eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,191
|
Post by eppinggas on May 4, 2020 9:02:05 GMT
Story came out a few days ago. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52513218If the women's game doesn't generate as much interest/income as the men's, surely they get paid less accordingly. The quality is lower (not by much, apart from the goal-keeping). I fundamentally do not understand the argument. Maybe in North Korea they might take a look at it. Surely the last place on earth to consider it would be free-market, profit driven, US sport. If the women's game did miraculously generate double the revenue of the men's game - then absolutely, pay them twice as much as the men. No problem with that whatsoever. So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 9:21:08 GMT
Welcome to the insane world where equality of outcome is demanded as a right.
I have a sport for you where there's equal interest and should be equal pay, curling, nobody anywhere is interested in that no matter who it is shouting at a stone and chasing it down an ice rink with a yard brush.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 4, 2020 9:24:26 GMT
Story came out a few days ago. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52513218If the women's game doesn't generate as much interest/income as the men's, surely they get paid less accordingly. The quality is lower (not by much, apart from the goal-keeping). I fundamentally do not understand the argument. Maybe in North Korea they might take a look at it. Surely the last place on earth to consider it would be free-market, profit driven, US sport. If the women's game did miraculously generate double the revenue of the men's game - then absolutely, pay them twice as much as the men. No problem with that whatsoever. So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly. The job of the team is to represent the nation, so that equality of pay is a political as much as commercial issue. They are representing the values of the USofA Also, the US men's team isn't the commercial behemoth that other soccer (tee hee!) large nations produce. The women, on the other hand, are World Champs and always there or thereabouts. And they have 1 of the 2 global megastars of the women's game, and she sparkled in the World Cup
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 9:46:04 GMT
Story came out a few days ago. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52513218If the women's game doesn't generate as much interest/income as the men's, surely they get paid less accordingly. The quality is lower (not by much, apart from the goal-keeping). I fundamentally do not understand the argument. Maybe in North Korea they might take a look at it. Surely the last place on earth to consider it would be free-market, profit driven, US sport. If the women's game did miraculously generate double the revenue of the men's game - then absolutely, pay them twice as much as the men. No problem with that whatsoever. So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly. The job of the team is to represent the nation, so that equality of pay is a political as much as commercial issue. They are representing the values of the USofA Also, the US men's team isn't the commercial behemoth that other soccer (tee hee!) large nations produce. The women, on the other hand, are World Champs and always there or thereabouts. And they have 1 of the 2 global megastars of the women's game, and she sparkled in the World Cup If that's the argument it should have taken about 30 seconds to decide the case, after the gobby one who plays football for them had stopped being loud that is. So, in this case, the USA rodeo team need to get paid as much as the highest earning male sports stars. Ignore the fact that one generates money and the other only has passing interest on the day of the event because woke media ram it down everybody's throats. Without media hype and financial support, using money from the Men's game, female football at this level would vanish overnight.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 4, 2020 10:49:42 GMT
sometimes people don't need to write their posts, as you know what they are going to write before they do it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 11:12:52 GMT
sometimes people don't need to write their posts, as you know what they are going to write before they do it I'm guessing that's aimed at what I've written. So why not put forward an argument to support a case that these girls should have the same pay as their male counterparts? I think the product is a manufactured one without sufficient customer base to survive in its present format without external funding. There you go, a simple enough proposition, over to you to demonstrate that the female game can not only be self-sufficient but can also afford to pay the players the same as the Men are paid. You do know the process for obtaining tickets to England Men's games and the promotions that are run to try to boost the crowds for the equivalent female events, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 4, 2020 11:22:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 11:34:15 GMT
Not even wasting time reading anything from The Guardian, it's as rabid in one direction as John Tyndall was in the other.
No doubt they'll be talking about how they've won in the court of public opinion, just like they always do, problem is, every time The Guardian's position actually gets put to public opinion they don't get the answer they've been telling us we have to give them.
Now, back to the actual point, where is this money going to come from? The female game already utilises infrastructure paid for by someone else, isn't that enough for them?
|
|
|
Post by almondsburygas on May 4, 2020 12:54:30 GMT
Story came out a few days ago. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52513218If the women's game doesn't generate as much interest/income as the men's, surely they get paid less accordingly. The quality is lower (not by much, apart from the goal-keeping). I fundamentally do not understand the argument. Maybe in North Korea they might take a look at it. Surely the last place on earth to consider it would be free-market, profit driven, US sport. If the women's game did miraculously generate double the revenue of the men's game - then absolutely, pay them twice as much as the men. No problem with that whatsoever. So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly. .........beach volleyball?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on May 4, 2020 13:09:28 GMT
Story came out a few days ago. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52513218If the women's game doesn't generate as much interest/income as the men's, surely they get paid less accordingly. The quality is lower (not by much, apart from the goal-keeping). I fundamentally do not understand the argument. Maybe in North Korea they might take a look at it. Surely the last place on earth to consider it would be free-market, profit driven, US sport. If the women's game did miraculously generate double the revenue of the men's game - then absolutely, pay them twice as much as the men. No problem with that whatsoever. So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly. The job of the team is to represent the nation, so that equality of pay is a political as much as commercial issue. They are representing the values of the USofA Also, the US men's team isn't the commercial behemoth that other soccer (tee hee!) large nations produce. The women, on the other hand, are World Champs and always there or thereabouts. And they have 1 of the 2 global megastars of the women's game, and she sparkled in the World Cup The US Women's Team are an interesting case. They have always had a higher national profile than the men's team, they're more successful, they're world leading and there is now a decent amount of evidence that they are attracting more commerical sponsors as well. Megan Rapinoe is a higher profile star in the US than anyone the men's team has ever produced. It's also true that, unlike the men's side, the national team is the commerical engine for the women's game which is one of the fastest growing sports in the country - it's on a completely different scale to what exists here. So it's a bit disingenous to say that they would be gaining equal pay with men overall - they wouldn't be because the income the men's team get from the national team is not their primary income and it's also not the primary commerical engine of the men's game in the US (that's MLS). So they certainly have a case that they are being severely undervalued and I think they will eventually win this argument because, unlike other parts of women's sports, they have substantial leverage and the US sport landscape has the idea of collective bargaining embedded into its culture so these kind of disputes between players and their bosses are actually quite normal in both mens and womens sport.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on May 4, 2020 13:10:07 GMT
The womens game in England has played the sexism card and been over promoted by the the right on BBC.
Football is a sports and entertainment industry.
Wages are rightly based on the publics hunger to watch womens football and apart from international matches (often well supported),attendances remain low-ish.Altjough that stated there is a steady slow rise
Take eg a comedy show.The bloke has been making millions laugh for decades The woman is'nt very funny.Well the bloke is going to get the big money.This goes the other way around of course.
Some people play the sport for the love of it.
Others ought to create a club called eg Kardashians United,if the £$ are right.Maybe get Harry and Meghan to sponsor them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 13:16:29 GMT
The USWNT makes more for US Soccer than the USMNT.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 14:29:49 GMT
The job of the team is to represent the nation, so that equality of pay is a political as much as commercial issue. They are representing the values of the USofA Also, the US men's team isn't the commercial behemoth that other soccer (tee hee!) large nations produce. The women, on the other hand, are World Champs and always there or thereabouts. And they have 1 of the 2 global megastars of the women's game, and she sparkled in the World Cup The US Women's Team are an interesting case. They have always had a higher national profile than the men's team, they're more successful, they're world leading and there is now a decent amount of evidence that they are attracting more commerical sponsors as well. Megan Rapinoe is a higher profile star in the US than anyone the men's team has ever produced. It's also true that, unlike the men's side, the national team is the commerical engine for the women's game which is one of the fastest growing sports in the country - it's on a completely different scale to what exists here. So it's a bit disingenous to say that they would be gaining equal pay with men overall - they wouldn't be because the income the men's team get from the national team is not their primary income and it's also not the primary commerical engine of the men's game in the US (that's MLS). So they certainly have a case that they are being severely undervalued and I think they will eventually win this argument because, unlike other parts of women's sports, they have substantial leverage and the US sport landscape has the idea of collective bargaining embedded into its culture so these kind of disputes between players and their bosses are actually quite normal in both mens and womens sport.
One politically motivated individual has pushed to the front, one side of the media, that's the side that thought they represented public opinion at their last election, are telling everybody that they have to listen to her. Let them carry on making their noise, they'll get Trump again, and they won't have anybody to blame but themselves. They've learned nothing.
|
|
|
Post by canberragas on May 5, 2020 7:37:09 GMT
Not even wasting time reading anything from The Guardian, it's as rabid in one direction as John Tyndall was in the other. No doubt they'll be talking about how they've won in the court of public opinion, just like they always do, problem is, every time The Guardian's position actually gets put to public opinion they don't get the answer they've been telling us we have to give them. Now, back to the actual point, where is this money going to come from? The female game already utilises infrastructure paid for by someone else, isn't that enough for them? I hate to think what you read.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 9:35:42 GMT
Not even wasting time reading anything from The Guardian, it's as rabid in one direction as John Tyndall was in the other. No doubt they'll be talking about how they've won in the court of public opinion, just like they always do, problem is, every time The Guardian's position actually gets put to public opinion they don't get the answer they've been telling us we have to give them. Now, back to the actual point, where is this money going to come from? The female game already utilises infrastructure paid for by someone else, isn't that enough for them? I hate to think what you read. Just read the Guardian piece, as expected, it was just a crazed woke rant, and true to form they trotted out their favourite line about 'the court of public opinion'. These girls were paid exactly as-per their contract. I don't think that anybody was forced at gun point to sign the contract. There were some elements of the contract that were different to what was contained in the contract agreed with the Men's team. So, being fair, the authorities changed travel arrangements and have scheduled games to be played on grass as opposed to artificial surfaces. As far as I can find out they have identical benefits in the male and female contracts, except the females earn more. Still this isn't good enough, the hysterical sirens are shrieking that their fight for 'equal' treatment will continue. What am I wrong about here please?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,191
|
Post by eppinggas on May 5, 2020 12:38:19 GMT
The USWNT makes more for US Soccer than the USMNT. Do you have a source for that chewy? If true, not a problem - I would absolutely agree that US Woman should be paid the same (or even more) as US Men for international duty. At a 'league' level they are paid less because they are worth less... just like any other sport. So barring curling and beach volleyball women get paid less in sport. Beach volleyball is an interesting one though - women are paid more. I am leaning a little towards this not being a reflection of their sporting prowess, but rather that the event is a 'spectacle pleasing on the eye'. So women look sexy and earn more than men in beach volleyball. How do the guardian readers react to that one? Disgust that they are being rewarded for being portrayed as sex objects? Or applaud the fact that women actually get a bigger pay cheque than the men?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 21:00:30 GMT
The USWNT makes more for US Soccer than the USMNT. Do you have a source for that chewy? If true, not a problem - I would absolutely agree that US Woman should be paid the same (or even more) as US Men for international duty. At a 'league' level they are paid less because they are worth less... just like any other sport. So barring curling and beach volleyball women get paid less in sport. Beach volleyball is an interesting one though - women are paid more. I am leaning a little towards this not being a reflection of their sporting prowess, but rather that the event is a 'spectacle pleasing on the eye'. So women look sexy and earn more than men in beach volleyball. How do the guardian readers react to that one? Disgust that they are being rewarded for being portrayed as sex objects? Or applaud the fact that women actually get a bigger pay cheque than the men? www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on May 6, 2020 0:51:06 GMT
So is there any sport where the women's game generate an equal amount of interest/income as the men's? Where is the quality on a par with the men's game? I can only think of (maybe) tennis. And because women play best of 3 rather than best of 5, they should be paid less accordingly. In tennis apart from the Grand Slams, both men and women play best of 3 sets. The main argument for not making the women play best of 5 in the slams, is that the organisers don’t want to have to fit in a potential 66% more play. Most sports show a difference because of the different physiques, one of the few where this doesn’t seem to come into play is showjumping.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on May 6, 2020 8:07:07 GMT
For me, the logics in this come down to pure business sense and business modelling.
The men’s game produces a higher net turnover than the women’s game thanks to the history of the sport, the commercial revenue available, public interest and platform.
This will create more opportunities for financial rewards.
The women game is not yet on a par with the men’s game in any of the above, so, it generates less opportunities for lucrative contracts of its players.
The current women’s team won’t have to look too far back in history where men were not paid very well to play football, most had second/third jobs and the stars of the day relied upon personal sponsorships and commercial activities to supplement their income, simply because the commercial platform and revenues weren’t there for highly paid contracts for players.
The women’s game is in a far better place than it’s ever been and if the women’s players were savvy enough they could increase the platform even further issuing social media both personally and for their respective game with out having to drag it through with a gender biased lawsuit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 22:59:58 GMT
Not even wasting time reading anything from The Guardian, it's as rabid in one direction as John Tyndall was in the other. No doubt they'll be talking about how they've won in the court of public opinion, just like they always do, problem is, every time The Guardian's position actually gets put to public opinion they don't get the answer they've been telling us we have to give them. Now, back to the actual point, where is this money going to come from? The female game already utilises infrastructure paid for by someone else, isn't that enough for them? I hate to think what you read. What I just read was the judgement. And very interesting it was too. You may like to invest some time reading it yourself, it'll show why the case was thrown out. They lost, mainly because the core plank of their case fell due to them having negotiated a different contract to the Men. The Men have 'pay as you play'. Women 'chose' to agree a different contract, with a salary and other benefits, including injury insurance, childcare, medical and dental cover plus other benefits, none of which are included in the Men's contracts. What the Women later decided that they wanted, when they calculated that if they had of had the Men's contracts, they would have earned more core wage, was to be paid appearance fees. So, they tried to retrospectively alter just that element of the female contract whilst retaining all of the other benefits that they had enjoyed which were not included in the Men's contracts. So, without having accepted the risk, they now want to retrospectively cherry pick certain elements of a different contract, in essence, trying to accept all of the gain with none of the risk. This isn't quite how The Guardian presented it, is it. Please anybody, feel free to read The Honourable Gary Klausner's detailed summary of the case 'Alex Morgan et al Vs United States Soccer Federation, inc.' and tell me that I have this wrong.
|
|