What's new

Women's Football - Wage Disparity Debate

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
Can't be arsed to dredge back through the whole thread but I'm pretty sure there are people arguing that it's inequality/discrimination if the women get paid less than the men. If there aren't then I must've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere, in which case I apologise. I think part of the trouble is that there are 2 or 3 separate discussion to be had and they all keep getting lumped into the same thing when they're not. The US women being paid more by their federation than the men is one of them, and that I fully support.

No need to appolagise, like you say it's been a meandering thread with several issues being lumped together. Some of us have argued that the money going into the women's game should be increased considering the amount in the FIFA reserves, but I don't think anyone on here has said the prize money should be equal to the men. I don't think any of the women's players have said that either.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
well if you read that article in the Washington Post, the women are deliberately mis-stating the facts by presenting a scenario under the old collective bargaining agreement where they make 40% of the men for 20 games. Under the current collective bargaining agreement they make 89% of the men. Not completely equal but much closer than they say.

As I said, if you separated the TV/sponsorship contracts you'd know exactly who generates what money.
 

Thewobbler

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2016
3,814
5,701
I see nothing wrong about the US women getting the same wage for an international tournament match fee as the men do. The ladies actually win trophies.

I saw a stat that said atletico madrid ladies vs barca ladies got a crowd of 68k which is impressive but then you read how much tickets were, less than a fiver, and season ticket holders got in free it doesnt sound great. You basically have to give tickets away to get the big crowds in.

I read the average wage of a women pro footballer is 30k a year. Is that fair or bad?

Their game is building in popularity and I hope it continues to do so.
 

SandroClegane

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2012
3,717
13,842
well if you read that article in the Washington Post, the women are deliberately mis-stating the facts by presenting a scenario under the old collective bargaining agreement where they make 40% of the men for 20 games. Under the current collective bargaining agreement they make 89% of the men. Not completely equal but much closer than they say.

As I said, if you separated the TV/sponsorship contracts you'd know exactly who generates what money.
When it comes to ticket revenue, the USWNT has made $2mil more than the USMNT over the past 3 seasons. They should be getting the same amount of money.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
well if you read that article in the Washington Post, the women are deliberately mis-stating the facts by presenting a scenario under the old collective bargaining agreement where they make 40% of the men for 20 games. Under the current collective bargaining agreement they make 89% of the men. Not completely equal but much closer than they say.

As I said, if you separated the TV/sponsorship contracts you'd know exactly who generates what money.

Can you post a link to the article?
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
When it comes to ticket revenue, the USWNT has made $2mil more than the USMNT over the past 3 seasons. They should be getting the same amount of money.

ticket revenue is 25% of gross revenue. TV/sponsorship/merchandise makes up the rest. The only way to know who generates what is to separate the contracts. And its 900,000 more over 3 years.
 

yankspurs

Enic Out
Aug 22, 2013
41,883
71,188
US government is now starting to creep into this. Threatening to withhold 2026 funding unless the wage gap is done away with. Funding should absolutely be withheld from that joke of a bid but not because of the wage gap(which needs to be closed). Funding should be withheld because the powers that be within the game at this point in time do not deserve any help putting on a tournament of the game they care very little about growing and only care about whats in their wallets. Why give those assholes even more money?

I have an issue with this equal pay movement in the game here. It's not going far enough. All it will do is give the USSF a pass on the disgraceful dereliction of their duties. All this equal pay stuff is passing on the opportunity to project real, actual change. The pay for both men and the women should be more, the women should absolutely get paid much more than the men based on merit, and more funding should be provided to actually grow and develop the game. And the nepotism displayed by the USSF should be done away with and all parties partaking in that should be fired.
 
Last edited:

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276

There is a lot more money in the men's game, but to TV rights and sponsorship, this is why the men get paid more in football (and most other sports still) surely if they want equal pay they need to look at increasing the revenue within the sport to increase wages?

This was in the link you had

“Here’s an idea: If you win 13-0 — the most goals for a single game in World Cup history — you should be paid at least equally to the men’s team.”

Winning 13-0 against a team that was shit doesn't mean anything for how much you get paid!

As I said above, they need to draw more money into the woman's game to get higher price money and higher wages IMO as not all the men's team get paid the same also.
 
Last edited:

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,985
81,905
There is a lot more money in the men's game, but to TV rights and sponsorship, this is why the men get paid more in football (and most other sports still) surely if they want equal pay they need to look at increasing the revenue within the sport to increase wages?

This was in the link you had



Winning 13-0 against a team that was shit doesn't mean anything for how much you get paid!
But I believe the women's US international side do make more money than the men. The suit wasn't actually about equal pay as such but equal conditions.

If the women's game did generate the same or more money than the men would you agree their FA should give them equal working conditions?
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
But I believe the women's US international side do make more money than the men. The suit wasn't actually about equal pay as such but equal conditions.

If the women's game did generate the same or more money than the men would you agree their FA should give them equal working conditions?

The article is about equal pay.

However, Judge R. Gary Klausner wrote in his decision that members of the USWNT did not prove wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the women's team played more games and made more money than the men's team.

If the womens game generates the same or more money than men, then if they pay their players the same or even more than the men's team is perfectly fine IMO.

When you say equal working conditions, what do you mean? Training facilities? Then I would expect them to be given an adequate facility to use for the national team.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,985
81,905
The article is about equal pay.



If the womens game generates the same or more money than men, then if they pay their players the same or even more than the men's team is perfectly fine IMO.

When you say equal working conditions, what do you mean? Training facilities? Then I would expect them to be given an adequate facility to use for the national team.
Maybe you should read the article. The suit was based on the Equal Pay Act, it was not specifically about pay.

Here are important parts of the article you haven't bothered to read but formed a conclusion on anyway:

The suit alleges the US Soccer Federation's payment practices amount to federal discrimination by paying women less than men "for substantially equal work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their games; and other terms and conditions of employment equal to the MNT."
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
Maybe you should read the article. The suit was based on the Equal Pay Act, it was not specifically about pay.

Here are important parts of the article you haven't bothered to read but formed a conclusion on anyway:

The suit alleges the US Soccer Federation's payment practices amount to federal discrimination by paying women less than men "for substantially equal work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their games; and other terms and conditions of employment equal to the MNT."

But is it equal work? I don't think the womens game is to the same standard as men's football. It has improved a lot over the last few years, but still not the same.

Within men's sport the level of quality from PL to division 2 is vast and don't get paid the same or play in the same conditions or travel the same....this is again because the top leagues generate more income meaning they spend more on wages, training facilities ect. In sports world you get paid depending on the ability you have and the amount of money that the area you are in pulls in.

The women will have been given an adequate travel and training facilities probably based on what funds they had to spend and got paid more than the men on game by game basis.

Also they agreed to a different pay structure to the men's resulting them getting paid even if they just get called up where as the men need to pay. If they agreed to the same as the men they would have been paid more than the men so can't have your cake and eat it IMO.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,985
81,905
But is it equal work? I don't think the womens game is to the same standard as men's football. It has improved a lot over the last few years, but still not the same.

Within men's sport the level of quality from PL to division 2 is vast and don't get paid the same or play in the same conditions or travel the same....this is again because the top leagues generate more income meaning they spend more on wages, training facilities ect. In sports world you get paid depending on the ability you have and the amount of money that the area you are in pulls in.

The women will have been given an adequate travel and training facilities probably based on what funds they had to spend and got paid more than the men on game by game basis.

Also they agreed to a different pay structure to the men's resulting them getting paid even if they just get called up where as the men need to pay. If they agreed to the same as the men they would have been paid more than the men so can't have your cake and eat it IMO.
You still haven't read the article or know what the suit is about. It is a suit brought about by the US women's team. So talking about male domestic leagues in other countries is completely irrelevant.

If pay was based on ability then the worst male tennis players would get paid more than the top women. But again not really relevant to the suit.

It's hard to discuss a subject with someone who doesn't know what the subject is and just throws random info out there.
 
Top