soccer

Confetti and chants of 'equal pay' greet U.S. World Cup winners

36 Comments
By Thomas URBAIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


36 Comments
Login to comment

What, no "motherf#cking" quote from Rapinoe?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Its typical of the under achieving over entitled American woman demanding a pay rise while they generate substantially less revenue. The Womens World Cup generated around $131 million in revenue and yet the Mens World Cup is expected to generate over $4 billion in revenue - the Mens World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#41705c7a6da4

3 ( +11 / -8 )

The women's team is suing the U.S. Soccer Federation to demand equal pay with their male counterparts, and fan chants of "equal pay" also cascaded from the stands at the Stade de Lyon after Sunday's victory.

That was real heartwarming to see. Not like the crybabies (can't call them fans) screaming "I hate you" to NFL players who kneeled.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Why should they get equal pay? They don't generate as much revenue.

And they're not as good as the men, I bet there isn't one female player that would be good enough to play on the men's team. If this was not true, the women's world cup would be just as popular as the men's, and they would generate the same revenue.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

Andrew and Raw Beer: This isn't about world cup revenue as much as how much revenue the US women's vs. US men's team has made and the pay within the US soccer federation to the respective gender players. From 2016-2018, the women have generated 900,000 dollars more than the men. They have generated 11.4 million dollars in fiscal year 2018. After expenses, the US soccer federation made just over 2 million dollars. The men's generated revenue was 10.325 million. After expenses, the team had a 3.5 million dollar deficit. The women make a maximum of 4,950 dollars per game, and if they won 20 friendlies, would get 99 K dollars, while the men make 13.166 per game and would get 263,333 for 20 friendlies won.

The women have won 4 Olympic golds and 4 World Cups. The men have won 0 of each. The women have played in 8 world Cups. The men have had the opportunity to be in world cups, every four years since 1930.

There is plenty of evidence, including generating more revenue than the men's team, to understand why the women feel they should be paid equally.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

What, no "motherf#cking" quote from Rapinoe?

Who cares? Honestly.

When Big Papi said "This is our f*cking city" after the Boston Marathon Bombing, many of those ripping on her praised him. In her case, she praised NYC, and the fans there for the USWNT.

We've had newscasters, sports stars, politicians, I've even heard a priest drop the f-bomb, with little to no outrage.

Yet somehow Rapinoe's praise of NYC deserves... what? An apology? Condemnation? Casting shade on the best women's soccer player of the tournament?

No. She's the motherf*cking best.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The women have won 4 Olympic golds and 4 World Cups. 

You're goshdarn right. I was there for one of the Olympic golds and though I was rooting for Japan - it was still a great win for the US team - and the stadium was full capacity.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Raw Beer

And they're not as good as the men, I bet there isn't one female player that would be good enough to play on the men's team.

Sooner rather than later a transwoman will qualify for the team. No doubt it will be someone who couldn’t make the men’s team.

Does equal pay apply to all women in soccer? Will women players in the farm system earn as much as the stars? If not, what would be the justification?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

It's complicated, but you're flat out wrong if you insist that the USWNT players are making less than their male counterparts. If this is you, you need to read the following:

Complexities of 'equal pay for equal play'

by Beau Dure  @duresport, Jun 30, 2019

Whenever the U.S. women step into the limelight, we hear a familiar refrain:

Equal pay. Or, as the mantra used to be, “equal pay for equal play.”

The only trouble is that no one has defined the term. We’re not talking about a man and a woman holding identical faculty positions. We’re talking about people who have negotiated different contracts for different competitive paths.

“Equal play” is itself a slippery term, not for any condescending depiction of how women play but for the vagaries of the competitions for each team. From 2014 to 2017, the last quadrennium in which both teams played in the World Cup, here’s a breakdown of which team played what:

• Home friendlies: men 22, women 52(including SheBelieves Cup and Tournament of Nations) 

• Away friendlies: men 12, women 18(including Algarve Cup and a tournament in Brazil) 

• World Cup and Olympic games: men 4, women 11

• World Cup and Olympic home qualifiers: men 8, women 10

• World Cup and Olympic away qualifiers: men 8, women 0

• Continental competition (Gold Cup, Copa America, Concacaf Cup): men 19, women 0

The playing agendas are simply different. The women cross the country to please the fans, making sure Morgan and Rapinoe -- before them, Wambach and Solo -- are on hand. The men are trying out players -- more than 60 in some years -- to try to get back to the World Cup and deal with intense international competitions, while the women put together showcases on home soil.

But that doesn’t mean the problem can’t be answered.

To that end, I’ve compiled a painstakingly detailed spreadsheet comparing men’s and women’s pay as best we can given what we know. We have the most recent men’s collective bargaining agreement, which expired in December but has not been replaced. We have the deal under which the women played until December 2016. We have U.S. Soccer’s 990 forms that list the federation’s top employees, which usually include 3-5 players.

We don’t have the new women’s CBA covering 2017-21 in its entirety, but Caitlin Murray has published many details in her book The National Team and in a recent story in The Guardian.

Using these numbers, I’ve come up with this …

Based on current deals and results, the women are likely making more than the men.

We know from the 990 forms that the top women have certainly done better than the top men in recent years. The four players over the threshold to be listed on the 990 in 2017-18 were all women making between $247,000 and $258,000. Those figures must include NWSL salaries, but the calculations of the men’s salaries -- of which we can be reasonably confident because that CBA is public -- came up with no man making more than $183,000 in that time.

The women’s contract that ran through 2016 left plenty of room to improve. The negotiations took place in 2005, when women’s soccer was its lowest point of the past couple of decades. The WUSA had collapsed. The 2003 Women’s World Cup was a shadow of 1999. Most of the recognizable faces moved on after winning gold at the 2004 Olympics.

When the NWSL launched in 2013, the deal was extended and amended with a Memorandum of Understanding, but the numbers were still low. In my calculation for 2018-19, if that old deal was still in effect, the top women’s players would have topped out around $124,000, and the total compensation (not including NWSL salaries or sponsor appearances) worked out to around $3.1 million.

And still, that would be more than the men in 2018-19, in which they only played 13 games thanks to the World Cup qualifying disaster. That calculation yielded total compensation of $2.33 million spread out over 60 players, with only one player (Wil Trapp) cracking six figures.

Even under the old deal, the women would out-earn the men in years with big victories. In 2015-16, the top players on the 990 form were all women making $225,450 each -- again, likely including NWSL pay. In 2012-13, with Olympic gold and no NWSL, the only players listed on the 990 were Alex Morgan ($282,564), Becky Sauerbrunn ($274,871) and Christie Rampone ($272,913).

In any case, we can conclude that the widely reported notion that the women’s players make “38 cents on the dollar” in comparison to the men is fanciful, or at least based on results that have not existed in recent years.

With a new deal in place, the women should be doing considerably better. The total compensation for the women in 2018-19 (not including the World Cup, which is taking place after the end of the fiscal year), using Murray’s reported figures and a couple of estimates of how various bonuses are awarded, works out to roughly $5.8 million -- not just far more the double the men’s pay for the same year but more than $1 million ahead of what the men earned in 2017-18, when they won the Gold Cup and collected several World Cup qualifying win bonuses.

These figures are being shared with the respective players’ associations for further comment.

That said …

When the men earn any sort of World Cup bonus, they earn much more.

Had the U.S. men qualified for the World Cup, they would have split a $2.5 million bonus, to be divided as the players association saw fit. Roughly 35 players saw the field in qualifiers through that cycle, so it’s not a game-changing bonus per player.

But the compiled bonuses for a nice World Cup run add up in a hurry. Start with $218,750 for each point in the group stage. Let’s say they earn five points, and we’ll round it to $1.1 million to run the hypothetical. Reaching the second round is another $4.5 million. Another $5 million for reaching the quarterfinals, matching the feat of 2002. Another $5.65 million for an improbable run to the semifinals. From there, add $1.25 million for third place, $6.25 million for second, and $9.375 million if the unthinkable happens.

So the total for a World Cup win would be $25.6 million, plus another $218,750 for any additional points in the group stage. That’s a nice percentage of the $38 million awarded to the French federation in 2018, and it’s more than $1 million per player. And that’s under the expired men’s deal -- a new deal could be even more.

In a more reasonable scenario such as a run to the round of 16 in 2014, the men still do pretty well. In the 2014-15 fiscal year, the top five earners on the 990 were men, ranging from Clint Dempsey at $428,002 to Jermaine Jones at $395,920.

It’s possible that the women’s team, at least some of them, would be better off if it simply accepted the same deal as the men.

I ran a scenario in which the women played under the men’s deal in 2018-19. The top women would have earned $368,488. Fifteen players would have earned more than $300,000, six more would have earned at least $200,000, and seven more would have earned at least $100,000.

A large chunk of that earning for the top players would have been in World Cup qualifying, which is where we run into the “equal play” question. All five Women’s World Cup qualifiers were at home. The attendance bonuses were negligible -- the games all drew four-figure crowds -- but they’d get a bonus for $18,125 for every Concacaf minnow they trounced on home soil. Then they’d split the $2.5 million qualifying bonus among far fewer players than the men would.

Total compensation would be around $8.25 million, more than $5 million more than the old deal and nearly $2.5 million more than under the estimated new deal.

To date, the women have not sought the equivalent of the men’s deal, and there are two reasons why the team and the federation would hesitate to agree to this deal.

From the women’s point of view: Some women’s players would lose more than $10,000 by switching deals. Others would be going without the security of injury and maternity pay, let alone the steady salary and health benefits that the women enjoy.

From the federation’s point of view: Giving women the same bonuses as the men would quickly eat away at the federation’s current surplus. The 2019 Women’s World Cup first-place money is $4 million, more than $20 million short of what the federation would need to pay the women if they win.

The Olympics, which feature full women’s teams but modified youth teams in the men’s competition, offer no prize money as such, though the U.S. Olympic Committee offers $37,500 per gold medal. That’s $675,000 for an 18-player roster, which would put the federation more than $25 million in the hole if the World Cup bonuses were paid for the Olympics.

So what are the priorities?

If the men and women already have equal pay based on typical results (men to the round of 16, women to the semifinals), is that enough? Should all available bonuses be equal, even if it means paying the women many millions more in prize money than FIFA gives U.S. Soccer or slashing the available bonuses for men? Should U.S. Soccer simply pay out large bonuses in the hopes of recouping the money through increased sponsorship, or should it try to put the money from a once-in-a-generation World Cup run into youth programs and other development?

And should compensation be based on revenue, even if that means the men stand to make more based on attendance and much more based on FIFA bonuses if they should win some World Cup games?

And should that compensation be spread over more players? The bulk of the women’s compensation is concentrated among roughly 23 women, and that concentration would continue as long as the stars are expected to tour the country like the Harlem Globetrotters. Should the women split their bonuses to reward the next tier of players and keep them in the game, just as the men’s pay is split among more than 60 players?

In the next week, I’m planning to publish a spreadsheet with built-in calculator that gives anyone a chance to figure out fair deals. Enter variables -- salaries, bonuses for friendly wins, World Cup bonuses, etc. -- and watch the numbers change -- total compensation, money to the top players, etc.

That spreadsheet will also include some revenue data, taken from U.S. Soccer financial statements and including lists of attendance and TV ratings -- contrary to anecdotal evidence, these do not necessarily favor the women’s team.

You may decide that “equal” works. Or you may find something that seems fair to you.

Then feel free to email your findings to U.S. Soccer and the respective players associations. They’ll surely appreciate your input.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

USNin: This is quite pedantic. In essence, the women have won and drawn a lot of fans in the United States, more than the men's team have, creating more revenue. Why? Well, it's because they certainly have better results with a more consistent product, than the men. If promotion is a bad thing by the best players, I don't see it. The only difference between them doing it and the men not doing it, is there aren't enough great men's players nor team results for fans to follow and WANT to pay to see.

When there are statements like 'when the men earn any world cup bonus' or 'the men to the round of 16, the women to the semi finals' is like what? If you want to make a statement, why not just say the bottom line: most recent World Cups, the women went to the World Cup, played in the final, won and are world champions while the men had zero revenue because they didn't qualify for the World Cup and did not participate in Russia. That gap likely ain't changing anytime soon, if you follow soccer.

I believe the lawsuit by the women is fair and will begin to even out the pay scale, dramatically.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

sunfunbun

Pedantic? Please. If the USWNT actually got what they're demanding, they'd earn less. That's the bottom line.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Why should they get equal pay? They don't generate as much revenue. 

And I think after the stunt Rapinoe pulled, I doubt at this point and time they can generate more revenue.

And they're not as good as the men, I bet there isn't one female player that would be good enough to play on the men's team. If this was not true, the women's world cup would be just as popular as the men's, and they would generate the same revenue.

Makes sense.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

And I think after the stunt Rapinoe pulled, I doubt at this point and time they can generate more revenue.

Except that at this time, the USWNT is producing far more revenue for US Soccer than the Men's Team. Their uniforms and kit outsells the men's, their TV spots have higher ratings in the US, and their results are much better.

The only way they could produce more revenue is if they got NFL like numbers.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/womens-world-cup-final-most-viewed-match-this-year-higher-ratings-than-mens-final

However, since the USWNT got 14 million for their finals, and the NFL averages 16.7 million viewers per game, it's not like they're that far off. In fact, their numbers are already throwing shade on the NBA (which averages 1.28 million per game) and MLB.

In fact, if you want to compare major sports, look at MLB. In a sport where the median player is paid $1.5 million a year with the mean salary being $4.8 million, the World Series had about the same viewership as the USWNT at the World Cup. But MLB and has dropping attendance of 28K per game. Meanwhile, the USWNT averages 14K per game, yet the players maybe, maybe get $500K.

World Champs, Gold Medalists, record breaking team gear sales, higher ratings than the men's Cup in the USA... making 1/3 what the relief pitcher for the Brewers makes.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I bet there isn't one female player that would be good enough to play on the men's team.

How much is the bet ? It's like Serena Williams, being a woman, she doesn't play tennis as well as you, isn't it ?

They don't generate as much revenue. 

They generate much more ROI. Female soccer is a super successful start up. With nearly no means, very few players, nearly no pro players, they already fill stadiums and make the show on TV worldwide.

On this planet, 99% of the investment for soccer (from balls given to toddlers, classes in public schools, clubs for school age players ... to pro training centers clubs, their stadiums, supporter networks, mass media promotion) is dedicated to male players. When you calculate revenue by male soccer, please deduct all investments over decades. You're likely to find a deficit.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Women's WC generated $131 million in revenue and yet the

Men's World Cup will generate over $4 billion.

No way should women get equal pay.

Not only is revenue much, much higher for men's WC Soccer but the level of play is incomparable and i's a hell of a lot more exciting.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Well, they have been more successful than the Men's team. They are snubbing the WH and visiting Congress. They have also sent Pres. Obama his jersey.

No matter how hard the haters will try, they can't take away from the TWNT moment in the sun.

Barack Obama Shows Off What Appears to Be New Women’s Soccer Jersey After World Cup Win

https://people.com/sports/barack-obama-shows-off-new-womens-soccer-jersey-world-cup-win/

Democrats invite U.S. Women's National Soccer Team to Capitol as players snub White House visit

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-invite-u-s-womens-national-soccer-team-to-capitol-as-players-snub-white-house-visit/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Pay in sports is depending on contracts and how you deal.

Women players should hire better negotiators, that is all.

Are they jealous of not having pen...s and asking for one for equality ?

If you are not happy about your pay, just keave and find a better job !

I am sure plenty of us would be happy to be paid what they are earning.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

A world cup of the 8 best teams on planet representing 2 continents and the rest made of teams with no prospect of pulling an upset and rightly so there were no upsets.

The womens game is improving but not anywhere near the mens game.

The level of the competition is not close at all.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Women's WC generated $131 million in revenue and yet the

Men's World Cup will generate over $4 billion.

No way should women get equal pay.

Not only is revenue much, much higher for men's WC Soccer but the level of play is incomparable and i's a hell of a lot more exciting.

Continually this number is pulled up, but that's on a worldwide basis. The USWNT is shattering revenue production for US soccer on a US basis. It is better than the USMNT, it actually wins its games and qualifies for the World Cups in addition to winning them.

First the claim was 'pay based off of performance.' So the US Women went out and won. And won again. And again. And again.

Then it was 'pay based on popularity.' But the USWNT is far more popular, getting better ratings, more fans, and higher revenue, than the USMNT.

Now the only claim is a specious one trying to compare apples to oranges. The USWNT claim is based off of US popularity, yet the detractors keep trying to bring up worldwide numbers as if they are in any way germane to the case.

Guess what? The USMNT does jack squat for the worldwide World Cup numbers. Few people buy their gear or care about them outside of if they're playing their own national team. So stop trying to equate the popularity of men's soccer on a worldwide basis to the popularity and accomplishments of the USWNT within the United States, on a United States contract.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well, they have been more successful than the Men's team. They are snubbing the WH and visiting Congress.

Ok, so instead of wanting to unify the country, they decide to become politically partisan. Alienating one side isn’t going to get them what they want, if they want to appeal to a certain segment of society, they’re going to lose out on a lot of sponsors and donors.

They have also sent Pres. Obama his jersey. 

Ok and?

No matter how hard the haters will try, they can't take away from the TWNT moment in the sun.

They don’t want to take anything from these women, but at the same time, these haters won’t be able to push people that have the power to change things for these women. They took a political stand, they can deal with the fallout.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ok, so instead of wanting to unify the country, they decide to become politically partisan.

Their job is to play soccer. Trump's job is to unify the country. He has alienated these people to the point that they don't want to visit him in the white house. That's a condemnation on his ability to lead, and his ability to unify the country. They've already successfully finished their job.

Alienating one side isn’t going to get them what they want

They wanted to win the world cup. They already got what they want. The president is supposed to want to unify the people. As you say, alienating one side isn't going to get him what he wants. This story here is case in point.

if they want to appeal to a certain segment of society, they’re going to lose out on a lot of sponsors and donors.

Yes, if Trump wants to appeal to a certain segment of society, he's going to lose out on a lot of sponsors and donors.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The US women soccer players are not suing the entire industry - they're suing only their own national soccer federation.

And no, they can't just find a better national team job because they're not allowed to play for any other national team - they can only play for that 1 national team that's their nationality (and they can't just change nationalities - they have to do it like any other immigrants who want to be a citizen of another country).

In their last 4-year World Cup cycles respectively, the women generated more income for the US Soccer Fed than the men did. Essentially, the US Soccer Fed earned more money thru their women than thru their men. They want equity from their national federation.

The Dutch federation is already doing this - the Netherlands has set a goal of pay equity for its men’s and women’s teams by 2023:

https://nos.nl/wk2019/artikel/2287475-oranjevrouwen-krijgen-van-knvb-zelfde-vergoeding-als-mannen.html

I keep using the Dutch as an example so people could grasp the significance of that. The Dutch men are superpowers in world football - the gap between the Dutch men and the Dutch women soccer players is even bigger than the gap between the US women and US men soccer players. In financial terms, I'd daresay the Dutch men earn their soccer federation more money than the US men, US women, and Dutch women combined!

And yet. And yet, the Dutch federation intends to pay their men and women players the same scale. Think about that: the Dutch women who are paid less than the US women, and the Dutch men who are paid much much more than the US men -- the Dutch women and men would soon be paid the same.

If the Dutch can do it -- superpowers in world football that they are -- surely a soccer country like the US can achieve it too, right?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Their job is to play soccer.

That’s it and that’s all.

Yes, if Trump wants to appeal to a certain segment of society, he's going to lose out on a lot of sponsors and donors.

Not according to the socialists that are out there running. Scarborough, Cuban, Willie Brown, Donny Deutsch know none of these socialists have a chance at beating this President and as these women are concerned, they won, they were good, on that part they got mad respect, but as for getting a pay raise, I don’t see that coming their way to these soon (thankfully) retirees. Good riddance.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That’s it and that’s all.

No, that’s not all. It’s their primary position, but as with every real world job that doesn’t exist purely in the minds of those unable to comprehend a non-binary world, the job comes with many non-primary functions as well.

So no, that’s not it, and no, that’s not all.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Not according to the socialists that are out there running.

I’m not sure who these socialists you are speaking of, but I assure you that they are not claiming that trump is not losing donors due to his decisiveness.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It’s their primary position

Exactly.

I’m not sure who these socialists you are speaking of

Everyone that was on that Democrat debate stage two weeks ago.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Everyone that was on that Democrat debate stage two weeks ago.

I didn't see any socialists on the state two weeks ago. Names please.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So every musician who plays a bar gig should get the same pay as Taylor Swift right?

Equal pay for equal work!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ok, so we are in agreement

It’s their primary position to play soccer.

I didn't see any socialists on the state two weeks ago. Names please

Harris, Warren, Booker, Mayor Pete, Beto, Klobuchar and Biden is being pulled into that corner.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So every musician who plays a bar gig should get the same pay as Taylor Swift right?

Equal pay for equal work!

Yes: if Taylor Swift does a gig in a small bar to 15 patrons, then another musician doing a gig in the same bar to 15 patrons should be paid the same as her.

If Taylor Swift is performing a show on a giant stage to thousands, however, which is more likely, this is a totally different scale of work, and the compensation should be altered accordingly.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So every musician who plays a bar gig should get the same pay as Taylor Swift right?

Equal pay for equal work!

If said musician is outselling Taylor Swift in the United States, is selling more merchandise than Taylor, and is earning more awards on a yearly basis than Taylor... if said musician is repeatedly recognized as the best in the world... then yes. Yes they should.

USWNT is asking for 'equal pay for equal work' because right now, compared to the USMNT, it's 'lesser pay for superior work.'

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Next step for her is politics. Can you imagine her teamed up with AOC in congress?

Awesome!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I'm surprised how many American men have commented on a game they have very little interest in and probably haven't even been to watch a game.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@lostrune2, the US is not a soccer nation, compared to almost all the other countries that field World Cup teams. It is an American football (gridiron) and baseball nation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@lostrune2, the US is not a soccer nation, compared to almost all the other countries that field World Cup teams. It is an American football (gridiron) and baseball nation.

Exactly

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you don't appreciate your pay, just leave the job or go on strike !

It is just a job !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites