USSF Responds to Women’s Equal Pay Demand

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
I can’t imagine anyone who follows soccer (or sports in general) would make the argument that the women are comparable to the men as far as skill, speed, strength and size. I would think the top U18 boys teams would have the advantage over the women’s pro teams as far as speed, quickness and strength. Nothing against the ladies it’s just the difference between the sexes. Same as is every sport where speed, strength and explosiveness plays a part.
Nobody is seriously making this point, it's people like Huffy who use it as a silly strawman so they can "win" by disproving it. Just shake your head and move on. This is the kind of diversionary argument you make when you throw out a long list of stats that are all wrong but still desperately want to "win" the debate...

But the argument doesn't even make sense. 5.4 million people went to college football games even though no college team could beat the worst pro team. People on here say "I don't like the NBA, college basketball is more fun" even though the athletic ability and skills of pro players is vastly better than college layers. Why do we watch inferior athletes all the time but then bash women's sports because they are less capable athletically? When the athletic difference is caused by gender is the only time we seem to care.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Nobody is seriously making this point, it's people like Huffy who use it as a silly strawman so they can "win" by disproving it. Just shake your head and move on. This is the kind of diversionary argument you make when you throw out a long list of stats that are all wrong but still desperately want to "win" the debate...

But the argument doesn't even make sense. 5.4 million people went to college football games even though no college team could beat the worst pro team. People on here say "I don't like the NBA, college basketball is more fun" even though the athletic ability and skills of pro players is vastly better than college layers. Why do we watch inferior athletes all the time but then bash women's sports because they are less capable athletically? When the athletic difference is caused by gender is the only time we seem to care.
Or American vs English soccer
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,746
113
Comparing pro sports to college sports and trying to extrapolate anything from attendance figures is simply a poor example. Fans have strong emotional attachments to schools and conferences. A better comparison would be D1 football to D2 football or the NFL to a lower pro league. Comparing pro sports to college sports is an apples to oranges analysis.

There are plenty of comparisons out there. We don’t have to compare different animals when there are or have been different levels of pro ball (football and basketball) as well as college ball.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
It would be extremely helpful if the NWSL can grow into a viable league, which I believe eventually it can. The Portland Thorns have laid out a blueprint for how it can be done, averaging more than 19k per game and fully sustainable without the federation subsidies. It's just going to take more enterprising owners like Merritt Paulson.
Definitely, and hopefully that'll happen with more effort. It's too early to know. This is the 6th season for NWSL, people should remember that at this stage for the MLS, it had lost $750 million, eliminated teams and was contemplating folding. Comparing MLS today with NWLS today doesn't make sense. MLS invested, what, 100x what has been invested in NWLS at the same point of existence and was barely doing better than NWLS today.

The other thing to remember is that attendance is about a lot more than quality of play - it's marketing, game experience, etc. When we complain about TU's attendance, what do we say? Marketing and game day experience need to improve. The same thing is true about NWSL. Without investment and creativity in building the overall experience, nothing else matters. And blaming attendance on quality of play is way short-sighted. Why don't we judge NWSL with the same scrutiny we use for TU sports?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctt8410

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Comparing pro sports to college sports and trying to extrapolate anything from attendance figures is simply a poor example. Fans have strong emotional attachments to schools and conferences. A better comparison would be D1 football to D2 football or the NFL to a lower pro league. Comparing pro sports to college sports is an apples to oranges analysis.

There are plenty of comparisons out there. We don’t have to compare different animals when there are or have been different levels of pro ball (football and basketball) as well as college ball.
I'm not extrapolating #s, I'm simply pointing out that the "they're not as good of athletes" argument doesn't make sense. People watch inferior athletes all the time and enjoy it. But you make a good point - you need to make the experience at whatever level enjoyable and addicting. If you do, people will come even if the physical abilities are different. The experience is what matters. If you treat it like a second class, minor league, then you'll get attendance that corresponds to that.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Women played in front of almost 38k last night.

If you look at the 6 men's friendlies and the 6 women's games (5 friendlies and Ireland last night, leaving out the tournaments), the 3 best attended games and 5 of the top 6 best attended have been the women. Honestly it probably tells more about the men than the women but still.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,128
5,265
113
Right now the women have momentum and recognition. Perhaps they deserve even more than the men based on their current value and I hope they negotiate a great deal.

But I do not see this as an equal pay issue because they do not have the same job.
 

TU_BLA

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2012
24,356
9,991
113
Tulsa, OK
Women played in front of almost 38k last night.

If you look at the 6 men's friendlies and the 6 women's games (5 friendlies and Ireland last night, leaving out the tournaments), the 3 best attended games and 5 of the top 6 best attended have been the women. Honestly it probably tells more about the men than the women but still.
The women’s players are seriously more fan friendly than the men’s players. They work hard to build that culture too and it has paid off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
The women’s players are seriously more fan friendly than the men’s players. They work hard to build that culture too and it has paid off.
Just this generation. Way more entitled. But you have hit a bullseye now that you mention it.

We are light years from Tab Ramos asking me to buy him and Caligiuri a pizza in the lobby of our hotel in St. Louis or Frankie shirtless chugging beer after beer in the stands after beating Mexico. Guzan spotted me in Trinidad and brought over a signed glove but that was almost 10 years ago. Heck, can you even picture any of the present guys stage diving the Outlaws off a taco truck like Landon? Their “never cool enough for a frat until now” fest isn’t my scene, but it works as a fan friendly example. The most fab friendly guy for the USMNT might be Lalas and he hasn’t played in 18 years. Geoff Cameron always walks out of the area to the supporters section but is he even still in the pool?

Seems to be just a job for the present crop.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
The women beat Ireland 3-0 at the Rose Bowl, btw. 37,000 fans. The last time the men played there: 93, 869. The next game is at Lincoln Financial Field. The men beat Curaçao there this summer during the Gold Cup in front of 55,000. Tickets are $41.00 or two thirds less than the sale price in MN. But those are nose bleeders. Lower level tickets behind the goal are $95. The next non-Mexico friendly for the men is Uruguay in St.Louis. $95 will get you a seat at midfield. $30 for behind the goal in a baseball stadium. Makes you wonder what the women would say at a press conference if they were made to play in a baseball stadium and we were made to charge less than men for their tickets.
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
The women beat Ireland 3-0 at the Rose Bowl, btw. 37,000 fans. The last time the men played there: 93, 869. The next game is at Lincoln Financial Field. The men beat Curaçao there this summer during the Gold Cup in front of 55,000. Tickets are $41.00 or two thirds less than the sale price in MN. But those are nose bleeders. Lower level tickets behind the goal are $95. The next non-Mexico friendly for the men is Uruguay in St.Louis. $95 will get you a seat at midfield. $30 for behind the goal in a baseball stadium. Makes you wonder what the women would say at a press conference if they were made to play in a baseball stadium and we were made to charge less than men for their tickets.
Attendance for the men against Curacao at Lincoln Field on June 30, 2019 was 26,233 - not the 55k you said. Sigh...

You're talking about Mexico in 2015 at the Rose Bowl? Had 93k at that game but the men averaged barely 30k for the rest of the games that year. Same with this year - men had 62k vs Mexico and have averaged 19.5k against everyone else. Those game tell you more about the Mexican team's popularity than the USMNT. Also, 2015 also was a recent high water mark for the men. They averaged 30k that year and are under 20k this year. If they played at the Rose Bowl this year, they'd struggle to get to 30k (unless they played Mexico), in fact, they have not hit 30k yet in any of the 11 games this year other than Mexico.

Pricing is complicated, too low and you leave $$ on the table. Too high and you lock people out and leave $$ on the table. It's really hard to make sense out of what USSF is doing. With high prices in big stadiums and low prices in small stadiums, they're not trying to maximize either attendance or revenue. If they're not trying to get the most people to see the team and they're not trying to make as much $$ as they can - then what are they trying to do? It doesn't make much sense.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...-curacao-match-report-stats-standings-bracket
 
Last edited:

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Attendance for the men against Curacao at Lincoln Field on June 30, 2019 was 26,233 - not the 55k you said. Sigh...

You're talking about Mexico in 2015 at the Rose Bowl? Had 93k at that game but the men averaged barely 30k for the rest of the games that year. Same with this year - men had 62k vs Mexico and have averaged 19.5k against everyone else. Those game tell you more about the Mexican team's popularity than the USMNT. Also, 2015 also was a recent high water mark for the men. They averaged 30k that year and are under 20k this year. If they played at the Rose Bowl this year, they'd struggle to get to 30k (unless they played Mexico), in fact, they have not hit 30k yet in any of the 11 games this year other than Mexico.

The women have complained about the ticket pricing being too high. Pricing is a complicated science, too low and you leave $$ on the table. Too high and you lock people out and leave $$ on the table. Personally I think pricing to maximize attendance makes most sense but what do I know.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...-curacao-match-report-stats-standings-bracket
You win on the 55,000. That’s the most they have ever had at that venue, not the most recent. Good fact check.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
1/28/18 – Friendly – USA vs. Bosnia & Herzegovina – StubHub Center – 11,161
3/27/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Paraguay – WakeMed Soccer Park – 9,825
5/28/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Bolivia – Talen Energy Stadium – 11,882
9/7/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Brazil – MetLife Stadium – 32,489
9/11/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Mexico – Nissan Stadium – 40,194
10/11/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Colombia – Raymond James Stadium – 38,631
10/16/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Peru – Pratt & Whitney Stadium – 24,959

It boils down to quality of opponent. Now that UEFA has rules against playing friendlies outside of Europe, it’s tough to bring in a team people want to see.

It’s worth noting that in each of the last two World Cup years, we saw solid average attendances: 34,374 in 2014 and 35,677 in 2010. Which is roughly equal to the women now in a World Cup year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
1/28/18 – Friendly – USA vs. Bosnia & Herzegovina – StubHub Center – 11,161
3/27/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Paraguay – WakeMed Soccer Park – 9,825
5/28/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Bolivia – Talen Energy Stadium – 11,882
9/7/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Brazil – MetLife Stadium – 32,489
9/11/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Mexico – Nissan Stadium – 40,194
10/11/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Colombia – Raymond James Stadium – 38,631
10/16/18
– Friendly – USA vs. Peru – Pratt & Whitney Stadium – 24,959

It boils down to quality of opponent. Now that UEFA has rules against playing friendlies outside of Europe, it’s tough to bring in a team people want to see.

It’s worth noting that in each of the last two World Cup years, we saw solid average attendances: 34,374 in 2014 and 35,677 in 2010. Which is roughly equal to the women now in a World Cup year.
Do you know when the last time we had a noteworthy team not from South/Central America? i wonder how much of the showing against Brazil, Mexico, etc. is it being a popular opponent and how much is that it's visitors who travel well? This little bit of research on Mexico suggests that attendance from US fans didn't increase a whole lot, it was mostly increases from fans of Mexico (who draw 50% more for games on US soil than the USMNT, ouch).

It's harder for the women, they're playing mediocre (or worse) European teams that bring nothing - they won't bring fans and aren't teams anyone wants to see. They don't get any bump from these opponents.

The men's performance in WC years stalled in 2018 when they averaged only 24k, obviously not making it hurt. It does reflect a continuing trend of lower and lower attendance for them tho.

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2017/12/08/mexicos-attendances-games-us-48-greater-usmnts-2017/
 
Last edited:

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Do you know when the last time we had a noteworthy team not from South/Central America? i wonder how much of the showing against Brazil, Mexico, etc. is it being a popular opponent and how much is that it's visitors who travel well? This little bit of research on Mexico suggests that attendance from US fans didn't increase a whole lot, it was mostly increases from fans of Mexico (who draw 50% more for games on US soil than the USMNT, ouch).

It's harder for the women, they're playing mediocre (or worse) European teams that bring nothing - they won't bring fans and aren't teams anyone wants to see. They don't get any bump from these opponents.

The men's performance in WC years stalled in 2018 when they averaged only 24k, obviously not making it hurt. It does reflect a continuing trend of lower and lower attendance for them tho.

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2017/12/08/mexicos-attendances-games-us-48-greater-usmnts-2017/
If you crunch the numbers it depends on the country and where it’s played to determine how much the impAct of visiting fans have. USA based Colombia fans don’t travel as well as Mexico fans.

In the end it doesn’t matter. All the games Mexico and Brazil play in America against the USA or other opponents are owned and operated by Soccer United Marketing, which is essentially the for profit arm of USSoccer and MLS. So the USA gets the lion’s share of that money. Would love to look at those books. Methinks Sunil is a billionaire by now.

The last major European team to visit the USA for a friendly I can think of was 2012 with Sweden and Zlatan. I skipped that game. I think Zlatan did too. Before that, I would say England in 2005 or maybe 2006. We lost 2-1. I was not happy.

It shouldn’t be hard to find a chronological list of games on line. But I can’t think of any big games on home soil since 2012 except Argentina and Brazil coming to town. I could have missed one in my mind. I’m getting old.

Like I said, UEFA basically banned overseas friendlies in 2014-2015 or so to keep their teams out of the Middle East and keep the clubs happy not having players return to club training the day after a 10 hour flight.
 

TU_BLA

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2012
24,356
9,991
113
Tulsa, OK
Just this generation. Way more entitled. But you have hit a bullseye now that you mention it.

We are light years from Tab Ramos asking me to buy him and Caligiuri a pizza in the lobby of our hotel in St. Louis or Frankie shirtless chugging beer after beer in the stands after beating Mexico. Guzan spotted me in Trinidad and brought over a signed glove but that was almost 10 years ago. Heck, can you even picture any of the present guys stage diving the Outlaws off a taco truck like Landon? Their “never cool enough for a frat until now” fest isn’t my scene, but it works as a fan friendly example. The most fab friendly guy for the USMNT might be Lalas and he hasn’t played in 18 years. Geoff Cameron always walks out of the area to the supporters section but is he even still in the pool?

Seems to be just a job for the present crop.
It's not just that. Friends of mine went to Dallas a couple months ago because their daughter played in Super Copa. While none of the current USWNT players were there because they were busy getting ready for the World Cup, Mia Hamm, Brandi Chastain, and maybe Kristine Lilly were there signing autographs and playing pass with the kids (funny story is this girl's mom is also from MA so she instinctively asked Mia Hamm how "Noamaaah" was doing). It's really the kids that need to have those moments because they're the future players and fans that will keep this going.It's great you had a bunch of the guys crowd surfing and mosh-pitting with the Outlaws. That doesn't impress a 10 year old. Plus all the Nike ads of the women and being the best and being who you want to be...that leaves impressions on kids.Granted, what moment are they going to use from the USMNT to be the anchor behind such an ad? The only thing I can remember is Donovan's stoppage time goal against Algeria that put them through.

Think about it....Brandi Chastain's PK winner in 1999 and the ensuing celebration and photos are some of the most inconic sports photos in our county's history. It's up there with Bobby Orr's game 7 goal in 1970 and flying through the air, Kirk Gibson's HR in 1988. Jordan's shot against the Cavs. Jim Valvano and NC State in 1982. Does the USMNT have anything remotely close to any of those? Those are things that become burned in our memories for a lifetime.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Brandi’s a statue in front of the Rose Bowl now.

What you are saying is that you agree that paying women in their mid 20’s a full time salary close to $200,000 year with benefits like a regular white collar employee to barnstorm cities and encourage little girls to play soccer is a success, But that this strategy never accounted for the external costs that might result in a gap in development because the boys are being ignored. Try explaining that these days on The Today Show or a classroom or even a modern boardroom.

Mia Hamm will die a billionaire. Trust me, she’s not there signing autographs because she wants to encourage little girls or build the sport. She was done doing that in 1995 when she heard Lalas was making $10,000 an appearance and she promptly went out and negotiated a deal that was worth more than what all the men earned and larger than the endorsement deal for the entire USWNT but she didn’t share any of that money with her teammates sleeping on couches or living four to an apartment. (The policy has trained three generations of female athletes to be big time business operators and self promoters usually at the expense or in spite of their teammates). Secret Roll-On pays for all of that because they’ve got twenty years of data that the marketing to girls/mothers/women this way works. They’ve also bought cover for the parent Corp if there’s ever any type of high profile gender issue. Nobody grows up to drink Heineken if they throw a youth camp in south central LA and Carlos Vela shows up. There’s no money to be made for these corps encouraging boys to play soccer. And no PR or legal protection bonus either. That’s just reality.

What you are talking about requires spending money to get the players to do it. That involves admitting that soccer needs artificial promotion to grow in this country and that’s against the party line. So is the inevitable backlash that the money should be spent on equalizing the women in pay or whatever. And that’s before you peel back the layer of Soccer United Marketing and force them to give up their personal profits to do it.

The only thing comparable is the boys have the FIFA video game to encourage them. And there’s people in public actually talking about putting public pressure on EA to force players to play every other game on FIFA with a women’s side to completion before you can play with a men’s team.
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
The only thing comparable is the boys have the FIFA video game to encourage them. And there’s people in public actually talking about putting public pressure on EA to force players to play every other game on FIFA with a women’s side to completion before you can play with a men’s team.

This will never happen. It's just goofy to say things like this, you can't have any credibility when you pass on this kind of utter nonsense.

A big part of the women's push is to have more equal resources on marketing and development of the game and players. Nobody knows what the amount is for men vs. women, which means USSF spends WAY more on men than women. Suggesting that the boys are being ignored when they get the overwhelming amount of $$ spent on their development, have better resources, etc. is nonsense. The women have the advantage that they're good and have a lot of personable players and the men have been lacking in both. But that doesn't change the fact that the investment in the men has been way more, and any suggestion that the boys have been left out is crazy and false, though I suppose it does call into question the ability of the people spending all that $$.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
My friend Kartik has a good column on the SUM issue and how it affects the women if any of you are interested in learning more about the issues.

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/08/07/us-soccer-must-unbundle-uswnt-mls-sum-tv-rights-deal/
That's a really interesting (and maddening) article. Nice job by Kartik, he lays it all out there. It's hard to see how this relationship does anything but hurt soccer in the US. Seems to echo points you, BLA, etc have brought up. USSF is rotten to the core.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
That's a really interesting (and maddening) article. Nice job by Kartik, he lays it all out there. It's hard to see how this relationship does anything but hurt soccer in the US. Seems to echo points you, BLA, etc have brought up. USSF is rotten to the core.
If you want to know how rotten: guess who retained his control of SUM when he stepped down from the head of USSF? Yep, Sunil is still pulling the levers behind the scenes and cashing in. He’s just not on TV anymore or being treated like an Ambassador in two bit dictatorships.
 

TU_BLA

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2012
24,356
9,991
113
Tulsa, OK
If you want to know how rotten: guess who retained his control of SUM when he stepped down from the head of USSF? Yep, Sunil is still pulling the levers behind the scenes and cashing in. He’s just not on TV anymore or being treated like an Ambassador in two bit dictatorships.
Sunil is rotten. There was a woman involved who was also running for USSF President who is also highly placed at SUM (her name escapes me right now). I think it was Eric Wynalda who was running for USSF President who knew all of this crap was happening (if it wasn't Wynalda it was another well-known former USMNT player) and was pretty vocal about it. I'm not sure Wynalda would have cared enough about the women's side of things to have a solution but it would have changed the dynamics and constraints surrounding how the USMNT was being built pushing MLS players. Hope Solo also ran for USSF President last time around specifically to draw attn to the craziness in how the men and women are being paid and the disparity. I honestly believe that USSF needs to be run less like a business and more like a foundation that grows the game.I think former players/coaches have the best shot of doing that. It's the same problem in all the major sports. You have $$$ execs making business deals with little focus on player welfare. It's cost the NFL BILLIONS.
 

quincy101

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 4, 2007
1,566
841
113
76
The women’s players are seriously more fan friendly than the men’s players. They work hard to build that culture too and it has paid off.
Somewhat agree, but why do people like Megan Rapinoe(who apparently takes her political marching orders from Colin Kaepernick) & doesn't really care enough by alienating half the country with her political posturing before the cameras.

Of course, regardless of Dad & Mom's politics, they have no defense against their daughter's entreaties to go see the women play. It's just a shame that politics has to play a part when USA is part of the team name.
 

TU_BLA

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2012
24,356
9,991
113
Tulsa, OK
And the dumpster fire that is USSF gets hotter...https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...s-soccer-hires-lobbyists-in-equal-pay-dispute

Seriously, USSF may win this battle in the short term, but long term they're going to destroy the women's game in this country. My guess is you see more and more top US women's players going to Europe to play and you'll have some of them forgoing the opportunity to play for the USWNT like you see top NBA players deciding not to play in the Olympics.

USSF is so full of themselves too that they can't even see that they are destroying all the progress at the men's and women's national team levels that has been made since 1990. So when the US can't field a full quality team in 4 years does the soccer community demand a full on cleaning house at USSF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Sunil is rotten. There was a woman involved who was also running for USSF President who is also highly placed at SUM (her name escapes me right now). I think it was Eric Wynalda who was running for USSF President who knew all of this crap was happening (if it wasn't Wynalda it was another well-known former USMNT player) and was pretty vocal about it. I'm not sure Wynalda would have cared enough about the women's side of things to have a solution but it would have changed the dynamics and constraints surrounding how the USMNT was being built pushing MLS players. Hope Solo also ran for USSF President last time around specifically to draw attn to the craziness in how the men and women are being paid and the disparity. I honestly believe that USSF needs to be run less like a business and more like a foundation that grows the game.I think former players/coaches have the best shot of doing that. It's the same problem in all the major sports. You have $$$ execs making business deals with little focus on player welfare. It's cost the NFL BILLIONS.
Wynalda has a daughter in the development program iirc. Not worried about him taking care of players regardless of how they kit up. He’s too divisive to be a legitimate candidate. He was just running to get his money up by charging to give interviews about his candidacy. Same with Hope. Same with the “journalist” Grant Wahll running for FIFA President and his undisclosed conflicts with current and former players. So glad Fox dropped him.

Don’t be fooled by any these people. There’s more money in the game than most people think. Some of it is in cash and most of it is tax free if played right.

ALL ALL ALL, I repeat ALL, say it with me, ALL, underline it in your notes, ALL of them are doing it because they are addicted to the money. Most are also addicted to the peer approval that comes with media appearance. If Megan Rapinoe discovers she’ll make more money appealing to Mom and Dad, she’d shave her head, buy a wig, and head to “rehab” until she can emerge credibility saying she apologizes for not being the right influence. At some point, she’ll charge for an interview that hints at these things if she doesn’t do them. It’s one of the big reasons I’m not really engaged on the women’s pay issue until I see a proposal FROM THE WOMEN that explains how pay disparity on the team is resolved and that’s a big problem. Until then I really don’t care if Abby Wambach gets a bigger mansion on the beach in Naples, FLA or not. Or if Hope Solo gets more money for booze or drugs or wherever all her money went. If you talk to some of the current players I’m sure they will agree. Some former ones definitely agree. They’ve talked to me about it.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
ALL ALL ALL, I repeat ALL, say it with me, ALL, underline it in your notes, ALL of them are doing it because they are addicted to the money. Most are also addicted to the peer approval that comes with media appearance. If Megan Rapinoe discovers she’ll make more money appealing to Mom and Dad, she’d shave her head, buy a wig, and head to “rehab” until she can emerge credibility saying she apologizes for not being the right influence.
This is such bull $hit. I guarantee you that Rapinoe would make more $$ as a cute straight apolitical girl with long hair (Alex Morgan) than as a butch gay woman who's outspoken with purple hair. And the craven greed you're suggesting is ridiculous- you really need new friends if you're hanging with people who would completely betray who they are for $$. There are people who would do that but they're few and far between, and I don't think there's anything you could do to get Rapinoe to be different than she is. It's really low to say otherwise.

You're point on pay disparity is kind of bizarre and totally beside the point. There's huge pay disparity in every sport, you think Chris Paul gets paid the same as Deonte Burton? It's going to happen. But the point isn't whether USSF has given out stupid contracts (nobody's going to step up to defend USSF's fairness or wisdom I guarantee that), but whether the women as a group should have more equal resources, including pay, and more in line with the economic value they create. How that money is allocated is a different question altogether and irrelevant to the issue. We'd all agree that USSF probably has screwed that up royally.

I just smh at the point that somehow they're not deserving because they want more $$. What are you, a nun? Everyone wants more money! Of course they do! A big part of the suit is equal pay - that's money. It's not like they're hiding it, it's in the title of what they're asking for! You're saying that anyone who wants more money shouldn't get it because they want money? Does that even make sense to you?

There's a lot bad you can say about Hope Solo but "just in it for the money" certainly isn't one. She left tons of $$ on the table to live her life how she wanted to, so to speak.
 
Last edited:

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Don’t tell me you are doing something for all women when you are negotiating deals that pay you millions and give the remainder to your teammates. Be direct and say you are personally trying to get as much as you can. Then the parties can have an adult conversation about what you make, how much the organization profits and what is a fair share to everyone.

I think if you talk to branding people, they will tell you that the 18-35 demographic, which you are a part of, and is the most valued media target, wants to see purple hair right now, not ponytails and ribbons. She’s filling that lane since she’s really not a girl next door and that lane is presently blocked by Morgan. It’s about money for these folks. It might not be why they have your attention, but this the bottom line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,746
113
There is no way Rapinoe makes more $$ by staying apolitical. Her political views have already sealed her a book deal. They will also guarantee her speaking fees for the foreseeable future. She doesn't have the looks of Alex Morgan profiting from being a cute girl is not based in reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Don’t tell me you are doing something for all women when you are negotiating deals that pay you millions and give the remainder to your teammates. Be direct and say you are personally trying to get as much as you can. Then the parties can have an adult conversation about what you make, how much the organization profits and what is a fair share to everyone.

I think if you talk to branding people, they will tell you that the 18-35 demographic, which you are a part of, and is the most valued media target, wants to see purple hair right now, not ponytails and ribbons. She’s filling that lane since she’s really not a girl next door and that lane is presently blocked by Morgan. It’s about money for these folks. It might not be why they have your attention, but this the bottom line.
Let's look at the claim that the pay is too focused on the top. Data are a little hard to get but it looks like the top paid US women make about $500k (excluding endorsements) and the lowest paid get about $100k. So the top paid get about 5X what the lowest get. I don't know soccer economics but in the NBA, the top paid players get about 30X what the lowest get. In the NFL, it's closer to 40X. In the corporate world, it's 300X. So the 5X for the USWNT is astoundingly flat and equitable If you're complaining, it should be that the top players don't get paid enough - this looks like socialism, it's way out of whack with other professions

Of course if there is more money coming in, it will primarily go to the best paid players. That's life. When the salary cap goes up in other sports, teams focus on paying the top players and let whatever is left trickle down. Same with companies. They probably don't tell you that because it's as obvious as the sky being blue. Anyone who follows sports at all knows that's how it happens.

The sites that estimate celebrities' wealth all put the top US women like Rapinoe at about $3m. That's not poor but it's certainly not rich. Hell Huffy, I bet you're worth more than that by a lot. We're not talking about whether Durant takes $34 or $36 million, these are not rich people. I don't see why you begrudge them the right to benefit from what they produce. It's not stupid money at all.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/richest-soccer/megan-rapinoe-net-worth/
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,746
113
$3M net worth for a 34 year old is pretty darn good. She’s about to add to that figure with her new book deal. I’m more concerned about the lesser known players who have to rely solely on their salary.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
I think if you talk to branding people, they will tell you that the 18-35 demographic, which you are a part of, and is the most valued media target, wants to see purple hair right now, not ponytails and ribbons. She’s filling that lane since she’s really not a girl next door and that lane is presently blocked by Morgan. It’s about money for these folks. It might not be why they have your attention, but this the bottom line.
LOL, where'd you read that, Gramps, Reader's Digest? Senior Living? Do you have anything even resembling facts to back that up? Look at the most popular celebrities with millennials (roughly the demographic you mention), you're not seeing people in the "Rapinoe Lane". Look at the characters in their favorite TV shows and favorite singers. Not seeing the Rapinoes. These are industries that live and die by giving people what they want to see. And it ain't the Rapinoes. There really seems to be nothing even hinting that your statement is true, and a lot pointing to it being not true.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
$3M net worth for a 34 year old is pretty darn good. She’s about to add to that figure with her new book deal. I’m more concerned about the lesser known players who have to rely solely on their salary.
So the solution is not to give them more of the wealth they create?? Giving the team more money will benefit all of them, and it will be distributed a lot more equitable than any other league and most companies. Your argument is the classic cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Rapinoe's also 34, she's near the end of her career, she has a lot less time to cash in than a lot of the players.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,445
5,746
113
So the solution is not to give them more of the wealth they create.

How did you get that out of my post. I simply said that a net worth of $3M at the age of 34 is quite well off. Top 1% for that matter. My statement was that my concern is for the players who aren’t household names and don’t have the endorsements but rely on their salaries. I’m a capitalist at heart. I always believe that people should be paid their worth. At the end of the day Rapinoe will cash in during the next few years due to her talent and politics. Many of her teammates aren’t near as fortunate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
LOL, where'd you read that, Gramps, Reader's Digest? Senior Living? Do you have anything even resembling facts to back that up? Look at the most popular celebrities with millennials (roughly the demographic you mention), you're not seeing people in the "Rapinoe Lane". Look at the characters in their favorite TV shows and favorite singers. Not seeing the Rapinoes. These are industries that live and die by giving people what they want to see. And it ain't the Rapinoes. There really seems to be nothing even hinting that your statement is true, and a lot pointing to it being not true.
Why You Want to Reach Them: If the sheer size of the market isn’t enough to convince you, consider this: More than 54% of millennials who participated in an August 2014 Google Consumer Survey said they would choose an LGBT-friendly brand over a competitor that wasn’t “equality focused.” By including the LGBT audience in your marketing efforts, you’re also encouraging engagement with a substantial number of non-LGBT consumers.

https://www.chiefmarketer.com/marketers-most-wanted-lgbt/

There are literally dozens of similar articles that turn up from simple google searches. You need to stop arguing with two guys who have spent twenty plus years arguing for money in the highest courts in the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,172
10,016
113
Let's look at the claim that the pay is too focused on the top. Data are a little hard to get but it looks like the top paid US women make about $500k (excluding endorsements) and the lowest paid get about $100k. So the top paid get about 5X what the lowest get. I don't know soccer economics but in the NBA, the top paid players get about 30X what the lowest get. In the NFL, it's closer to 40X. In the corporate world, it's 300X. So the 5X for the USWNT is astoundingly flat and equitable If you're complaining, it should be that the top players don't get paid enough - this looks like socialism, it's way out of whack with other professions

Of course if there is more money coming in, it will primarily go to the best paid players. That's life. When the salary cap goes up in other sports, teams focus on paying the top players and let whatever is left trickle down. Same with companies. They probably don't tell you that because it's as obvious as the sky being blue. Anyone who follows sports at all knows that's how it happens.

The sites that estimate celebrities' wealth all put the top US women like Rapinoe at about $3m. That's not poor but it's certainly not rich. Hell Huffy, I bet you're worth more than that by a lot. We're not talking about whether Durant takes $34 or $36 million, these are not rich people. I don't see why you begrudge them the right to benefit from what they produce. It's not stupid money at all.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/richest-soccer/megan-rapinoe-net-worth/
Durant ain’t going around charging money to tell people he’s fighting for his teammates salaries either.

We will know more when the W-2s are released through mediation, if the women want to risk giving away what they make (they haven’t the last six times they’ve sued). if you are on the roster or in the pool for the all the USWNT games and appear in all NWSL matches, then I believe the estimated salary is approximately $148,500 in total compensation before your share of pooled endorsements is paid out. $175000 to
$200,000 in cash and prizes is what I’ve seen thrown around iirc. Mid range MLS money. Rapinoe makes $6 million in NWSL salary alone. More than all teammates combined and more than the total value of her club.