There are certainly a lot of variables here, no doubt, that makes this far more complex and there really is no "right" answer. It's easy to make arguments on both sides, as we've done. In my mind, I try to keep it really simple and think about a job - pick any job - plumber, consultant, developer - and think about a man and a woman in that same job, at the same company. The idea is that, if you have two people doing the same work from the same company - theoretically they should be paid equally (all other things being equal). I see the soccer players in that same light - they are doing the same job for the same company. Their job is not to create revenue - their job is to train, play soccer, and (hopefully) win soccer games.
So let's say we have two Senior Developers (man/woman) in the same company. The woman works for the business unit that produces about half the revenue of the other business unit. Based on the market and other factors, it's just the way it is and maybe the way it will always be, relatively. The woman writes more code, with fewer defects. Based on the job, she's performing better. Her group doesn't make as much money for the company, but at the very least she should be paid the same as the man based on her performance (again, all else equal). This is sort of what it boils down to for me. Now the CBAs certainly make it more complicated because they are structured differently, but the net should be at least the same (if not more based on performance) when all is said and done.
Also, not sure who it was that said the quality of play isn't even close, but that's just some misogynistic BS. Even people who play sports professionally, whether basketball or soccer, wouldn't say that (and many have said quite the opposite).