What's new

Women's Football - Wage Disparity Debate

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2005
7,831
9,372
888.jpg
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2005
7,831
9,372
Far too condescending, presume spell checker is disabled on your phone sir?

Not quite sure what that means but if you start your next sentence with 'methinks' i complete a line on my bingo card.

I'm going for a full house before midnight so id be interested to know your thoughts on why women stand-ups just aren't funny or why the BBC insist on so many regional accents nowadays i might be in with a shot.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
I’m a mid 40’s male who struggles to find time to watch us play at the best of times.

I think the time issue is a factor. Its difficult to persuade people to give up almost two hours of their time to watch something they're not sure about. Personally I'd like to see a Match of the Day type program for the womens game so that people can build their interest in the teams and players without giving up a whole evening or afternoon.
 

Atomic Blonde

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2017
98
487
There was a thread set up about a year ago on here questioning why the bbc was pushing the ‘ladies game’ down everyone’s throats so it’s not just myself who has noticed it.
@Krule set up a link yesterday for the women’s World Cup and up till about five minutes ago there had been twelve messages on the thread, compare that to the last men’s World Cup and you’d have been getting that an hour.
Most blokes aren’t interested in watching women play sport and most women are more interested in watching love island.
Yes, I know it sounds sexist and generalistic but it’s true!
Ah yes, the good old 'pushing the ladies game down our throats' argument, as if the BBC send round a team of people to forcibly strap you into your armchair unable to turn off the TV or change channel right? Nah, the remote control is there for a reason if it 'offends' you so much lol.

Also, as already pointed out, the last women's world cup was watched by 800 million people, so I'd say that proves there are quite a lot of men and women who are interested in women's football, even if you say they are not.

Your point about it not being a busy thread on SC is hardly an indicator of how popular the current world cup is in general, many people watch football without having the need to chat about it on the internet, conversely for those who do want to chat, there are a number of other forums on the internet where the threads for the women's WC are busy (the one I looked at today has a thread that is already 45 pages, for example).

Of course you can have your own opinion about not liking a certain sport (although your sweepingly generalised and dismissive comments strongly suggest you have a built in prejudice against it), but claiming to speak 'the truth' on behalf of 'most women and most men' is plain ridiculous and as you admit yourself, sexist.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
The bbc have the rights to womens football and the world cup. That's why they are doing lots of stories about it. They want to generate interest.
 

mattyspurs

It is what it is
Jan 31, 2005
15,280
9,893
The bbc have the rights to womens football and the world cup. That's why they are doing lots of stories about it. They want to generate interest.
Absolutely and Kudos to them for doing it too.

My boys were enjoying watching it with me on Friday night, and are already looking forward to the England/Scotland game later
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
Where does it say that there are two separate pots for men & women's football and where is the evidence that the men would be subsidising the women?
According to this article,there is only one pot for both men's and women's money/revenue, it specifically states that FIFA sells their sponsorship rights to both world cups as a package deal.

"Exactly how much money women's soccer generates is unclear, as much of FIFA's revenue comes from top sponsors who are signed up for both World Cups.

"That's something never really analyzed," said Haenni, who spent 19 years at FIFA. "What is the potential value of the Women's World Cup? Nobody knows the Women's World Cup commercial value because it's not sold separately. This is something that should at least be discussed."

One of FIFA's main sponsors is listening.

Credit card giant Visa said last week that it would support "women's football with a marketing investment equal to our support of the men's FIFA World Cup in Russia." It did not disclose any figures."

What we do know, according to this article, is that
"FIFA is awash with cash. People with knowledge of FIFA's finances told The Associated Press that in the four-year period covering the 2018 World Cup, FIFA's reserves soared to $2.74 billion and revenue rose to $6.4 billion"
(www.inquirer.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup-prize-money-women-jill-ellis-20190307.html%3foutputType=amp)

Considering that the last women's world cup was watched by approx 800 million people and the viewing figures are expected to be higher this year, then asking for a bigger bump in prize money is totally justified imo.

Regardless of this, as @DFF pointed out in their earlier post, this whole debate shouldn't even be based on commercial popularity, bearing in mind that FIFA are a not-for-profit organisation and are supposed to be responsible for the redistribution of their revenue back into both the men and women's professional and grassroots game, regardless of who brings in the biggest part of that revenue.

At this point in time the prize money gap between the men and the women is actually increasing rather than decreasing, it's only fair that those who care about the women's game point this out. FIFA need to do better.

are you serious? Do you honestly believe the women's world cup generates even a tenth of the revenue of the men's?

https://www.nbcsports.com/northwest/world-cup/equal-pay-womens-world-cup-players-seriously

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#372917126da4
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
This issue is not about PAY. It’s about prize money from an organisation that is supposed to promote both sports.

This is not about equal prize money. It is about increasing the prize money to top level athletes who very often do not earn a fantastic living from playing (some in Europe definitely do).

But more than that it is about the level of investment, sponsorship and promotion of the women’s game compared to the men’s game. The women’s game does not get the same exposure from the media or FIFA and that is why interest is lower and therefore pay. It is harder to change the media who are acting in a world with tight margins (even if caught in a misogynist paradigm) but we can expect better from FIFA.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
This issue is not about PAY. It’s about prize money from an organisation that is supposed to promote both sports.

This is not about equal prize money. It is about increasing the prize money to top level athletes who very often do not earn a fantastic living from playing (some in Europe definitely do).

But more than that it is about the level of investment, sponsorship and promotion of the women’s game compared to the men’s game. The women’s game does not get the same exposure from the media or FIFA and that is why interest is lower and therefore pay. It is harder to change the media who are acting in a world with tight margins (even if caught in a misogynist paradigm) but we can expect better from FIFA.

its doesnt get the same exposure because there isnt the same level of interest. you cant force people to be interested in something. BTW, according to my link, women athletes keep 13% of the profit, men 9%.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
This issue is not about PAY. It’s about prize money from an organisation that is supposed to promote both sports.

This is not about equal prize money. It is about increasing the prize money to top level athletes who very often do not earn a fantastic living from playing (some in Europe definitely do).

But more than that it is about the level of investment, sponsorship and promotion of the women’s game compared to the men’s game. The women’s game does not get the same exposure from the media or FIFA and that is why interest is lower and therefore pay. It is harder to change the media who are acting in a world with tight margins (even if caught in a misogynist paradigm) but we can expect better from FIFA.

They were discussing the womens world cup on one of the podcasts I listen to and they were saying that there's absolutely nothing to promote it in Paris des[ite it being one of the main venues. There's no posters, no adverts, no push to sell tickets for the games. There are posters for the French mens teams game in September, but nothing for the world cup. With tickets still on sale for many of the matches you'd think the least they could do is put a few posters up.
 

Styopa

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2014
5,136
14,177
its doesnt get the same exposure because there isnt the same level of interest. you cant force people to be interested in something. BTW, according to my link, women athletes keep 13% of the profit, men 9%.

It's a chicken and egg situation with exposure and interest. Increased exposure leads to increased interest - as is the case with the Premier League for example. Increased exposure literally created a whole new global market. Sky and the Premier League marketed the brand aggressively to the point where it is today. It won new fans. Got new people interested. Similarly interest in the women's game will no doubt continue to grow if it receives increased promotion and exposure.
 

Atomic Blonde

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2017
98
487
Edit - this was supposed to be a reply to @fortworthspur last post

Sigh, it seems you are deliberately missing the points made in my (and others) previous posts that this debate isn't just about who brings in the most revenue and I'll say again, Hope Solo et al are NOT asking for equal prize money from FIFA.

Since you brought up revenue though, are you aware that the figures quoted in the articles you refer to are 8 years out of date and relate to the revenue from the men's 2010 and women's 2011 WC? Hardly relevant considering the increased popularity and audience for the more recent women's world cup.

As I pointed out previously, there are no revenue figures from more recent world cups because FIFA sell sponsorship rights for both world cups as a single block. What we do know (as pointed out in the excellent Swiss Ramble thread posted above)

"It’s not as if FIFA don’t have enough in the bank to further increase the prize money at the Women’s World Cup, as their cash reserves surged to an incredible $2.7 bln in 2018. To paraphrase Infantino, maybe they could have used this surplus to “boost this World Cup even more.”

And

"Of course, many will believe that the discrepancy in prize money is purely a commercial issue, but Infantino himself has pointed out that the Men’s World Cup attracts around 4 times as many viewers as the Women’s WC, while the Men’s prize money is 13 times as much"

As I've said before, I find it strange why you are so against FIFA putting more money into the women's game, their mission statement is clear :

"FIFA's new vision is to promote the game of football, protect its integrity and bring the game to all."

At the moment there is huge disparity in terms of their investment in the women's game compared with the men's, their job is not just to make multi millionaire male footballers richer but to promote football as a whole. Hope Solo et al are spot on in asking FIFA to do better in this regard.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
The other thing about the prize money that people often forget is that the money goes to the wining teams federation, not directly to the players, although they'll obviously get paid a bonus relating to how far they progress in the tournament. The federations use that money to help grow the sport and improve the conditions

If we look at FIFAs stragey as shown at https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/index.html it says this, "Using a number of guiding principles but also concrete and measurable objectives, FIFA’s new vision as stated in FIFA 2.0 is to promote the game of football, protect its integrity and bring the game to all."

Now if their strategy is to promote and bring the game to all who needs the prize money the most? The mens teams at the world cup who are made up of full time professional players that train in the the best facilities, or the womens teams? If they kept the prize money in the mens game the same for the next eight years and put the extra funding they would've given them into the womens game it would have a dramatic effect on the womens game. Quality would increase, which would mean a better product, more interest and therefore more sponsorship opportunity.

Edit - beaten to it by @Atomic Blonde
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
The other thing about the prize money that people often forget is that the money goes to the wining teams federation, not directly to the players, although they'll obviously get paid a bonus relating to how far they progress in the tournament. The federations use that money to help grow the sport and improve the conditions

If we look at FIFAs stragey as shown at https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/index.html it says this, "Using a number of guiding principles but also concrete and measurable objectives, FIFA’s new vision as stated in FIFA 2.0 is to promote the game of football, protect its integrity and bring the game to all."

Now if their strategy is to promote and bring the game to all who needs the prize money the most? The mens teams at the world cup who are made up of full time professional players that train in the the best facilities, or the womens teams? If they kept the prize money in the mens game the same for the next eight years and put the extra funding they would've given them into the womens game it would have a dramatic effect on the womens game. Quality would increase, which would mean a better product, more interest and therefore more sponsorship opportunity.

Edit - beaten to it by @Atomic Blonde

So if fifa get the money (for both men and womens) then split it up between the federations. Isn't it the federations themselves that decide where the money goes?
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
It's a chicken and egg situation with exposure and interest. Increased exposure leads to increased interest - as is the case with the Premier League for example. Increased exposure literally created a whole new global market. Sky and the Premier League marketed the brand aggressively to the point where it is today. It won new fans. Got new people interested. Similarly interest in the women's game will no doubt continue to grow if it receives increased promotion and exposure.

if there's money to be made they'd be all over it. if something sells people will sell it whatever it is.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
Edit - this was supposed to be a reply to @fortworthspur last post

Sigh, it seems you are deliberately missing the points made in my (and others) previous posts that this debate isn't just about who brings in the most revenue and I'll say again, Hope Solo et al are NOT asking for equal prize money from FIFA.

Since you brought up revenue though, are you aware that the figures quoted in the articles you refer to are 8 years out of date and relate to the revenue from the men's 2010 and women's 2011 WC? Hardly relevant considering the increased popularity and audience for the more recent women's world cup.

As I pointed out previously, there are no revenue figures from more recent world cups because FIFA sell sponsorship rights for both world cups as a single block. What we do know (as pointed out in the excellent Swiss Ramble thread posted above)

"It’s not as if FIFA don’t have enough in the bank to further increase the prize money at the Women’s World Cup, as their cash reserves surged to an incredible $2.7 bln in 2018. To paraphrase Infantino, maybe they could have used this surplus to “boost this World Cup even more.”

And

"Of course, many will believe that the discrepancy in prize money is purely a commercial issue, but Infantino himself has pointed out that the Men’s World Cup attracts around 4 times as many viewers as the Women’s WC, while the Men’s prize money is 13 times as much"

As I've said before, I find it strange why you are so against FIFA putting more money into the women's game, their mission statement is clear :

"FIFA's new vision is to promote the game of football, protect its integrity and bring the game to all."

At the moment there is huge disparity in terms of their investment in the women's game compared with the men's, their job is not just to make multi millionaire male footballers richer but to promote football as a whole. Hope Solo et al are spot on in asking FIFA to do better in this regard.
forget sponsorship, its the TV contracts that matter. Merging the sponsorship deals is actually a concession to the women. Do you honestly believe FIFA is giving women a smaller cut of their revenue than the men? I dont understand your argument.
 
Top