TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Thought this belonged here

MrFootlongOG

July 8, 2019
3365 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://i.redd.it/dqcle1mlz2931.jpg
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Thought this belonged here
Author

MrFootlongOG

Upvotes 3365
Comments 271
Date July 8, 2019 1:24 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cakzlo/thought_this_belonged_here/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/thought-this-belonged-here.874040
https://theredarchive.com/post/874040
Top posts by MrFootlongOG

Woman murdered a man and was initially only charged with manslaughter. Later it got bumped up to murder, but was reduced because she was under “Sudden Passion”. Also, her family testified that men had molested her early in life. If genders were reversed, the murderer would be on death row.

146 upvotes
October 2, 2019
/r/MensRights

This is a rare one. A cop AND a woman was denied, against all odds.

1 upvotes
October 1, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

She murdered someone and only got 10 years...

1 upvotes
October 2, 2019
/r/PussyPass

Comments

[–]zalinanaruto 623 points624 points625 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

the real problem isnt women soccer. basic economy 101 is supply and demand. they need to create demand for women soccer. and then more money will flow in thus high salary. just asking for money and not creating real demands is not a sustainable option. not having gold cup final, copa america final, and women's worldcup final on the same day would be a start.

[–]MrFootlongOG 324 points325 points326 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I just don’t think they realize that they’re chanting for 9%.

Equal is equal

[–]Mykeru 195 points196 points197 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Equal" means anything they want it to mean: More, less, the same, depending on how much gain they get from it.

​

Subject to revision 30 seconds later.

[+]DelayedNeutron1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Equal means "more than we're getting now for our lesser contribution."

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

"Equal" also means "As a woman I'm against the draft now that women may be subjected to the draft which means men benefit, even though, as a woman, I didn't give a shit when only men could be drafted"

[–]samuraishogun1 35 points36 points37 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're crying for "equity".

And that might just ruin women's sports by trying to "help" it.

[–]BeeStingsAndHoney 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had an argument with my friend over this. It was just before Jordan Peterson became a big name. I was trying to explain that the pay gap was based on different work hours and career choices. Women's sport came up and I asked her how much sport she watched. When you personalize it, as a way of localizing/simplifying the problem, people get defensive. It is suddenly not a general or hypothetical issue, but one a single person has a mild impact on. At the end of the day people watch men's sport more. It will gradually change spending on the sport. People like women's MMA for instance, and the women are paid a lot if popular.

[–]samuraishogun1 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or for the guys to get 13% as well.

[–]zalinanaruto 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

true from this subreddit perspective. i was coming from a soccer fan perspective lol.

[–]Schadrach 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, they're chanting for an identical dollar value, regardless of income or interest.

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

But some pay is more equal than others.

[–]Pioustarcraft 69 points70 points71 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Exactly, it's like if male kayakist (whatever you call them) suddenly asked to be paid equal as female soccer players... The women would be like "well, fuck off, you don't generate as much revenue or attention as us"...

[–]Ship2Shore 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Plus kayaking is done on the river. I ain't paying for a ticket mister, I'm just gonna go watch from down the river a bit there, oh, you're gonna throw me out!? I'm already out! It's a river! Id just go hide out by the rocks, the kayakers are getting zero of my dollars. Can't sneak into a stadium as easy. Maybe I'm too hung up on the analogy? Stadiums have huge overheads that need to be covered consistently. Once a vested stadium can rely on your business, they are more likely to sponsor you a whole stadium, and cover the overheads with advertising and TV deals. Women's soccer, like the WNBA, fundamentally miss this part in particular. That's why professional sport is considered entertainment. And that's why college football is different to the NFL, they serve different entertainment options. Women's soccer should adapt, by changing rules, perhaps to a smaller field, because they aren't, and will never be as entertaining as the guys playing the same sport.

[–]uglybaldmofo2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminists create demand through : Guilt, lawsuits, boycotts, etc. It's never real demand driven by consumers

It's not really fun to watch women's sports for more sports fans. Why would you watch second-rate players when you could watch people who are literally 50x better than them? It would be like the difference between watching a high school basketball game and watching the NBA finals

[+]notrlyjeses1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

very few people want to watch high school level athletes...

[–]boxsterguy 39 points40 points41 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not even.

[–]The_Adeptest_Astarte 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All these games that professional women's sports teams lose to children are mostly brushed off as the women not trying or just using the match as some exercise.

If that's the case they should start putting some fucking effort in so the don't look so shitty and people can quit throwing these things in their faces

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

The other issue is men playing against women, men can't win because any contact will be Violence against Women. You can't be victims and sporting heroes at the same time.

[–]dontforgetthispw6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In college we'd have the "soccer sorority" challenge our regular fraternity every year (brother/sister type thing).

None of us in the fraternity were on the college soccer team. Some of us were O.K. in high school, however.

All of the women who played against us were on the championship-winning woman's team.

The fraternity got very day drunk as is customary and brought kegs (for ourselves) to the game.

For 4 years, we absolutely destroyed the women's team in scrimmage. I'm talking shutouts, and we would consistently beat them by 7-14 goals. at a certain point we just began playing around.

It's not even close. It's like in football when the best college team in the nation goes against the worst NFL team. NFL wins every single time.

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

To be clear fc dallas academy could mop the floor with nearly and high school team, thats the top of the talent pool for American soccer. I dont think its fair to say not even.

[–]14b755fe39 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, even if the women played better than men. They need to sell merchandise, tickets, get their games broadcasted etc to make $$$.

[–]goat_nebula 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I work in sales. Imagine me selling 50x less than my colleague at a much better commission plan and bitching at the weekly meeting why I’m not paid the same even though they sell $5million a year and I sell $100k...

I’d be fired.

[–]bstaples26 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But sometimes there's just not a demand for a product or service but that doesn't equate to male privilege

[–]ellamking 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The lawsuit is only partially because of unequal pay from making the world cup. They also make <half of the men for non-tournament matches while having parity in revenue, and having fewer expenses (less promotion). It's complicated because there's a whole host of different pay structures, season structures, tournament, non-tournament, merchandise, sponsorship, etc. This post is ridiculous--nobody would compare fair sports salaries looking only at Superbowl vs World Series revenue.

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

Same day but not at the same time. Nothing is keeping people from watching both games

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

not having gold cup final, copa america final, and women's worldcup final on the same day would be a start.

All 3 were on the same day?

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

yup. rapinoe was also on tv bashing the organisers about that.

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

Ok, so when you're talking about demand, what do you mean? Like, viewers for cup games?

[–]braulio09 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Merch sold, tickets sold, tv rights value

[+]CervantesX -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tv rights are bundled with the men's, so that's not something we can use. But in terms of viewership, the women's games draw more. The 2015 cup was the most viewed soccer game in US history.

In tickets sold, the women have generated $900,000 more over the last two years.

I can't find any jersey sales numbers, but the number one all time jersey is for one of the current women's team members.

So far it's seeming like they're kinda right.

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

Maybe, but if I were doing the same job as someone else and getting a small fraction of the pay, I'd still feel quite salty about it.

[–]lethrowaway4me 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But it's not the same job. And why wouldn't performance in the job be a factor in how much compensation one could expect??

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

Well, I mean in thus instance since its soccer, it is the same job. Only difference is that it's women's soccer instead of men's. Sure there might not be as much demand, but that really isn't the fault of the players.

[–]JoeSchmoe777 204 points205 points206 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The men need a pay increase immediately to fix the intolerably sexist gender pay gap they are experiencing. Equity for all!

[+]GrassCandle1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

They should give the FC Dallas U-15 team a pay raise for beating the USWNT. The boys team showed they are clearly superior athletes, winning 5-2.

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

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

Or the women should forfeit their profits!

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

Aren’t men paid more due to their endorsement dues and such.

[–]such-a-mensch 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's irrelevant to this issue. This is about how much they are paid for being a member of the team.

Endorsement money is not really in the control of the soccer team.

[–]LuoSKraD 203 points204 points205 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The funny part is, they never complain about modeling careers where men are 'underpaid' compared to women. They just say its because women are asked for in higher demand. If its the other way arround in anything else where men are in higher demand, they scream equal pay and chant that the patriarchal system is the culprit. Love the double standard.

[+]WinBrosXP1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Right? And forgot the "wage gap," what about the workplace death gap? The prison inmate gap? The suicide rate gap? Homelessness gap? Feminism hasn't been about "equality" for decades.

They cry about their reproductive "rights" meanwhile men basically have no say in their reproduction. Want to keep the kid? Too bad, your chick wants an abortion. Don't want the kid? Too bad she wants it and you have to pay. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

[–]LuoSKraD 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Feminism now is about picking rights they want and discard everything else they don't want to acknowledge.

They want to live in high end homes but I don't see them screaming to try and get equal representation in construction for example. Want to ride expensive cars but don't want equal representation there. They just want to ocupy the top of the pyramid and leave any role that requires risk, bad conditions and physical workload to men.

It's the pinnacle of hipocrisy to try and demonise the other gender, scream we are strong and independent but then wanting to live off alot of what was made possible due to male work on roles women don't give a damn about. With this I'm not saying women didn't play an important role providing support in other areas throughout history that led to where are are today.

Its the hipocrisy they spew that annoys me, its like the society we have today came to be just out of thin air and men took over somehow and now women want their turn to play. Just how demented can one be.

[–]someguy92614 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone should make a # for this

[+]arjeidi -31 points-30 points-29 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The funny part is I rarely see underpaid men in a profession trying to get equal treatment. Women are more vocal because they've had to fight for the benefits they have and those benefits sometimes come under attack.

I mean wanting equality is fantastic but try to be a bit objective.

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

From what I can tell, men who are underpaid just switch jobs or move within the company, rather than just complaining about it and doing nothing. Amd what benefits applicable to women only that are under attack?

[–]WashWithaRagonaStick 124 points125 points126 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Almost half the world watched the men’s 2018 World Cup, with nearly 3.6 billion total viewers tuning in to watch some part of the tournament. The final match alone reached an audience of over 1.1 billion people. Subsequently, the tournament’s sponsor, FIFA, brought in a profit of over $6 billion.

The women’s team garners significant but substantially lower viewership. We don’t have current data yet for the 2019 tournament, but during the women’s last World Cup in 2015, 764 million viewers tuned in for some portion of the tournament. This is quite good, but it still pales in comparison to the men’s tournament's audience. Seeing as professional sports is an entertainment industry, it’s not at all unfair — let alone sexist — to pay teams more if they bring in larger audiences. With an audience five times as large, the men's World Cup is simply a bigger affair.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-it-isnt-sexist-that-womens-world-cup-teams-dont-get-equal-pay

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/financial-and-governance-report-2015-2770871.pdf?cloudid=asmgcqptmszlmj5quozr

The Wall Street Journal reported in June that Fox Sports was poised to receive, “upwards of $17 million in sponsorship revenue for [The 2015 Women’s World Cup].”

The sponsor revenue for the 2014 Men’s World Cup, $529 million. That is 31 times greater than the women’s event.

https://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2015/06/05/womens-world-cup-draws-strong-advertiser-demand-for-fox-sports/

https://www.businessinsider.com/fifa-brazil-world-cup-revenue-2015-3

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

In 2011 the Women’s World Cup hosted in Germany had earnings of $72,818,500. The South Africa World Cup in 2010, had sales of $3.7 billion. That is 50 times greater.

The 2014 World Cup was even a greater success, $4.8 billion.

"Pay equity" is nonsense and immaterial as the actual facts empirically dispute the premise. By their same "logic" the WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players. It's ridiculous and irrational as the WNBA has lost, on average $10MM annually, since it's creation, 6 NBA teams have folded, etc.

The NBA sponsors the floundering WNBA to the tune of tens of millions annually. It's a meaningless gong show that nobody watches.

https://fanbuzz.com/nba/ap-wnba-crossroads/

"Yet those numbers haven’t led to the league and its owners making money. The WNBA said it has lost a significant amount of money over the last 22 years, including $12 million last season.

“On average (we’ve lost) over $10 million every year we’ve operated,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told the AP in a phone interview in October."

Edit: "As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#3a8b05b6da4a

Ergo, the women are OVERpaid as a % of revenue, in comparison to the men.

[–]tylershenanigans29 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oof hit em with the facts

[–]MinuteTo2359 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

watch out with those hate facts... wouldn't want you to get gulag'd...

[–]Systemofwar 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

3.6 Billion. Woah.

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

I’m gonna paste this one every FB post I see about the USNWT and “equal” pay.

[–]MrFootlongOG 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, 9 and 13 are old stats. it’s 7 and 20 now

Edit: Washington post shows 9 and 13

[–]ZimbaZumba 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Woman's Soccer is an up and coming sport that is getting wall to wall media coverage. This is an attempt to establish it as a popular spectator sport on a par with men's club/international sports. This has been tried before and has failed, eg Women's NBA and Ice Hockey. Soccer though is probably the best positioned of women's team sports to achieve this; due to its mass participation, truly international nature and FIFA backing.

The reasons people watch and support sports team are very complicated. The list of factors is enormous, eg:- tribalism; exemplary skill; athleticism; tradition; social connection; heroes; drama and emotional experience; vicarious experience; ritual and spectacle etc, etc. The watching of men performing athletically also has deep roots in female mate selection and male self evaluation; from an evolutionary perspective male athletes are exemplary men. For women it can also be female porn.

Women's soccer is screwed on a number levels. The women's teams are not very skilled, a good team of 15 yr old boys would massacre the US team. They are also not especially athletic. There is no deep evolutionary reason for watching women running around in shorts, and men do not find it especially appealing.

The tradition and tribalism issues can be worked on. Media exposure can affect tradition, and the European teams are inheriting ready made tribalism by being part of top men's team organisations.

The USA is in a more precarious position. There is no tradition of watching soccer, despite its mass participation. There are also no truly popular US men's team to inherit tribalism from. Every few years at the World Cup and Olympics there will be strong support, this happens in most sports. But to maintain a strong club system and sustained national team support they need to create attachments to the teams. If you represent something political and are complainers, in particular a feminist like agenda, you will not represent many people. Their quest for tribal support will fail if they continue as is, and so will women's soccer in the USA.

tl;dr If the USA team continues to be political, women's soccer will not fully succeed in the USA.

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

There is no deep evolutionary reason for watching women running around in shorts, and men do not find it especially appealing.

I have to say I do enjoy watching women play volleyball but that's just me.

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

Women volleyball players arguably do not wear shorts :-). I did say "generally".

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

I love how before they won or anything like that, we didn't really hear much about women's soccer. Now that they won, they couldn't help but shove it down our throats. I've seen endless tweets about how women can do this just like the men. Why do they seem to always make it into some sort of a competition?

[–]chadwickofwv 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do they seem to always make it into some sort of a competition?

Because they are actually dumb enough to think that they would win a competition.

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

It's time we declare sex as non existent and remove sexually separated competition. :)

[–]Potato_Boi69 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Matt Walsh speaking straight facts

[–]Pritster5 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that honestly took me by surprise. He usually says some exceedingly stupid things.

[+]Pioustarcraft -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

he is from DailyWire, Ben Shapiro's website. They use facts but they also avoid certain other facts to make a point... So yes, that's a fact but if you want to counter him you could say that there is les revenue in the female cup because the marketing around it is a lot smaller as well. Less publicity = less public involvment and less money generated.

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

or there is less marketing because people don't care about women's soccer

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

well, i am not interrested in female soccer as it feels less skilled or high level as male soccer that being said, France made so much advertisment and marketing around the world cup that i watched it... France really thought they had a good chance at winning it and because it took place in France they went full throtle in it.
I watched it, it was distracting but it didn't seem as high level as male football.
My theory is that people are attracted to extreme professionalism. This is why watching a chef cut a carrot very fast is interresting to watch when in fact you could do it in your kitchen right now but less efficiently. I think this is why people are fascinated in sport in general. Some people are really good at it and it is fascinating to watch whether they run in a straight line for 9 seconds or because they kick a ball in a field or drive a car at 300 kph in a circle...
The female football games were interresting because they play better than me but if someone plays better than them i'll probably watch the better team play. This is also why big teams play on prime time while smaller teams play at other hours...
But in the end, it all comes down to "who's the best" and hen it comes down to it :
Who is the fastest human on earth ?
Who is the strongest personne on earth ?
Who came throw a rock the farthest ?
Who can jump the highest ?

Most of those records are held by men and not female and this is simply showing that men have in general an edge in sport over women. Men are usually more skilled/professional or whatever you want to call it. And if people are more attracked to the better player then men sports will be more attractive as a result...

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I have no doubt that if a TON of money was spent marketing the women's world cup more people would watch it, but that doesn't make it a good decision. I would guess most people who would be motivated to watch because of marketing are in a similar boat to you. They turned it on briefly, don't really care about it and certainly won't buy merch or something similar.

Most sports fans simply aren't interested in affirmative action sports and that's what women's sports are. Sports takes tens of millions (or hundreds of millions and even billions of players in the case of soccer) and distills them down to the best few thousand in the entire world. Women never make that cut which is why they're given affirmative action leagues in the first place.

This is why women in these sports rely on trying to shame sports orgs and government into stealing from men to subsidize women. And why wouldn't they? These orgs and governments do it because fuck men.

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

i agree with you on most of your point but i'll just point out something. If you are FIFA, you get one world cup every 4 years and 1 Eurocup every 4 years as well. So the frequency is :
year 1 WC
year 2 nothing
year 3 EC
year 4 nothing...

So if you are FIFA who's trying to make money, year 2 and 4 are "lost opportunities". So investing in marketing to get an event during year 2 and year 4 is profitable even if the quality isn't great. Because generating low revenues on something is better than generating zero revenues all together.

So for FIFA who's making money out of those events, the next move is to find an event that could take place in 2021 ( year 4 ). Because in the end, yes players make money but FIFA is the one making the most money from it all. So for FIFA, promoting the female world cup is more lucrative than having no event at all event if you don't find it good, some will and this is the only reason FIFA is pushing it. I can guarantee you that in 20121 they will push an event as well.

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

if you want to counter him you could say that there is les revenue in the female cup because the marketing around it is a lot smaller as well.

You could say that, but it is mere supposition. We have no reasonable basis to assume that if there were equal spend on promotion the revenue generated would be equal. Would it increase viewership/revenue? Almost certainly. Would it create parity? Almost certainly not.

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

well i can assure you that there is more advertisment for the male cup than the female one. look simply at the merchandising provided for the male cup and compare it to the merch from the female cup... marketing wise we speak about millions in difference.
But you are right, we can't say for sure that the viewership will be equal. Parity depends on too many factors to be achieved like :
location : the male world cup took place in south america meaning that less europeans could watch it all while the female world cup took place in europe where soccer is king. If you had inverted the host countries, the viewership would not be equal for sure.
Who's playing is also a factor. if the US is in the finals, more americans will be watching just because their country is playing meanwhile if they were eliminated in group stage, less americans would be watching the finals...
Against who are they playing ? watching the female destroy thailand 13-0 is fun but is a lot easier than if they were playing France. You won't face exactly equal opponents as well.
Basically, you can't create exact situations to compare.

Now what you could do is organize a showmatch between the best ranked female team and the best ranked male team and see what the result look like. if they are equaly skilled, the score should be close to 0-0 after 120 minutes... if they are not equaly skilled then the pay gap is justified based on skill...

[–]LeanMrfuzzles 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh they generate way more than four times as much. 6 Billion dollars compared to 130 or so million. Just because you're the best women in the world doesn't make you entitled to the same pay as the best men. You play a fucking game for a living, people would kill to be able to do that.

[–]kragshot 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

On a segue, the fact that nothing of any relevance happened to Hope Solo's career despite her fucked up behavior in years past will never allow me to truly support the US women's team.

They want equal pay...how about administering equal standards of conduct for their players? We all know that if a male athlete had done the shit that she did, his career would have been over...oh wait. Let's ask Ray Rice.

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

Ok but isnt Hope Solos career over? Shes done representing america at least. She might be making 20 grand a year playing in a minor league i suppose

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

I seriously doubt she's any more guilty than Tony Ferguson was...

Also, unless you admit to totally, 110% being down to fuck Tony Ferguson's brains out - and if you do, it's totally cool with me - I think you shouldn't automatically assume that, unlike Tony, she's certainly guilty; I understand how lust can sometimes influence a man to be biased.

You DFT, bro?

[–]Cuntplainer 117 points118 points119 points 7 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link

Not only that, but a team of 15 year old boys beat them.

[+]im_in_hiding -95 points-94 points-93 points 7 years ago* (43 children) | Copy Link

Why do people keep saying this as if it even matters towards the argument of pay?

Edit: to add to this, this was merely a scrimmage and not even to the same level as a friendly... these ladies absolutely did not give 100% into this match as they were expecting to play an actual international friendly later that week.

[–]Pioustarcraft 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

i'll just take his point for a second with this argument :
Kamala Harris tweeted that in the group phase, the female team scored more goals that the men team in 2 world cup and that should be enough to justify equal pay...
Well the female US team was the huge favorite and played against a very very weak team scoring 13 goals during that game...
So basicaly Kamala harris tweed could be summed up as "we are pros and we defeated sunday amateurs so pay us millions"...
I'll reverse the argument now...
Belgium male football team is ranked #1 in the world. They finnished 3rd at the world cup. Last april, the female football team played against the US female team and lost 6-0... Does that justify that the female team should not be paid at all because they suck ? No but that also doesn't justify equal pay...

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

It's as if multiple Democrats running for president seriously want tens of millions in taxpayer money to go to the women, while the men generate their own pay themselves. If that is not what they are implying, then where will the money come from if they personally are not going to start donating millions to the women's team?

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

most likely the men's pay will be lowered and it will be used to higher the female pay checks. this way no money is raised from tax payers (which will be happy). Women's salary will rise and it will be celebrated in the papers as a great victory. As few months later there ill be a small article in a corner of a newspaper saying that men's salary will be step by step made "more reflective" of the performances (understand "lowered" ) and no one will really bat an eye...

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

Ok.

[–]JustiniantheFirst 97 points98 points99 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Because if they are truly worth of a higher % of pay than men, they should at least be skilled and qualified enough to earn it. And getting beaten by 15 year olds shows they're actually terrible at their job and aren't good enough at their jobs to actually deserve that money.

It's like a normal job, if you're good enough you will keep making your salary, if you're not you get fired, or your pay reduced.

[+]im_in_hiding -110 points-109 points-108 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Their skill and ability shouldn't be compared to a completely different gender though. There are clear differences there. None of which have to do with money.

Get your head out of your ass.

[–]hahaz13 106 points107 points108 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

So...you're saying that skill and ability vastly differs with gender...yet you're arguing for equal pay between genders so that both genders are compensated equally....

Hmmmmm the mental gymnastics on this one

[+]im_in_hiding -58 points-57 points-56 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that none of it should affect pay. Pay should solely be tied to the revenue that the particular league is bringing in, and the fact that they lost to a U15 team, when they weren't even trying, during a scrimmage, has nothing to do with the revenue that the USWNT brings in and just makes you, and anyone who sticks with such a dumb shit position, seem like a sexist asshole.

Edit: This is like arguing with my ex-fiance. At no point did I say the women should get paid as much as the men. You're all just acting like triggered snowflakes because I'm pointing out that the comparison in physiques between young men and women is pointless in this discussion and will only ever come off as sexist.

[–]hahaz13 49 points50 points51 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm all for equal rights and quite rude of you to assume I'm sexist.

I'm just pointing out a contradicting statement you made.

Yes, I agree regardless of gender, the pay should be based on revenue. The USWNT already has a larger percentage of the revenue so what's the argument?

The first person's argument is that the revenue is lacking compared to men because women aren't as good as men. It's an inferior product to say the least. So comparing the performance of genders is inevitable.

[+]fw2a1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

They get a higher percentage of the revenue than the men do. They get 13% and the men get 9%. So what you're saying is we need to drop them down to 9% so it's fair?

[–]im_in_hiding 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

[+]fw2a1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Cool. I don't actually mind them getting a higher percentage of the take than the men do. It's a fine egalitarian point in a thought exercise but they negotiated 13% with an expectation of what that would yield and then agreed to play for that. The men can do the same and each can leverage their respective levels of success vs what they collectively and individually think is fair. Free markets don't have to take fair into consideration unless the forces on them compel them to.

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

I agree with all of that. I just don't see why them losing to a U15 in a scrimmage matters to any of it. And I actually think it distracts from any simple logical point that is being made.

[–]ethmer25 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ummmmmm. Your skill SHOULD affect your pay. If you can’t conpete against a bunch of puberty ridden fifteen year old boys. Yes they are male. But come on! Why would you be even ON the team if you don’t have the skill. It should be your work that earns the pay. Your skill set at any given job should always reflect the payment that you are given.

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

I disagree.

Their pay should be determined by the league's revenue.

[–]youraveragehumanoid 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is linked to public popularity which is in turn linked to skill of the players.

[–]Viper1-11 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m hearing a lot more aggression from you then is needed, why? What does being rude add to your argument.

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

No aggression, some frustration.

Equality is something I care for deeply, but this sub has become more and more toxic over time and it annoys me to see idiotic arguments brought up when it could just be so simple instead of just "hur hur the grown women lost to boys they don't deserve money" when it could simply be "the women's world cup didn't make as much money, but the teams are receiving a higher percentage of the revenue that's coming in."

But nah, we have to make it into something it's really not.

Edit: I will add in here too. I have 2 daughters. One of which gets frustrated playing against boys and I had to have a talk to her about how there are simple biological differences and that she should really only compare herself to her peers moving forward, but it's always good to practice against the boys because it'll just make you better. I put myself of what I would say if she were on the USWNT... and at no point would I tell her "well sweety, you lost to a U15 boys team in a scrimmage" as if it has anything to do with it... and there won't be a single good reaction to come from that from anyone. It could just as easily be "Well, it looks like the league you play for brings in less money, but let's focus on things we can do to increase the league's visibility."

I'm 100% about men's rights for many reasons. But I'm not all about complicating easy logical arguments with sexist thought processes. They don't have a place, IMO. That, or I don't have a place here. I don't really care either way.

[–]Viper1-11 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people here are toxic, but I would say the argument “they got beaten by a U15 boys team” is not entirely invalid I mean a Major Midget (U17) boys team beat the Team Canada women’s hockey team, it’s not that they suck it’s just that at the extremes boys will beat girls

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

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that none of it should affect pay.

If the entertainment that their skills provide shouldn't affect their pay then what should?

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

Revenue.

[–]ILOVEBOPIT 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lower skills, lower revenue. It’s tied.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It has everything thing to do with money when you're trying to sell an professional sports product whos sole purpose is to sell tickets in exchange for money.

when you can go watch high school boys play literally for free at a much higher and more entertaining level than these professional women then you have a problem with your business plan.

they know this, so they use wage gap misinformation and shaming tactics to get people interested in their sub par professional product and try to garner sympathy for these women who are owed nothing to play a sport.

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

An entire logical argument can be made to show why they shouldn't get "equal pay" without joking about them losing to a HS team in a game that they didn't even give 100% in.

At no point have I said they deserve equal compensation. I'm saying that bring up sexist comparisons isn't exactly helpful to the argument against their requests.

This sub is a big circle jerk of idiocy sometimes. Getting nearly as bad as feminism itself.

[–]kotabear2121 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Youre a fucking idiot lmao

[–]jameswalker43 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose I understand your emotions. browsing through r/mensrights inspired my greatly -- we take online dialogue for granted when actually it is a craft which should be mastered

[–]LeanMrfuzzles 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

We should schedule a match between the US men's team and the US women's team? I'd pay top dollar to watch that bloodbath.

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

I bet they’d complain if the men’s team ran the score up on them..oh the irony.

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

I feel like that's like a pity match. Aren't matchups normally made so the teams are somewhat equal skill wise? Or do super mismatched matchups happen often?

[–]im_in_hiding -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What would that even accomplish?

[–]Titsmcgeese 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Entertainment

[+]im_in_hiding -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's entertaining the laugh at the misfortune of others, mostly relating to things outside of their control?

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

Yes. The Germans have a whole word for it: Schadenfreude.

[–]SwiggityStag 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It would gain a LOT of viewership, which means the women's team would gain lots of revenue? If they get even close to the number of viewers of a normal men's team match, then the women, with their higher percentage of the revenue, would be in with a fortune. And the viewers would get entertainment. Its win/win, it's not like they're going to die from a football match.

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

I don't feel like it's a win-win. You're basically giving the female team a match they would never get normally, because of the skill gap. I'm sure a lot of small clubs would love the opportunity to play against some of the biggest clubs.

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

Money

[–]gprime8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do people keep saying this as if it even matters towards the argument of pay?

Two reasons:

1) Because one of the arguments being made for higher pay for women is that they're "better" than the men, and that is demonstrably false.

2) Because it speaks in part to why internationally women's soccer is worth so much less. The best women's team in the world loses to middle school aged boys, so why would the average soccer fan be interested in watching that, any more than the average baseball fan would want to watch a little league game.

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

Pay the boys the same as the women since they are better.

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

It's pretty funny tbh

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

Yet they lost.

[+]SketchyPornDude1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, I'm getting similarly downvoted for my own comments on this. It's silly, and does nothing to prove the point. If the women brought in as much money as the men, then of course they should get equal pay. They don't bring in as much, so they get paid less, it's that simple. So what if their bodies are weaker? If at some point in the future they do bring in as much money, would these people then say "No, they're not as fast or as strong as men, no equal pay for women!"? It would just be stupid and hateful. Some people here need to get their heads out of their buttholes.

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

It's a sentiment that's been increasing here lately. It's likely a vocal minority, but they're becoming as annoying as feminists.

[–]SketchyPornDude0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This sub is close to becoming as bad as "gendercritical", "menslib", and "feminism" in some of the extreme views being upvoted and celebrated. It's still got great advocacy for men's right going on though so there is that. Is there a different sub available for measured conversations about men's rights that you're aware of?

[+]SketchyPornDude1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Umm... so what? This isn't a conversation about female athletic prowess vs male athletic ability. We're talking about equal pay. If you want to do a hate thread about females being weaker than males, please do that somewhere else. I've seen a lot of people bring up the 15 year old boys thing, it's tiresome and so obviously driven by hate, stop it.

[–]tricks_23 32 points33 points34 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

driven by hate

That word has lost complete meaning by this point. Anything someone doesn't agree on is now called hate. Stop confusing "opposing opinion" with hatred.

[–]Mykeru 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've reported your reasonableness as hate speech.

​

Also, sexism, misogyny, racism, double-dipping and eating the last slice of pizza.

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

Don't forget, that pizza had pineapple on it as well. That has to be reportable.

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

The citric acid in pineapple is extremely acidic, which would make this a hate crime*

​

*Unless acid attacks are part of your culture and/or religion. In which case, carry on.

​

Also, kill your daughter if she misses curfew.

[–]MasonTaylor22 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone that disagrees with me is "driven by hate".

[–]LeanMrfuzzles 43 points44 points45 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

umm...it shows the quality difference between the top men in the world and the top women in the world? The top men in the world are not going to lose to a bunch of high school kids. The men put a better product on the field and fans obviously prefer that. The men bring in way more money and are justifiably paid more because of that.

[–]Dr_Gamephone_MD 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same thing as wnba vs nba. No hate towards those women at all, it’s just that watching some dude get posterized by a monster dunk is more fun to watch

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

If you want to do a hate thread about females being weaker than males

At which point you're arguing with your imaginary nemesis. Please up your dosage.

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

This isn't a conversation about female athletic prowess vs male athletic ability. We're talking about equal pay.

They're intimately related though. Pay depends on revenue, revenue depends on interest, and interest depends on the caliber of athletics on display. So the comparatively modest skills of the women's team mean they receive less viewership, which means less revenue is generated, which means they get paid less. That is fundamentally fair. If anything, as demonstrated by pay relative to revenue, women globally are being overpaid in the sport.

[+]SketchyPornDude1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Women aren't asking to be allowed to be equal to men athletically they're asking for the same money. If these women ever draw a crowd, and if they ever generate the money the men do for their World Cup, I'd be in full support of women getting equal pay. As it stands, they don't generate as much money as the men do, in fact when one looks at the percentages being paid out based on revenue, women are actually being paid more than men (13% compared to 9%). When they ask for equal pay, they're actually asking for less money, which is incredibly interesting (I wonder if they realize this?).

If your barrier for entry into the equal pay argument is parity with men's athletic performance then you're establishing an impossible standard that women will never meet, and you know that. At the end of the day, the world cup is a business, if the women's business someday can make as much money as the men's business then they should get the same monetary payout as far as I'm concerned.

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

If these women ever draw a crowd, and if they ever generate the money the men do for their World Cup, I'd be in full support of women getting equal pay.

And I doubt if anybody here would disagree with that. I'm all for market-driven compensation.

If your barrier for entry into the equal pay argument is parity with men's athletic performance then you're establishing an impossible standard that women will never meet, and you know that.

I'm not establishing any standard. I am merely saying that one of the major factors behind their inferior revenue is that the quality of play is so vastly inferior that no amount of promotion would allow it to generate equal revenue. You cannot force somebody to be interested in an inferior version of a product, which is fundamentally what women's soccer is, and why there should be a wage gap.

[–]SketchyPornDude1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If that was the running commentary here from the beginning, we may have had a better conversation. However, the focus that some are placing on bringing up the 15 year old boy game, and the physical limitations of women has been done in an effort to deride and humiliate them. Writing the most juvenile "let's dunk on these hoes" comments and celebrating their despite. The main argument "men make more money and are thus paid more" holds significant weight, heck it's really the chief point. Going into conversations about the reasons for this is definitely fair, however going out of one's way to talk sh*t about "the weak wahmans" only serves to paint this community as the hate group (which it is not) society at large has decided we are.

What you've stated above is fair and reasonable, that and many other reasons may contribute to the disparity in profits between the men's and the women's game. Women's athletics will never reach the competitive level of men, I think we can all agree on that, however talking sh*t about them any chance we can get doesn't help things at all.

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

Athletics is all about performance. Pay is related to audience and sales.

You can bawl out all the salty tears you like, but female athletes cannot beat young boys so are uninteresting to watch. They draw smaller crowds, generate far less money and are already overpaid.

It's not driven by hate, but another word: FACTS.

I think your wife is calling you, she needs you to iron her dress and make her a sandwich. You had better get moving...

[–]SketchyPornDude1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure, dude. If these women ever draw a crowd, and if they ever generate the money the men do for their World Cup, I'd be in full support of women getting equal pay. As it stands, they don't generate as much money as the men do, in fact when one looks at the percentages being paid out based on revenue, women are actually being paid more than men. When they ask for equal pay, they're actually asking for less money, which is incredibly interesting (I wonder if they realize this?).

If your barrier for entry into the equal pay argument is parity with men's athletic performance then you're establishing an impossible standard that women will never meet, and you know that. At the end of the day, the world cup is a business, if the women's business someday can make as much money as the men's business then they should get the same monetary payout as far as I'm concerned.

Also, chill out, my dude, why are you so angry? Yikes.

[+]Axolotls_in_bottles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

You should probably realise that it wasnt a serious match and they probably threw the game. Those 15 year old must have been stoked and that's exactly what the girls wanted.

[–]Cuntplainer 57 points58 points59 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

No. They were clearly shocked when they lost.

[+]Axolotls_in_bottles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Link?

[–]Cuntplainer 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Links are all over the web of under 15 year old boys routinely smashing national women’s teams!

LoL

Even In Australia the ‘Matildas’ got smashed 7-0 by young boys.

Put down the bong! Women’s teams have a hard time finding other women’s teams of their caliber, so they try to play little boys... who go on to cream them!

[+]Axolotls_in_bottles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Burden of proof falls on who makes the claim

[–]hahaz13 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

In 2009, 92 (15-16 year olds) and 93 (14-15 year olds) ODP (Olympic Development Program) boys beat two separate squads of the USWNT 5-1 and 2-1. Granted the women's team was split into two groups of 12 and played against a full squad of 18, but the viewer notes had Hope Solo not made some great saves, the score could have been much higher.

No footage on the U-15 FC Dallas boys vs USWNT, just an article detailing the background and a very convenient explanation about how the USWNT took the game not as seriously yet still lost 5-2. As a comparison, here's footage of 3 members of the Japanese men's team vs 100 children easily defeating them. Also keep in mind for a U-15 team, it is common to have very talented 12-14 year olds on the team as well. So USWNT didn't play 'seriously' and lost to 12-15 year olds.

Olympics warmup match for the Australian Matildas. Played Newcastle Jets U-15 boys. Lost 7-0. Again, you know, probably not serious, right?

The fact that they even SCRIMMAGE against children starting to hit puberty, and not even say a high school team or a college team speaks volumes on the fact that their ability isn't even up to par with an amateur team of comparable age, let alone a semi-pro or pro squad.

And I'm of the argument that "burden of proof falls on who makes the claim" is a lazy statement. It's not hard to google information, and teach yourself rather than be lazy and have someone else do the work for you.

[+]Axolotls_in_bottles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

I suspect that all the teams that were involved were asked to ratchet down the physicality as not to injure anyone

The U.S. surely wasn’t going all out

the Matildas played with a rotating squad

Adults let kids win games. Who would have guessed.

[–]hahaz13 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like you're jumping through hoops and finding excuses.

Or wait, burden of proof something something, all hearsay according to you?

I find it quite convenient FC Dallas erased any mention of this friendly from their website. Could have potentially been the USWNT asking out of embarrassment to remove it. But that's just my opinion, same as yours.

Here's some actual footage between boys and women's teams. Now I must vigorously apologize as it is not the women's national team, but instead some scrub u-23 and u-20 team, but the ideas the same. It's just a friendly right? Tone back the intensity? Not from the footage I see, of which there is very little in general. Again, based on conjecture, I wonder why all these friendlies are not accessable online because surely they're recorded.

[+]Axolotls_in_bottles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Those are different games? Why are we shifting to this?

And overall what does this have to do with pay? Men are biologically stronger than women so 16 year old winning makes sense. But I dont see any proof of them losing to younger males in real games.

[–]hahaz137 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For the u-23/20 teams, those women will have mostly fully matured physically, so not that much different from the USWNT in terms of physical ability.

For the u-16 kids, they're literally ONE YEAR OLDER than the u-15 dallas boys. Stop jumping through hoops to explain your argument.

Why don't you find me anything about a women's team beating a u-15 team?

[–]LeanMrfuzzles5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because they don't play men or in this case boys in competitive matches. That's why you don't see them playing "real games" against these kids. friendly or not it still shows the disparity between the men's and women's game.

[+]gprime1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

and they probably threw the game.

Right, I'm sure they wanted to be an international laughing stock by losing to a group of middle school boys who would've been expected to lose.

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

This all sounds familiar to that story about the 17yo girl who struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, which is actually still debated about in authenticity. Personally, I've seen the video, and it looks so staged, imo.

Edit: Video

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

Not really on topic, but what middle schooler is 15 years old?

[+]gprime1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The team was under 15, so the players were 12-14. One typically turns 14 at some point during the 8th grade. So yes, there may have been some high school freshman on the team, but there were definitely a number of middle school players.

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

The u15 team would be kids born in 2003 and later. At that age there is a big difference in size and speed between the u14s and u15s. The club they played was a top club in Dallas and wouldn't have depth issues necessitating a u14 play up. The team would only have 14 year olds and a few who just turned 15 when they played.

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

Lol, sure.

[–]gadabout13 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

all sports should be gender neutral. and pay based on revenue generated.

[–]Jerzeem 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought that all of the "Men's" sports were already gender neutral.

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

Correct

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

Or, just combine men and women’s leagues and may the best players win the majority of the purse 🤷🏻‍♂️. Equal opportunity.

[+]Metroid545 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

That I have to disagree with you on

Male and female bodies are built differently and people are afraid to talk about it nowadays. Men on average will outpreform woman in physical sports as they are better built for that and women in gender neutral sports would be discriminated against because when money is involved why would you pick atheletes that dont get the best results

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

" Male and female bodies are built differently "
" women in gender neutral sports would be discriminated against "

What the hell are you chewing on?

[–]tyrannosaurus_fl3x 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the idea that equality isn't fair. If everyone is treated equally some individuals will be better off than others. Give the same equal treatment doesn't mean equality of results. These people want equality of results. This ignores all the other factors going on.

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

What's wrong about these statements? The latter is a logical conclusion to the fact that, generally, men's performance in sports are superior because of their bodies' different builds, which are more suited to these activities.

So, in conclusion, men would be preferred in almost every gender neutral sport, leading to a considerable difference in their presence compared to women's.

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

Everything.. Conflating biological differences with unfair discrimination. It's fucking ridiculous.

Kenyan's are better runners due to the altitude of their homeland causing their bodies to be more efficient in that regard, should we ban them because it's "discriminatory" that they are biologically better?

[–]Metroid545 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats a hyperbolic comparison to make nobody said ban people and its true youll never get a truly even playing field but attempting to make it even is why we have seperate sports

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

Hyperbolic? It's the EXACT same example, just not including the redundant vagina.(In the sense of it being discriminatory or not)

[+]gprime1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

and women in gender neutral sports would be discriminated against

Merit-based selection is not discriminatory. So yes, in a world where athletic leagues were gender neutral women would lose out, but disparate impact is not a good argument against neutrality.

[–]Metroid545 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well what are the arguements for neutrality in sports? I don't see a large benefit just us having to return to the issue after people cry out against female athletes having to fight an uphill battle

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

Well what are the arguements for neutrality in sports?

Because neutrality in all things is fair. If, in the area of athletics that results in the end of professional female athletics in most sports, so be it. By the same turn, if that results in the end of male presence in other areas, so be it.

[–]hem10ck 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The number of people I see on social media comparing the US Women's performance to other women but comparing their pay to other men is disturbing. If comparing their pay to the Men's league then performance must also be compared to the men's league. Performance relative to other women's teams is irrelevant in the discussion.

[–]Kravego 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

This is completely missing the point and, I think, purposefully so.

The pay of athletes in the USSF is a combination of salary and bonuses. The FIFA World Cup is an entirely SEPARATE bonus structure altogether.

Yes, the USWNT makes 13% ($4 million) of the total Women's World Cup prize money ($30 million), while the USMNT makes 9% ($38 million) from the Mens' prize money ($400 million).

But that's not the point. FIFA is not an American organization, it's an international organization. Pay from FIFA has absolutely nothing to do with how much the men and women are paid by the USSF, which handles their pay in every non-FIFA match. It is the USSF that is the defendant in the suit filed by the USWNT, not FIFA.

For the past few years (as of 2016), the women's team has generated more revenue from games for the USSF than the men's team. 2015 was a Men's FIFA World Cup year so they ended up bringing in more money that year. But despite the fact that for the past 3 years the women's team has pulled in more money, their pay has been lower. THAT is the issue.

The issue is even further muddled due to the percentage of total USSF revenue that actually comes from games - which isn't even close to 50%. So in any case, this is an issue that should be thoroughly investigated and not just dismissed flippantly and unintelligently with a bullshit "Well, AKCHUALLY" statement.

Instead of endlessly repeating the same shit that has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand, perhaps take the time to do some research.

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

Yes! Thank you. It took way to much scrolling to find this. I'm all for raising men up so to speak, but I don't think it helps the cause to mindlessly bash any group of women ever who ask for more equal treatment.

Let's try and stick to the facts. Otherwise the legitimate concerns mras are trying to raise will be ignored because we cried wolf went too many times.

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

I'm so glad someone brought this up. That's what they're chanting for - not the 9% or whatever it is

[–]Murakami8000 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting. I didn’t know any of this.

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

Most people don't because it doesn't really come up. I mean, who could tell you off the top of their head how the US National basketball team is paid? Or the Rugby team? Or any other team for that matter?

It's a complicated mess.

The fact that it's that complicated and involved just makes statements like the one made in the OP aggravate me to no end.

[–]T-Breezy16 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I did not know that womens USSF soccer outearned the men's. Thanks for that!

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

Thanks for saying this. It's definitely a complicated issue.

​

I agree that generally women asking for equal pay as men in sports when the men generate so much more revenue is silly.

​

But the US women's soccer team may be a special case. Because they are so much more successful than the men they seem to generate more revenue. Perhaps the women actually deserve more than the men?

​

That said there's a lot of complicating factors. My understanding is that the two groups collectively bargained agreements. The women have a base salary and can earn small bonuses. The men get no base salary but can earn large bonuses. Since the men tend to be well paid from their club teams and women aren't I can understand why the women wanted some certainty in their salaries. But if you opt for a risk-free salary you would expect to earn somewhat less.

​

Another issue is that the men do earn much more from their club teams than the women. It seems like it's a no-brainer for the women to play for the US team when they have the chance. They make much more from that than playing in the NWSL. But for a men's player that is already making $1 million per year, they may be tempted to say "no" to the national team. (Basically a US woman's player earning $50k at her club would jump at another $150k from the national team, but someone like Michael Bradley or Altidore who is earning $6 million per year might not be as motivated to play for the men's team for $180k)

​

Lastly, there are the FIFA purses that are much higher for men than women. I think the men's team is awarded ten times as much as women's teams. Although since the US women have performed better they may have earned as much or more from FIFA. Nevertheless if there are bonuses for "winning the World Cup" it would be hard to specify a dollar amount that was fair to both men and women.

[–]Btuyvesant 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/

If the women's team was paid as much as their counterparts on the men's team, they would have a net loss every year instead of a net profit (with years that they win the Cup being brought down to almost no profit or under depending on how much it is that year). That's not really a sustainable model.

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

Just do it and bankrupt the organization

[–]Kravego -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The women's team earns more net revenue for the USSF than the men's does. Paying them the same as the men's current pay would be more sustainable than the current male pay situation.

The women bring in more money for the USSF, play more games than the men, and yet are paid less.

And once again, I'm talking purely USSF pay and bonuses, not the FIFA pay structure.

[–]Btuyvesant 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The actual net profit of each team in 2015 and 2016 is in that article, 2017 and 2018 can be found on the USSF website in their financial section. The difference in the profit of the women's and men's teams is less than the difference in the total amount of USSF money set aside for salaries.

[–]Kravego 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The actual net profit of each team in 2015 and 2016 is in that article,

You're right.

Mens: $350,000 and $2.7 million respectively (2015, 2016)

Womens: $8 million and $1 million respectively (2016, 2017)

And yet, in most years the men earn more. Especially so if they play halfway decently, due to their bonus structure. And as indicated by the article, men's "revenue" includes fees paid by foreign teams, whereas the womens does not.

It's telling that, as mentioned in their lawsuit, the WNT offered a revenue-sharing system as a method of pay for both men and women, and the USSF rejected that plan. If the financials are the issue, why is a revenue sharing plan not acceptable?

[–]Btuyvesant 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well that would depend on the specifics of that revenue sharing plan?

My assumption without having heard it is that it doesn't actually account for the differences between men/women that we have such a hard time acknowledging. The men's league is quite literally far out of the women's league, men across the board (at varying levels) are paid amounts that reflect the level of competitiveness, skill, and players at that level. If the men would make more money playing for an organization that acknowledged that, they would go play for that organization. Consequently, the skill level of the men's team would fall. Again I have no idea what this plan is, but it sounds like each member of the team would have a share of the overall revenue, which is not viable.

I wasn't able to find a mention of this with a Google search.

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

The men's league is quite literally far out of the women's league, men across the board (at varying levels) are paid amounts that reflect the level of competitiveness, skill, and players at that level.

This may be true from a physical standpoint, but it's irrelevant from a financial one. Regardless of the skill of the respective teams, the revenue they bring in is what matters.

If the men would make more money playing for an organization that acknowledged that, they would go play for that organization. Consequently, the skill level of the men's team would fall.

They wouldn't be able to. The USSF is THE national soccer association for the US. FIFA requires players in teams be citizens (or I think nationals... I can't remember) of their respective team country. So the USSF is their only option at home and they can't go abroad since every country's federation abides by FIFA rules.

Again I have no idea what this plan is, but it sounds like each member of the team would have a share of the overall revenue, which is not viable.

If I remember correctly the revenue sharing would go to the team as a whole, and would from there be divided among the players according to position / performance / whatever other metric the team decided on.

[–]Btuyvesant 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So, they would earn a percentage of the amount that the team makes without salaries being deducted? Then the league wouldn't have any surplus.

[–]Kravego 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't follow.

Say it's 10% net revenue share. The league makes $10 million in a given year, the teams each get $1 million to split between team members. The league still made $8 million.

Obviously the real numbers and percentages would change, but I don't understand how a revenue share plan would result in a negative profit. In fact, that would be impossible mathematically unless there was some sort of minimum salary enforced.

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

The revenue share plan wouldn't, never said it would. I said that paying them the same as what the mens team were paid would result in it.

Currently the cap on what a member of the US male team can make is 800k, there's a reason why contracts are agreed upon before the season begins. With every sport that I know of (football (American and normal), baseball, basketball, hockey, etc) performance does not negatively impact the amount you have already agreed to be paid. Under this plan, it would. There's a reason it's not already like that. I believe some teams have a revenue share bonus, but not for the normal salary. This would also introduce a possibility that the players make nothing or next to nothing, if the net revenue was relatively low.

[–]Kravego1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With every sport that I know of (football (American and normal), baseball, basketball, hockey, etc) performance does not negatively impact the amount you have already agreed to be paid.

That's not the case with soccer, and in fact is one of the reasons why this is such a complicated issue. The women are paid a salary, and then a (comparatively) small bonus for each game according to win/loss and opponents rank. The men get no salary. Instead they get a very hefty bonus for each game played. $5,000 is the minimum, which is for a loss. Wins can be up to $13k for a single game.

So salaries are already directly tied to performance for the men, and less so but still somewhat tied to performance for the women.

This would also introduce a possibility that the players make nothing or next to nothing, if the net revenue was relatively low.

And that would be ok, if we're looking at it from a financial standpoint. MLS players are already not paid very well.

[–]Btuyvesant1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, the men make all their money by playing in games (with games being more profitable for men than women, simply because there is usually more interest and money spent on/in those games) whilst the women actually have a salary with bonuses. That makes this whole debacle even further against them, does it not? There is simply more money in men's games than women's games, with them winning/losing just deciding how much of it they get (and if the gold cup this year being anything to talk about, the US men win quite a lot as well). Why not ask to be paid in the same way as the men, as a proportion of the amount the team makes from a game, instead of the same amount as the men? I haven't seen all of the statistics from recently, but it seems like they would end up getting less if they did.

Also, you said it would be OK, but logically if they can't pay their players they won't have (m)any players.

[–]Kravego1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

with games being more profitable for men than women, simply because there is usually more interest and money spent on/in those games

Once again, this is incorrect. Women pull in more game revenue than men do.

That makes this whole debacle even further against them, does it not?

Not really.

There is simply more money in men's games than women's games, with them winning/losing just deciding how much of it they get (and if the gold cup this year being anything to talk about, the US men win quite a lot as well).

No, there isn't. The women's team generates more money.

Why not ask to be paid in the same way as the men, as a proportion of the amount the team makes from a game, instead of the same amount as the men?

They're not asking to be paid the exact same. They're asking for equitable pay. Give them the same pay system, and the resulting pay would be fair and equitable, even if it's not equal.

And I think you're confused. Neither team makes money as a proportion of the amount the game generates or the team "earns". The players make money based on a bonus system, which is different for the two teams because the women have a salary and the men do not.

I think the women would absolutely be ok with being paid in the same manner as men - on a pure bonus system with the amounts equal.

Also, you said it would be OK, but logically if they can't pay their players they won't have (m)any players.

This isn't an issue for MLS or any other sport in the US. Many leagues are not paid very well. It's only a very small fraction of a percent that actually get good pay.

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

I have no idea on their financials, but surely they have more costs than just paying the team. If you gave them both $1 million each and the other expenses amounted to $8.5 million, you'd be running at a loss with negative profit. So, like, not mathematically impossible, but still improbable.

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

USSF

If that is true, then doesn't that mean women are underpaid for USSF but overpaid bigly by FIFA? So perhaps in the name of fairness their world cup FIFA pay needs to be brought down to 7% like the men if they want equal pay by the USSF. Or is it the typical feminist bullshit of only wanting equality when its in their favor?

Also, the women collectively bargained for a guaranteed salary from the USSF. In doing so, they gave up earnings upside. The men have no guaranteed salary. If they want to have parity with men, they need to ditch their guaranteed salary.

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

If that is true, then doesn't that mean women are underpaid for USSF but overpaid bigly by FIFA? So perhaps in the name of fairness their world cup FIFA pay needs to be brought down to 7% like the men if they want equal pay by the USSF. Or is it the typical feminist bullshit of only wanting equality when its in their favor?

The USSF and FIFA salaries are completely separate and unrelated to one another. USSF does not base any of its salary decisions on FIFA, and neither should they. FIFA only pays bonuses to teams during World Cup matches, which only occur every 4 years. That's why trying to use FIFA as ANY measure of salary is ridiculous.

Also, the women collectively bargained for a guaranteed salary from the USSF. In doing so, they gave up earnings upside. The men have no guaranteed salary. If they want to have parity with men, they need to ditch their guaranteed salary.

They already tried to "ditch their guaranteed salary". They offered a revenue sharing plan whereby both the mens and womens team would receive the same percent of their annual revenue generation. This would have resulted in the women being paid more than the men the past 3 years btw, because they bring in more money.

USSF, unsurprisingly, rejected that deal.

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

Well of course the women's team tried to ditch their deal and the USSF rejected it, because the deal turned out in their favor a couple years in. Sometimes contracts tend to end up more favorable to one side or the other a couple years in.

The women chose the guaranteed salary over betting on themselves. This happens all the time in sports. My Houston Astros made a longterm deal with Jose Altuve when he was a very young player. They basically paid him a bunch of money guaranteed to get his first few years of free agency cheap. It turned out a steal for him because he turned out to be a stud. They made a similar deal, $10 million guaranteed, for a guy named Jon Singleton. They lost on that one. Because he decided he liked smoking dope more than baseball and never made it to the Astros. Neither deal was unfair to the player or the team. They both made a calculated gamble. One turned out in favor of the team. One turned out in favor of the player.

I practice labor and employment law and know a lot about collective bargaining and gender discrimination lawsuits. I don't think these women have much chance of success because they agreed to this pay rubric via collective bargaining. They should bet on themselves next time after this deal is up.

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

You don't seem to understand. They offered that plan during the salary negotiation process, before the current system was put in place. USSF rejected that idea because they didn't like sharing profits despite the fact that it makes sense and encourages performance.

It's not like they made this deal and got sour on it and offered the revenue sharing plan afterwards.

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

They filed a SUIT? they should use that money to sign up for econ 101 classes

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

they should use that money to sign up for econ 101 classes

Or USSF should, as the women bring in more money each year than the men do.

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

Well, in 2018, 500 million people watched the final of the men's world cup. Let's see how many people watched the final of the female world cup and let's the numbers talk.

[–]aspoels2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Really? I'm pretty sure that the women US soccer team generates more viewership lately, and their jerseys have absolutely destroyed the mens team in sales in the past few months or so

[+]Dragon-With-Matches1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh no... it’s much worse than that. I did the math.

Here’s the facts and figures:

“The main argument for why the men’s World Cup prize money totals are so much bigger than the women’s counterpart is that men’s soccer has far more interest among fans — and far higher revenues overall around the globe. The women’s World Cup 2015 in Canada reportedly brought in $73 million in revenues, including some $17 million in TV ads just in the U.S. Those are actually tiny numbers compared to the $6 billion in revenues FIFA raked in during the 2018 men’s World Cup in Russia.” - Forbes

Where would this extra money come from? In order to pay the women the same as the men, they would need to somehow generate enough interest to generate 82 times more money than they are.

Now, let’s take the women’s $73mm revenue and divide it by their $5k per match pay = 1/14,600 of pay/revenue.

Compared to the men’s $13k per match and $6B revenue = 1/500,000 of pay/revenue.

If we’re talking “fair” pay, the women are absolutely killing it over the men at an-all-things-equal 34% MORE pay than the men.

But don’t let silly things like facts and numbers interfere with a good ole “wage-gap” circle jerk.

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

Am I understanding correctly that the women's world cup generated only $73 million, almost 1/4 of that from the US alone, while having about 1/5 the total viewership of the men's world cup in 2018? Sounds like FIFA is taking some horrendously bad ad deals.

[+]Dragon-With-Matches1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

You’re very horribly misunderstanding. The women didn’t come close to a 1/4 viewers. Literally half the world (3.5billion) watched the men. And FIFFA took in $6billion to the women’s $73million.

It’s the difference between the Super Bowl (men) and your niece’s dance recital (women).

Yet somehow, the women get a bigger piece of the pie and still want more.

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

According to what another guy in this thread said, which he backed up with sources, the women had about 700 million viewers. That's roughly 1/5, like I said.

[–]justack2player -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

r/murderedbywords?

[–]someguy92614 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They should just play with the men, then everyone gets paid the same. Problem solved. Sports is the last sexist thing we have, why do we have a men's and women's league?? We should have one league and if you are good enough to play great.

​

Also why does the top play make so much more than the lowest player?? Should everyone get the same pay?? Let's make everything fair. For football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey and every other professional sport everyone get's $300K per year.

​

Hell we should apply this to everything. New cop on the beat get's the same as the guy who has been on the job 20 years. They both are doing the same job right, then why not the same pay. Someone needs to let AOC know of this injustice now. The insanity must stop before we turn into a Capitalist county and all is lost.

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

Although this is a good post, the title does not say enough about its subject. This forces people to click and read before they can decide whether they are interested. It also makes searching impossible.

If everyone did this, the subreddit would become unusable. Moreover, it means that your post will fail to reach some readers because they won't know what it's about.

So please don't do it in future. Take the time to describe your link, and save the time of hundreds of other people.

When making a title, it's best to assume the reader doesn't know what you're talking about - but don't go overboard with every detail. Then check if there are any words you can cut out without losing any important information.

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

Sounds good. Sorry about that

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

No worries. It's just advice for the future. :)

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

I saw an article on this that said the female players are paid a $100K salary and they get bonuses. The men don’t get paid a salary and work off bonuses.

[–]Familiarwobble17 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And they got smacked by u 16 boys in match Not gonna lie, your not worth it if you let that happen

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

It was my understanding that if you lose you don’t get paid in women’s soccer but you get paid regardless if you win or lose in men’s soccer. That’s at least what I heard in a Team USA interview four years ago.

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

It's sort of the opposite. The women's team gets a salary for being part of the team and small bonuses for playing in games.

​

The men's team gets no salary but large bonuses for playing in games.

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

men’s soccer has far more interest among fans — and far higher revenues overall around the globe. The women’s World Cup 2015 in Canada reportedly brought in $73 million in revenues, including some $17 million in TV ads just in the U.S. Those are actually tiny numbers compared to the $6 billion in revenues FIFA raked in during the 2018 men’s World Cup in Russia.” - Forbes

Isn't one of the main points that the women chose the guaranteed payouts and the men chose the upside? It's trading a higher floor for a lower ceiling.

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

Sure but this relates to just the USA women’s team. Which actually generates more revenue than the USA men’s team. “Equal pay” is dumb. Whichever team generates more money deserves the higher pay. Right now that’s the women.

EDIT: Since 2016 the women have brought in more money than the men

[–]Meaca 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That statistic was from a women's world cup year where they won compared with a year when the men didn't qualify. I agree that if the women's revenue was higher over a cycle (4 years) that they should be paid more, but that's not been the case yet.

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

No, that statistic has held true for every year for the past 3 years. World Cup years always end up bringing more money to the team that's participating, but non-world cup years recently have seen the women's team ahead of the men's.

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

The one I read was relating to a 2015 (women's WC year) salary negotiation. Can you point me to the more recent numbers?

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

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

It’s hardly shocking given that the men’s team failed to even qualify for the World Cup in 2018

[–]AlicornGamer1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

like i am gratefull for womens football as it is makingalot more young girls interested in playing the game. Thjats good. It wasnt an issue where i ived because both rugby and football wwere popular, but its nice to see more youth being interested in a sport.

But why seporate men's and women's so much, especially when it comes to youth? Kids dont care what sex the other person is, if the other person is nice enough and they p;lay well together, thats all kids care about.

maybe i'm the wird one here, but still that's one good thing about women's fooball.

[+]Ninja_Arena -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago* (39 children) | Copy Link

I still think the women should get a respectable amount and not compare it to the overall number the men get. If they need to get 40 percent for it to be worth their time, then do that. They shouldnt have to sacrifice or postpone their careers or life to play women's soccer....if it generates enough to give then a decent chunk for the appearance.
Blah blah blah pride of your country etc.

But yeah, once again, the actual numbers aren't looked into, just a wave of cries for justice

[–]butt_mucher 43 points44 points45 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If you don't like the pay rate then protest by not accepting the job. This isn't the USSR no one is forced to play for the national team.

[+]Ninja_Arena -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That's fine but doesn't mean their pay can't change? You think nobody's pay has changed ever?

It's reasonable to ask for their pay to adjust to make it worthwhile if the program can handle it.

It's not reasonable to ask that they get paid the same as men who generate waaaay more money from playing just for fairzees cause, like you said, U.S. ain't communist Russia or whatever

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

Of course everyone should negotiate for the maximum amount of money. But most people do that behind closed doors and don't scream that their employer is sexist/racist/bigoted or whatever else in an attempt to bully them to capitulate to you.

[+]Ninja_Arena -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah.. most don't.
But the topic at hand, they deserve a reasonable amount. It shouldn't be same as men's but if possible, they should get paid more

[–]Zaraxan 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean reasonable? Dog if you devote 40% of the total revenue just to wages of just the players, a fraction of your total employees, any businessman will tell you how unsustainable that model is. I’m not saying they don’t deserve money, but they make 13% of the total revenue. This is just an issue of there not being that much of an interest in Women’s Soccer. It’s the same reason WNBA players get paid less than NBA players.

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

Read my post again. I said if the program can afford it. Beyond that it's not reasonable

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

If the program could afford it, why should only the women receive more money and not the men? Why favor them at all? Because they're complaining? Extras in movies don't complain that Brad Pitt is making more than them.

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

Talking about the women's program based on their ability to bring in revenue

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

I don't care if they make more than the men. I just don't appreciate the making of a wage negotiation into a social justice issue, that will further divide the mentally weak.

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

It's fine if they make more than men.....if they brought in more.
It's just like everything. People are capitalizing off of social causes. Pride parades are just big corporate fests now. I like kapernick kneeling, why not, but he then went on to make bank from Nike....who uses a lot of 3rd world manufacturing that maybe isn't super great for the people there. All coming from the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton school of opportunistic social justice fuckbois

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

No pay is based on what somebody should get, except minimum wage.

All other pay is based on basic economics, supply and demand, what's the market rate for sufficiently skilled labor to meet the employer's needs, with the employer paying as little as possible and the job seeker attempting to maximize their pay and job satisfaction with career path choice and developing marketable skills.

Nobody sits down and thinks "what does Jessie in HR deserve?" or "what should the stock price of NFLX be today?" and it's the same for salary for athletes and entertainers.

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

I always said, if the program can afford it.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Worth their time"..

Christ almighty.. They do it by choice, they aren't being made to sacrifice anything or postpone anything. Your post reeks of entitlement.

Whatever they are paid is respectable, or else they wouldn't be doing it.

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

That doesn't fall in at all logically. People have different reasons for joining the team. It's not entitlement, it proper appropriation of funds for the people who bring in the crowd, however small relatively it might be. Read my whole post. I'm not demanding they make male level money but if the program can afford it, pay them more

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

I've read your post.. It's nothing but entitlement to demand that they be paid more simply because the program can afford it. You're paid what you're worth, not what your employer happens to own lol.. Should all Apple employees be paid relative to the value of Apple as a whole? No, of course not.

"If they need to get 40 percent for it to be worth their time, then do that". - Why do they NEED to get 40% for it to be worth their time? They get what they are worth being paid, or else they wouldn't be playing... Hence why every argument about pay is shallow "sexist" arguments that are taken no further other than childish tantrums demanding more.

You've offered no reason as to why a pay increase is justified that can't be used by every mediocre worker to demand the same money as people who are clearly better than they are.

Females dominate gymnastics.. I think it's time for a mediocre male team to be paid the same as Simone Biles just to keep it fair.. I mean, if the program can afford it.. Right?

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

In the 90’s, The US men played in the MLS, when their top salaries were like 30k a year. Some players played for nothing. They played the same sport as British players and Spanish players.

They played for the privilege to play and a love of the sport. They postponed careers, sacrificed family time, traveled on their own dollar. They didn’t complain that they should get equal pay. They fought to grow their sport to a level they could earn more pay.

I used to watch the women’s team religiously, and was an avid supporter. But in the last ten years, they have had a cancerous attitude that makes me not even care about them at all.

It started with just a few players who had bad attitudes, who were entitled and bratty, disrespectful. Then there was Hope Solo who was a drunk and a domestic abuser with her family and boyfriend... who should have been suspended, but they let her play because she was “the best”, and they didn’t want to lose some crucial matches.

That sent a strong message that the team would reward bad character and poor behavior, and it set a very bad precedent that has destroyed their attitudes, putting them at odds with their own national system, federation and country.

Now they’re fueling it by this wage gap bullshit, which is a politically-driven thing popular with their fan base. And instead of publicly releasing a statement to their fans that they don’t EARN more and shouldn’t make more and to please refrain from promoting the wage gap issue, they’re complicit in letting it happen. They thrive off drama.

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

That's a fair point.

[–]Achack 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If they need to get 40 percent for it to be worth their time, then do that.

Then it wouldn't be worth someone else's time.

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

?

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

You're saying to give them more money, where would it come from, who would be getting paid less?

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I answered that at other points. Saying if the program (women's) can afford to give them more, then maybe do it.

[–]Achack 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to business. If they were worth more they would be able to demand more.

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

That's...that's what they are doing ......you act like everyone is getting paid at max already. It's tough to use your leverage sometimes without risk .....welcome to business or negotiation or real life or whatever to make me cool like you.

They are fighting for more. Again, is the program can bear it, maybe they should get more because they have the leverage right now

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

No they are fighting to be paid the same as men even though their actions do not bring in the same amount of revenue as men. If they want more money good, so does everyone else and they have every right to fight for it. But to setup their demands by saying that they will not be happy until they get paid as much as men is their inability to recognize basic business practices.

Would you fight for male models to earn as much as female models?

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

Think I've already said multiple times they shouldn't get paid the same as men, at least not with the earnings the way they are now.

Who knows, in 20 years, if might be close if female viewership goes way up due to more and more girls playing soccer.

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

Then maybe you can say that the idea of "equal pay" is completely mislead and wrong.

[–]Ninja_Arena1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well I hear people say better pay a lot.

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

we know it's "worth their time" because they show up to play

if it wasn't "worth their time" they wouldn't show up to play

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

That's an extreme point of view but women in their 20s training for the word stage is time consuming and a time when they should be developing skills for their future.

I'm not a huge fan of the rah rah for Olympic sports and people sacrifice for something that brings them glory and possibly money ultimately, but i think woman's soccer in the u.s., if 8t can afford it and they are getting a very low sum, looking at increasing it is reasonable. It's a different situation from the men's because they aren't currently making a lot bit of the women's program can afford to pay more, go for it.

Should they get the same as the men, absolutely not.

[+]KnightofNarg -18 points-17 points-16 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm in agreement with you and should be talking real numbers.

For the sake of comparison, the top players in the Women’s Super League (WSL), in England, make about $44,000 a year, on par with the maximum salaries for NSWL players in the U.S.

Some professional women’s soccer players earn much less than that. Women who play sparingly in the WSL might make in the neighborhood of $6,000 to $12,000, while the minimum NSWL salary is $16,538. In Australia’s W-League, the average female player’s salary is AUD $17,400, which is the equivalent of about $12,000 in U.S. dollars

http://money.com/money/5646612/world-cup-2019-womens-soccer-salary-prize-money/

While some pro women do make good money, looks like many make well below the poverty line, and for someone labeled as professional that's unacceptable. Any professional deserves to make money to live on comfortably, not what you could make a McDonalds. Though some women in soccer do make a lot of money, some is not all. But can't fix it without money from somewhere.

[–]JaxJags904 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And where is that money coming from?

Are you a season ticket holder for any women’s soccer teams? Do you own multiple jerseys of your favorite women players? If not, THATs why they get paid less.

[+]KnightofNarg -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But can't fix it without money from somewhere.

No need to direct it at me. This was my nod to the issue of lack of funding because the lack of popularity of women's leagues.

[–]gprime7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

and for someone labeled as professional that's unacceptable.

No it isn't. Wages are not arbitrary, but based on the actual value of labor performed. And performing at a "professional" level in low level, minimally commercially valuable leagues is obviously not that valuable. For example, there is professional lacrosse in the US, but first year players can expect to make around $7000 and experienced players rarely make over $25000. This reflects the fact that nobody gives a fuck about lacrosse. The same goes for WSL soccer, even if it too is a "professional" league.

[–]ScottishGamer1909 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing though. In Scotlands professions legaue system the bottom two leagues have apart time teams because we can't finance them professionally. The top clubs like Celtic have players on a shit load compared to them. They get 60,000ish people atte ding home games while the others get 156ish.

Its shite that women don't get enough for the poverty line but it can't be helped unless there are private investors. (Gretna were part time got a rich investor who died and they were liquidated).

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

I would take 16,000 annually to play a game in a heartbeat. This is basic econ 101

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

Yet that's not per game. We don't know how much they're making per hour when you break down everything including practice hours, travel, whatever. It's hard finding data when women are screaming about comparative percentages with men.

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

I said annually

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

Yup. Give them a respectable wage or a respectable portion so it's worth their time. 44k isn't bad if the league doesnt really generate revenue but that's also the time those women could be learning other skills for post soccer life.

If, for world Cup, their higher percentage still gives them jack shit, then pump the percentage up if the program can handle that.
If it wouldn't allow the program to function and promote then it's kinda tough shit scenario. The women's side of the sport can grow so they just have to make more of an investment in promotion.

Side note, I wonder how the viewing numbers compared to South American cup later that day

[–]Invaughncible 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Does anyone have a like or reference for where that stat comes from?

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

9 and 13 are old stats. it’s 20 and 7 now

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

Thank you. I always hesitate to believe tweet screenshots if they don’t come with a source or up to date info.

[–]Kravego -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The Federalist isn't a reference for anything worthwhile, and you (and the Federalist) have conflated FIFA earnings with USSF earnings, which are completely separate.

The women's team isn't suing FIFA, they're suing the USSF.

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

Isn't the USSF's response that the women opted for a guaranteed rate in return for less upside and the men did the opposite? If so, their lawsuit is bullshit.

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

here ya go fella

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

I don't think you can read all that well.

Once again:

You have conflated FIFA earnings with USSF earnings, which are two completely separate issues. The 9% and 13% figures have literally nothing to do with the pay disparity in the USSF. The USSF is the defendant in the lawsuit.

[–]sstokes2746 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Am I reading this wrong or just don't understand, but it says the women get 13% and the men get 9%? How is it the men's world cup players are making more?

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

Because 9% of 100 million is more than 13% of 25 million.

[–]hatchettwit2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I heard this today on Rush Limbaugh's show. Just happened to be on while driving. :) Couldn't help but think if the women get paid a bigger percentage but make less, perhaps it's because other women have failed them in their lack of interest that tells advertisers it is less useful to advertise their product there. More people, more women, watch the game then the ladies make more money. Supply meet demand.

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

He even said that male soccer generates 4 billion and women soccer 100 million.

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

People are fucking stupid.

[–]MS101110 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Football players work independently. There is a massive discrepancy in pay among males even when they play in the same club and position.

They have agents(a lot of the time a family member) who negotiate the wages.

I know some average players who some how managed to play for big clubs because they had great agents.

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

I don't know what the domestic situation is in the US, but I think the easiest way to resolve issues of comparable equality would be to stop gender segregation, especially non contact sports like soccer/tennis etc, and allow anyone who's good enough to play do so under the exact same rules.

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

No joke, I'd actually love to see all gender tennis. I may be ignorant as hell, but out of all the sports I know, besides like golf, it seems the most gender neutral fair.

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

lol Serena has said she wouldn’t last ten minutes against a man and has frequently lost to even the lowest ranked males.

Tennis isn’t even close to a gender neutral sport. Women would probably not even make the top 500.

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

It's really easy to focus on specific facts about this and ignore other ones in order to argue your point. I could just say that the prize money for the men's side was $400 million while the women's was $30 million even when generating about 1/5 of the viewership. That right there would make it look unfair to women, but I'm not looking at other facts such as sponsorship deals, how the money is distributed to the teams, etc. (viewership numbers from another user on this post, prize money amount which is easily found online)

I'd recommend checking out the new Philip Defranco video that covers this because he actually talks more about it and it's interesting.

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

Put this on r/whitepeopletwitter

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

Male football players only make less because they go for lower-paying sports. The wage gap is a myth. /s

On a serious note, I believe this discrepancy also happens in tennis and its pretty nonsensical. Yes a lot of it is due to advertising/publicity but when is the world going to wake up and tell advertisers to fuck off? Probably never.

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

It baffles me how many stupid people there are in the world.

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

women’s soccer generates more revenue than men’s soccer in the USA.

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

okay

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter