artetas_biggest_fan
Player Valuation: £6m
Apparently some US women are squabbling over “equal” pay, complaining the US men get more. The standard of women’s football was an abomination (the US women’s team lost to a junior boys team from Dallas), its in its infancy and in all likelihood won’t make the huge stride needed to hit a quality level from a women’s standpoint (like women’s tennis has) but that’s besides the point. They get less money because they generate less, almost 1/80th in World Cup revenue in comparison to the men to be precise ($73 million to $6 billion). The lunacy of such claims cannot spread here (pretty sure it won’t as there isn’t the same degree of ignorance here for it to happen in the media or shysters chancing there arm over anything in the courts). This fella covers it nicely:
In March of this year, The Los Angeles Times publisherd a stinging op-ed that said: “The U.S. women’s soccer team outperforms the men’s team when it comes to victories, domestic viewership, name recognition and general awesomeness. Its members are stars, consistently ranked No. 1 in the world, and they make millions of dollars for their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation.”
The op-ed goes on to discuss the aforementioned lawsuits and the reasons the ladies should be paid the same figures las the men. However, just like the other commentators, the article misses the point. Yes, the women are indeed “No. 1 in the world,” but they’re number one in women’s sports, which has far fewer fans and plays far fewer games.
Ouch. Continued....
One of the major factors that separate men’s sports and women’s is a not so little thing called revenue. To put it bluntly, female soccer players, just like female basketball players and female hockey players, are paid less because their respective sports make less. The total prize money for the Women’s World Cup in France this July was $30 million; the total prize money for the men’s 2022 World Cup in Qatar will be $440 million.
According to Mike Oznian, a writer for Forbes, the 2015 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.” Last year, the men’s World Cup in Russia generated more than $6 billion in revenue; the participating teams shared about $400 million. That is less than 7 percent of overall revenue. Meanwhile, the 2019 Women’s World Cup made somewhere in the region of $131 million, doling out $30 million, well more than 20 percent of collected revenue, to the participating teams. It seems a pay gap does exist, after all.
Precisely, women get too much. Continued..
Lastly, men’s sports, especially men’s team sports, are inherently more entertaining to watch than women’s. Whether it happens to be men’s soccer or basketball, when compared with the female equivalent, the skill levels on show are incomparable.
One of these politicians “Chuck Schumer” has been backing the women on there calls....no doubt with such support for their cause he can testify to being a season ticket holder at his local women’s teams where his presence makes up a tenth of the crowd.
In March of this year, The Los Angeles Times publisherd a stinging op-ed that said: “The U.S. women’s soccer team outperforms the men’s team when it comes to victories, domestic viewership, name recognition and general awesomeness. Its members are stars, consistently ranked No. 1 in the world, and they make millions of dollars for their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation.”
The op-ed goes on to discuss the aforementioned lawsuits and the reasons the ladies should be paid the same figures las the men. However, just like the other commentators, the article misses the point. Yes, the women are indeed “No. 1 in the world,” but they’re number one in women’s sports, which has far fewer fans and plays far fewer games.
Ouch. Continued....
One of the major factors that separate men’s sports and women’s is a not so little thing called revenue. To put it bluntly, female soccer players, just like female basketball players and female hockey players, are paid less because their respective sports make less. The total prize money for the Women’s World Cup in France this July was $30 million; the total prize money for the men’s 2022 World Cup in Qatar will be $440 million.
According to Mike Oznian, a writer for Forbes, the 2015 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.” Last year, the men’s World Cup in Russia generated more than $6 billion in revenue; the participating teams shared about $400 million. That is less than 7 percent of overall revenue. Meanwhile, the 2019 Women’s World Cup made somewhere in the region of $131 million, doling out $30 million, well more than 20 percent of collected revenue, to the participating teams. It seems a pay gap does exist, after all.
Precisely, women get too much. Continued..
Lastly, men’s sports, especially men’s team sports, are inherently more entertaining to watch than women’s. Whether it happens to be men’s soccer or basketball, when compared with the female equivalent, the skill levels on show are incomparable.
One of these politicians “Chuck Schumer” has been backing the women on there calls....no doubt with such support for their cause he can testify to being a season ticket holder at his local women’s teams where his presence makes up a tenth of the crowd.
Last edited:
