USSF Responds to Women’s Equal Pay Demand

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Public statement from US Soccer on equal pay and the financial difficulties of women’s soccer in the USA.

https://www.ussoccer.com/governance...pen-letter-july-29-2019-finding-common-ground
This is so full of lies it's shocking even for the soccer federations. A few highlights - 1) USSF included the women's pay for their play in the NWSL, the women's pro league, but the men's number does not include their pay in MSL. So the #s are apples and oranges, it's not just their pay for play on the national team, looking at just the national team pay, the men got way more than the women; 2) in the period USSF looks at, the men played 151 games and the women played 190 (when you're good, you play deeper in tournaments...), so the women worked 25% more and got paid less; 3) the women are a lot better than the men, work more and are paid less; 4) even the USMNT slammed USSF's numbers as fraudulent.

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/201...-pay-lawsuit-us-soccer-carlos-cordeiro-letter
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Public statement from US Soccer on equal pay and the financial difficulties of women’s soccer in the USA.

https://www.ussoccer.com/governance...pen-letter-july-29-2019-finding-common-ground
There's also USSF putting their thumb on the scale. The women are playing in St. Paul - at the MSL Loons' new stadium. It's tiny, seats barely 19k. They had 4 tiers of pre-sale before sale to the public. Tix sold out after the second tier, there were no tix for the last 2 tiers of pre-sale, much less general public. I went on for the last pre-sale tier at 10:01 (sales started at 10:00) and was 1,016 on the waiting list. This is a game that would easily sell 40k - 50k tix in a real stadium - but USSF wanted to give a kickback to the Loons for building the new stadium, so they're sacrificing 20k - 30k tickets to reward the Loons - that's a couple million $$ that won't get counted for the women even though the demand is there. There's no way USSF would put USMNT in this dinky stadium. But next year they'll trot out attendance numbers showing the women at less - when it's just because USSF screwed the team and the fans who would love to see the women play.

BTW, the cheapest resale tix are over $250 now w/ the Ticketmaster fees, that's a lot of $$ USSF is leaving behind. But they'll say the women draw less and make less....
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
There's also USSF putting their thumb on the scale. The women are playing in St. Paul - at the new stadium of the MN Loons of MSL. It's a tiny stadium, seats barely 19k. They had 4 tiers of pre-sale before tix go on sale to the public tomorrow. Tix sold out after the second tier, there were no tix for the last 2 tiers of pre-sale, much less general public. I went on for the last pre-sale tier at 10:01 (sales started at 10:00) and was 1,016 on the waiting list for a group of barely 100 tix. This is a game that would easily sell 40k - 50k tickets in a real stadium - but USSF wanted to give a kickback to the Loons for building the new stadium, so they're sacrificing 20k - 30k ticket sales to reward the loons - that's a couple million $$ that won't get counted for the women even though the demand is there. There's no way USSF would put USMNT in this dinky stadium. But next year they'll trot out attendance numbers showing the women at less - when it's just because USSF screwed the team and the fans who would love to see the women play.

BTW, the cheapest resale tix are over $250 now w/ the Ticketmaster fees, that's a lot of $$ USSF is leaving behind. But they'll say the women draw less and make less....
The stadium most widely associated with the men’s national team is Mapfre Stadium in Columbus. It seats 19,968 Americans and Zero Mexicans. Allianz Field is 19,400. You wanted equal. That’s equal.

You are making good points. But you are letting your emotions and frustrations at scalpers buying up the tickets affect your reasoning.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
Jill Ellis quit btw. Announcement forthcoming. No replacement named.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
The stadium most widely associated with the men’s national team is Mapfre Stadium in Columbus. It seats 19,968 Americans and Zero Mexicans.

You are making good points. But you are letting your emotions and frustrations at scalpers buying up the tickets affect your reasoning.
The pre-sales were to Loons season ticket holders and people who have paid to be on the wait list for Loons tickets. It's not scalpers. Obviously the price now is affected the scalpers (I got my tix early before prices got totally crazy), but it's not scalpers who bought up the entire inventory of tickets. And scalpers buy in when a ticket is very hot so their participation just confirms that significant demand is there for tickets (as if you needed more than the 1k waiting list on Ticketmaster) and that USSF is giving up a lot of $$ on this game.

The Loons played at 51k seat TCF Bank Stadium before Allianz opened up, there are reasonable sized options in the Twin Cities that would have let USSF maximize ticket sales and revenue and not hose fans who want to see the game but can't pay >$200 a ticket. But they didn't do that. Hhhmmm...
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
Attendance for USWNT Victory Tour 2015:

Dec 6, 2015 - Aloha Stadium. Cancelled team refused to play on artificial surface similar to several MLS stadiums. Which perhaps explains why they aren’t playing elsewhere in MN.

December 10, 2015 - Alamodome (turf) - 10,690

December 13, 2015 - Arizona Cardinals Stadium (turf) - 19,006.

December 16, 2015 - Superdome - 32,845. They did play this game (a loss to China) on turf. Which tells me the cancellation in Hawaii was more about low ticket sales and absurd travel costs than gender equity since half the team plays club games on turf in stadiums they shared with men.

So, they probably made enough from the gate in NOLA to cover the rental fee for that game. The others are obvious losses of the rental fees and probably explains why nobody disputes the net outcome of the 2015 World Cup was at least a $650,000 loss after expenses as reflected on their publicly available audited financial statement which the women have stipulated into the record in the current wage dispute while issuing press releases on the gross revenue the women generated in the tourney.

The run-up friendlies in 2019 were all held in MLS stadiums and averaged 12,968 a game.

The other two Victory Tour 2019 games will be played in NFL stadiums.

The facts simply aren’t playing out to support what you want (or have been told) to believe.
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
The run-up friendlies in 2019 were all held in MLS stadiums and averaged 12,968 a game.

?? The 5 friendlies in 2019 before the World Cup averaged 24,617 a game according to US Soccer. Your 12k number is wrong.

The lowest was 17,264 in Colorado, where the MLS team averages 14,254 per game. In the 2019 friendlies, the USWNT outdrew the local MLS team on average by 15%-20% (except in LA, where they drew slightly less).

For this year, as of a week ago they had sold 27k tix for the Aug. 3 LA game, they'll probably get to 40k, and St. Paul is sold out before tix even open to the public. St. Paul would sell 40k in a real stadium. The numbers are going to be really good but not as good as if they scheduled better.
 
Last edited:

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
She Believes Cup numbers was the numbers I quoted. A “tournament” USSF took a shower on.

The numbers you quote still prove my point anyway. They aren’t drawing enough to make rent, much less overhead, at NFL stadiums. You just want that to be true. You think it will happen. When it doesn’t, something other than people don’t care or people don’t care enough to pay $45.00 a ticket is to blame.

The American people like the women’s team. They don’t like them enough to pay to see them or even watch on TV except during the later stages of major tournaments. And that’s because what Americans really love is winners. Men or Women. They like soccer when a winner can be declared. Right now the most convincing argument for equal pay for many people is that the women win more than the men, some even think they should make more than the men.

The idea that the “women’s team is growing” is a fallacy amongst the public at large. They draw 12,000 for a friendly and 80,000 for a tournament final and that’s been true since the 1996 Olympics regardless of what region of the country or what time and day the game is played. They have enjoyed incremental growth amongst people who already follow soccer and many of those people, who didn’t respect or follow the women’s game 30 years ago, now respect it. We have a new generation in the last 10 years who grew up watching both mostly because both teams were competitive and they didn’t play any other sports in school. The media likes the team because they figured out they can gin up a certain viewing demographic that is very favorable to advertisers (women 18-40 who make decisions on the purchase of products in their home) by stroking pre-existing prejudices (true or false) about gender bias in American society. But this simply doesn’t translate into on going interest in the sport for the sake of the game when the result is meaningless.

So it’s foolish and perhaps even hypocritical to book these games at a loss so long as the women want equal pay and a salary and benefits the men don’t get and no other women’s team enjoys worldwide. From the 1950’s to the collapse of the Soviet Union every Olympic failure by the USA was blamed on the sports collectives where the Soviets gave a salary and comprehensive benefits to players who trained year around while our players were “amateurs” training on their own in Colorado Springs. (That was true to varying degrees). Now the same is true for the USA.
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Attendance for USWNT Victory Tour 2015:

Dec 6, 2015 - Aloha Stadium. Cancelled team refused to play on artificial surface similar to several MLS stadiums. Which perhaps explains why they aren’t playing elsewhere in MN.

December 10, 2015 - Alamodome (turf) - 10,690

December 13, 2015 - Arizona Cardinals Stadium (turf) - 19,006.

December 16, 2015 - Superdome - 32,845. They did play this game (a loss to China) on turf. Which tells me the cancellation in Hawaii was more about low ticket sales and absurd travel costs than gender equity since half the team plays club games on turf in stadiums they shared with men.

So, they probably made enough from the gate in NOLA to cover the rental fee for that game. The others are obvious losses of the rental fees and probably explains why nobody disputes the net outcome of the 2015 World Cup was at least a $650,000 loss after expenses as reflected on their publicly available audited financial statement which the women have stipulated into the record in the current wage dispute while issuing press releases on the gross revenue the women generated in the tourney.

The run-up friendlies in 2019 were all held in MLS stadiums and averaged 12,968 a game.

The other two Victory Tour 2019 games will be played in NFL stadiums.

The facts simply aren’t playing out to support what you want (or have been told) to believe.
Your data on the 2015 victory tour also are cooky. They played 9 games over 5 months backloaded to the end (which is crazy, obviously the "victory" part is forgotten 5 months later, USSF was dumb in their scheduling).

But you only report 3 of the games? You omit the 44,028 who came to Pittsburgh, the 34,538 who came to Detroit, the 35,753 who came to Philadelphia and the 32,869 who were at Camping World Stadium wherever that is. The average over 9 games was 28,186 - far different from the 20,847 you implied. And without the San Antonio game that was an outlier, it was over 30k. You imply that New Orleans was an outlier, but it was middle of the pack (literally) - 4 of the 9 games had better attendance than the Nolo game. Why didn't you mention them?

So for St. Paul, 7 of the 9 2015 victory tour games had attendance that is greater than Allianz Field capacity. And that was before the women were superstars.

Your data are obviously cherry picked to make the ladies look bad, and often are just wrong. I suggest you go back to square 1 in your thinking on this issue and educate yourself a bit more if you care. Because you're way, way off.
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
She Believes Cup numbers.
Nope. She Believes (which are not friendlies btw) were 14,555, 22,125 and 14,009 - not even one of them as low as the "average" you reported (pro tip, the average can't be less than the smallest number). If you include them, the average for 2019 is 21,722, almost twice what you said. But note that the friendlies had much better attendance than She Believes for a number of reasons. The friendlies are a better metric for the victory tour, but even so, your numbers are wildly off.
 
Last edited:

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
Nope. She Believes (which are not friendlies btw) were 14,555, 22,125 and 14,009 - not even one of them as low as the "average" you reported (pro tip, the average can't be less than the smallest number). If you include them, the average for 2019 is 21,722, almost twice what you said. But note that the friendlies had much better attendance than She Believes for a number of reasons. The friendlies are a better metric for the victory tour, but even so, your numbers are wildly off.
Fair enough. My mistake. My number was the average for all games played not just the games the USA played. But our argument is a good indicator of the problem here at large. You are focused on what the women earn. I’m focusing on what the women cost. And the USSF has to pay for all of them to call it a tournament. You are also continuing to prove my point. All of those numbers are MLS stadium size crowds not to capacity so I fail to see how youre proving your conspiracy that USSF is somehow underbooking the women intentionally when they are hosting two of three games at nfl stadiums and the numbers suggest there’s no chance they will make money to pay for it.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
Your data on the 2015 victory tour also are cooky. They played 9 games over 5 months backloaded to the end (which is crazy, obviously the "victory" part is forgotten 5 months later, USSF was dumb in their scheduling).

But you only report 3 of the games? You omit the 44,028 who came to Pittsburgh, the 34,538 who came to Detroit, the 35,753 who came to Philadelphia and the 32,869 who were at Camping World Stadium wherever that is. The average over 9 games was 28,186 - far different from the 20,847 you implied. And without the San Antonio game that was an outlier, it was over 30k. You imply that New Orleans was an outlier, but it was middle of the pack (literally) - 4 of the 9 games had better attendance than the Nolo game. Why didn't you mention them?

So for St. Paul, 7 of the 9 2015 victory tour games had attendance that is greater than Allianz Field capacity. And that was before the women were superstars.

Your data are obviously cherry picked to make the ladies look bad, and often are just wrong. I suggest you go back to square 1 in your thinking on this issue and educate yourself a bit more if you care. Because you're way, way off.
I used the games announced in USWNT official press releases as part of the 2015 victory tour. Then pulled the box scores from press coverage for the attendance numbers. If they added games later that were regular friendlies, that wasn’t an intentional omission.

You are brand new to the game if you think this squad represents the first time the women “were superstars”. Mia Hamm was the highest compensated soccer player in the USA for a decade and made more in one year (1996) than all the men combined. She was a household name 4 years before the jersey rip by Brandy. Nobody disputes that.

I’m not against the women. I was for them when they created the team in 1989. I went to games before they got press coverage. My first female cap was 1991. I coached high school women’s soccer 1991-1993. Before some reading this was born. They deserve to be treated the same. They deserve the rightful share of what they earn. Nobody is saying the women’s NBA players should be paid the same as the NBA or that the TU softball team should move back into Skelly so they have the same size stadium (in fact the argument was the opposite 10 years ago). So I’m in favor of the women and them being paid fairly based on what they earn. But they won’t tell us what that is. They are too busy cashing in by pulling your chain. And I think that should stop because at a certain point it will hurt the sport. More people tuned out this cycle over politics than the press wants to admit.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Fair enough. My mistake. My number was the average for all games played not just the games the USA played. But our argument is a good indicator of the problem here at large. You are focused on what the women earn. I’m focusing on what the women cost. And the USSF has to pay for all of them to call it a tournament. You are also continuing to prove my point. All of those numbers are MLS stadium size crowds not to capacity so I fail to see how youre proving your conspiracy that USSF is somehow underbooking the women intentionally when they are hosting two of three games at nfl stadiums and the numbers suggest there’s no chance they will make money to pay for it.
I think it's indicative of another problem - the debate is polluted with misinformation and outright lies, much of it spread intentionally by US Soccer. That's the problem with looking at cost - it's so easy to manipulate. Pretty much every sports team claims at contract time that it's losing money but their value keeps going up and up and up. How can that be? They pad costs and inflate expenses and you can be sure if it's unethical, US Soccer is all over it.

Look at it this way - if you have the success and attendance of USWNT and you're not making money, it's a problem with management. This is an activity that should be making money and if it's not, US Soccer is to blame. In the words of the USMNT - “The Federation downplays contributions to the sport when it suits them. This is more of the same from a Federation that is constantly in disputes and litigation and focuses on increasing revenue and profits without any idea how to use that money to grow the sport.”

The average MLS attendance in 2019 is 20,803, which is skewed high by Atlanta and Seattle which are really high. Without them, it's less than 20k. The women crush those numbers.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
The American people like the women’s team. They don’t like them enough to pay to see them or even watch on TV except during the later stages of major tournaments. And that’s because what Americans really love is winners. Men or Women. They like soccer when a winner can be declared. Right now the most convincing argument for equal pay for many people is that the women win more than the men, some even think they should make more than the men.

The idea that the “women’s team is growing” is a fallacy amongst the public at large. They draw 12,000 for a friendly and 80,000 for a tournament final and that’s been true since the 1996 Olympics regardless of what region of the country or what time and day the game is played.
This is just false. The data simply don't support this. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that your opinions are based on outright falsehoods. Virtually every "fact" you have reported is wrong or cherry picked in a highly misleading way. I'm not saying you're misrepresenting things, I'm sure you're passing along what you've read, but someone's leading you wildly astray.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
I think it's indicative of another problem - the debate is polluted with misinformation and outright lies, much of it spread intentionally by US Soccer. That's the problem with looking at cost - it's so easy to manipulate. Pretty much every sports team claims at contract time that it's losing money but their value keeps going up and up and up. How can that be? They pad costs and inflate expenses and you can be sure if it's unethical, US Soccer is all over it.

Look at it this way - if you have the success and attendance of USWNT and you're not making money, it's a problem with management. This is an activity that should be making money and if it's not, US Soccer is to blame. In the words of the USMNT - “The Federation downplays contributions to the sport when it suits them. This is more of the same from a Federation that is constantly in disputes and litigation and focuses on increasing revenue and profits without any idea how to use that money to grow the sport.”

The average MLS attendance in 2019 is 20,803, which is skewed high by Atlanta and Seattle which are really high. Without them, it's less than 20k. The women crush those numbers.
What NWSL franchise is crushing those numbers? The league, by its own admission would fold tomorrow if USSF wasn’t paying the players salaries and doing pay-per-view deals to get them on TV after they lost their contract with Lifetime.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
The idea that the “women’s team is growing” is a fallacy amongst the public at large. They draw 12,000 for a friendly and 80,000 for a tournament final and that’s been true since the 1996 Olympics regardless of what region of the country or what time and day the game is played. They have enjoyed incremental growth amongst people who already follow soccer and many of those people, who didn’t respect or follow the women’s game 30 years ago, now respect it.
They're not growing, they're just getting more fans. LOL, ok, now it's clear :)
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
This is just false. The data simply don't support this. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that your opinions are based on outright falsehoods. Virtually every "fact" you have reported is wrong or cherry picked in a highly misleading way. I'm not saying you're misrepresenting things, I'm sure you're passing along what you've read, but someone's leading you wildly astray.
Nobody’s leading me astray at the plain and simple truth that there aren’t butts in seats
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
I think it's indicative of another problem - the debate is polluted with misinformation and outright lies, much of it spread intentionally by US Soccer. That's the problem with looking at cost - it's so easy to manipulate. Pretty much every sports team claims at contract time that it's losing money but their value keeps going up and up and up. How can that be? They pad costs and inflate expenses and you can be sure if it's unethical, US Soccer is all over it.

Look at it this way - if you have the success and attendance of USWNT and you're not making money, it's a problem with management. This is an activity that should be making money and if it's not, US Soccer is to blame. In the words of the USMNT - “The Federation downplays contributions to the sport when it suits them. This is more of the same from a Federation that is constantly in disputes and litigation and focuses on increasing revenue and profits without any idea how to use that money to grow the sport.”

The average MLS attendance in 2019 is 20,803, which is skewed high by Atlanta and Seattle which are really high. Without them, it's less than 20k. The women crush those numbers.
Tell me again why Mia Hamm bought LAFC and not an NWSL franchise.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
What portion of USSF statement was false when the women came with hat in hand and said the league will fold if you don’t pay for it.

What management genius pays Rapinoe more than the rest of the entire team combined and more than the value of the club?
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Nobody’s leading me astray at the plain and simple truth that there aren’t butts in seats
But the problem is that your opinion on "butts in the seat" is based on demonstrably false information. You say there are 12k butts when in fact there are 24k butts. This is like Levitt saying we should get rid of football because we only averaged 7500 fans a game last year. How would we feel about that? That's the argument you're making.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
What NWSL franchise is crushing those numbers? The league, by its own admission would fold tomorrow if USSF wasn’t paying the players salaries and doing pay-per-view deals to get them on TV after they lost their contract with Lifetime.
Oh wait, we're switching topics now? I don't blame you, I'd want to get off this one too if I were you :)
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
Oh wait, we're switching topics now? I don't blame you, I'd want to get off this one too if I were you :)
Nope. You can’t compare one off USWNT appearances with the attendance numbers of MLS clubs. You are making the selective argument you claim I am making. Apples to Apples here. What are the attendance numbers for men’s clubs vs women’s clubs in this country? What was the highest rating for an MLS game on TV last year? What was the highest rating for an NWSL game last year?
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Nope. You can’t compare one off USWNT appearances with the attendance numbers of MLS clubs. You are making the selective argument you claim I am making. Apples to Apples here. What are the attendance numbers for men’s clubs vs women’s clubs in this country? What was the highest rating for an MLS game on TV last year? What was the highest rating for an NWSL game last year?
Ok, look at USMNT friendlies in 2019 - spoiler alert, it's worse then MLS and way worse than the women - averaging 16,700 in friendlies vs. 24,600 fo the women and 20,800 for MLS. Ouch! I was being charitable using MLS instead of USMNT and helping you out a little :) If you add in the Gold Cup but exclude the Mexico game, which was crazy, they average 19,500, less than MLS and the USWNT. With Mexico, it's 23,100 because that game had 62,493, more than double any other game (thank you Mexico fans). So the team that has sucky attendance except in tournament finals is the men's team, not the women's (and that's to support the other side!).

9040
13656
17422
18033
17719
23955

There is no argument for equal pay between MLS and NWSL, that's a distraction. But those are the only data that come anywhere close to supporting your point, so I can see why you want to focus on it!
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,745
113
I'm probably going to regret getting into this discussion but here it goes. Shouldn't the money US Soccer is pouring into the women's pro league (which is paying salaries) be included in the compensation figures for the ladies? Maybe not all the money but the salaries the women are being paid in that league. I do see both sides of this argument. I would like to see more incentives (bonuses) paid for on-field performance....which would theoretically help the ladies and reduce the men's salaries if their current level of play continues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
I'm probably going to regret getting into this discussion but here it goes. Shouldn't the money US Soccer is pouring into the women's pro league (which is paying salaries) be included in the compensation figures for the ladies? Maybe not all the money but the salaries the women are being paid in that league. I do see both sides of this argument. I would like to see more incentives (bonuses) paid for on-field performance....which would theoretically help the ladies and reduce the men's salaries if their current level of play continues.
That's the argument US Soccer makes - but they're 2 different jobs. They just happen to have an overlapping owner whereas MLS doesn't. If you include NWLS, then you should include MLS. The men's data doesn't include their second job, why should the women? This would say they work twice as much for the same pay so that's equal.

If you include that as a "cost" for US Soccer, then you should look at the total expenditure on men's vs women's soccer in development, etc. since this argument focuses on cost to build and support the team. But US Soccer won't release those numbers - we know if they were equal, US Soccer would be shouting it from the rooftop. So it's safe to say those numbers heavily favor the men.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,745
113
That's the argument US Soccer makes - but they're 2 different jobs. They just happen to have an overlapping owner whereas MLS doesn't. If you include NWLS, then you should include MLS. The men's data doesn't include their second job, why should the women? This would say they work twice as much for the same pay so that's equal.

If you include that as a "cost" for US Soccer, then you should look at the total expenditure on men's vs women's soccer in development, etc. since this argument focuses on cost to build and support the team. But US Soccer won't release those numbers - we know if they were equal, US Soccer would be shouting it from the rooftop. So it's safe to say those numbers heavily favor the men.

If US Soccer is paying MLS salaries then I absolutely agree. If not, then I'm not sure I follow your point. I understand the argument and I'm not dismissive of the same. We can call it a salary, stipend, whatever. However, it is money that US Soccer is regularly paying to the women which they aren't paying to the men then I have a hard time understanding how that money should at least not be considered if not calculated into the compensation package. If the women want that money not to be considered compensation then stop taking it and independently earn their own salaries like the men instead of being dependent on US Soccer funds.

Total expenditures would be an interesting number. One I would like to see especially on a per player basis. However, I was solely addressing the issue of USWNT vs USMNT pay. As I stated above, I do believe US Soccer should change their compensation model to close that gap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
If US Soccer is paying MLS salaries then I absolutely agree. If not, then I'm not sure I follow your point. I understand the argument and I'm not dismissive of the same. We can call it a salary, stipend, whatever. However, it is money that US Soccer is regularly paying to the women which they aren't paying to the men then I have a hard time understanding how that money should at least not be considered if not calculated into the compensation package. If the women want that money not to be considered compensation then stop taking it and independently earn their own salaries like the men instead of being dependent on US Soccer funds.

Total expenditures would be an interesting number. One I would like to see especially on a per player basis. However, I was solely addressing the issue of USWNT vs USMNT pay. As I stated above, I do believe US Soccer should change their compensation model to close that gap.
It's two different jobs and it's only linked because it happens to have the same owner. Say I own an accounting firm and a bait shop. You work at both, 40 hrs/wk in accounting for $30k a year and 20 hrs/wk in bait for $20k a year.. $50k/yr to work 60 hrs/week. You find out that another accountant, who is way worse than you and doesn't have nearly as good of performance, works 30 hrs/wk and gets paid $50k/yr but doesn't work at the bait shop at all. You complain, and I say "you both get paid $50k/yr, what's the problem?" Wouldn't you say "but $20k of my pay is from the bait shop, we should just compare our accounting pay since that's all he does! Why does my second job count?" And I say "because I own them both and sign both checks." And you'd say "what, that's f&*^$d! logic". It's the same thing. 2 different jobs with the only tie being that I own them both.

It's hard to tell, but I believe the USSF numbers seem to include all NWSL salaries, even though most of the NWSL players aren't even on the USWNT. Why should the pay for someone who's not even on the team count?
 
Last edited:

TU_BLA

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2012
24,356
9,990
113
Tulsa, OK
I'm glad you all debated this. It's hard to decipher exactly what the truth is as you have the USWNT sending 1 set of figures and the USSF sending another set of figures. I will side with the players as I think the USSF is shady as hell when it comes to the $$$ side of things because it has essentially sold itself and it's exec positions. That org is no longer concerned with the development of soccer in the US and how to best develop players for the long term success of it's national teams. It is now the sister org to MLS.

How much did this chaos have to do with Jill Ellis' resigning? Or was it just time for her to step aside seeing as how she has accomplished something as coach no one else has? Who are possible replacements? Is Randy Waldrum a consideration for this job?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
I’ll agree it’s a jacked up organization if Randy Waldrum is in consideration.

You guys are forgetting USSF is a USA based 501(c)(3). Not FIFA with limited diplomatic immunity and Swiss bank accounts or Trinidad based media rights companies contracting with CONCACAF. They have affirmative tax and financial disclosure responsibilities that have to be truthful and meet minimum standards. You are accusing people of felonies. And that’s an unlikely scenario with everyone with FIFA who moved money into the USA either dead, in jail, or waiting trial.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,745
113
It's hard to tell, but I believe the USSF numbers seem to include all NWSL salaries, even though most of the NWSL players aren't even on the USWNT. Why should the pay for someone who's not even on the team count?

It shouldn't. I do agree with BLA that the USSF is shade as hell and I wouldn't trust any numbers that released. I think we call can agree (and hope) that this lawsuit results in more transparency from USSF and more equal treatment with the men and women.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
It shouldn't. I do agree with BLA that the USSF is shade as hell and I wouldn't trust any numbers that released. I think we call can agree (and hope) that this lawsuit results in more transparency from USSF and more equal treatment with the men and women.
No doubt. are you in the camp that says their Form 990 and required independent financial audit was knowingly falsified too?
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
That's the argument US Soccer makes - but they're 2 different jobs. They just happen to have an overlapping owner whereas MLS doesn't. If you include NWLS, then you should include MLS. The men's data doesn't include their second job, why should the women? This would say they work twice as much for the same pay so that's equal.

If you include that as a "cost" for US Soccer, then you should look at the total expenditure on men's vs women's soccer in development, etc. since this argument focuses on cost to build and support the team. But US Soccer won't release those numbers - we know if they were equal, US Soccer would be shouting it from the rooftop. So it's safe to say those numbers heavily favor the men.
USSF doesn’t pay men’s professional players and have no control over what clubs pay them. Where is it written that USSF must make up that gap for the 23 best women’s players before they can field the USMNT. they only pay women’s players because the market wont support it but USSF makes the money back on girls youth participation fees. If you want equality, then USSF should get out of the business of supporting men’s and women’s leagues like every other developed country.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,745
113
No doubt. are you in the camp that says their Form 990 and required independent financial audit was knowingly falsified too?

I don't know enough about their return or the accounting which went into the same to be in either camp. Nor do I have the time or desire to gather enough information to go down that rabbit hole. My hope is that there are accountants who will audit the information in the 990 and hold them accountable if they are playing with the numbers. I believe we all want the USSF to be accountable.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
I’ll agree it’s a jacked up organization if Randy Waldrum is in consideration.

You guys are forgetting USSF is a USA based 501(c)(3). Not FIFA with limited diplomatic immunity and Swiss bank accounts or Trinidad based media rights companies contracting with CONCACAF. They have affirmative tax and financial disclosure responsibilities that have to be truthful and meet minimum standards. You are accusing people of felonies. And that’s an unlikely scenario with everyone with FIFA who moved money into the USA either dead, in jail, or waiting trial.
Nothing in this thread is even remotely close to illegal. If you've ever worked closely with accountants, you know there's very wide latitude and many things don't even get to them. I was CEO and general counsel of a pretty big company with traded debt that required audited financials. We had a lot of leeway on how we reported things with top Big 4 accountants. And then there are the invisible things - like if you want to show worse results, just don't negotiate rent with the MLS team, pay them 2X what you could negotiate. You're not going to jail for paying rack rate instead of negotiating. This stuff happens all the time. You're being way, way overdramatic to try to prove your point.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
I'm glad you all debated this. It's hard to decipher exactly what the truth is as you have the USWNT sending 1 set of figures and the USSF sending another set of figures. I will side with the players as I think the USSF is shady as hell when it comes to the $$$ side of things because it has essentially sold itself and it's exec positions. That org is no longer concerned with the development of soccer in the US and how to best develop players for the long term success of it's national teams. It is now the sister org to MLS.

How much did this chaos have to do with Jill Ellis' resigning? Or was it just time for her to step aside seeing as how she has accomplished something as coach no one else has? Who are possible replacements? Is Randy Waldrum a consideration for this job?
If you believe twitter and the pundits who claim to be in the know, the real reason is that there was trouble getting some of the players motivated a year after the World Cup for the Olympics and they lost in the quarterfinals. She doesn’t want to deal with that again.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
I'm glad you all debated this. It's hard to decipher exactly what the truth is as you have the USWNT sending 1 set of figures and the USSF sending another set of figures. I will side with the players as I think the USSF is shady as hell when it comes to the $$$ side of things because it has essentially sold itself and it's exec positions. That org is no longer concerned with the development of soccer in the US and how to best develop players for the long term success of it's national teams. It is now the sister org to MLS.

How much did this chaos have to do with Jill Ellis' resigning? Or was it just time for her to step aside seeing as how she has accomplished something as coach no one else has? Who are possible replacements? Is Randy Waldrum a consideration for this job?
I think you nailed it. The 2 sides are suing each other, each is playing PR hard. The truth is always in the middle somewhere, it's gray not black or white. But with USSF involved, my guess is the truth is a lot closer to the players' side than USSF's side.

It's too bad this often comes down to USWNT VS. USMNT because they seem not to see it that way - they both believe the women deserve more and USSF is screwed up and dysfunctional. It should be Everyone vs USSF not men vs women.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,015
113
I don't know enough about their return or the accounting which went into the same to be in either camp. Nor do I have the time or desire to gather enough information to go down that rabbit hole. My hope is that there are accountants who will audit the information in the 990 and hold them accountable if they are playing with the numbers. I believe we all want the USSF to be accountable.
And that will happen if it goes past mediation. Prediction: settled at mediation by the players with all the benefits the men don’t get intact now that they’ve maximized their earning potential pulling the gender chain. That’s been the pattern for the past 25 years.