Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Is it just me.... 15:19 - Jun 28 with 713 viewsSpruceMoose

or are some of these figures based on something that is highly likely to happen, and the other set based on stuff that is never going to happen?

Sure the US men's team are promised $400k each for winning the world cup. That may as well be $4,000,000 as it isn't going to happen. The US women's team are earning $110,00 each if they win the world cup, something which is entirely probable.

Just seems like apples are being compared to oranges here.

The Women's US team qualifying for a WC is also a given, compared to the Men's side struggling to qualify.

The only areas where I can see disparity is in the flat performance fees, and I think the US women's team have a right to be aggrieved here seeing as Women's football generates the same, and often even more, in revenue than the men's game for the USSF and is certainly a better advert for the game in the US currently than the woeful men's team.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/jun/28/revealed-the-731

Pronouns: He/Him/His. "Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Poll: Selectamod

0
Is it just me.... on 15:26 - Jun 28 with 679 viewsWarkTheWarkITFC

I read yesterday that Trump had tweeted having a go at Megan Rapinoe (but initially tweeted the wrong one!) and that she was part of a group of 38 players suing the authorities for the men being so much better financially rewarded.

Got me thinking that USA may be the only country in the world where you could make a case for the women earning more than the men given how big womens football is there.

Of course, the majority of the men will play in the MLS and earn a lot more, even more the case with the men playing in Europe and rightly so. The leagues are more established, more money in them and of course the men should be better rewarded in that sense because they are bringing in more revenue.

However, this isn't about club sides or domestic leagues and you could argue there is as much interest in the USA womens side at this World Cup than there would have been the men in Russia had they made it, because (even though the mens edition would have been watched by far more people in the USA) the womens team has a legitimate chance of winning as the #1 ranked side by FIFA, whereas I am guessing their men must be something like #50.

Isn't funding for the Olympics done the same here? We give more money to the sports we are likely to win medals for, not the sports that are most commercially popular or make the most money.

So whilst the men should earn a lot more from their clubs sides rightly, I'd say the USA women have every right to expect US soccer to pay them favourable against the men.

The big question is how much of the money they pay them comes directly from FIFA. If their men were paid £50m just for reaching Qatar 2022 and FIFA paid them £1m for the women reaching the 2023 World Cup then the men would rightly get a bigger bonus than the women.

That's the crux here. What comes from the money in the mens game to US soccer and what just comes from US soccer?

As it sums up:

'But if Fifa prize money is the basis for most of the bonuses US Soccer provides the players, the federation is wiling to overpay the women — but only as long as they win the World Cup. US Soccer’s $9.4m bonus for the men’s team if they win the World Cup is 24% of Fifa’s $38m in prize, whereas US Soccer’s bonus of $2.5m for the women’s team if they win the World Cup is around 126% of Fifa’s prize money offered when the USWNT’s CBA was signed in 2017. (Fifa has since increased the women’s prize money from $2m for the World Cup winner to $4m.)'

US soccer would keep 3/4 of the money they get from FIFA if the men won it, but if the women won it they would be topping up the FIFA money from their own pocket. On that basis you could argue it's unfair … for the men.
[Post edited 28 Jun 2019 15:31]

Poll: How many points from 18 would Lambert need to have to actually be sacked?
Blog: Ipswich Town and the Rotten Kitchen Cupboards

0
Is it just me.... on 16:14 - Jun 28 with 611 viewsJ2BLUE

Do they get paid the same appearance fee? I think different bonuses are fine but I think the flat appearance fee should be the same. That was an unpopular opinion last time I said it but international football is supposed to be about pride in your country, respresenting your nation and honour rather than the more financial side of domestic football. For me, England women, should be getting the same flat fee (and they might be, I don't know) because they are representing England, playing the full 90 minutes and everything is the same.

Does that make sense? Does anyone agree? Same with US women, those bonuses look reasonable but I hope they make the same per game.

Truly impaired.
Poll: Will you buying a Super Blues membership?

1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024