Carli LLoyd & Equal Pay
- Thread starter rudad02
- Start date
Actually, FIFA does provide the bonus for the NT players when it comes to the WC. The winning country gets a portion of the prize pool and whatever bonus the team gets is a portion of that. The women's world cup winners got $2 mil. The men's world cup winner got $35 mil.
Men's Prize Money: http://www.tsmplug.com/football/prize-money-fifa-world-cup-2014/
Women's Prize Money: http://www.totalsportek.com/money/women-football-world-cup-prize-money/
Total Men's Prize Pool: $576mil
Total Women's Prize Pool: $15mil
See the difference in revenue? I'm not even comparing how much more money the men generate by only getting past the group stage vs the women actually winning.
Let's compare possible WC bonuses if both Men & Women won.
Men: $390K out of $35mil FIFA bonus (1.11%)
Women: $75K out of $2mil FIFA bonus (3.75%)
The women already get a bigger percentage of the bonus money won. If they got the same percentage of the winner's bonus that the men got, they'd get $22.2K. If they actually got paid what the men were contracted, then USSF would lose over $5M on that transaction.
I can't wait for the day Male models make as much as female models when they work just as hard and put out a quality product. They get out earned 10:1 on average. Why is that?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/female-models-make-male-models/story?id=20534067
Zoolander needs your help
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/female-models-make-male-models/story?id=20534067
Zoolander needs your help
"It's not deep seeded discrimination. The women don't generate as much revenue because people like YOU don't watch their games."
I have season tickets to Rutgers women's and men's basketball as well as football. I attend more women's soccer and softball games than I do men's soccer and baseball. I enjoy women's tennis (professional level) as much or more than men's. Someone commented that women's sports are "inferior" and that's exactly my point. Inferior versus what? Are men stronger and faster than women - yes. Why does that equate to women's sports being "inferior" when they are competing against each other? I'm sure there is no use arguing these points against 99% of the people on this board, but I have two daughters who competed as athletes and they worked every bit as hard as any guy out there. Were they to go on to compete at a professional level, I'd be fighting tooth and nail for them to receive equal treatment and pay, on the playing field and in the boardroom. To me it has more to do with talent, effort, and hard work than "revenue". If everyone got paid based on revenue there would be a lot of guys shouting about discrimination and fairness.
I have season tickets to Rutgers women's and men's basketball as well as football. I attend more women's soccer and softball games than I do men's soccer and baseball. I enjoy women's tennis (professional level) as much or more than men's. Someone commented that women's sports are "inferior" and that's exactly my point. Inferior versus what? Are men stronger and faster than women - yes. Why does that equate to women's sports being "inferior" when they are competing against each other? I'm sure there is no use arguing these points against 99% of the people on this board, but I have two daughters who competed as athletes and they worked every bit as hard as any guy out there. Were they to go on to compete at a professional level, I'd be fighting tooth and nail for them to receive equal treatment and pay, on the playing field and in the boardroom. To me it has more to do with talent, effort, and hard work than "revenue". If everyone got paid based on revenue there would be a lot of guys shouting about discrimination and fairness.
Personal insults just show that your argument can't stand on its own merit.
It's also interesting that you chose to insult me by comparing me to a woman. I'll just let the irony wash over you.
To me it has more to do with talent, effort, and hard work than "revenue".
And see that's the problem, it doesn't. James Jones goes out and works just as hard as LeBron James for the Cleveland Cavaliers, but Jones doesn't make near as much money. That's because, look at how much money the Cavs make with LeBron vs. without.
I'll give you another example. Katy Perry. There are female musicians that are 1 million times more talented than her. They work just as hard as her. Who makes the most money? You are letting your emotions get the best of you, and you simply can't do that. These women are not being treated unfairly. They are not being discriminated against. The reason they don't make as much money as the men is because the product they provide simply as popular as the men's. That's not the fault of the men. That's not the fault of USSF. That's no the fault of FIFA. It's not anybody's fault. I'll go back to my music example. Do you think a band who is busting their ass on the road every night is not working as hard as Katy Perry or Kanye West? Is if fair that a lot of supremely talented musicians have to scrape by to making a living, but these two hacks can make millions, all because they have a gimmick? Sorry, but the world doesn't owe you anything just because you try hard. As I pointed out, plenty of people try hard and bust their ass, and aren't rewarded. That's the way it is for everybody else, so I don't see why it's such a travesty that a few soccer players are subject to the same realities of life as everyone else on the planet.
It was an observation, not an insult. You sound like a lady. An annoying one.
But be sure to yell again "you're not the boss of me," again, the next time I'm not actually telling you what to do. Pretty ditzy.
But be sure to yell again "you're not the boss of me," again, the next time I'm not actually telling you what to do. Pretty ditzy.
Good for them then. Smart move. Go negotiate a new contract for more money if you are worth it. You will find out soon enough. Threaten to strike until you get paid more and see what happens. The gender argument is BS. If you are truely worth more money you will get it (assuming you have a competant agent/lawyer).
Unfortunately there is another redundancy as represented by "incorrectly" & "improperly" used together in the above sentence. Please take advantage of an English refresher course.
Last edited:
While the focus on the spelling error may have been overkill, fixing it would be nice. It's not obvious how to do it, but once you see it, it's easy. Just go to the first post in the thread and you'll see a little wrench icon just above where the post text starts. Click on it and you'll see "thread tools" - then just select "edit title" and, well, edit the title.
Again, you refer to something that "sounds like a lady" as derogatory. It's just funny that you are on here arguing for women's rights, yet your attempt to insult someone is to compare them to a woman. Rather ironic. Sorry, you just had an epic fail on this one. But by all means, continue to dig yourself a deeper hole.
She's trying to apply the business model of marathon racing to team sports.In the first instance,the majority of the money comes from entry fees of the participants,possibly the majority of whom are women,giving credence to equal money.
In team sports,the majority of the money comes from ticket sales and TV,the majorities of both favoring the men.
Still,marathon prize equality is a farce:The fastest women's runner is beaten by at least 50-60 men,the majority of whom get oogats.
In team sports,the majority of the money comes from ticket sales and TV,the majorities of both favoring the men.
Still,marathon prize equality is a farce:The fastest women's runner is beaten by at least 50-60 men,the majority of whom get oogats.
It's worth reiterating the point someone else made earlier about men's college hoops and football being hugely popular, despite these folks not being anywhere near as good as the pros. Great analogy for women vs. men in almost every sport - sure, women aren't as good as the men, but are the games compelling enough to watch? Maybe, maybe not, but simply because someone isn't the "best" doesn't mean the competition isn't compelling. Clearly we're seeing that in women's soccer in World Cup and Olympic years, at least, which means the sport is not "inherently" non-compelling.
Would also be nice to see a more systematic breakdown of the revenues and profits for each case, both overall and for Cup/Olympic years, at least to see if the 5:1 ratio of pay (roughly speaking) is reflective of revenues and/or profits, respectively. My guess is it's much closer to 2 or 3 to 1 and that that is what the women would be happy to attain (as a negotiation outcome). Of course, I could be wrong.
Would also be nice to see a more systematic breakdown of the revenues and profits for each case, both overall and for Cup/Olympic years, at least to see if the 5:1 ratio of pay (roughly speaking) is reflective of revenues and/or profits, respectively. My guess is it's much closer to 2 or 3 to 1 and that that is what the women would be happy to attain (as a negotiation outcome). Of course, I could be wrong.
And again, you're the one taking it as an insult. It's an observation. If you're comfortable with sounding like an indignant lady, well then "I'm not the boss of you, you're an independent ... message board poster."
And if you do take it as derogatory, that would be because being compared to the opposite sex is not usually flattering either way, but nice try on the whole "irony" bit. I'm quite sure women don't like being called men anymore than men like being called women - that's one place where things definitely are equal.
Seriously, though, save that sassy backtalk for when someone is actually attempting to tell you what to post or do.
This has been a very interesting thread, focused on wages and income. Regardless of that there are areas of discrimination which have no logical explanation. The first are travel and per diem. The men's team travels business class and has a relatively robust per diem. The women travel coach and have a lower per diem. There is no logic nor justification in that as both teams are required to perform at the same high level and accordingly should have the same support structures. Similiarly, only the women are compelled to play on non grass field (remember the pictures of the burns and bruises shown during the World Cup). It seems to me that as both teams represent the country the playing conditions, the training and travel conditions should be the same.
Haha. Last year's revenues are "cherry picking". The women's revenues are higher because they won, while the men have been lurching from problem to problem since the World Cup.
Part of that is due to how old the contract is. The CBA actually expired in 2012 and the men had a more recent contract that accounts for most of that difference. Why the USSF & USWNT have waited so long to negotiate another CBA instead of a continuing MOU is questionable. Maybe the women waited for a year such as 2015 to get more leverage? Honestly, it's rather smart, but it would be interesting to know if there were any negotiations in the interim (i.e. pre-WC15).
The issue with the non-grass field is as much FIFA (& Canada 2015 organizers) as much as USSF. I don't know how many (if any) games were on astro-turf before considering WC15. Since most of the Canadian stadia had non-grass fields, it behooved the team to train on them in the lead up to the event. I do believe some of the victory tour was on similar fields, which is rather unnecessary unless it was to get to areas that didn't get much Nat team games.
When you select one piece of data, which is in the minority compared with the larger selection of data, as evidence to prove your point, yes, that is cherry picking.
I don't follow soccer and hardly know beans about it. But I do know that the best men's soccer players make a ton of money in the top professional leagues. I'm guessing that the women pro players make a pittance in comparison. Could it be that the men get paid more and have nicer accommodations because that's what's required to induce them to show up and play whereas the women might need the paycheck more?
No, you meant it as an insult. You just called out on the contradiction, and now you are backpedaling.
How about this. How about trying to have a discussion about the topic at hand, and the relevant facts. You are incapable of either. You decided to attack me personally instead of discussing the issues I raised. That's because you are intellectually incapable of having a legitimate discussion.
Actually no, the reason the women made more last year is because they were playing the World Cup, and the men's WC was the year prior. The men made more in their WC 2014 than the women made in their WC 2015.
Sure, bro. Or it's because you sounded like a lady. I'll tell ya what, we'll agree on "little girl" - little girls are like puppies, cute n cuddly and everyone loves 'em. Better?
BTW, you and I already had a discussion about the topic at hand and decided we should wait for the case to play out, complete with all relevant facts, before continuing.
An internet tough guy. It's funny how bad I get under your skin. It's nice to know I have that much control over you.
No, "we" didn't decide anything. I told you why you were wrong, and proved with facts. Then you got personal because you couldn't argue the point on merit.
Lol, control. Or I just enjoy making fun of you because you've proven yourself a huge troll.
One way or the other.
And that other stuff ... didn't really happen [winking]
One way or the other.
And that other stuff ... didn't really happen [winking]
That 77 cents number has been debunked over and over again. If it were true, every corporation would be hiring many more women than men so that they can save 23%...But they aren't because its not true, and if it were, it would be illegal and easily provable.
It's not illegal and that is the problem. And private salaries are not public. And in fact, if you look at unemployment, it is worse among men.
I'm not sure it is a lawsuit. I believe it is a complaint before the EEOC. I may be wrong, or it could be both.
You are correct. Tiger is clueless. The private companies can pay whatever they want and they cannot usually be found in most cases. The obvious difference is the literal, exact similarity of the work in this case and the fact that women receive a lower stipend, for example. The EEOC is an investigate body and they can issue a fine and grant the right to sue.
And they won't find anything. By your logic, all basketball players should be paid the same. They do the exact same work, but they don't all get paid the same.
Of course it's illegal. The Equal Pay Act of 1963
Edited to add, that this applies to doing the SAME job under the same conditions...in this case, the women and men are playing the same sport, but not under the same conditions. Combined with easily quantifiable differences in demand, as well as, revenues over an extended period, these are clearly not identical jobs whose sole difference is gender.
Last edited:
No, because the women's basketball players don't make the same amount of revenue, or even close, or generate the intangibles that women's soccer does.
But the comparison here isn't women's soccer relative to the WNBA. The NBA generates more revenue and interest than the WNBA, and therefore the financial structures of the leagues are very different. Likewise, the USMNT generates more revenue and interest than the USWNT. Once again, the women deserve more than they receive currently, and some aspects of their deal, like the per diem amounts, seem especially out of place compared with the men. But this is not an equal pay for equal work situation.
The fact that Americans get excited and feel patriotic when the USWNT goes deep into a tournament has nothing to do with how much the players should be paid. People get excited when Americans perform well in the Olympics also, but the interest isn't sustained in the athlete or his/her sport, similar to what happens with women's soccer (and women's sports in general). If the USMNT ever reached the World Cup semifinals or beyond, the interest in this country would absolutely dwarf that for the women.
Except that the women did make more last year, and there is a better chance of Kansas winning the national title in football next year than men being relevant.
If the EEOC punts on some questions in regards to seeing revenue for 2016 but deals with the per diems I would be fine with that. That seems to be all Carli is asking for.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but as has been pointed out numerous times, comparing a World Cup year for the women to a non-WC year for the men accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of things. Revenues over World Cup cycles, throughout history, favor the men's team.
You most likely won't need to worry about what the EEOC does, as like I said before, this is simply a last-gasp bargaining chip for the women, who have been trying to negotiate a new deal for years. They will come to an agreement with the USSF before this reaches a trial of any kind, at least that's what I suspect will happen.
Yeah, and so? Men seem most affected by the economic downturn, but I'm not sure how that relates to women's pay.
Gotta figure that's the real outcome. The USWNT is using the leverage to get the best possible deal for the future, which is similar to what other sports' unions have done. Just wonder how the previous year's negotiations or lack thereof, went. So far, I haven't come up with any links for any previous negotiations, besides the MOU that extend the CBA that expired in 2012. I do know that USSF is suing to make sure the MOU extends through 2016 while the women were implying that the MOU isn't valid and they 'threatened' to strike this year.
I did find this interesting article, though. It seems the whole financial accounting will be hard to untangle as the commercial rights for US Soccer has been owned since 2004 by an entity called SUM.
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/...reats-world-cup-winning-womens-national-team/
I realize that it was said in jest, but I think if the women & their negotiators aren't careful, they could price their domestic league out of existence. Not the USWNT, but the NWSL. Doubt the WNBA would go there as I think they've been in the business long enough to know their ceiling, but the NWSL isn't exactly thriving. I wonder if the women would sacrifice some $$$ to make it so that USSF's TV deal included ESPN/FOX having to broadcast the NWSL just like the MLS? That would at least build up the sport on the women's side.
I'm talking about men's basketball players, not women. All the players in the NBA do the same job. They play the same amount of games, play the same sport, etc. but they don't all make the same amount of money, even though they do the same job.
Edit: Another point to your comment. Women's soccer doesn't generate as much revenue as men's soccer either.
Last edited:
That's not the argument that Lloyd makes at all. What does that have to do with the stipends for example?
NBA players also have different agents negotiating for them, and the the teams make decisions about stipends, not one national entity.
The women made more last year. Are the men going to make more this year?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Softball Returns with Youth Movement This Season- Latest: rubaseball78
-