OT: Official Women's World Cup Thread
- Thread starter RUHotTrumpetMonkeyLove
- Start date
The arbitrons are in and the women's game outdrew the last World Cup game the USA men were in.
The last game they were in was not the WC finals and it was a Tuesday afternoon.
"The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams."
Apples and oranges.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#524c48fb6da4
Apples and oranges.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#524c48fb6da4
Higher than the men’s final last year and the best rated us soccer telecast (in the US).
Here's a Plum
It's U.S. Soccer, not the FIFA that ultimately gives award money to players, and therefore the US Soccer federation could use its discretion to pay based on the revenue its national
teams bring in.
As The Wall Street Journal notes:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600
"From 2016 to 2018, women's games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer's audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men."
Because it's more of an apples to apples comparison. If the women generated billions more in revenue, shouldn't they earn more?
I don't get it. The US women do generate more then the men, yet they earn less.
Not everything is in black or white nor apple orange comparisons the way you're trying to put it.
The international football federation is set to award $400 million total to the 32 mens teams competing for the World Cup o. By the end of the tournament on July 15, one champion will take home a prize of $38 million
if they take the cup.
Teams’ national federations are then allowed to decide how to pay athletes at their discretion. That means the payoff for playing in the World Cup varies by country.
So the revenue generated might not be distribute equally between each nations teams.
Though payout to national federation is the same.
The German Football Association said in December that each of its players will get a bonus of $400,000, if they win this summer’s World Cup.
Brazil, where each person will get $930,000, if they emerge victorious from the World Cup.
Spain’s players $950,000.
So no matter how much money is generated overall, the share given is up to each individual country .
So if the woman's team brings in more revenue, the country they represent can pay their women more than the men because they brought in more revenue and the FIFA won't say a thing about it.
Because it is up to the individual countries to share what they receive from the FIFA with their players ( male and/or female) rather than the FIFA dividing the revenue that's considered the player's share of their country's revenue.
The men generates a lot more money for FIFA. But USWNT and USMNT are both paid by US soccer federation. It only matters how much each team brings in for USSF, not FIFA.
It’s soccer in the us. I rather watch the women’s team win than watch the men’s get crushed. Not an issue in Europe. It would be like an equal pay discussion on NBA vs WNBA there.
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but whoever is making money off the girls is the ones paying them, which is the USSF, and they run the men's team as well. So it shouldn't be based on equal pay because they should be paid what their worth, if say the Women are bringing in say $68 million a year to the USSF and the men just $49 million but the women on avg get $200,000 per player but the men get $350,000 per player, then something is wrong here, the women are being shortchanged.
I think the easiest thing is run it like how one of the pro sports leagues run their cap systems, the revenue that goes to the players is based on a percentage of the gross income the league brings in (or something like that). So like I said, everyone is paid their worth and in full.
I think the easiest thing is run it like how one of the pro sports leagues run their cap systems, the revenue that goes to the players is based on a percentage of the gross income the league brings in (or something like that). So like I said, everyone is paid their worth and in full.
Mike Ozania at Forbes explained:
“As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.
The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”
Do we get a payout from the World Cup if the men don't qualify? If not, it is irrelevant what the World Cup brings in.
To bad you couldn't just enjoy the pictures instead of bring up a politician .
All professional sports are entertainment. Your worth is based on how many people will pay to see you and how much money you bring in. Until the women bring in as many people and as much money as the men, they won't be paid the same. Anything else is post-modern BS.
That happened already in soccer. Welcome to the party.
It's a valid point. But it might mean the men take a pay cut rather than the women getting a raise.
Similar threads
