2019 Women's World Cup - Do It Back to Back

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

no clue

[Napoleon 8676]

14 hours ago, DoneWithit said:

 

If it was EARL GREY, then I'd have to agree with this Lianne Sanderson. Distasteful indeed.

But if it was good old PG Tips, then I'd have to disagree with her. Especially with a little milk & sugar.

[Guest Lobo]

noCR/

U.S. Women's Team:  "When we're not giving 100% on the pitch and in the Finals AGAIN...back home we're fighting for equal pay, equal rights, LGBTQ equality, and even dealing with the President taking aim at us!  And we still find time to be role models, mothers, and rock stars."  

England's Women's Team:  "We have chosen to dedicate our off-season to ending Tea-Bullying."  

The team with the most fight usually wins.  

[Buzzrock 14918]

Terrible defending from the lionesses

[Horn80 6119]

England’s genetic pool is still sickly.  Losers

[Buzzrock 14918]

USA SWE would have been a better final. But I hope we destroy the Dutch.

[Buzzrock 14918]

USA SWE would have been a better final. But I hope we destroy the Dutch.

[Horny Bull 2759]

Jesus Sweden

[Buzzrock 14918]

We got a game

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

[Horny Bull 2759]

Never mind

[Buzzrock 14918]

Oh VAR, that beloved tool

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Holy shit the stands at empty

[Billy Pilgrim 1960]

28 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Holy shit the stands at empty

And Rapinoe is bitching that fifa doesn’t pay them as much as the men. If she doesn’t understand why, I don’t know what to tell her.

[utee94 15820]

36 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

And Rapinoe is bitching that fifa doesn’t pay them as much as the men. If she doesn’t understand why, I don’t know what to tell her.

Brings up a point, how does FIFA determine compensation for the national teams, both men's and women's?  Is it based on tournament attendance?  Donations from patrons?  Something else?

[Dewey 3286]

Chick from Sweden just took a vicious header, she saved a goal, but she gonna be dizzy for a while.

[NAVY 6740]

And England shits the bed again 

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

1 hour ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

And Rapinoe is bitching that fifa doesn’t pay them as much as the men. If she doesn’t understand why, I don’t know what to tell her.

the women's gripe is with the US fed/cabal who they blame for the men having 8-figure transfer fees in europe.  it's been this way since chastain ripped her shirt off 20 years ago.

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

"I feel that there is some sort of double standard for females in sports to feel like we have to be humble in our successes and have to celebrate, but not too much or in a limited fashion. You see men celebrating all over the world in big tournaments, grabbing their sacks or whatever it is. And when I look at sipping a cup of tea, I am a little taken aback by the criticism." 

-- U.S. star Alex Morgan on the criticism of her goal celebration during the USA's 2-1 win over England in the Women's World Cup semifinals. She mimed sipping a cup of tea after she scored what proved to be the winning goal, a celebration she said was inspired by Game of Thrones actor Sophie Turner, who often signs off her Instagram stories with the phrase "and that's the tea" before taking a sip from a cup.

++++

on this point i agree with the women

[Pato del Muerto 52491]

Is it rare for a champion to have defeated the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams?

[sushihorn 3233]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

"I feel that there is some sort of double standard for females in sports to feel like we have to be humble in our successes and have to celebrate, but not too much or in a limited fashion. You see men celebrating all over the world in big tournaments, grabbing their sacks or whatever it is. And when I look at sipping a cup of tea, I am a little taken aback by the criticism." 

-- U.S. star Alex Morgan on the criticism of her goal celebration during the USA's 2-1 win over England in the Women's World Cup semifinals. She mimed sipping a cup of tea after she scored what proved to be the winning goal, a celebration she said was inspired by Game of Thrones actor Sophie Turner, who often signs off her Instagram stories with the phrase "and that's the tea" before taking a sip from a cup.

++++

on this point i agree with the women

Morgan had to drink their tea.  England didn't bring any milkshakes.

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

51 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is it rare for a champion to have defeated the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams?

well, since by definition you have to beat the 2nd place team and either the 3rd or 4th place teams (2 of 3) to be a champion, in a 32-team tournament, it probably happens at least 12.5% of the time.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Hagbard Celine
% derp

[sushihorn 3233]

Just now, Hagbard Celine said:

well, since by definition you have to beat the 2nd place team and either the 3rd or 4th place teams (2 of 3) to be a champion, in a 32-team tournament, it probably happens at least 33% of the time.

The 2nd team in the runner up match would have to be in the same pool as the champion.  They would have to play that eventual champion in pool play since they couldn't have played the champ in the knockout stage.  With 6 pools there is a 16.7% chance of this at best.  Then there is the question of how often a runner up in pool play reaches the semis before being knocked out.

 

[Huckleberry 32859]

2 hours ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

And Rapinoe is bitching that fifa doesn’t pay them as much as the men. If she doesn’t understand why, I don’t know what to tell her.

I know she's talking about FIFA lately because of the World Cup, but the USWNT's bitching was at the US federation and got really loud when they were still making a lot less than the men even after multiple years of bringing in significantly more revenue than the men. And that is 100% valid.

[capnamerca 571]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I know she's talking about FIFA lately because of the World Cup, but the USWNT's bitching was at the US federation and got really loud when they were still making a lot less than the men even after multiple years of bringing in significantly more revenue than the men. And that is 100% valid.

I swear facts are hard for some people. Thank you for typing this out. I don't care about the ENG-SWE match or what their players get paid (well, actually I do but I'm just a softie liberal who cares about equal opportunity), but on this point there's no factual reason why the USMNT should be paid more than the USWNT. Our Men's team sucks ass, and our women's team are playing for two WCs in three attempts, plus a four of the six gold medals ever awarded in Women's soccer in the Olympics. The Men are bumbling chucklefucks that can't posses a goddamn ball (not you CP,  you're awesome), and the women define their sport.

[sushihorn 3233]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I know she's talking about FIFA lately because of the World Cup, but the USWNT's bitching was at the US federation and got really loud when they were still making a lot less than the men even after multiple years of bringing in significantly more revenue than the men. And that is 100% valid.

This give some support to the women's teams complaints.  What does the replacement value look like though?  If the men have larger salaries for their pro clubs they are giving up to play for a national team, that also has to be considered. 

[Captain Ron 12876]

I would also question anyone who brings up the third place game attendance as an indicator of anything. Even the men’s third place game has a ton of empty seats. It’s not as bad as today’s game, but it really is a game that shouldn’t exist in either tournament. 

[ChickenSandwich 9834]

Will the World Cup final or the gold cup final have more viewers?  One on Fox. One on FS1. 

The US and FIFA as well need to negotiate separate TV deals and pay accordingly. 

What are the ratings for non Olympic or World Cup woman’s games?  It seems the complaints are rooted in the fact there is no viable professional league that watches or pays woman a comparable wage to men. The top salaries in the WMLS are about $50k?  The USA soccer fed pays them an annual salary, correct?

The money will follow popularity not directly tied to the national team/Olympics. USA soccer isn’t driving Pulisic’s salary but it is completely driving woman’s at the moment. 

They are simply trying to maximize their money maker World Cup/USA/Olympics instead of growing the business/pro league that will increase the wages.  Men’s soccer didn’t start out paying millionaire salaries. It has grown and earned over a century. 

And while the woman’s sport certainly deserves the investment to try to grow their business, they don’t deserve equality of outcome until they achieve equality of income.  They deserve to be paid as much revenue as they are capable of earning, not a feel good hand out. Pay them what they are worth. 

Missed opportunity to promote the sport and advance the business long term lost in “equality” debates. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Huckleberry 32859]

This give some support to the women's teams complaints.  What does the replacement value look like though?  If the men have larger salaries for their pro clubs they are giving up to play for a national team, that also has to be considered. 

I guess I've never actually looked it up, but I don't think they lose out on any salary to play for the national team. There are dedicated FIFA windows for international play and the clubs don't have to release the player if it's not in a window or if the player is injured. I assume that means they don't lose any pay.

[WBT 20564]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Will the World Cup final or the gold cup final have more viewers?  One on Fox. One on FS1. 

I would guess the women will have between 4 and 5 times as many viewers in the US.

[Okie State 3818]

I know she's talking about FIFA lately because of the World Cup, but the USWNT's bitching was at the US federation and got really loud when they were still making a lot less than the men even after multiple years of bringing in significantly more revenue than the men. And that is 100% valid.

Agreed 100%. I actually think the USMNT should be paying us to watch them play.

[Voldemort86 2259]

1 hour ago, WBT said:

I would guess the women will have between 4 and 5 times as many viewers in the US.

The main thing hurting the women is the shitty timeslot. 

I wish this game was at 2 or 3 pm.

 

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

9 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I know she's talking about FIFA lately because of the World Cup, but the USWNT's bitching was at the US federation and got really loud when they were still making a lot less than the men even after multiple years of bringing in significantly more revenue than the men. And that is 100% valid.

Can you provide any factual evidence that the women "bring in" more than the men?

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

9 hours ago, sushihorn said:

The 2nd team in the runner up match would have to be in the same pool as the champion.  They would have to play that eventual champion in pool play since they couldn't have played the champ in the knockout stage.  With 6 pools there is a 16.7% chance of this at best.  Then there is the question of how often a runner up in pool play reaches the semis before being knocked out.

note - i corrected my math at the same moment you were replying.  6 groups = 16.7% chance, 8 groups = 12.5% chance.

[WBT 20564]

Yeah plus Mexico will bring a lot of viewers.  It will probably be closer to double.

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

5 hours ago, sushihorn said:

If the men have salaries for their pro clubs they are giving up to play for a national team

that's an interesting point that i've never seen discussed, we know what the appearance bonuses are for friendlies and tournaments, but i've never heard of the cabal docking any one called up and then missing mls games.

[Napoleon 8676]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Can you provide any factual evidence that the women "bring in" more than the men?

A female friend with at least one daughter who plays soccer (and maybe both) sent me this portion of a tweet. 

Don’t know the source or validity, but it would include the massive influx of sponsorship revenue for the Women’s team as they were believed to be headed for Gold in the 2016 Olympics after winning the 2015 World Cup in Canada (where all matches had favorable start times for US broadcasting... and they didn’t medal) as well as the US Men’s sponsorship apathy due to the kids not making the 2016 Olympics and then the men crashing out of the 2018 WC Qualifying against T&T. 

So if that stat is true, then the years were perfectly cherry-picked to prove a point. My guess is that there has never been a 3 year span like that in the history of soccer in the U.S. before those three years. 

I also think that because of the men’s ineptitude at the same time of increased visibility of the women’s international prominence, there will be revenue parity going forward. (Or at least until European nations start knocking the women out in the Quarterfinals.)

Edited July 7, 2019 by Napoleon

[Huckleberry 32859]

According to the lawsuit, and it hasn't been refuted anywhere that I've seen, the women brought in more revenue in 2016, 2017, and 2018. What do you think the odds are that changes this year?

It's not cherry picking, it's an entire damn 4-year cycle. What's the counterargument? The men didn't make the World Cup so it's not apples to apples? I hope there's something else because arguing that it's okay to get paid more because the reason we brought in less money is that we sucked more is pretty weak.

Female athletes are frequently full of shit on deserving equal pay because they bring in less revenue. Well in this case they brought in more revenue for going on 4 straight years and are still paid less. Who gives a shit how much the players make at their clubs? The question is how much the USSF should pay them which should be based on how much money they bring into the USSF.

The rest of it just sounds like terrible excuses.

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

In May of 2016 CONCACAF signed a deal with SUM (aka the fed aka mls aka the cabal) "to market and service the confederation's worldwide sponsorship rights."

At the end of 2015, SUM and IMG acquired the commercial rights to the 2016 Copa America Centenario.  The estimates i've seen for the cabal's take from that tournament alone top $500m.

The US Women claiming they "bring in more than the US men" is comedy value on order of aggy math.  Just like aggy claims 1/3rd of the PUF when they only get 1/3rd of the AUF which is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the PUF itself.

Less than 1% of SUM revenues over the past 5 years are attributable to women's soccer.  The women know this.  But they will obfuscate and bamboozle an ignorant media and sheeple fanbase because they know the cabal does not want a public trial or a political witch hunt that would result in their books being opened for discovery.

Same reason the cabal folded when the Ohio AG threatened discovery.

Women's soccer is actually becoming "important".  But no one reading this today will live to see the women's game approach much less exceed the men's game in any economic measurement.

aggy have a greater chance of winning a natty then the women have of "bringing in more money".

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

1. The stadiums.The tournament has been a success at getting supporters on to seats. Although the allocation of games did not always make sense -- England, for example, played its first group game on the south coast in Nice, its second in Le Havre on the north coast, and then returned all the way to Nice for its final game against Japan -- the choice of medium-sized, second-tier stadiums in cities such as Reims, Valenciennes and Grenoble certainly did. For most games, the stadiums have been well-occupied to full, and plenty of local fans showed up for games featuring teams with few traveling fans.

2. The atmosphere and the fans. This depended heavily on who was playing, needless to say. German fans made little coordinated effort to get behind their team, for example. The U.S. fans were lively, especially at the Parc des Princes against Chile, though somewhat repetitive (is there no chant beyond 'USA! USA!'?). The Dutch fans were magnificent in terms of both numbers and noise, adding color and a variety of songs often missing at international games. Spanish and Italian fans, very much like their teams, are rapidly establishing a presence, while Brazil's support should take an award for distance traveled (though I didn't get to see Australia or New Zealand). Thai fans celebrating their team after a 13-0 defeat was one of the moments of the tournament. Yet nothing quite compares with being in a stadium where the entire French support is singing "Allez les Bleues!" The concerted, unified volume combined with the poetic repetition of the letter "l'"makes your body tingle, and prompts you to really want to join in.

3. The games. It's always fascinating to watch a tournament unfold and to guess which team is going to have the stamina, savvy, skill and -- perhaps most important of all -- the necessary slice of luck to stay the course for the full four weeks. From that point of view, it's been a fine tournament full of the requisite narratives, but has lacked some of the quality that the Women's World Cup had back when it was a 16-team competition. The 2011 edition served up several superb games, whereas in 2019 it's been more about holding on in the heat than dominating with brilliance. Argentina's comeback from 3-0 down against Scotland was a madcap humdinger (consequence: both teams eliminated), while the French games perhaps seemed better than they actually were thanks to the terrific atmosphere. So, while multiple games have been absorbing and have satisfied the tactically studious, there's been an absence of absolutely outstanding teams, games (with the exception of USA-England) and -- over the course of the tournament -- individual players, too.

4. The referees. On the field, there was too much lenience towards foul play. The prime example was Marie-Soleil Beaudoin's hands-off treatment of China's brutal approach in its opening match against Germany, resulting in a broken toe to one of the world's best players, Dszenifer Maroszan (who was then out of the tournament until a second-half appearance against Sweden in the quarterfinal). An early yellow card would have set the tone in a number of matches. On the other hand, we saw referees wasting time by insisting on throw-ins being taken at exactly the right spot (who cares?), and a whole minute being lost every time they set up a wall at a free-kick. While preemptive lectures at dead-ball situations are not necessarily a bad thing, they needn't turn into theatrical soliloquies. The delayed AR flags on calls -- that even a novice can see are clearly offside -- are another time-eating, game-meddling annoyance.

Off the field, everyone now has an opinion about the Video Assistant Referee, and few are ready to offer more than a qualified defense. Too often they defied FIFA's own mandate of "minimum interference, maximum benefit." Penalizing micro-infringements measured by a computer, such as on offside decisions and goalkeepers moving off their lines at penalty kicks, hugely delays play, enacts dubious justice, contravenes the spirit of soccer as a game, and is increasingly despised by those who've made the effort to watch in the stadium. At Germany-Nigeria in Grenoble, fans began to boo in unison whenever referee Yamashita Yoshimi put her finger to her earpiece. VAR is not a bad concept, but its implementation at this World Cup has been borderline catastrophic.

5. The profile of the women's game.The legacy of this tournament may go well hand-in-hand with a general raising of awareness on issues of equality. In the aftermath of the #metoo movement and the battle for better pay instigated by the U.S. women's team, France 2019 has highlighted more than ever how poorly most women's teams are treated compared with their male counterparts, and how much women's soccer everywhere is lacking in the support and resources allocated to the men's game. There is no excuse any more for FIFA and national federations to keep on ignoring this truth, and it's now one of their principal tasks to go about opening opportunities for the women's game around the world, from the grassroots upwards. TV viewing figures suggest this World Cup has ignited enthusiasm for women's soccer on a previously unseen global scale, so it's time to seize the moment and follow through.

6. Soccer and politics. There's a point of view that says the two shouldn't mix (try telling that to anyone who's spent even five minutes studying the history of FIFA and the Olympic movement). There's another point of view that sees politicians piggy-backing on the success of a team and exploiting sport whenever convenient for a photo-opportunity. It's therefore entirely legitimate for a high-profile sporting figure to express her political opinions in the hope of influencing a new generation to continue fighting for equality, respect and fairness in sport and in everyday life. To keep on doing this with a smile on your face -- both on and off the field -- should make Megan Rapinoe everybody's MVP.

 

[Hagbard Celine 10858]

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.

[ClubWhatever 12138]

Sweden dogpiled for 3rd place.

[HenryJames 66048]

Good for them.

[Jebus 1306]

19 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is it rare for a champion to have defeated the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams?

 

18 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

well, since by definition you have to beat the 2nd place team and either the 3rd or 4th place teams (2 of 3) to be a champion, in a 32-team tournament, it probably happens at least 12.5% of the time.

Saying “at least” 12.5% of the time is not correct, as the percentage is the expected chance for the teams to be in the same pool, not a minimum.  More like “on average” than “at least”.

Of course, this is the percentage of time one would expect the champion to PLAY the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams. Of course they would have to beat the 2nd place and one of the 3rd/4th place teams, but your percentage is only the expected chance to be in the same pool as the other team.  As sushi mentions in his reply, the champion could have also lost to this team or drawn with them in group play. 

[usmc0331horn 953]

The men suck. They don't deserve anything.

[pops 6984]

This money thing is an interesting question. Our women's team is probably going to prove they are the best in the world here in a couple hours. 

But isn't that a bit like being the tallest midget?  

I have never seen this argument on surly for any other women's sport.  

I don't know what's fair, I just find it interesting that this is the women's sport that brings the most passion. 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by pops

[HenryJames 66048]

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, pops said:

This money thing is an interesting question. Our women's team is probably going to prove they are the best in the world here in a couple hours. 

But isn't that a bit like being the tallest midget?  

I have never seen this argument on surly for any other women's sport.  

I don't know what's fair, I just find it interesting that this is the women's sport that brings the most passion. 

 

It's unique in that we are good at the women's version of the sport and mediocre to terrible at the men's version.  Americans love and usually reward winners. 

Personally though, I think women's tennis is the sport that deserves pay equality the most, and it's also one that has attempted to deliver that pay equality. Its also the only sport where I prefer watching the world's best women play to the world's best men.  

[ztejas 43419]

8 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

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.

Uh here. Take a rep.

Anyway, let's get this thread back on track:

 

[LonghornJudas 1097]

Was the Dutch GK on a season or 2 of American Horror Story?