It sad how true this is

[–]Bestprofilename 450 points451 points452 points 7 years ago (103 children) | Copy Link

[–]tcguy71 288 points289 points290 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheWeisGuy 67 points68 points69 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]PumpkinAnarchy 246 points247 points248 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shippoyasha 160 points161 points162 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhellEndowed 85 points86 points87 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]frankgold 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steroidraging 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steroidraging 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Butthole_Alamo1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

If you look at the USWNT and the USMNT:

2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million.

So in terms of the US players in recent years, women are paid much less than the men if adjusting for revenue.

[–]EloquentBarbarian 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Puncherfaust1 -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]waterdevil19 -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]waterdevil19 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_Sux_Alot 90 points91 points92 points 7 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bike1894 152 points153 points154 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]DMonitor 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]loloLogic 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]irlcake 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]el_Technico 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DallasTruther 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DallasTruther 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]DallasTruther -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook827 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe they did give their all...but I don't know for sure. Do you?

Yes, I'm sure they did. Imagine being competitive enough to reach the top of (an admittedly weak) field and then failing to show up on the eve of a major tournament when your spot is on the line.

Besides, there are plenty of similar stories from around the world (and in a variety of sports) of schoolboy teams beating the best women in the world. Its not a one-off. When the Swedes were in the top 2 or 3 in the world, they'd lose to the local Swedish leagues U14 and U15 sides as well, and if I recall correctly the boys were playing with only 10 on the park too.

And finally, if you watch any of the sport on TV, the difference is just staggering. Its plain to see that the best female football players in the world aren't remotely close to the men in terms of standard.

[–]Puncherfaust12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlueTeeShirt1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ruleofmen 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DallasTruther 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loloLogic 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FragrantDude -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Penguin_of_evil 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gimme_The_Loot 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My understanding of the overall concept isn't that its an exact 1:3/4 ratio dollar for dollar but the in the big picture women in similar roles end up making less, but this is heavily due to lack of position advancement due to life decisions ex: being passed up for that promotion due to taking time off for having a child.

I've read in general men have a higher risk tolerance and are willing to take more dangerous roles which pay better. One example of this, and I'm not advocating for this, is that male Uber drivers make more bc the male drivers drove faster and complete more trips in similar time ranges. In contrast women usually favor more social / people interactive roles which compensate less in the long term.

I'm in the train right now but can try and dig up some sources later if anyone really wants.

[–]steroidraging 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chinawinsworlds -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]scyth3s -37 points-36 points-35 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]PsychologicalInjury21 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

You're confusing "pay" with "earn". Women aren't "payed less", they earn less pay.

[–]Wedrew 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]PsychologicalInjury21 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

My internal autocorrect goes on the fritz after the 7th beer.

Please try again tomorrow.

[–]EloquentBarbarian 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]scyth3s -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JonnyRichter 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonnyRichter 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

You're trying to argue facts against an argument that isn't based on them. Im not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the whole "Why would anyone hire a man, when you could hire a woman for 3/4 of the price?" argument is a mischaracterization of the opposing point of view. The whole idea is that women are perceived as being less productive, negating the savings.

The opposing point of view is that women generate 100% value, but business think that women only generate 77% which is why they pay them that.

Your argument is if they provided 100% value at 77% of the price it would make economic sense to hire them, which is true. But they think businesses think women don't provide 100% value.

To put it in much simpler terms: do you think these people have problems with women who they think are less productive being paid less? No. They think that objectively less productive people are (in their minds) equally productive, but aren't paid as such. .

[–]JonnyRichter 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I can’t believe you wasted so much effort to completely miss that I addressed your concern.

Yes, the pro-wage gap people think women are underpaid despite producing proportional output because of some shit assessment that women don’t produce as well as men.

I am telling you they are wrong. Because the idea that businesses inaccurately assess the value of a woman vs a man is entirely absurd. They have entire departments devoted to assessing an employee’s input vs output. And to think they would all be consistently wrong is laughable.

Businesses don’t perceive this shit incorrectly. They have spent Oprah Winfrey-levels of money making sure they get the best bang for their buck. And if women provided the best margins, that shit would not be some kind of unproven secret.

So the point still stands: if women cost less and produce the same output, we would know it. But that’s not the case.

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonnyRichter2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JonnyRichter1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JonnyRichter1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Most people here are pushing overall FIFA international revenue.

If you look at US team revenue, though, the picture doesn't follow that narrative either.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-low-pay-2019-6

So one hand you have "well, mens world cup earns 50 times as much as women's world cup worldwide," and on the other hand you have "US mens soccer earns slightly less than US women's soccer, but they get paid 4x as much."

So then people backpedal to things like percentage. Men get 9% of MWC revenue, while women's teams get 13% of WWC revenue, so given the worldwide figure, women should get 9% of $73M, which would be $6.5M, while the men would get $360M.

(Nobody seems to ask "why does women's soccer make less money?")

The thing is, world wide, not all world cup teams are paid the same. Their countries ultimately decide what to pay them, even when it comes to the pay for winning each game. http://money.com/money/5314692/world-cup-2018-players-make/

FIFA does not set a worldwide per-player salary -- which brings the question of does it really make sense to base a country's players' salary on worldwide revenue? After all, not all countries make the same money on either World Cup.

As it happens, the 2019 Women's World Cup had more US viewership than the 2018 Men's World Cup, by about 22% more. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/us-viewership-of-the-womens-world-cup-final-was-higher-than-the-mens.html

(Nobody seems to be asking "if there were more viewers, why was revenue flat?" Doesn't higher viewership logically translate to more advertising dollars?)

Another wrinkle has popped up recently. Both US men's and women's teams get (different) bonuses for winning each game. However, the US men's team players get paid a bonus of $5K for losing a match(!), while the women's team gets $0 bonus for losing a match.

(Maybe some of the armchair accountants can tell us what percentage of 5000 that 0 is.)

The best part is, everybody insists their math is the most fair, yet nobody really uses a full-picture calculation. They selectively pick the numbers that provide them with their desired outcome.

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

On a per game basis the men made more per game. Only reason the women made more in ticket sales is because they played almost 20 more games than the men in that time period.

"Why does womens soccer make less money?" Because they play a less valuable sport that has significantly less interest.

Comparing the 2019 WWC to the 2018 WC isn't very good simply because the mens team wasn't in it. When you compare 2014 WC to 2015 WWC you see the women had better ratings in one game than the men had. In their four games of the 2014 world cup, the US men team drew 76 million views, while the women drew 52 million viewers across seven games in 2015.

I think using the term bonus for losing is dumb. They just get paid 5K for playing and 13K or something for winning. The men only get paid if they make a roster, if they are in the roster pool and don't make the team they don't get paid. They aren't guaranteed anything. You see the stat a lot that if the men play and win 20 games they could make like 230K. The men have never reached 20 games recently, if ever. No one is getting close to the 230K.

The USWNT has a roster pool that all get paid if they make the roster pool. The roster pool is guaranteed to be paid unlike the mens. They also get insurance, something the men don't get. If they lose they don't get a bonus but they still get their salary. The women have a guarenteed salary. Example (i'm not sure what the actual roster pool size is), the 30th girl in the roster pool is getting paid more than the 30th guy in the roster pool most likely. Not to mention that the USWNT gets paid by US Soccer for playing in the NWSL. I don't see it mentioned enough that US Soccer is subsidizing the womens league.

Edit: Spelling and one added sentence.

[–]romulusnr -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Because they play a less valuable sport that has significantly less interest.

Okay, but why is it less valuable, and why is there less interest?

And that statement is only true worldwide -- not within the US.

Comparing the 2019 WWC to the 2018 WC isn't very good

Well, that's the numbers everyone is using to retort the pay gap argument.

the US men team drew 76 million views [across four games], while the women drew 52 million viewers across seven games in 2015.

I'm not sure how the number of games makes a difference. And 52/76 is not 1/4. More like 2/3.

They also get insurance, something the men don't get

I can't take seriously the notion that insurance makes up for a $50K difference in base pay. If my employer wanted to give me a $50K raise in exchange for them dropping me from their group plan, I'd probably take it and so would most people.

There's good information in what you're saying, and my main point is, that there's really no good way to slice it from talking points and headlines, to argue with complete certainty that they are paid as much as they should be paid by any reasonable metric (other than "shit happens") really doesn't have a lot of cards to stand on.

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Okay, but why is it less valuable, and why is there less interest?

Because people like watching men play sports...its the same reason the NBA is ways more popular than the WNBA. They are the biggest, fastest, and most athletic.

And that statement is only true worldwide -- not within the US.

People watch the USWNT for the same reason they watch Olympic Swimming. They want to see USA win. If the USMNT made the WC final the rating would be massive and would dwarf the USWNT ratings.

Well, that's the numbers everyone is using to retort the pay gap argument.

Its terrible data to focus on 3 years. At least focus on 4 year cycles, because soccer works in 4 year cycles. This last 4 year cycle is a statistical outlier from the last 30 years.

I'm not sure how the number of games makes a difference. And 52/76 is not 1/4. More like 2/3.

How does number of games not make a difference? I'm not sure what you are getting at with the 2/3 thing. Where did I even say 52/76 was 1/4? I don't understand what you are getting at. My point is that the men got more viewers over less games than the women.

I can't take seriously the notion that insurance makes up for a $50K difference in base pay. If my employer wanted to give me a $50K raise in exchange for them dropping me from their group plan, I'd probably take it and so would most people.

Thats fine, still a benefit the women get and men don't. So it should be said.

There's good information in what you're saying, and my main point is, that there's really no good way to slice it from talking points and headlines, to argue with complete certainty that they are paid as much as they should be paid by any reasonable metric (other than "shit happens") really doesn't have a lot of cards to stand on.

Ok

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the 2/3 thing. Where did I even say 52/76 was 1/4?

So my 1/4 was flawed, but the math as done in the USWNT's pay gap argument is that

if both teams played and won 20 "friendly" matches in a year, the women would earn a maximum of $99,000 and the men would earn an average of $263,320, according to the suit. In this scenario, players on the women’s team would earn 38% of what the men earn.

So the payout of games won is (generously) about 2/5 for women versus men, but your numbers show that the total viewership between the two is more like 2/3 women versus men. Now, perhaps naively, in raw economics, if ad time pricing is based on eyeballs, N viewers should equate to K*N ad revenue -- unless, of course, the ad medium (e.g. broadcasters) is underselling those ad times for some reason. But why? As I said elsewhere, most marketers will agree that women are the more profitable ad audience because they influence much more of total purchasing. If that's so, then underselling women's sports time versus men's in an otherwise comparable sport would be economically backwards. Not that it's uncommon, but the numbers don't support it economically.

Incidentally, part of the USWNT's suit alleges that USSF is underpromoting women's soccer, which if true, would artificially depress potential revenue. That would seem to put a significant dent in the revenue-based argument.

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Where does 1/4 come into play

It was a mistake. I said so. I provided a source with more correct numbers than my 1/4 which was wrong. Repeat, my 1/4 was wrong.

Your 2/5 women vs men has zero context to it

I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to do math for you, but the story I linked and quoted said "the women’s team would earn 38% of what the men earn." Now, 38% is very close to 4/10 which if we remember fractions from fourth grade, that reduces to 2/5.

Women don't care about sports as much as men. Thats why mens sports are more valuable

Apparently 53 million people care about WNT and 72 million people care about MNT. That's your numbers from your comment yesterday. Again, doing fractions here, 53/72 is pretty close to 2/3, and that's being generous.

So your argument basically says that since only 2/3 (67%) as many people watch WNT versus MNT, then it's totally fair that the WNT should make 2/5 (40%) as much as MNT, because reasons.

If you don't want to do math that's fine, but that makes any argument you make about how much someone should make versus someone else pretty much based on absolutely nothing.

(Sigh, I thought this was going pretty civilly...)

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Men's games have more attendance, more viewership, and higher ticket prices.

The only way women outearned men in the USFF is they played more games, or they're including sponsorships or merchandising, thus not comparing apples to apples.

> Another wrinkle has popped up recently. Both US men's and women's teams get (different) bonuses for winning each game. However, the US men's team players get paid a bonus of $5K for losing a match(!), while the women's team gets $0 bonus for losing a match.

More accurately men get a smaller bonus when they lose than if they win, and so do women. Women just make less either way.

> The best part is, everybody insists their math is the most fair, yet nobody really uses a full-picture calculation. They selectively pick the numbers that provide them with their desired outcome.

You mean like inconsistently making relative and absolute comparisons, conflating ticket sales, ad from game viewership, merchandising sales, and team/player specific sponsorship?

The USWNT is probably more popular as of late than the USMNT in terms of merchandising and sponsorship, but when it comes to games played, men bring in more each game.

If you're a car salesman and sell more sedans than trucks, but the overall profit you make for your dealership is less than the salesman that sold more trucks than sedans, that doesn't mean it's unfair or you should get a slice of the latter salesman's commission.

Wage gap claims always rely on overaggregation, not actually comparing apples to apples.

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem here is there is some confusion over the issue.

The World Cup is run by FIFA.

The lawsuit in question is against the USFF, not FIFA.

No country's men's team is paid based on the worldwide FIFA revenue, so it's completely an irrelevant data point.

The teams get a slice of the pie, and their slice is 7-9%. The women's teams got a 13% slice in 2014 and like 20% slice in 2019.

More importantly, the overaggregation is them using overall USFF revenues, ignoring that the women played more games, and opted for in their contract a base salary over higher bonuses per game.

The men don't get a base salary. Ironically enough if both teams lose all their games, they get the same amount at the end of the year.

The women signed their contract 2 years ago, then sued the USFF a year later. They either didn't read their contract, are bad at math, underestimated their ability to win games, or are lying about the situation to hope the USFF settles for fear of public backlash.

[–]santa_s_slave 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]santa_s_slave 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]santa_s_slave 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ranter619 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ranter619 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ranter619 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loloLogic 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]loloLogic 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YeahImJustThatAwesom 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ScottishGamer1909 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realvmouse -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More important than "correct" is whether they are meaningful.

As an example, who pays the athletes? And are those specific bodies seeing an equal proportion of income?

To illustrate, suppose the figures are total income generated through ads, merchandise, and sales. But suppose the US isn't very interested in Men's soccer, and the advertising in the US market is much cheaper compared to other nations. Suppose instead that most of that money accrues to european, african, and latin american markets. Why would we expect the US men's team to take a high portion of that? Or suppose that FIFA pays out prize money that is being factored in, but a US soccer association pays out its own base income-- now we need to look at how the US soccer association gets its income.

I'm not saying this is the case, but the article does nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

And beyond that, it ignores issues of why men and women's teams generate different incomes. Is it really just lack of interest? Or did companies decide to invest in men's soccer, to hype it, etc? Did you know, for example, that until recently, women's soccer jerseys didn't come in men's sizes? When they rolled out men's sizes, merchandise revenue grew dramatically. How many other factors like this might be at play?

I agree with you folks that the solution isn't just to decree equal salaries. I think it's scary when we talk about simply legislating the problem away, because it's not always caused by a simple, sexist choice by an employer. But it's also a concern when people focus ONLY on justifying the current disparity, as opposed to considering the factors that lead to it and how we could alleviate or change them.

I listened to Mark Levin just yesterday talk about the different viewer interest in men's vs women's soccer as if it's just an immutable truth, that media and tech companies don't influence what we watch and see and have no control over our media consumption or attitudes towards the world. Then 30 minutes later in the same show he blamed the media for influencing people's opinion on social issues and the Trump administration, as if the media controls our attitude towards the world.

The truth is somewhere in between, and if we don't talk more about those issues, nothing will change. The problem is, people on this subreddit aren't interested in change, because the equation posted here simply proves there's no problem to start with in your mind, instead of simply showing you that the problem lies elsewhere and still needs to be addressed.

And by the way, as usual I'm not gonna stick around to answer questions or debate on this sub, I'm perfectly capable of imagining the insults and outrage that typically follow without bothering to read them. But yes, I do think male models should be paid more and the culture that leads to the income disparity should be changed. And for all the other long list of how men are screwed over in various places and women have advantages, yes yes yes same for all-- it's a problem, it's not as easy as "stop ripping them off you evil CEO," and we should talk about the factors that cause it.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Do0ozy -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]El-even 176 points177 points178 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeneralSpacey 46 points47 points48 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RileyW92 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]RileyW92 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puncherfaust1 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 70 points71 points72 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ice_cube33 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xxdibxx 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbackwards 35 points36 points37 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]edwadokun 116 points117 points118 points 7 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eleazaros 95 points96 points97 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]theferrit32 -22 points-21 points-20 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eleazaros 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]theferrit32 -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smitty1017 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eleazaros 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Eleazaros -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]15Wolf 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puncherfaust1 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pd159 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alexanderchaparral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]long_black_road 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]donkeygong 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mwakay 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emochind 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]just5this 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lendari 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I mostly agree with your post. Most of the issue is related to the USSF and revenue earned. It seems like the women's team does pretty well filling stadiums for friendly games, so based on revenue earned the women have a case for more pay.

That said, FIFA prize money will play a role in determining what sort of bonuses are payable for progress in the World Cup.

I believe I read that the winning federation gets $3 million from FIFA for a women's World Cup but $40 million for a men's World Cup.

If the USSF pays bonuses for winning the World Cup, it would be difficult to find a number that would be fair for both the men and the women. If the women split $1.5 million for winning the World Cup that might be appropriate given the prize money. But paying the men $1.5 million in the unlikely event that they win the World Cup would be a massive underpayment.

IMO, probably the solution is to pay equally for base pay with the men having higher potential bonuses from tournaments (proportional to the prize money).

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Limiting things to the US, the women's team earned more revenue for the USSF. My understanding is that that is a combination of the women's team playing more games than the men and having pretty good attendance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years.

That’s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women’s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men’s games. From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games.

The Journal report notes that the “ability of the women’s team to generate gate revenues that equals or exceeds the men’s team is an important battleground,” and central to an ongoing lawsuit filed against the USSF by 28 members of the U.S. women’s national soccer team in March.

I think there are reasons why the men might be paid more. You mention one - the men have a riskier contract. The women chose a more stable salary. But if the women are bringing in more revenue, they can make a reasonable argument that they should be paid the same as the men.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Again my argument is not that the women deserve more. It's just that there are plausible arguments for it.

I also want to point out that the Washington Post article says:

If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount. That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary.

I generally agree that if you take a safe salary instead of a bonus structure you should expect to be paid less. You are forcing the employer to take on more risk. If you accept the bonuses, you are taking the risk.

However, that quote above strikes me as counter to that idea. If the women have a base salary that is equal to the men who lose every game, I'm not sure what the upside is.

Normally I would expect if you take the salary you should do somewhat better when your results are poor and much worse when the results are good.

If you are doing equal or worse in every situation, I question the value of taking the safe salary.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, the women make more by winning than losing. They have small bonuses.

But what I'm saying is that the women make the same as the men if they each play 20 games and lose them all. If the each win 1 game of 20 the women get a small bonus, the men get a large bonus and there is a small gap in pay. If they each win 2 games out of 20 the gap widens. If they each win 20 the gap reaches it's maximum.

Normally if someone takes the security of a base salary they expect a trade-off. They make less than they could have otherwise negotiated when they do well, but they make more than they otherwise could have negotiated when they do poorly.

Here's a hypothetical chart of what a team could have offered its players.

Games Won	Only Salary	Mixed	Only Bonus
0	100k	50k	0k
5	100k	90k	80k
10	100k	130k	160k
15	100k	170k	240k
20	100k	210k	320k

I made it so that on average the person taking the bonuses would do better. But I also made it so that under certain conditions taking the safe salary would be better. That's the type of offer that would be worth thinking about. And if you chose to take the safe salary and "lost" money because of it, you shouldn't cry - you made your choice.

If the offers are like this though - one offer is clearly better than the other.

Games Won	Only Salary	Only Bonus
0	100k	100k
5	100k	150k
10	100k	200k
15	100k	250k
20	100k	300k

In that case there is no choice to make. The "bonus" offer pays more in every case, so you take that. No one would ever choose the safe option in this case

For any given level of success the women make less than the men. It's my conclusion that the women were not offered a similar deal as the men.

[–]brownhorse 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You are comparing just the revenue from the games. There's revenue from the amount of views and fans men and women have. Men get twice the amount of views women get and that's why they get more recognition. Not only that but we also have sponsorships which also bring in more revenue. And merch as well which the men's soccer team sells. What people do is they compare how many wins women and men have which doesn't even matter since women compete against other women and men compete against other men and if the roles were reversed, the women's soccer team would get demolished in almost every game possible because men generally and scientifically, biologically speaking are better, faster and stronger athletes than women. A pure example of that is how women got defeated by a bunch of 15 year old high school students who are not even professionals. They haven't even gone through puberty yet. Women are paid more in terms of revenue - 13% compared to men, so that's a huge gap. Men also have more attendance and hours worked overall.

[–]dejour -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What people usually do is they compare men and women despite the fact that they are different. Women compete against other women. While men compete at a much higher and more difficult level. Since people love to compare them, I'm going to use the same analogy and say - the women's national soccer team got defeated by a bunch of 15 year old Dallas boys who don't even play on professional level. The Australian national team was also defeated by a 16yo team. So, no they are not better. Put them on the field and let's see who gets demolished.

Women don't pull in the same crowds. Men on average get 3 times the amount of weekly attendances women get - 21 thousand and women - 7 thousand. Their viewership has declined by 22% and the men's has declined by only 17%. Men generate more World Cup revenue. The only year women generated more was in 2016 and 2% of the money was in their favour. In 2018 the men's team brought in $13 million compared to the women's which generated $12 million. In 2014-2015 the men's team brought in $8.31 million which is $11.71 million more than the women's national team. The Russian team generated over 6 billion in terms of FIFA revenue. Players get compensation money for playing in the World Cup. This is ultimately shaped more by the international soccer governing body, FIFA, than by U.S. Soccer.

For the 2018 men’s World Cup, the prize money was $400 million. People invest more money in the men's soccer team - it attracts more people all around the world, it is more intense, competitive, men compete at a higher level, there's more adrenaline due to the biological difference between men and women and like this person said - their contract is a bit riskier. (I personally think we should spend more money on women and work on their conditions, but marketing is more important). Soccer players also earn money from sponsorships and overall marketing.

Under the new agreement the women's team is paid a guaranteed salary and then they collect bonuses on top of that while the men's team is paid only in bonuses.

Men are paid less in terms of revenue - they are paid 7%-9% of the revenue they generate while women are paid 13% to 25% of the revenue they get. So, you either make it 9% for women or 13%-20% or 25% for men.

[+]theferrit32 -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_kitties74 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sparky_PoptheTrunk 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Do0ozy -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

"We're only women, we can't compete with men and we're not as good as them."

"We're getting paid less than the men and its not fair!"

Here are sports/ situations where that is not true....

Beach volleyball...women cannot compete with men...common sense could easily see them getting paid more.

WWE...Women cannot compete with men in terms of physical feats...common sense could easily see them getting paid more.

Hell even a woman accountant that cannot compete with a man accountant could get paid more depending on where they work.

Here is one last point to show you why what you are saying makes no sense.

With your logic, the u15 team that beat the USA women's team should get paid more than the world cup winning national team. The women "cannot compete with them", are "not as good as them." Yet the u15 team probably pays to play...

This debate has nothing to do with how women vs men match us head to head...literally nothing...

It has to do with who preforms better in their respective area, who brings in the money, the viewers....etc...

We all know that men are a lot better than women at sports...

This has nothing to do with if the women's soccer team would beat the men's team.

Hell lets go form a soccer team and scrimmage the women's team, if we beat them, we deserve to get paid more than them. <- Your logic.

Edit: Thought of another good example. UFC and Boxing. Women are often paid more. No one is saying those fighters could beat even the worse male UFC fighter.

My main point is that the skill level (or athleticism) often has nothing to do with the pay. 'No one is arguing that women are better athletes than men. no one EVER argues that.' -me

[–]Shnook82 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

You have gone off on a tangent. You realize the US women's team constantly references the US men's team when it comes to pay? My point is that they're happy to compare salaries when it suits them. That seems hard for you to understand for some reason.

Hell lets go form a soccer team and scrimmage the women's team, if we beat them, we deserve to get paid more than them.

No, we get paid nothing, and likewise they should get paid nothing. The fact that they can't perform above amateur level means they shouldn't be getting paid at all. The reason they're getting paid is because their competition is being restricted to women only, and then being televised / promoted on that basis. Your point about women being paid to be eye candy kind of rams that home (beach volleyball, WWE, porn, modeling, etc).

The point you don't seem to get is that if it was a fair, open competition to all, it wouldn't exist because no one is going to pay to see men play at such a low standard. The fact there's a women's world cup at all just highlights the double standards on sexism where women can demand parity for their own inferior competition.

[–]Do0ozy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Hard for me to understand huh? The US women’s team constantly references the men because of their similar revenue and much better respective performances. This has nothing to do with who wins head to head..as you were previously implying was important.

“The reason they're getting paid is because their competition is being restricted to women only, and then being televised / promoted on that basis. Your point about women being paid to be eye candy kind of rams that home (beach volleyball, WWE, porn, modeling, etc).”

EXACTLY. It does not matter about head to head athleticism, as you were insisting before.

“The point you don't seem to get is that if it was a fair, open competition to all, it wouldn't exist because no one is going to pay to see men play at such a low standard. The fact there's a women's world cup at all just highlights the double standards on sexism where women can demand parity for their own inferior competition.”

Here you contradict your previous ‘point’ The reason the women are getting paid, as you just admitted, is because they play and are marketed in their own league, a women’s league (which everyone knows has inferior athletes). People are watching a sport with athletes they know to be inferior. Therefore this pay debate has NOTHING to do with men’s vs women’s athleticism . And if you want to argue women’s sports shouldn’t exist that makes you wrong, because they often bring in profits.

This is starting to be painful, especially when you keep telling me I’m missing your point...while admitting that you were wrong and I was right...without noticing. Hell I just explained it and you still probably won’t notice. So you have a good one. I’m likely done responding.

[–]Shnook82 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is insane. Performance...can meet multiple things...comparing the economic ‘performance’ of these two teams is what we need to be doing. Comparing athletic ‘performance’ of these of men vs women DOES NOT MATTER.

Jesus dude this is ridiculous, You just admitted in your previous comment that women can justifiably get paid more if they are marketing a certain way and successful in certain circles, or more successful in the same circles...

Again, look at the ufc...womens fight’s economic (performance) is often better than the men’s, while the men’s (physical) performance is always better than the women’s. The women often get paid more because of their (economic) performance. The physical performance is irrelevant in the pay debate, as it is economic performance that matters.

Hence why I say. “Stop saying men are better athletes is relevant because EVERYONE already knows this and NO ONE hardly EVER argues against this.”

Jesus CHRIST dawg 🥴 🔫

[–]Shnook821 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The only point you've put forward is that women will be remunerated more when they're treated as eye candy. One of your other points was that "sometimes someone gets paid more than someone else who is better at their job", as if that's a justification? Another one was wrestling, which isn't sport, its scripted entertainment with jacked actors.

I get your dithering excuse for an argument that if women play 30 matches and manage to cobble enough ticket receipts together to match what the men make in 10 matches, but that isn't the same "economic" performance given these matches don't pop out of thin air with no cost.

You talk about "physical" performance like it is irrelevant - if you are better at what you do, you deserve to get paid more, and if you work in a field where the access to it is arbitrarily restricted by gender, then you deserve to get paid less. The fact that this doesn't happen is evidence of the double standard / sexism in place. Men are producing a superior product and more people consume it when its available, ergo men are paid more.

Yet again, you keep ignoring this point, why is it OK for the women to pick and choose the manner in which their game is compared to the men's game? The "economic" performance is only comparable if you don't understand economics.

Jesus CHRIST dawg 🥴 🔫

Please do. I'd hoped you'd stop replying. You're boring me to tears and can't seem to understand any viewpoint other than your own.

[–]Do0ozy0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You need to remember what we are discussing. We are discussing whether the athleticism of women relative to men is relevant in terms of the discussion of pay relative to men. It is not, because economic performance (obviously profit which equals revenue minus expenses...), is the only relevant factor. This can be seen by sports such as mma, in which women are often paid more. Sports like tennis, which have hugely paid stars like Venus and Serena, are other easily seen examples.

This is so wild to me how I’ve needed to say the same things over and over again.

If you respond, please explain how the fact that women are less athletic than men by itself is relevant at all in these types of discussions...because the only relevant thing is clearly the comparing profits.

“Why is it up to the women to pick and choose how their game is compared the the men’s game?”

Dude...if this was a discussion about the men’s game vs women’s game, obviously we could compare the athleticism, but it’s a question about pay, so the head to head athleticism is irrelevant.

This is absolutely ridiculous...

[–]Shnook821 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shnook821 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shnook821 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shnook821 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhalestepDM 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]at2wells 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ransal 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Do0ozy -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Do0ozy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Mate you are using CNN as your main source which is completely inaccurate. Men overall bring in more revenue compared to women which comes not only from their games, but also from views, sponsorships, etc. Men in general get more views compared to women and more sponsorships so they are paid more money. Their sport has made way more money over the years - statistically speaking it's 2:1. Men also bring in more viewers, more excitement, etc and attendance which is - 24k for men and 14k for women. Also, women are competing against other women while men compete against other men which biologically speaking plays a huge part. The women's soccer team got beat by a bunch of male high school students who are not even professionals so that speaks a lot. It's funny how feminists only complain when women are the victims when in reality women outearn men in so many fields and one of them is modeling which further proves the point of male disposability.

[–]euanmac369 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]aspoels1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, THANK YOU. Normally the pay gap is a lie, but not in this situation. The US Men’s team is god awful and generates less money but the players make more than the female players who kick ass and generate more money.

[–]Shnook82 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GerinX 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShrekBeeBensonDCLXVI 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]everymanawildcat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]inspective 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DopeMeme_Deficiency 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]candidly1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DopeMeme_Deficiency 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]candidly1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Firegecko 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Felinomancy 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodmod[M] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tothecatmobile 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rsvp_to_life 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KAZZZSPIELPLAZZZ 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soochiexba 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]slixx_06 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]slixx_06 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlternativeEgan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomatohtomato 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]frankgold 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PapaMGTOW 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]candidly1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drpepper02 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thegaygent 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]JaxJags904 -24 points-23 points-22 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 57 points58 points59 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chernoobyl 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rom8n 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]theferrit32 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]theferrit32 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]theferrit32 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RoSeN_kId 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quintrell 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JaxJags904 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HowardPhillips9 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JaxJags904 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loddfavne -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]WarOfNoise1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

9% of $4 billion: $360 million

13% of $73 Million: $9.49 million

[–]Nicksvibes 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtfschool -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nforne 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As u/myRedditAcct2 said:

my god. i didn't realize this STILL needed explaining in 2019 ....

look my dude: international men's soccer is HIGHLY competitive. the US men's team has to compete with literally 100+ highly skilled teams around the planet, as these countries--the men that is--have been perfecting the sport for about 1,000 years.

on the other hand, there are maybe 3-5 top tier women's teams (i bet you can figure out why), so there is virtually no competition for a sound US women's team.

the US women's team was a decent favorite to win every single matchup the played; the closest they had to a coin flip was against England at 60/40. Note the game against Thailand where the US won 13-0 .... this would never happen on the men's side because the top tier talent isn't NEARLY as variant as it is on the women's side. think about how bad the teams are that didn't qualify if Thailand is setting the bench mark for the women .....

furthermore: in the US, there is no money in playing soccer. all the top tier athletes start perfecting their craft in high school and college and none of them are going to choose soccer when the NBA, MLB, and especially the NFL superstars make tens of millions of dollars per year. there's just no supply of great male athletes going into soccer in the US. facts.

when you see things like this show up in the real world, it's often helpful to add context to the conversation. otherwise you come off as sounding like a complete moron

[–]wtfschool 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nforne 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wtfschool 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ament215 -26 points-25 points-24 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]karns1041 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ament215 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]karns1041 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ExiledSenpai -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]romopa -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]myRedditAcct2 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

my god. i didn't realize this STILL needed explaining in 2019 ....

look my dude: international men's soccer is HIGHLY competitive. the US men's team has to compete with literally 100+ highly skilled teams around the planet, as these countries--the men that is--have been perfecting the sport for about 1,000 years.

on the other hand, there are maybe 3-5 top tier women's teams (i bet you can figure out why), so there is virtually no competition for a sound US women's team.

the US women's team was a decent favorite to win every single matchup the played; the closest they had to a coin flip was against England at 60/40. Note the game against Thailand where the US won 13-0 .... this would never happen on the men's side because the top tier talent isn't NEARLY as variant as it is on the women's side. think about how bad the teams are that didn't qualify if Thailand is setting the bench mark for the women .....

furthermore: in the US, there is no money in playing soccer. all the top tier athletes start perfecting their craft in high school and college and none of them are going to choose soccer when the NBA, MLB, and especially the NFL superstars make tens of millions of dollars per year. there's just no supply of great male athletes going into soccer in the US. facts.

when you see things like this show up in the real world, it's often helpful to add context to the conversation. otherwise you come off as sounding like a complete moron

[–]romopa 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]myRedditAcct2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]teaspoontablespoon1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Women get paid more because they win.

[–]NEO_040 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]teaspoontablespoon1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Did they not just win a world cup?

[–]NEO_040 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]tan_walk -21 points-20 points-19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]queendead2march19 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nforne 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As u/myRedditAcct2 said:

my god. i didn't realize this STILL needed explaining in 2019 ....

look my dude: international men's soccer is HIGHLY competitive. the US men's team has to compete with literally 100+ highly skilled teams around the planet, as these countries--the men that is--have been perfecting the sport for about 1,000 years.

on the other hand, there are maybe 3-5 top tier women's teams (i bet you can figure out why), so there is virtually no competition for a sound US women's team.

the US women's team was a decent favorite to win every single matchup the played; the closest they had to a coin flip was against England at 60/40. Note the game against Thailand where the US won 13-0 .... this would never happen on the men's side because the top tier talent isn't NEARLY as variant as it is on the women's side. think about how bad the teams are that didn't qualify if Thailand is setting the bench mark for the women .....

furthermore: in the US, there is no money in playing soccer. all the top tier athletes start perfecting their craft in high school and college and none of them are going to choose soccer when the NBA, MLB, and especially the NFL superstars make tens of millions of dollars per year. there's just no supply of great male athletes going into soccer in the US. facts.

when you see things like this show up in the real world, it's often helpful to add context to the conversation. otherwise you come off as sounding like a complete moron

[+]nochumpluv -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]CHYGame1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait until we change the woman team lineup to transgender men. We will be unstoppable

[–]NEO_040 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shnook82 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bryce14101 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Serious question... why do the men generate more when the women get more viewers?

[+]CHYGame1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Men soccer generate more views

[–]sprogger 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maximus673 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GOSUop 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	It sad how true this is
Author	CHYGame
Upvotes	4420
Comments	272
Date	July 11, 2019 7:47 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cc0bv5/it_sad_how_true_this_is/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/it-sad-how-true-this-is.873774 https://theredarchive.com/post/873774

Comments