OT: U.S. Women's Soccer Revenue > Men's

[RegisteredUconn]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, just that this is the first I've heard of it.

US women's soccer games out-earned men's matches over last three years: report

 

[j66kicker]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, just that this is the first I've heard of it.

US women's soccer games out-earned men's matches over last three years: report

Guess that's what happens when you're #1 in the world, vs. the men not even qualifying for the WC...

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Guess that's what happens when you're #1 in the world, vs. the men not even qualifying for the WC...

Whatever the reason, looks like some salary realignments are in order.

 

[eebmg]

and then the Men should get a cut of the women's additional revenue since it takes a lot of effort to be so bad.

 

[DefenseBB]

Everyone loves a winner! The minor problem with this report is it specifies “games” which is unclear if that’s just gate receipts or other game sponsorships. I don’t think it includes television fees as that amount should be larger component (not motivated enough to see what the ESPN contract pays). It also doesn’t talk about corporate sponsors with their donations that go directly to that team and is also excluded.
All that said, the US Soccer federation needs better transparency, more logic and a better public relations firm as this looks extremely bad for them.
This only gets worse as the WNT has drawn well in France and has pretty good viewership.
I wish them the best this WC and in their lawsuit as it seems to have strong merit!

 

[meyers7]

Just a heads up, as most of these WNT articles are misleading. The WNT had 61 matches in 2016-2018. The MNT had 49 matches. So in reality the WNT barely raised more money even though they had 12 more games to do it.

WNT avg $832,786
MNT avg $1,018,367

Just be careful reading any of the articles that are put out for the WNT. They are trying to win a public relations campaign.

 

[eebmg]

Just a heads up, as most of these WNT articles are misleading. The WNT had 61 matches in 2016-2018. The MNT had 49 matches. So in reality the WNT barely raised more money even though they had 12 more games to do it.

WNT avg $832,786
MNT avg $1,018,367

Just be careful reading any of the articles that are put out for the WNT. They are trying to win a public relations campaign.

Not sure is the average draw is the best metric. Another way of interpreting this is that they are working more games so the WNT should get paid for the extra work load.

 

[bennyskid]

How much of this revenue comes in "package deals", where the sponsor puts up money for *both* teams? That money might be split 50-50, or per game, when actually the sponsor values one team much more than the other.

In sum, without knowing the details, these sorts of numbers are worthless.

 

[meyers7]

Not sure is the average draw is the best metric. Another way of interpreting this is that they are working more games so the WNT should get paid for the extra work load.

Well, the WNT can play more games because they don't play near as many games for their clubs. (And USSF is paying their club salaries.) And the campaign brought up the money from matches. Making it sound like they were actually bringing in more money than the men, which they are not.

The women really don't want equal pay. If they had the deal the men have they would lose money.

There are other things that need to equaled out, accomadations, playing surfaces, travel, stuff like that.

 

[meyers7]

How much of this revenue comes in "package deals", where the sponsor puts up money for *both* teams? That money might be split 50-50, or per game, when actually the sponsor values one team much more than the other.

In sum, without knowing the details, these sorts of numbers are worthless.

Bingo.

 

[Biff]

Another article covering the current status and issues in some detail.

 

[clbabson]

I think the article is fine to call out that, from a revenue perspective, the two teams are close (let's be real it's not the NBA v. WNBA), but that's not even the point of the lawsuit and not really at the core of the argument. The idea is they are both in the same job and if you think about the job PERFORMANCE, the women are clearly well ahead of them in terms of success, which is where the inequity comes into play in terms of their compensation. I don't know the structure, so I won't comment on that specifically. There are clearly way more details that we probably don't know/understand, so I'll just leave it at that.