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