|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 15:55:09 GMT -5
I certainly willing to concede that the members of the WNT are not shining princesses with hearts of gold, but rather real people who are out to get a much as they can from their all-too-brief time in the public eye. All athletes tend to have this issue, due to the relentless pressures of aging and the fickleness of public attention. But I'll also point out that women have been told for centuries that they don't deserve to get paid what men get paid because men do the real jobs and women do "women's work", and as far as I can tell (being a man), many of them are damn sick and tired of this. Which is why this situation frustrates me. There is honest-to-god sexism and discriminatory practices that exist in the US. This is absolutely not one of them. We should be celebrating the good for society when men and women are treated equally. Instead, it’s just another opportunity to further divide people.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 15:57:17 GMT -5
The men have a much worse travel schedule and are going to remote places all over Central America and the Caribbean. The women don't have anything equivalent to the CONCACAF qualifying schedule the men go through. Since 2015 the women left the US 6 times (Rio Olympics, France World Cup, and friendlies in Canada, Sweden-Norway double, France-Spain double, and Portugal-Scotland). If the women had to play in San Pedro Sula Honduras 72 hours after a match in NJ, they wouldn't be flying commercial either. And the men are also at the NT "on loan" from their clubs, so they have to play two matches criss-crossing the continent and then fly back to Europe to actually get paid. The USWNT, since they require all the women to forego foreign pro opportunities and play in the US league schedule their league around NT events. To be honest the biggest issue with the CBA is that it mandates NT players stay in the US and forego potentially higher earnings in European clubs, but that they get players to hold the line (with the exception of Lindsey Horan... for a while) but that gets swept under the rug a testament to the power of dominant cliques in the team leadership. The details of which teams did/didn’t charter when and where weren’t really in that summary judgment. Without that info, I agree with the judge that it should be further looked into.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 3, 2020 16:08:14 GMT -5
Really? Offering a $400M prize pool for men and a $30M prize pool for women is "not discriminatory"? Can you compare how it aligns with revenue (and more importantly, profit)? No. Do you have access to FIFA's internal accounting records? Because I don't.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 3, 2020 16:31:54 GMT -5
There is honest-to-god sexism and discriminatory practices that exist in the US. This is absolutely not one of them. Can I ask, is this just a personal opinion, or is there some reason you are specially qualified to decide this? "Absolutely" is such an emphatic word. You must be really sure about this.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 17:09:25 GMT -5
There is honest-to-god sexism and discriminatory practices that exist in the US. This is absolutely not one of them. Can I ask, is this just a personal opinion, or is there some reason you are specially qualified to decide this? "Absolutely" is such an emphatic word. You must be really sure about this. Their argument was that 1) their bonus structure was worse and 2) they would've made more under the men's CBA. They were offered the same exact structure and turned it down. There's a reason the judge didn't even deem this was worthy of going to court.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 3, 2020 17:18:05 GMT -5
Can I ask, is this just a personal opinion, or is there some reason you are specially qualified to decide this? "Absolutely" is such an emphatic word. You must be really sure about this. Their argument was that 1) their bonus structure was worse and 2) they would've made more under the men's CBA. They were offered the same exact structure and turned it down. There's a reason the judge didn't even deem this was worthy of going to court. They were not offered the "exact structure"; they were never offered the same World Cup victory bonuses as the men. Yes, this judge did rule that they don't have a legal case for this (although that's under appeal). But none of that is answering whether it's just your personal opinion that "this is absolutely not honest-to-god sexism and discriminatory practices" or whether you have some special qualifications to determine that. I'm fine with people having personal opinions on the internet, I just want to understand whether your absolute certainty in this matter is due to some expert knowledge or whether it's just your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 17:23:29 GMT -5
Their argument was that 1) their bonus structure was worse and 2) they would've made more under the men's CBA. They were offered the same exact structure and turned it down. There's a reason the judge didn't even deem this was worthy of going to court. They were not offered the "exact structure"; they were never offered the same World Cup victory bonuses as the men. Yes, this judge did rule that they don't have a legal case for this (although that's under appeal). But none of that is answering whether it's just your personal opinion that "this is absolutely not honest-to-god sexism and discriminatory practices" or whether you have some special qualifications to determine that. I'm fine with people having personal opinions on the internet, I just want to understand whether your absolute certainty in this matter is due to some expert knowledge or whether it's just your opinion. It's an internet message board. Of course it's just my perspective on the issue. (Although it does agree with what the expert, the judge, said).
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 17:29:44 GMT -5
They were not offered the "exact structure"; they were never offered the same World Cup victory bonuses as the men. Apologies, this is correct. The women were offered a HIGHER percentage of FIFA's prize money.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 3, 2020 17:40:21 GMT -5
Can you compare how it aligns with revenue (and more importantly, profit)? No. Do you have access to FIFA's internal accounting records? Because I don't. resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf FIFA hasn't released its 2019 figures yet, but we can look at the 2015-2018 quad. FIFA reported $5.3 billion in revenue from the 2018 Men's World Cup, so that 2018 was the only individual year with a net profit. 2015 (when the Women's World Cup was held) came in at a loss.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 3, 2020 17:49:27 GMT -5
No. Do you have access to FIFA's internal accounting records? Because I don't. resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf FIFA hasn't released its 2019 figures yet, but we can look at the 2015-2018 quad. FIFA reported $5.3 billion in revenue from the 2018 Men's World Cup, so that 2018 was the only individual year with a net profit. 2015 (when the Women's World Cup was held) came in at a loss. Yes, well clearly they operate in "quads" based on the men's world cup schedule. According to that, most of their money comes from licensing. Can you tell how much of their licensing is specific to men versus women and how much is non-specific but sold by "quads" that match the men's schedule?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 18:03:44 GMT -5
No. Do you have access to FIFA's internal accounting records? Because I don't. resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf FIFA hasn't released its 2019 figures yet, but we can look at the 2015-2018 quad. FIFA reported $5.3 billion in revenue from the 2018 Men's World Cup, so that 2018 was the only individual year with a net profit. 2015 (when the Women's World Cup was held) came in at a loss.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 18:18:06 GMT -5
resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf FIFA hasn't released its 2019 figures yet, but we can look at the 2015-2018 quad. FIFA reported $5.3 billion in revenue from the 2018 Men's World Cup, so that 2018 was the only individual year with a net profit. 2015 (when the Women's World Cup was held) came in at a loss. Yes, well clearly they operate in "quads" based on the men's world cup schedule. According to that, most of their money comes from licensing. Can you tell how much of their licensing is specific to men versus women and how much is non-specific but sold by "quads" that match the men's schedule? TV Broadcasting rights generate 5 times the revenue for FIFA that licensing does. ($3.1 billion vs $600 million) Page 17 of that document.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on May 4, 2020 20:13:13 GMT -5
Some players are saying they were never offered the same contract as the USMNT. Claim they asked for it but was turned down.
Think the USSF will provide documentation to prove them wrong? Also have to wonder who negotiated on behalf of the USWMNT.
|
|
|
Post by ilikewaffles on May 4, 2020 21:00:18 GMT -5
Some players are saying they were never offered the same contract as the USMNT. Claim they asked for it but was turned down. Think the USSF will provide documentation to prove them wrong? Also have to wonder who negotiated on behalf of the USWMNT. From an article dated Feb 3 2017 : The USWNTPA on Thursday night formally announced new legal representation, Bredhoff & Kaiser, in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The union also confirmed that Sauerbrunn, Meghan Klingenberg and Christen Press were elected player representatives at the team's January training camp. www.si.com/soccer/2017/02/03/uswnt-cba-contract-negotiations-union-changesI read a current dated article that stated when the contract was signed it was celebrated by the women's team as a victory, but I haven't found an later article to confirm that. There was friction between the women's team and USSF even back in 2017, basically same story. The women's team had signed an earlier contract with more guarantees and higher base pay, then ran the numbers that they would have been paid if operating under the men's contract and cried foul.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 4, 2020 21:23:54 GMT -5
Some players are saying they were never offered the same contract as the USMNT. Claim they asked for it but was turned down. Think the USSF will provide documentation to prove them wrong? Also have to wonder who negotiated on behalf of the USWMNT. This is true. I probably oversimplified earlier in the thread by saying "same". But the judge in his ruling never said "same" either. Just said they rejected a similar pay-to-play structure.
|
|