Women's Football - Wage Disparity Debate

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
36,747
At the end of the day (forget the article), we all believe that we should get a decent pay for a decent days work. Whatever your race,sex, religious beliefs, class etc... those more skillful or work harder should be rewarded more. Just not to extremes.

I long for the live long and prosper days. When we are all equal.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
257
A&C, you mention that the last Womens world cup generated $70m, and the prize money was $15m.

FIFA already give $28m per annum to national associations for womens football (and that figure is increasing), so in the 4 years, $70 m income against $ 129m of costs, before taking account any expenses incurred in running the womens game for the last 4 years. They already get way more than they bring in, which is fine let's call it R&D investment, that R&D needs to pay off though before investing much more though. We need to see a comparable increase in the product displayed.
 

soup

On the straightened arrow
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
2,835
@soup I suggest you read the original article plus the relevant posts that discuss the issues pertaining to the article, before ranting about 'greedy female footballers'.
Completely not a rant and equally not a rant about greedy female footballers.

It's always a shame when you can't have a discussion without it being interpreted and labeled as from a prejudiced standpoint, so please don't tar me with that sexist stereotype so quickly, I'm slightly more advanced as a human being than that. Apologies if it came across as small minded or provocative. I'm sure the reason a lot of people don't discuss the problem properly is for fear of saying the wrong thing or any kind of opinion being frowned upon if it's not 100% the 'right thing to say'.

For me it's not an argument that needs to be had between men and women, more so an argument that needs to be had between Women's International Football and it's value as seen by sponsors and then asking for parity from those sponsors, who would have a lot of men and women in the decision making, bidding and negotiating processes. As long as it's marketed equally, has proportionate payout to what a faction itself generates then that is fair. Whatever is more popular to the public is more marketable, gets bigger sponsors and makes more revenue, it's not a question of sex or gender at all, it all comes down to what the public want.

If I join a band and play at Glastonbury next year I wouldn't get paid a lot. Certainly not as much as a headliner. I wouldn't expect Michael Edis to pay me the same just because I am also playing at Glastonbury. He'd probably quite rightly sit me down and tell me, 'well, the reason we pay the Foo Fighters a lot more money than you is because a lot of people come here to see the Foo Fighters and a lot of sponsors invest because we have acts like the Foo Fighters. Give it time and one day you can be a famous like the Foo Fighters, and when you do, I'll pay you the same. The rest is down to you.' Michael Edis is showing no prejudice to me, in my interpretation of prejudice vs entitlement.

Women deserve the same as men. Full stop. If you knew me, and what I've fought for for human rights, those of my two disabled children and my amazing wife who has been held back at every turn when fighting for them and seen her frustration at seeing me as a man being listened to the first time I pick up the phone, I'd never disagree that the world still has a very long way to go in many, many respects,

Proportional payout to the money received and equal to any other human is the best you can ever fairly ask for. As I said, fair's fair.

Anyway, enough about all that equality bollocks. I still think it'd be more popular in bikinis. :playful::cautious:

(Disclaimer: I've just realised what I'm doing here. It looks like I'm some prick standing up for FIFA and their ideas of equality. My bad. They are shits. Mine's more a load of waffle about my opinion on equality vs entitlement .
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
6,263
would you give up some wages to subsidize a colleague? Im self employed - there is nobody to subsidize me.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
15,448
Completely not a rant and equally not a rant about greedy female footballers.

It's always a shame when you can't have a discussion without it being interpreted and labeled as from a prejudiced standpoint, so please don't tar me with that sexist stereotype so quickly, I'm slightly more advanced as a human being than that. Apologies if it came across as small minded or provocative. I'm sure the reason a lot of people don't discuss the problem properly is for fear of saying the wrong thing or any kind of opinion being frowned upon if it's not 100% the 'right thing to say'.

For me it's not an argument that needs to be had between men and women, more so an argument that needs to be had between Women's International Football and it's value as seen by sponsors and then asking for parity from those sponsors, who would have a lot of men and women in the decision making, bidding and negotiating processes. As long as it's marketed equally, has proportionate payout to what a faction itself generates then that is fair. Whatever is more popular to the public is more marketable, gets bigger sponsors and makes more revenue, it's not a question of sex or gender at all, it all comes down to what the public want.

If I join a band and play at Glastonbury next year I wouldn't get paid a lot. Certainly not as much as a headliner. I wouldn't expect Michael Edis to pay me the same just because I am also playing at Glastonbury. He'd probably quite rightly sit me down and tell me, 'well, the reason we pay the Foo Fighters a lot more money than you is because a lot of people come here to see the Foo Fighters and a lot of sponsors invest because we have acts like the Foo Fighters. Give it time and one day you can be a famous like the Foo Fighters, and when you do, I'll pay you the same. The rest is down to you.' Michael Edis is showing no prejudice to me, in my interpretation of prejudice vs entitlement.

Women deserve the same as men. Full stop. If you knew me, and what I've fought for for human rights, those of my two disabled children and my amazing wife who has been held back at every turn when fighting for them and seen her frustration at seeing me as a man being listened to the first time I pick up the phone, I'd never disagree that the world still has a very long way to go in many, many respects,

Proportional payout to the money received and equal to any other human is the best you can ever fairly ask for. As I said, fair's fair.

Anyway, enough about all that equality bollocks. I still think it'd be more popular in bikinis. :playful::cautious:

(Disclaimer: I've just realised what I'm doing here. It looks like I'm some prick standing up for FIFA and their ideas of equality. My bad. They are shits. Mine's more a load of waffle about my opinion on equality vs entitlement .
Problem is the issue is not as simple as asking for complete equality. The men's prize money was over £280m more than the women's WC prize money.

In the OP the article linked talks about how some women are not getting basic facilities like internet at the tournament's.

So when people dumb the issue down, and it is dumbing down, to equal pay it will come across as an agenda.

Look at the actual numbers and figures and decide if you think more money shouldn't be going to grassroots women's football, or them having proper facilities for major tournaments or if the men's prize money couldn't be a sixteenth less of what they get now to almost doubling what the women get.

We should be better than dumbing this down to equal pay.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
15,448
would you give up some wages to subsidize a colleague? Im self employed - there is nobody to subsidize me.
Not even close to being the same thing.

International football is not the main payer of footballer's wages. If I was invited to a tournament in my field and I found the men's tournament got over £300m and the same federation gave the women under £30m Iwould have no problem with a change to that.
 

Atomic Blonde

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
48
Completely not a rant and equally not a rant about greedy female footballers.

It's always a shame when you can't have a discussion without it being interpreted and labeled as from a prejudiced standpoint, so please don't tar me with that sexist stereotype so quickly, I'm slightly more advanced as a human being than that. Apologies if it came across as small minded or provocative. I'm sure the reason a lot of people don't discuss the problem properly is for fear of saying the wrong thing or any kind of opinion being frowned upon if it's not 100% the 'right thing to say'.

For me it's not an argument that needs to be had between men and women, more so an argument that needs to be had between Women's International Football and it's value as seen by sponsors and then asking for parity from those sponsors, who would have a lot of men and women in the decision making, bidding and negotiating processes. As long as it's marketed equally, has proportionate payout to what a faction itself generates then that is fair. Whatever is more popular to the public is more marketable, gets bigger sponsors and makes more revenue, it's not a question of sex or gender at all, it all comes down to what the public want.

If I join a band and play at Glastonbury next year I wouldn't get paid a lot. Certainly not as much as a headliner. I wouldn't expect Michael Edis to pay me the same just because I am also playing at Glastonbury. He'd probably quite rightly sit me down and tell me, 'well, the reason we pay the Foo Fighters a lot more money than you is because a lot of people come here to see the Foo Fighters and a lot of sponsors invest because we have acts like the Foo Fighters. Give it time and one day you can be a famous like the Foo Fighters, and when you do, I'll pay you the same. The rest is down to you.' Michael Edis is showing no prejudice to me, in my interpretation of prejudice vs entitlement.

Women deserve the same as men. Full stop. If you knew me, and what I've fought for for human rights, those of my two disabled children and my amazing wife who has been held back at every turn when fighting for them and seen her frustration at seeing me as a man being listened to the first time I pick up the phone, I'd never disagree that the world still has a very long way to go in many, many respects,

Proportional payout to the money received and equal to any other human is the best you can ever fairly ask for. As I said, fair's fair.

Anyway, enough about all that equality bollocks. I still think it'd be more popular in bikinis. :playful::cautious:

(Disclaimer: I've just realised what I'm doing here. It looks like I'm some prick standing up for FIFA and their ideas of equality. My bad. They are shits. Mine's more a load of waffle about my opinion on equality vs entitlement .
I maybe shouldn't have used the term 'rant' but if you read my previous posts on this thread I have actively engaged in the discussion, and have certainly not 'shut it down'. My (and others) exasperation comes from the fact that some people are clearly stating their opinion on the thread title without reading the op's original article which is about female players talking about FIFA's lack of investment in women's football and the massive and ever increasing disparity in prize money compared with the men. They are NOT asking FIFA for parity/equal prize money.

As pointed out by @nailsy on the previous page there is an entirely separate issue going on between the US women's team suing the US soccer federation for equal pay to the men and this is because the USWNT are in the unique position of being the only women's national team that are more successful and earn more revenue than the men's team.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
22,161
Completely not a rant and equally not a rant about greedy female footballers.

It's always a shame when you can't have a discussion without it being interpreted and labeled as from a prejudiced standpoint, so please don't tar me with that sexist stereotype so quickly, I'm slightly more advanced as a human being than that. Apologies if it came across as small minded or provocative. I'm sure the reason a lot of people don't discuss the problem properly is for fear of saying the wrong thing or any kind of opinion being frowned upon if it's not 100% the 'right thing to say'.

For me it's not an argument that needs to be had between men and women, more so an argument that needs to be had between Women's International Football and it's value as seen by sponsors and then asking for parity from those sponsors, who would have a lot of men and women in the decision making, bidding and negotiating processes. As long as it's marketed equally, has proportionate payout to what a faction itself generates then that is fair. Whatever is more popular to the public is more marketable, gets bigger sponsors and makes more revenue, it's not a question of sex or gender at all, it all comes down to what the public want.

If I join a band and play at Glastonbury next year I wouldn't get paid a lot. Certainly not as much as a headliner. I wouldn't expect Michael Edis to pay me the same just because I am also playing at Glastonbury. He'd probably quite rightly sit me down and tell me, 'well, the reason we pay the Foo Fighters a lot more money than you is because a lot of people come here to see the Foo Fighters and a lot of sponsors invest because we have acts like the Foo Fighters. Give it time and one day you can be a famous like the Foo Fighters, and when you do, I'll pay you the same. The rest is down to you.' Michael Edis is showing no prejudice to me, in my interpretation of prejudice vs entitlement.

Women deserve the same as men. Full stop. If you knew me, and what I've fought for for human rights, those of my two disabled children and my amazing wife who has been held back at every turn when fighting for them and seen her frustration at seeing me as a man being listened to the first time I pick up the phone, I'd never disagree that the world still has a very long way to go in many, many respects,

Proportional payout to the money received and equal to any other human is the best you can ever fairly ask for. As I said, fair's fair.

Anyway, enough about all that equality bollocks. I still think it'd be more popular in bikinis. :playful::cautious:

(Disclaimer: I've just realised what I'm doing here. It looks like I'm some prick standing up for FIFA and their ideas of equality. My bad. They are shits. Mine's more a load of waffle about my opinion on equality vs entitlement .
But it's not marketed equally, the training facilities aren't equal , coaching systems aren't equal. The mens game has had advantages for decades, there's no way it can be judged equally. And as a not for profit organisation does it matter where the money is generated? I know it's not exactly the same, but no-one would say that Oxfam should spend 90% of it's money in the UK as that's where most of the money is generated*. They spend the money where it's needed the most. FIFA seem to pump the money back into the most well off area and then keep massive cash reserves when other areas are crying out for investment.
 

Atomic Blonde

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
48
A&C, you mention that the last Womens world cup generated $70m, and the prize money was $15m.

FIFA already give $28m per annum to national associations for womens football (and that figure is increasing), so in the 4 years, $70 m income against $ 129m of costs, before taking account any expenses incurred in running the womens game for the last 4 years. They already get way more than they bring in, which is fine let's call it R&D investment, that R&D needs to pay off though before investing much more though. We need to see a comparable increase in the product displayed.
What you are asking for has nothing to do with how FIFA is supposed to work. Their mission statement is quite clear about promoting the game and bringing the game to all (men and women). As a 'not for profit' organisation, the commercial success/quality of product is not relevant when it comes to investment.

In saying that, the history of sport shows that the more money that is invested the better and more popular the 'product'. One thing will inevitably to the other, it just takes more time if the investment is not sufficient.

Despite the fact that they are slowly increasing their investment in women's football, they are giving even more to men so the gender gap is getting bigger not smaller. Surely the opposite should be the case if they are ever to fulfil their supposed mission?
 

Yid-ol

Just-in-Edinburgh
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
25,790
To me it should be based on the revenue (sponsorship) that the women can generate goes to the prize funds, and what the men generates go to the men.

Do we think the English premier league should give money it generates to the Scottish league? The Welsh league? Spanish league? Because they get less tv money than the English league? Nope.

I do agree the women deserve more money for the prize funds, but this will grow with the popularity growing for them in the sport and bigger crowds resulting in bigger sponsorship.

I would also flip it around and say if the women's ends up with more sponsorship I wouldn't expect the men's game to get anything from them.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
36,747
But it's not marketed equally, the training facilities aren't equal , coaching systems aren't equal. The mens game has had advantages for decades, there's no way it can be judged equally. And as a not for profit organisation does it matter where the money is generated? I know it's not exactly the same, but no-one would say that Oxfam should spend 90% of it's money in the UK as that's where most of the money is generated*. They spend the money where it's needed the most. FIFA seem to pump the money back into the most well off area and then keep massive cash reserves when other areas are crying out for investment.
Fifa are not responsible for the teams training facilities or places where teams stay though. That is down to the federations.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
15,448
To me it should be based on the revenue (sponsorship) that the women can generate goes to the prize funds, and what the men generates go to the men.

Do we think the English premier league should give money it generates to the Scottish league? The Welsh league? Spanish league? Because they get less tv money than the English league? Nope.

I do agree the women deserve more money for the prize funds, but this will grow with the popularity growing for them in the sport and bigger crowds resulting in bigger sponsorship.

I would also flip it around and say if the women's ends up with more sponsorship I wouldn't expect the men's game to get anything from them.
Common debating technique is trying to draw parallels but so often they don't exist.

Some of the money generated by the Premier league does go to grass roots football and funding of other leagues.

The debate is how much should go.

The footballing world would be a worse place if all the money generated went into the Premier League. I am sure those enjoying the women's WC would like a higher percentage of Fifa funding to go towards prize money for the participants.

The last women's WC had 800m viewers. It is popular enough to justify higher funding.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
36,747
Common debating technique is trying to draw parallels but so often they don't exist.

Some of the money generated by the Premier league does go to grass roots football and funding of other leagues.

The debate is how much should go.

The footballing world would be a worse place if all the money generated went into the Premier League. I am sure those enjoying the women's WC would like a higher percentage of Fifa funding to go towards prize money for the participants.

The last women's WC had 800m viewers. It is popular enough to justify higher funding.
As has already been said though, the last world cup the women got 13% of the revenue raised as prize money. Where the men got 9%.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
36,747
As for training. Where did the female us team have their training camp? That's right at our training ground. Arguably the best in europe.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
15,448
As has already been said though, the last world cup the women got 13% of the revenue raised as prize money. Where the men got 9%.
When the amounts the different groups are getting is so high I genuinely couldn't care less about percentages.

If my mate on £10 an hour gets a 10% pay rise to £11 and someone one £100k an hour get a 1% rise I would still see the imbalance as too big.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
22,161
Fifa are not responsible for the teams training facilities or places where teams stay though. That is down to the federations.
The prize money from the world cup is given to the federations though. If the prize money is higher the federations can spend more on the facilities.

As has already been said though, the last world cup the women got 13% of the revenue raised as prize money. Where the men got 9%.
Its the amount that they get that's important, not the percentage of revenue.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
36,747
When the amounts the different groups are getting is so high I genuinely couldn't care less about percentages.

If my mate on £10 an hour gets a 10% pay rise to £11 and someone one £100k an hour get a 1% rise I would still see the imbalance as too big.
You are the one that said that the womens game is popular.
If it is as popular as you say then it should be making a lot of money. The women getting a better % of that money than the men do should be a good thing then.

Or are you saying that the womens world cup doesn't bring in enough money and you want the men to subsidise them?
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
36,747
The prize money from the world cup is given to the federations though. If the prize money is higher the federations can spend more on the facilities.



Its the amount that they get that's important, not the percentage of revenue.
As i said their pre tournament camp was at our training ground. Or are you saying they need somewhere better?
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
15,448
You are the one that said that the womens game is popular.
If it is as popular as you say then it should be making a lot of money. The women getting a better % of that money than the men do should be a good thing then.

Or are you saying that the womens world cup doesn't bring in enough money and you want the men to subsidise them?
Nice attempt at twisting my words.

I said the last women's WC got 800m viewers. This is pretty popular.

Fifa funds both the men's and women's international tournaments for prize money.

As Fifa is supposed to be a non-profit entitiy its function is to fairly distribute funds. I don't believe over £300m to the men's prize money and under £30m to the women's is fair distribution.
 
Top