Carli LLoyd & Equal Pay

[topdecktiger]

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?

The men and women also have different "agents," if you want to look at it that way. They each negotiated a different agreement.

Regarding stipends, you have differences there within organizations. For example, a major league baseball club gives it players a stipend for meal money on the road. They get $100 a day. A Triple A player for the same club will only get $25 a day. Those players do the same job, so by your logic, this is discrimination.

The women made more than the men last year (for the first time ever). The women are projected to make more next year. Then the men are projected to make more the following two years. So, if the projections hold, then the women will have made more money than the men for a grand total of two years. Not really backing up your claim there.

Edit: By the way, you are wrong about what Carli Lloyd said. In her NYT article, she specifically said this is about salaries, not just stipends.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/sports/soccer/carli-lloyd-why-im-fighting-for-equal-pay.html?_r=0

 

[NotInRHouse]

Let's see what the results are when we have them.

That is false equivalency. Both the men and the women are at the highest level of the game in soccer in this comparison. If what you said held true, Carli Lloyd could say well I scored the most so I should be the highest paid woman- hell she scored way more than the men, maybe she should be the highest paid overall. I would be fine with that.

 

[topdecktiger]

Let's see what the results are when we have them.

That is false equivalency. Both the men and the women are at the highest level of the game in soccer in this comparison. If what you said held true, Carli Lloyd could say well I scored the most so I should be the highest paid woman- hell she scored way more than the men, maybe she should be the highest paid overall. I would be fine with that.

Well, we already have the results. The results we have so far are that the women made more money than the men only once. Ever. You can't say the women make more than the men just because they made more in one year. The women will have to bring in more for several years consistently for you to be able to make that argument.

Nope, my argument is not a false equivalency. The men's WC and the women's WC are not the same level. The men's WC by far generates more revenue. The disparity in revenue between men's and women's WC is similar to the disparity in revenue between MLB and Triple A.

 

[NotInRHouse]

You can when you see the trajectory of the teams, the women winning it all and the men in free fall. If we just looked at historical data in a vacuum we would not make any reasoned judgments.

And even if we did that doesn't explain why the men should get a higher travel stipend, which is of the main points and the most salient illustration.

 

[dvb91]

You can when you see the trajectory of the teams, the women winning it all and the men in free fall. If we just looked at historical data in a vacuum we would not make any reasoned judgments.

And even if we did that doesn't explain why the men should get a higher travel stipend, which is of the main points and the most salient illustration.

I pointed out previously that part of the difference is that they are operating on the terms of the old CBA and that the men have a newer CBA. For whatever reason, neither side were too worked up to renegotiate until they actually won a WC & cashed in on a victory tour.

 

[topdecktiger]

You can when you see the trajectory of the teams, the women winning it all and the men in free fall. If we just looked at historical data in a vacuum we would not make any reasoned judgments.

And even if we did that doesn't explain why the men should get a higher travel stipend, which is of the main points and the most salient illustration.

No, the "trajectory" has nothing to do with it. The problem is, the Women's World Cup simply doesn't generate anywhere near the amount of money as the Men's WC. For example, the U.S. women got $2 million in prize money from FIFA for winning the World Cup. The German men got $35 million from FIFA for winning the World Cup. The men's WC simply generates and pays out more money, so it doesn't matter how much the women win. Their tournament simply isn't as popular, it doesn't generate as much money, and therefore the national federations simply don't make as much revenue from it as they do the men's game.

You are also wrong about the travel stipend. That's not the main point of the complaint. The main point of the complaint is the salary, not the travel stipend. As I said, the stipend is less for the same reason that the salaries are less--the women generate less revenue.

 

[NotInRHouse]

No that is what Carli Lloyd wrote. You can twist the argument to make this about something else, she is not saying pay me exactly what the most paid man makes.

The key is the German team got 35M, this is not Germany. Our men did not win nor come close, and women's soccer is more popular in the US than it is in Germany.

 

[topdecktiger]

No that is what Carli Lloyd wrote. You can twist the argument to make this about something else, she is not saying pay me exactly what the most paid man makes.

The key is the German team got 35M, this is not Germany. Our men did not win nor come close, and women's soccer is more popular in the US than it is in Germany.

No, you are simply wrong. 100% wrong. Here is the title of Carli Lloyd's NYT article:

Carli Lloyd: Why I’m Fighting for Equal Pay

Then she wrote:

I joined four teammates in filing a wage-discrimination complaint against U.S. Soccer late last month, it had nothing to do with how much I love to play for my country.

It had everything to do with what’s right and what’s fair, and with upholding a fundamental American concept: equal pay for equal play.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/sports/soccer/carli-lloyd-why-im-fighting-for-equal-pay.html?_r=0

So yeah, Carli specifically said she/they wanted equal pay as the men. You are the one twisting her words and lying, not me.

You are also wrong about the FIFA issue. The key is, FIFA pays more for the men's tournament than they do for the women's tournament. FIFA paid the US men's team more for making the round of 16 that it paid the US women's team for winning the entire tournament. That's what you don't get. It doesn't matter how much the women win. They won't make more money because FIFA pays less for the women's World Cup. What you don't get is, FIFA money is a big chunk of the USSF revenue. That's one of the big things that tips the scale. The men bring home more money because their World Cup pays more.

Let me give you an example, using college football. Purdue makes more money that Boise St. If we went by merit, Boise St should make more money, because they've been much more successful. However Purdue makes more money because they are in the Big Ten. The Big Ten makes a lot more money that the MWC. This is the same dynamic in soccer. In terms of revenue, the men's World Cup is the equivalent of the Big Ten, and the women's World Cup is the equivalent of the MWC. The men's WC makes a ton more money, so it has a lot more money distribute to its teams. That's why the men's team generates more money, and that's why the male players get more pay.

The thing is, this is not an argument about whether the women deserve more money. This is an argument about whether the disparity is discrimination. Those are two completely different arguments. Your problem is that you can't see the distinction, and you conflate the two.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Not only is @NotInRHouse completely off base with his PC-bro approach to this entire subject, while ignoring the simple facts that the men's sport is much more popular and much more lucrative, but now the men's team is in "free fall"? Why, because they lost at Guatemala? Do you have any concept of how difficult it can be to play at these Central American stadiums?

 

[RU2055]

who gets paid more. Male porn stars or female porn stars?

Useless post without pics.

 

[NotInRHouse]

No, you are simply wrong. 100% wrong. Here is the title of Carli Lloyd's NYT article:

Carli Lloyd: Why I’m Fighting for Equal Pay

Then she wrote:

I joined four teammates in filing a wage-discrimination complaint against U.S. Soccer late last month, it had nothing to do with how much I love to play for my country.

It had everything to do with what’s right and what’s fair, and with upholding a fundamental American concept: equal pay for equal play.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/sports/soccer/carli-lloyd-why-im-fighting-for-equal-pay.html?_r=0

So yeah, Carli specifically said she/they wanted equal pay as the men. You are the one twisting her words and lying, not me.

You are also wrong about the FIFA issue. The key is, FIFA pays more for the men's tournament than they do for the women's tournament. FIFA paid the US men's team more for making the round of 16 that it paid the US women's team for winning the entire tournament. That's what you don't get. It doesn't matter how much the women win. They won't make more money because FIFA pays less for the women's World Cup. What you don't get is, FIFA money is a big chunk of the USSF revenue. That's one of the big things that tips the scale. The men bring home more money because their World Cup pays more.

Let me give you an example, using college football. Purdue makes more money that Boise St. If we went by merit, Boise St should make more money, because they've been much more successful. However Purdue makes more money because they are in the Big Ten. The Big Ten makes a lot more money that the MWC. This is the same dynamic in soccer. In terms of revenue, the men's World Cup is the equivalent of the Big Ten, and the women's World Cup is the equivalent of the MWC. The men's WC makes a ton more money, so it has a lot more money distribute to its teams. That's why the men's team generates more money, and that's why the male players get more pay.

The thing is, this is not an argument about whether the women deserve more money. This is an argument about whether the disparity is discrimination. Those are two completely different arguments. Your problem is that you can't see the distinction, and you conflate the two.

"I was on the road for about 260 days last year. When I am traveling internationally, I get $60 a day for expenses. Michael Bradley gets $75. Maybe they figure that women are smaller and thus eat less.

When Hope Solo or Alex Morgan, say, makes a sponsor appearance for U.S. Soccer, she gets $3,000. When Geoff Cameron or Jermaine Jones makes the same sort of appearance, he gets $3,750."

She also says her proposal is for INCREASED, not equal compensation.

Please re-read. That has nothing to do with what FIFA pays.

And also, that is again a total false equivalency. Boise State has the right to change conferences. BYU went independent to make more. The women do not have the right to set up their own team, just like they don't have the same agency rights pro players in other sports do.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Not only is @NotInRHouse completely off base with his PC-bro approach to this entire subject, while ignoring the simple facts that the men's sport is much more popular and much more lucrative, but now the men's team is in "free fall"? Why, because they lost at Guatemala? Do you have any concept of how difficult it can be to play at these Central American stadiums?

Yeah it's more lucrative...outside of the US. Why did the women generate more last year?

Guess what we are in CONACAF that is who we play. When RU lost to every B1G team with a pulse we didn't try to claim it was because it's hard to play in their stadiums.

The men's team is not good. In a country with good women's and men's team, the women's team would not manage to overtake the men's in revenue, which is exactly what happened in the US last year and is slated to again this year.

The trajectory is in the women's favor.

That's not being a PC-Bro. I know in Central PA and South Carolina women (among others) are considered second class. What Carli Lloyd, a proud NJ and RU product, just asks for is some rational basis for compensation. When she is generating more revenue and winning more and being treated second class, anyone with common sense and not an instant disposition in favor of preserving biased status quo at all costs with speak up.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Yeah it's more lucrative...outside of the US. Why did the women generate more last year?

Guess what we are in CONACAF that is who we play. When RU lost to every B1G team with a pulse we didn't try to claim it was because it's hard to play in their stadiums.

The men's team is not good. In a country with good women's and men's team, the women's team would not manage to overtake the men's in revenue, which is exactly what happened in the US last year and is slated to again this year.

The trajectory is in the women's favor.

That's not being a PC-Bro. I know in Central PA and South Carolina women (among others) are considered second class. What Carli Lloyd, a proud NJ and RU product, just asks for is some rational basis for compensation. When she is generating more revenue and winning more and being treated second class, anyone with common sense and not an instant disposition in favor of preserving biased status quo at all costs with speak up.

Not good? They're ranked No. 29 in the world currently and advanced to the knockout stage in the last World Cup. The program hasn't developed quite as much as I'd have liked under Klinsmann to this point, but it is far from "not good."

I'm in neither Central PA nor South Carolina, so not sure what you're referring to there, especially since - for the millionth time - this is not the same as a company paying a male managing director more than a female in the same role. This is not equal work. It's more like comparing a male CEO of a Fortune 500 company to a female CEO of a much smaller, less successful business. Of course the woman would make less in that scenario.

Carli Lloyd's team DOES NOT generate more revenue than her male counterparts on a trend basis, and winning more is irrelevant to this discussion, because it's all about being compensated fairly based on what value you bring to the USSF. I'm rooting for the women to receive a better contract, and they surely will, but they do not deserve to be compensated on the same level as the men. Period.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Not good? They're ranked No. 29 in the world currently and advanced to the knockout stage in the last World Cup. The program hasn't developed quite as much as I'd have liked under Klinsmann to this point, but it is far from "not good."

I'm in neither Central PA nor South Carolina, so not sure what you're referring to there, especially since - for the millionth time - this is not the same as a company paying a male managing director more than a female in the same role. This is not equal work. It's more like comparing a male CEO of a Fortune 500 company to a female CEO of a much smaller, less successful business. Of course the woman would make less in that scenario.

Carli Lloyd's team DOES NOT generate more revenue than her male counterparts on a trend basis, and winning more is irrelevant to this discussion, because it's all about being compensated fairly based on what value you bring to the USSF. I'm rooting for the women to receive a better contract, and they surely will, but they do not deserve to be compensated on the same level as the men. Period.

But that's not what Carli states. Again, she said specifically that the proposal was an increase.She is not talking about CEOs. And the team made more last year and is projected to this year, are we to believe that is just an inconvenient blip in the radar?

29th is not good when you consider the countries take soccer seriously as a national sport (which is mostly just Western Europe and the wealthier Latin American countries). The women dominate the sport completely. And yet their stipend is less. It makes no sense.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

But that's not what Carli states. Again, she said specifically that the proposal was an increase.She is not talking about CEOs. And the team made more last year and is projected to this year, are we to believe that is just an inconvenient blip in the radar?

That's exactly what it is, a blip. Take a look at the historical figures. Entertain the idea that the women might not win a Gold Medal this summer, meaning no victory tour. Realize that those projections for the men you saw do not at all take into account Copa America.

29th is not good when you consider the countries take soccer seriously as a national sport (which is mostly just Western Europe and the wealthier Latin American countries). The women dominate the sport completely. And yet their stipend is less. It makes no sense.

You really need to think more about your perspective on how many countries take men's soccer very seriously compared with the United States. And for the record, since the FIFA world rankings were created, the USMNT has an average ranking of 19. Really far from "not good." Building an international program that can compete consistently at a high level takes A LOT of time, and the men started from a very low base. As a Rutgers football fan, you should be able to appreciate the challenges that come along with that.

Our women's program, which did not start at such a low base, is the best in the world. It does not "dominate the sport completely." Germany, Japan and a couple of other countries play a comparable level. Regardless, even if the women won every game they ever played, it doesn't change the fact that they will be less valuable then the USMNT overall.

 

[RUsojo]

But that's not what Carli states. Again, she said specifically that the proposal was an increase.She is not talking about CEOs. And the team made more last year and is projected to this year, are we to believe that is just an inconvenient blip in the radar?

29th is not good when you consider the countries take soccer seriously as a national sport (which is mostly just Western Europe and the wealthier Latin American countries). The women dominate the sport completely. And yet their stipend is less. It makes no sense.

If you are going to say 29th is not good when you consider the countries that take soccer seriously, you should also consider the the women's national team and its support structure, as constituted right now, is top 3 in the world.

 

[lighty]

I'm amazed that there are people who still believe only a handful of countries treat soccer as their national sport. It's the most popular game in the planet. The US and Canada are the exceptions not the rule.

While the US should be a consistent top 20 team in the world, it is basically as difficult for the men's team to be a top 5 team (maybe even top 10) as it is for the women to be the best. The level of play - and the level of interest in the men's game around the world is 100 times greater than with women's soccer. The US probably has more fans of the women's game than anywhere else. So to pay them more because if results - when revenues for the women's game are not at the level of the men's game - is absurd.

the real revenue disparity is eye opening. Soccer America has shown the stats recently. One look at the overall tv ratings for the past 3 years and the argument is over. Not to mention the prize money from FIFA being so different

 

[topdecktiger]

"I was on the road for about 260 days last year. When I am traveling internationally, I get $60 a day for expenses. Michael Bradley gets $75. Maybe they figure that women are smaller and thus eat less.

When Hope Solo or Alex Morgan, say, makes a sponsor appearance for U.S. Soccer, she gets $3,000. When Geoff Cameron or Jermaine Jones makes the same sort of appearance, he gets $3,750."

She also says her proposal is for INCREASED, not equal compensation.

Please re-read. That has nothing to do with what FIFA pays.

And also, that is again a total false equivalency. Boise State has the right to change conferences. BYU went independent to make more. The women do not have the right to set up their own team, just like they don't have the same agency rights pro players in other sports do.

No, you need to reread that. She wants equal pay. I understand that she mentioned the stipend. She ALSO mentioned equal pay as well. Sorry, that's what she says.

Yes, FIFA does have something to do with this. FIFA payouts are a significant portion of revenue for the USSF. That money is part of the revenue that FIFA uses to pay the players. It absolutely is part of it. The men bring in more money for USSF because of the payouts they get from FIFA. If you are going to discount FIFA, then you can't count FIFA money for the women either. One of the reasons the women generated more money last year is because they had FIFA revenue from the World Cup, and the men didn't, because they didn't have a World Cup last year.

No, my Boise St comparison is valid. Boise St can't choose which conference to join. They can only join a conference that accepts them. They still can't make as much money as Purdue by going independent. (BYU doesn't either.) Regarding the independent point, the women also have other options. They can play for the professional league here, or play for a professional league overseas. The national team is not their only option.

Edit: By the way, here is an interview with Carli Lloyd. Some of her statements:

"It will be interesting to see how attendance rates are," Lloyd said. "With this whole equal pay and the news of the national team, we're selling out stadiums.

"With this whole equal pay we're fighting is not just for this moment and for these players," Lloyd said.

"Our attorney is just saying we reserve our right to continue to fight for equal pay," Lloyd said.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/spo...ghts-for-equal-pay-as-Dash-season-7251249.php

She mentioned "equal pay" three times in one interview.

 

[RickB113]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing with notinrhouse. He is not going to get it. Just let it go. Some people just can't grasp things.

 

[NotInRHouse]

No I get it whether misogyny or racism or whenever a group at disadvantage is doing better, like the women did making more revenue, and ask for an increase, the establishment is threatened and resorts to the usual making things up.

The revenues and the increase request speak for themselves. Almost as well as the usual siege mentality.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I'm amazed that there are people who still believe only a handful of countries treat soccer as their national sport. It's the most popular game in the planet. The US and Canada are the exceptions not the rule.

While the US should be a consistent top 20 team in the world, it is basically as difficult for the men's team to be a top 5 team (maybe even top 10) as it is for the women to be the best. The level of play - and the level of interest in the men's game around the world is 100 times greater than with women's soccer. The US probably has more fans of the women's game than anywhere else. So to pay them more because if results - when revenues for the women's game are not at the level of the men's game - is absurd.

the real revenue disparity is eye opening. Soccer America has shown the stats recently. One look at the overall tv ratings for the past 3 years and the argument is over. Not to mention the prize money from FIFA being so different

Soccer is the most popular sport in most countries, but, only a handful of countries actually put investment into developing players. I'm sure it is the most popular sport in every African country save South Africa, but, those countries cannot invest the way Mexico can, nevermind Spain or Germany.

There is a difference between national sport and actually being competitive against the best competition in the world, right now we are neither.

 

[Abro1975]

Women's soccer stipend can be compared to Geno Auriemma of UConn BB. Head and shoulders on top of his peers, but not in the toughest arena. UConn gets great ratings (I think) and has an unmatched dynasty in WBB (close to Wooden at UCLA in MBB). Of course UConn WBB couldn't beat a mens D2 team.

Auriemma makes approx 2-2 1/2 mil a year.

Highest Men's coaches Mike Kyszsyweci (sp ? lol) makes about 7mil. Calipari at 6 mil. Of course the Men's NCAA games draw a whole lot better than the Women's. I think the Womens' soccer ratings are much closer to the Mens.

Of course Womens' tennis gets the same as the Men's tennis players in the big tourneys.

In the end the Women deserve whatever the hell they can negotiate. More power to them. Carli deserves the most.

 

[RUPartisan]

Most people who argue for equal pay demonstrate a shallow concept of economics, more importantly supply and demand. This fallacy doesn't exist and IMO is kept up to Make Americans divisive.

While your thoughts make sense in certain instances and especially in athletics usually. You clearly didnt read this article or just dismissed what you read to make your preconceived point.