I guess I don't honestly know).
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
It's also wrong to say the women want "equal" pay or treatment. I know that's the popular slogan, but they aren't suing for "equal" pay but rather "fair" pay.
encaitar
Footballguy
It would seem like that should've been a focus point in the CBA that they all signed then.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Perhaps? I'm not familiar with the nuances of their argument. All I know is that (1) FIFA's World Cup revenue is completely irrelevant to a discussion of whether the USWNT is being treated fairly by the USSF, especially when you consider that the USWNT is a two-time World Cup Champion while the USMNT didn't even participate in the last World Cup Finals, and (2) Matt Walsh is a pathetic misogynist who should not be cited by anyone in support of anything.encaitar said:
Poke_4_Life
Footballguy
I'm just stoking the fire and I know more than most about the subject.TobiasFunke said:
Until the NWSL is no longer funded by USSoccer then the USWNT players will continue to demand more money for USWNT games.
USSoccer does not support (men's league) MLS or any other (male) league and the men's teams exists on their own ticket/TV revenue, therefore the USMNT players get more money for playing.
Oh, and if the NWSL is not supported by USSoccer then it will not survive.
encaitar
Footballguy
I don't even know who Matt Walsh is, but the argument of pay per game on the national team is nuanced as it is since USSoccer is also subsidizing women's soccer in the NWSL and they take that money expenditure into consideration while negotiating with the women's team. Honestly, if USSoccer wasn't paying out money to subsidize a league then I would expect the men's and women's teams to negotiate together, but until or if that happens, then comparing game salaries will never be apples/apples.
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
It does effect the WC bonus's I believe, which is part of the overall argument.
FIFA dolls out money to federations based on the revenue they made at the respective WC's and also based on how well each country did in the WC. The men can earn more reward money for US Soccer for a group stage exit than the women can for winning the WC.
So part of the complaints the women have are also directed at FIFA themselves to make sure they are providing enough reward money to the countries that perform in the WWC.
Obviously the key to the whole argument comes down to US Soccer paying their club salaries. Until this gets settled, they will have a hard time claiming fair pay when they actually get more money from US Soccer than the men do.
Last edited by a moderator:
wilked
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Pretty much all of this is addressed in the WSJ and Washington Post articles. So why post a tweet from a misogynistic troll on Twitter whose argument cites an article from March that addresses a totally different controversy (comparison of FIFA prize money for WC winners)?
FWIW I also happen to support evening out the prize money and other other efforts towards treating the athletes equally, because FIFA is an international organization, not a for-profit corporation (pause for laughter), and as such should serve the public good and the good of the game rather than falling back on a lazy argument about prize money being proportional to revenue generated. But that's a different argument. All I said before is that conflating the debate over USSF treatment with the debate over FIFA prize money is silly and Matt Walsh sucks. I stand by both of those statements.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Sure, and I appreciate the nuance here. I linked to articles that get into this stuff, including the Post article which notes that only 25% of USSF revenue comes from games played, and obviously only a fraction of that is WC prize money. I think the article gives the entire argument a full, fair treatment, I found it very informative and I hope people read it.
Jayrod
Footballguy
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
the big problem for the women is that so much of the revenue comes from TV and from sponsors. Trying to figure out which part of that is meant for whom is really hard.
I personally would rather have the women give up the yearly salaries, and then come up with a fair plan. I don't even care if it is as simple as giving the exact same amount of money they to both the men and women, no matter where the revenue come from or who it was possibly intended for.
I honestly don't think the men will care since the money they get from US Soccer is in the noise compared to what they make in MLS/Europe etc. But I think it would be too big a hit for the women to give up the salaries knowing that the NWSL probably can't match it in their current state.
I am glad you are educating yourself on the topic. You would be amazed at how many SJWs are out there who don't have the first clue that US Soccer is paying the women's yearly salaries. It makes most conversations non starters.
And as a fair acknowledgement, I should mention that US Soccer gets some benefit from the paying of the salaries. The impetus for this is that they were afraid too many female players were going to have to retire due to not being able to support themselves on a normal women's league salary.
The best thing that could happen for every one involved would be for just one women's league, any where in the world. to become financially solvent, and then the best US womens players could move there and play. For decades that is what male US players had to do and if they want top dollar many still do it today.
Moe.
Footballguy
Feels like the Euro leagues will get there, especially if the PL takes over the women's league in England. Horan went straight to PSG outta high school.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I think so too. It may not effect the current batch of US players but I think with in the next decade there should be at least one financially viable league in Europe for the women to play in.
El Floppo
Footballguy
I was wondering the same thing in real time. High kick used to be indirect, which wouldn't be a PK. Nowadays, no idea.
Fwiw, it was studs up to shoulder high kick, not something slight and on the fence.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This gets at what seems like another problem to me, which is the whole idea of judging the "fairness" based on net revenue in the recent past to begin with. Even for-profit businesses that don't have a larger mission beyond making money don't dole out resources based solely on short term revenue numbers. They also account for possible areas of growth and the long term outlook for the company. As far as I can tell (just limited to the articles I read and being a casual fan of the game) the women's team/NWSL would be analogous to a relatively new division of a company, one that is riskier but has a much higher ceiling. You need to allocate resources beyond the revenue it currently generates if you want it to survive and thrive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dangerous play is an indirect fee kick. But if the dangerous play is kicking an opponent then it's direct. Had she thown her foot out but not made contact, the ref could still have awarded an indirect free kick.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
This is a topic for another thread but US Soccer should not be involved in the private businesses of the clubs. Very few, if any, FA's in the world are as involved in the clubs as US Soccer is.
SUM is the main problem for this but that gets too far in the weeds for this topic.
B Maverick
Footballguy
Sure. Intentional pass back to the keeper and she uses her hands is indirect kick. Happens in the box. Dangerous Play would be too.IvanKaramazov said:
I guess the question is on the PK call, was there contact? If so then PK is correct. Becomes a foul rather then dangerous play.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
it is a very rare play but you can have an indirect kick extremely close to the goal, if the right situation occurs.IvanKaramazov said:
it can create some wonderfully comic moments like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7gvqWRG7o
B Maverick
Footballguy
Therein lies my issue. Yes goals are what wins games and scoring is important. But 3 PKs, 1 accident, 1 sitter, and 1 goal in a blowout where everyone scored doesn't mean she had a good tourney. Too often players whose job it is to score gets rated higher for doing their job. People overlook all the giveaways, the lack of defense, the bad passes because she scored her pk? She had 1 decent game. So many more deserving players not only on the US team but in the tourney.The Z Machine said:
rant over. I know a lot of you agree, just venting. Up next in a series is how the US won despite Jill Ellis' incompetence and it wasn't a "shut up the haters" performance by her.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I stipulated that it was a guess "[a]s far as I can tell (just limited to the articles I read and being a casual fan of the game)" in the same sentence.
My guess was based on various articles and chatter about the recent surge in interest and quality of play in the women's game globally. Here's two examples. Also the fact that the men's game is already so absurdly popular worldwide that there simply can't be that much more room for growth.
Jaysus
Good times!
Didn't USA have an indirect free kick goal from inside the box this tourney?
ETA: It was england (those AWESOME white kits always throw me off)
https://deadspin.com/hell-yea-england-scored-from-an-indirect-free-kick-1835784042
ETA: It was england (those AWESOME white kits always throw me off)
https://deadspin.com/hell-yea-england-scored-from-an-indirect-free-kick-1835784042
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
To my untrained eye Rose Lavelle was easily the most exciting and entertaining player on the team.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
the penis face plant by the keeper on the poor fool on his back, at the end of the replays makes this clip even more enjoyable
encaitar
Footballguy
There's still a ton of room for growth in the men's game, but it's seen in expanding into countries where the sport is not as popular. Hell, this is one of the many reasons that European teams are signing so many young Americans, as they see the US as one of the potential countries to expand the game.
As for the women's game? The current US league is the third US women's soccer league. The other two were attempted with mostly private money and failed. The current league is only sustainable because it's using USSF money to prop it up. The European leagues are hoping to become self-sustainable, but currently are using men's club money to prop them up. Can a woman's league become not only sustainable, but profitable? Maybe, but history has proven otherwise to this point. Believing any money put into the women's game to be an investment would be a gambler's mentality IMO but would be huge for the sport if it paid off.
The real question to be asking is if USSF should split. Would a separate women's federation do more for the game(and the women's players) if they were focused solely on building women's soccer instead of encompassing both men's and women's soccer? There's definitely merit to this argument.
bigbottom
Footballguy
This exact thing happened in one of my son's high school games. Pass back to the opposing team's keeper and he touched it. Indirect kick about 5-7 feet in front of the net. The whole opposing team lined up across the goal line from post to post. My son's teammate took the kick and tapped it to my son who fired it straight up into the top of the net for a score. I'd never seen anything like it before.
I took "higher ceiling" to mean you thought the women's game could become more popular than the men's, not that it had better growth potential. Even if it was the second, I think that the men's game still has hellacious growth potential given the current mediocrity of the USMNT.
