Carli LLoyd & Equal Pay
- Thread starter rudad02
- Start date
Great article and Lloyd shows her RU degree wasn't only good for soccer, as she makes a very strong case for the women. When it comes to international play, the women generate better ratings and more revenue for the US Soccer Federation than the men, which is in jarring contrast to generally being paid about 1/5th of what the men get paid, i.e., this isn't just about perceived "unfairness" but is based on actual economics. Here's an excerpt from the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/sports/soccer/carli-lloyd-why-im-fighting-for-equal-pay.html
The United States women’s national team is the most successful team in the history of U.S. Soccer. We’ve won three World Cups and will try to win our fifth Olympic gold medal this summer in Brazil. When we captured the Women’s World Cup title in Canada in July, we drew the highest American television rating for soccer in history and, according to a financial report published by U.S. Soccer last month, helped generate $17.7 million in profit for the federation.
Yet even though U.S. Soccer’s financials confirm that we are the driving force that generates a majority of the revenue for the federation, when we as a team presented our proposal for increased compensation in our new collective bargaining agreement, U.S. Soccer told us, on more than one occasion, that our proposal was not rational. Essentially, the federation said that it had a certain sum of money set aside for the women’s team and that our proposal was unacceptable.
I won’t bury you with numbers, but there are a few important basic facts worth noting. Each year, the United States men’s and women’s national teams each play a minimum of 20 friendly matches. The top five players on the men’s team make an average of $406,000 each year from these games. The top five women are guaranteed only $72,000 each year.
If I were a male soccer player who won a World Cup for the United States, my bonus would be $390,000. Because I am a female soccer player, the bonus I got for our World Cup victory last summer was $75,000.
The men get almost $69,000 for making a World Cup roster. As women, we get $15,000 for making the World Cup team.
I understand that the men’s World Cup generates vastly more money globally than the women’s event, but the simple truth is that U.S. Soccer projects that our team will generate a profit of $5.2 million in 2017 while the men are forecast to lose almost $1 million. Yet we get shortchanged coming and going.
Finances a side, men's soccer is must much more compelling globally than women's. Her argument is less interesting without "burying us with numbers".
How much did the men's team generate in the not just through ratings in the US for WC participation, but overall?
To jump onboard the inequality train, there is a lot more information that needs to be had. Merely pointing out a discrepancy in pay doesn't make an argument.
Take the appearance fee differential. How many people show up when she goes somewhere, as opposed to say Tim Howard?
She says this isn't about how much the men are paid, then goes on to use them in multiple examples.
I am not that impressed with her argument. It's lacking depth.
How much did the men's team generate in the not just through ratings in the US for WC participation, but overall?
To jump onboard the inequality train, there is a lot more information that needs to be had. Merely pointing out a discrepancy in pay doesn't make an argument.
Take the appearance fee differential. How many people show up when she goes somewhere, as opposed to say Tim Howard?
She says this isn't about how much the men are paid, then goes on to use them in multiple examples.
I am not that impressed with her argument. It's lacking depth.
Finances aside??
Finances is what this is all about!
More popular or compelling worldwide isn't the issue. The US woman's program brings in millions, the men's program loses money. Why shouldn't the US Women be paid as much as the men?
Agreed. All that should really matter to this argument is how much revenue comes into the US Soccer Federation and how much goes out, and, based on the article, "U.S. Soccer’s financials confirm that we are the driving force that generates a majority of the revenue for the federation..." Of course, men's soccer is far huger than women's soccer is, worldwide, but that seems irrelevant to a conversation about income to US Soccer and payments made to players from US Soccer. If the women are bringing in more revenue, then why shouldn't they be paid at least the same?
I rarely watch soccer no matter what gender is playing.
However, I have watched the women a lot more than the men simply due to the different level of talent in their respective divisions.
It seems like men are always considered more valuable in any sport where both play. In most cases, they probably are. But, the womens case is pretty clear on who is performing better.
Many professional athletes seem to make ridiculous amounts of money and it does not seem to matter if they win or not anymore.
I would like to see them paid a base salary before they play their season and a significant bonus system in place to compensate them for being successful. But since we have the system we have, the women do deserve more money.
However, I have watched the women a lot more than the men simply due to the different level of talent in their respective divisions.
It seems like men are always considered more valuable in any sport where both play. In most cases, they probably are. But, the womens case is pretty clear on who is performing better.
Many professional athletes seem to make ridiculous amounts of money and it does not seem to matter if they win or not anymore.
I would like to see them paid a base salary before they play their season and a significant bonus system in place to compensate them for being successful. But since we have the system we have, the women do deserve more money.
Don't know how to link. Sue me! While you're at it, if you're interested, google it up or better yet buy a copy of the Times. It can be very informative.
Most folks would just say "thank you" and edit their original post in order to properly spell this woman's name correctly, at which point, I would've deleted my post.
The women's team does not generate better ratings or revenues than the men's team when examining longer time periods. Carli and her teammates can continue to pick and choose figures for specific years and TV ratings for single games, but it doesn't change the fact that the men's team garners far more interest and is more profitable over four- and eight-year World Cup cycles. The women should continue to fight for a better collective bargaining agreement (than the one THEY, or in many cases I presume their predecessors, agreed to) with the USSF, because they deserve to be paid more. But they do not deserve the same compensation schedule as the men. The long-term finances don't justify that.
Weak sauce.
You want to post on message boards? Put in 5 minutes to learn how to do it.
But that's the problem. The women don't bring in more money on average, unless they win a cup & go on a tour. The money made last year is based on it being a WC year, plus the victory tour, while the high projections of revenue for this year also rely on another victory tour after the Olympics. And complaining about the WC bonus is really on FIFA (i.e. the World Game), as the bonuses are based on what FIFA gives the winning countries.
The other part of the problem is that this is based on an old contract, which expired in 2012. A MOU extended the terms as they could not come to an agreement, while the men had a newer contract. Seems the WNT had a bit of a closed shop and they were on 'salary', while the men have to fight it out to get capped for the national team. See the link, which I also refer to in other thread.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/uswnt-womens-soccer-pay-gamble-gender-equality
As I noted in the other thread, it really comes down to FIFA, the sponsors, & networks (i.e. money talks). Report to me when you get great viewership for WNT WC qualifiers on ESPN/BEIN. Part of that is since the US is so dominant and really doesn't have to worry, but I can't remember seeing them being that well publicized compared to the mens games. Also look at the avg attendance over the years.
The USWNT scrimmaged the U-17 USMNT in 2012 and lost 8-2. They would get embarrassed by the full men's side. You're not going to have some Billie Jean King moment.
I was just about to link that story as well. Ultimately, I think even the women know they neither deserve nor will receive EQUAL pay to the men. This lawsuit is a bargaining chip as they continue to seek a new, and more favorable, deal with the USSF.
Great. Show us the data. Real numbers from the men's WC and the women's, along with the qualifiers and friendlies.
The last two friendlies I watched the men probably had double the attendance than the women did.
She might be right, but she didn't prove it.
Well them.. do they do Equal Work?
Does the U-17 team have an argument they should be paid 4 times what the women make?
The women only get paid 72,000 for the World Cup win because Fifa only gave the winner 2 million dollars. The men's winner receives 34 million from Fifa this the discrepancy. The 2017 season is being projected as a winner for the women based on them winning the Olympics and have a tour. If they lose they won't make more. Finally the women wanted guaranteed pay where the men take less guaranteed for more money if they win. I read that if the men finished 10-10 over their twenty friendlies then the pay would be close to even. If they do worse than that then the men would make less. Plus the women get paid if they are injured and not playing and they get paid maternity leave. It's not apples to apples. The women should just collectively bargain for more money if they want it in their next contract.
Your argument might hold more water if the 2015 World Cup and 2012 Olympics were aberrations, but they're not. The women have made the final four for all 7 World Cups, so far, (winning 3) and for all of the Olympics, so far (won 4 of 5), meaning two of every 4 years, they're presumably bringing in more money than the men. And even if the men make more in the off years, I can't imagine the income disparity justifies a 5 to 1 pay ratio.
So, Carli at least provided some financials in her article. Perhaps they're not representative, perhaps they are. If you want to convince anyone that you're right, you might want to provide some financials rather than assuming people will simply take your word for it.
Did you read the story linked above? Do you think the women should give up their salaries and other protections, and play strictly for bonuses like the men do? You really need to be a soccer fan to understand how is this is the furthest thing from an apples-to-apples comparison. The players on the men's USMNT, for example, do not even have the opportunity (excepting the three overage selections) to qualify for or compete in the Olympics.
Define "most people". If you change it to "some", then you have a better case. For example, women who argue for equal pay in the workplace when doing the same job at the same level with the same efficiency and quality of work as men, are hardly engaged in fallacy.
I think demanding equal pay for unequal production is problematic and does demonstrate a lack of understanding of some of the things you mentioned. But there's nothing inherently wrong with equal pay for equal production.
And I think what divides Americans the most, when we look past the natural animal instinct to form groups for protection, is partisanship and dogmatic, slavish devotion to unprovable ideologies.
Financials are touched upon in the link above.
As far as ratings, it's not even close.
http://www.socceramerica.com/article/68281/tv-viewers-us-men-vs-us-women.html
Seems fair, when you consider how much less expensive it is to live as a woman than a man in the United States.
/sarcasm
Her complaint in regards to WC bonuses is with FIFA, television companies who pay infinitely more for the rights to the men's competition, and the general world population for caring much more for the men's game than the women's.
WNBA players don't get paid the same as NBA players. Care to guess why that is?
They aren't. Here is what you don't get. A lot of the money comes from FIFA, prize money and such, paid out for participation in the World Cup. What you have to realize is, the men's WC makes a ton more money than the women's WC. Therefore, the men's team gets a much bigger payday from FIFA than the women. In other words, the women can kick but in the WC, but still earn less than the men, even if the men play like crap.
It's similar to the NCAA tournament. The men's tournament brings in a lot more money that then women's tournament. Therefore, schools get more money from their men's teams making the tournament that they get from the women's teams.
Since you're the cynic on thls why don't you the research. Stop accusing of her of lying if you are too lazy to prove her wrong.
No, I never noticed the link, thanks for pointing it out. The Guardian story is exactly what I was looking for. Didn't realize how much greater then men's ratings and attendances were, so that certainly makes the argument for the women more difficult, based on revenues generated over time. So I guess the conundrum might be whether this should be completely based on revenue or if "winning" and success should be factored in somehow. Even double the viewership and 2-3X more attendance (guesstimating based on the numbers I saw) doesn't seem like it justifies a 5X pay premium.
And I hate to get all touch-feely, but there's something to be said about fairness and how great it is to for young girls/women in our country, who are often marginalized and told not to pursue certain fields (gender bias, even with regard to opportunity, sadly), and who often make less for equal work, to be able to see how successful the women's team is and maybe that's worth rewarding financially. And anyone who doesn't think gender bias isn't an issue hasn't read the Yale study on gender bias in STEM fields where identical resumes, except for the male/female names on them, resulted in significant bias in job applicant evaluations and potential salaries from men and women faculty members. It's real folks.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/
This lies at the heart of the problem. I will agree that there are instances of gender bias. The thing is, you can't take instances where that is true, and try to claim discrimination in another instance where it can be demonstrably proven discrimination doesn't exist. The men get paid more, because they generate more revenue. That's not discrimination. If you want to make the argument that the women should still get a raise, or even make equal pay, that's perfectly fine. What you can't do is to claim this is discrimination. Paying someone more money because they generate more revenue isn't discrimination. It's actually merit based, which is supposedly what everyone is claiming they want.
You want her to show all the data and "prove it" in a newspaper column? That is what the law suit is about. They'll prove it (or fail to do) so in court.
The purpose of the newspaper column is to sway public opinion by showing that the women believe they have a reasonable basis for the suit (even if they ultimately fail to prevail). They don't want their fans turning against them.
I never said this was an issue of discrimination - it certainly looked like it was based on Lloyd's article and my gut tells me 5X is still way overdone relative to the relative revenue generation, but I also don't think anyone was saying equal pay was the target here (unless revenues were equal). I don't think anyone is saying WNBA players or other female athletes should be paid as much as men, unless warranted (I think women's tennis come closest, based on revenues).
And to be fair, Lloyd and her teammates haven't actually stated what they're looking for, as far as I know - my guess is something much closer to equity than the current state, which seems unfair, if purely looking at the attendance and TV viewing disparities.
I posted the link to the gender bias article just to raise awareness, since I know there are people who deny that that even exists. And in more "regular" work areas where the output is the same, the pay ought to be the same. I don't think people would argue with that. I hope.
Oh Really! Are those the new rules? According to whom? Anyone who was interested but didn't want to spend a minute to google the article didn't have to, nor did they have to bother to get a copy of the Times. Put out as general info. Do with it as you wish.
The five women filed a discrimination lawsuit. So yeah, the whole damn thing is about discrimination. And yes, the women are looking for equal pay. Here again is an excerpt from Grant Wahl in Sports Illustrated:
"The reason the players have filed is because the USSF will not consider equal pay [with the U.S. men] in the negotiations for a new [collective bargaining] agreement," said Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer representing the players.
So uh, yeah, the players themselves are talking about equal pay. Whether you think 5x is too much isn't for you to say. You "gut" doesn't matter. You act like if you think an amount of pay is too much, it's wrong. Well, nobody died and made you God. You opinion what is "too much" isn't the standard. That's the problem here. Just because you are trying to fight discrimination doesn't give you carte blanche to define if something is actually discriminatory. It's pretty clear that the men make more than the women, so there is nothing wrong with the men making more money. That's the problem I have with people who are so hell-bent on PC issues like equal opportunity. If you want equal opportunity, you have to take both sides of it. If it doesn't work in your favor, you can't cry discrimination when the other party is guilty of no such thing.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Softball Returns with Youth Movement This Season- Latest: rubaseball78
-