Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Soccer
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 46
| visibility 101

Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 8:55 AM

It's july.. so why not one more soccer post. For everyone in favor of paying the women's team more money, consider this: the South Carolina high school all state boys team would dominate the women's team. And it wouldn't be close.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 9:23 AM

I have coached high level varsity soccer at the high school level (boys) and the USWNT would dominate SC's "all-state" boys team. I would estimate that SC's "all-state" boys team would have less than 30% possession during a 90 minute match.

Based on:

Experience

-Varsity Soccer Coach, Calvin Coolidge Senior High School (Washington, D.C.)
-Varsity Soccer Coach, Gaithersburg High School (Montgomery County, Maryland) ----------> The "SEC" of high school soccer in the eastern U.S.
-Assistant Varsity Soccer Coach, Canisius High School (Buffalo, New York)

Coaching Education/Certifications

-NSCAA/United Soccer Coaches (National Diploma)
-U.S. Soccer Federation (D License)
-U.S. Soccer Federation (E License)
-National Federation of High Schools (Fundamentals of Coaching Soccer Certificate)




2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." - Jackie Robinson


Re: No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 9:25 AM

Hm, not sure about that. I had a former coach play against the USWNT with his u16 club team [note, in florida, so a very competitive team]. They would win be at least 3 goals every time they played against them.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 9:26 AM [ in reply to No, they would not. ]

Also, possession can be meaningless.. they'd struggle to score on a talented keeper while the boys team would have a field day shooting on the women's keeper.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can't score if you don't have the ball.***


Jul 9, 2019, 9:27 AM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." - Jackie Robinson


Re: No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 9:38 AM [ in reply to No, they would not. ]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/amp/

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't think you realize how good those


Jul 9, 2019, 9:43 AM

FC Dallas U15's are. They would destroy any of our SC HS teams. FC Dallas has a VERY strong Homegrown program.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Agree... Yes they lost 5-2 to a U15 boys team but


Jul 9, 2019, 9:42 AM [ in reply to No, they would not. ]

That was an FC Dallas academy team. I don't think people realize just how skilled those guys are. No, there isn't a SC HS mens team that would beat the USWNT.

Also, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides of the coin. If anyone wants to argue pay increase just look at the numbers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#84188b86da4a

Yes, the pay disparity is justified. No, this doesn't make you sexist. Conversely there's nothing wrong with supporting the Women's team. Personally, other than the WC, I don't catch most of their matches or the NWSL just because it's not that appealing to me but again, to each his own. Very happy for them in winning the WC.

Also, have Coached/Officiated at the HS/Club level.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Agree... Yes they lost 5-2 to a U15 boys team but


Jul 9, 2019, 10:04 AM

Skilled yes, but the USWNT was not playing a full strength for a 15yo "scrimmage". If you don't know what a scrimmage is, then well, no point poasting here. The USWNT would obliterate a lot of college mens teams.

Also, my younger bro is a head Womens college coach with NCAA appearances. He has coach both and prefers women's tactical aspects more. It is just more fun for him.

As for equal pay, it isn't a FIFA only aspect. The US Soccer also holds endorsement deals, etc. USSF/USWNT sells a lot of jerseys. I am fine with professional leagues/FIFA basing their "prize" and salary off of revenue generated but USSF wants to claim that Men are generating MORE sponsorship/endorsement deals is just flat wrong.

Women's teams generated close to a million more for USSF than the men in some instances. I say from a USSF, yes there has to be equal pay for equal results. As far as prize money, I am fine with equal % of the tournament prize money based on revenue.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Agree... Yes they lost 5-2 to a U15 boys team but


Jul 9, 2019, 11:09 AM

Having played at the collegiate level, I can promise you that they wouldn't obliterate a single division 1 men's soccer team.

Any top 50 men's soccer team would win handily. The women would have an extremely difficult time scoring at all.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Agree... Yes they lost 5-2 to a U15 boys team but


Jul 9, 2019, 11:21 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html

How to... beat both Williams sisters in one afternoon


Karsten Braasch is the German tennis player who did just that in 1998

Sunday 2 September 2001
Observer Sport Monthly

It was the 1998 Australian Open and the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, had seen some of the male players practising. On the basis of what they saw, they were convinced that they could beat a man ranked around 200 in the world and wanted to set up a game. At the time I was ranked 203 so the men's tour manager mentioned the possibility of a challenge to me, thinking that I was the perfect candidate. I didn't take much persuading, it seemed like a fun thing to do.

My advice if you're ever in a position to play a match of this nature is be patient - don't be annoyed or surprised if your match against the Williams sisters is cancelled, as they both have very busy schedules. My game against them had to be re-organised at least a couple of times.

Preparation is crucial. Remember that a game like this is light-hearted - taking it too seriously would be a mistake. My training regime consisted of a leisurely round of golf in the morning followed by a couple of shandies. I turned up on court feeling suitably laid-back.

My first game of the afternoon, just a one-set match, was against Serena. A hint: try and play your match somewhere quiet, where you're not going to be pestered by big crowds or lots of press - we were out on one of the back courts at Melbourne Park, No 17 I think it was. I felt so relaxed that I didn't even warm up properly. We started playing and I raced into a 5-0 lead.

At this point Venus turned up to watch. She had just finished a press conference after a quarter-final loss against Lindsey Davenport. In the end I won my game against Serena 6-1 but by the time we were at the net shaking hands, Venus was on court, ready to have a go against me as well. The game against Venus was very similar. I ended up winning 6-2.

Both sisters are great tennis players and hit the ball extremely well. However, if you've been playing on the men's tour there are certain shots you can play that are going to put them in difficulty. Try and put a lot spin on the ball - I was hitting the ball with a degree of spin they don't face week-in, week-out. Another key is to chase down every shot. In our match, they were putting shots into the corners that on the women's tour would be winners but I was able to return them.

In the end I won, but neither myself, nor Venus or Serena took the game too seriously - we were just having a bit of fun.

Apparently, after the game, Serena and Venus immediately told the press they wanted to challenge a male player again. This time they revised the ranking of the man they wanted to face, to 350 in the world. I informed the journalist who told me this that in the next week I was set to lose a lot of ATP points and drop down to 350 in the rankings. I told him that if Venus and Serena waited just one week they could challenge me all over again!

That never came about, but when I saw Venus a few months later at the French Open she came up to me with a big smile on her face and said, 'You know that thing in Australia - it never happened!'

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 12:07 PM [ in reply to No, they would not. ]

I'm a USSF coach with a National D myself who has coached mostly club but some school teams myself...and I would agree.

The USA U-15 boys did beat the women's team, but those were also our best and brightest...the dropoff from that to a typical high school all-star team is severe.

It also doesn't matter. A woman boxer or MMA fighter isn't going to beat a male, even in the same weight category. It still doesn't change the fact that lots and lots of people would pay huge bucks to watch Ronda Rousey or Cyborg or Gina Carano, and nobody is going to throw money to watch the 500th-ranked male MMA fighter in the world (who could probably beat any of those girls) fight another dude, and I'm a lot more interested in watching the elite chicks because they're just...different. And the women out-earned the men in terms of revenue earned over the last few years, and I guarantee you at the National level their fan base is bigger.

The women deserve equal pay, at least in the USA. England or Brazil it'd be hard to make that argument.

I also mostly coached boys' teams, but I've found there's about zero difference in coaching the game other than the fact that girls tend to be better listeners and less selfish and less diva-like in their willingness to share glory, and do not require the same level of foot-meets-butt motivation. Yeah, you can shave a good 15-20% off the speed of the game when chicks play it, but it's still exactly the same game...and in some ways that makes the cerebral players who can create and compose even more deadly because they've got that half-second extra to look for that killer ball, or maybe make that extra move, and stuff just...develops a little differently.

Like, that final goal at the World Cup from Rose Lavelle that iced the Cup for the USA. The more you watch it the more you appreciate it. Incredible velvety take to start, basically sticks out her foot and catches it like she's wearing a softball glove. Long push-drag with her left foot to accelerate away from the defender - who dogs it cleaning up, big mistake, that - and then Lavelle's on into clean space...and Oh My, is it ever See Space Take Space at that point. She's into the center backs before they truly register she's coming and runs directly at the LCB, freezes her with a stepover, then wrong-foots her with some body English and cuts left. The CB's partner realizes her wingman is in deep, deep trouble and that point and dives in herself...too late. Lavelle splits the two, and buries an absolute scorcher into the far corner, low and away, perfectly placed. Takes a hit from one of the big blonde Amazons she's just toasted but bounces up like a weevil.

Incredible skill. And the girl is only, what, 22? Even that old?

Even male pro players watching that were just shaking their head going: "filthy".

Sorry, that is just plain beautiful soccer played at a high hallowed level. I don't care what gender the player was.
https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/video/1563791939863

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 12:26 PM

It wasn’t the USA U-15 team it was the FC Dallas U-15 team

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: No, they would not.


Jul 9, 2019, 12:53 PM [ in reply to Re: No, they would not. ]

Where would you cut the USSF budget to cover the equal pay?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


it would depend on how convincing the flops are


Jul 9, 2019, 9:29 AM

with the right referee, the women could get 15 to 20 penalty kicks. That's apparently the best winning strategy to soccer, to dramatically fall down enough times to get those point-blank penalty shots.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Probably true, but not really the test. They want to get


Jul 9, 2019, 9:43 AM

paid what the men are getting paid. So let them play them for equal pay.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 9:46 AM

the south carolina all state boys team would get its *** kicked in a real, non-exhibition game. stop trolling like some kind of juvenile c*** in training.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 9:57 AM

lol, give them 3 weeks to train together and I'd bet $100,000 on them.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:05 AM

okay. i'll take that bet right now.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

$100K, huh?


Jul 9, 2019, 10:15 AM [ in reply to Re: Soccer ]

Clearly, your last match left you needing entry into concussion protocol.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:26 AM [ in reply to Re: Soccer ]

I agree. Men a far superior in physical sports. The best 11 HS boys players in SC would win against the USWNT imo.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 9:59 AM

If the WNT was offered the exact same contract, including all $ amounts, providing them with true equal pay, they would most likely reject it.

The MNT contract offers high risk/reward ratio. If a MNT member doesn't get put on the roster for a game, he doesn't get paid for the game or get bonuses for wins.

The WNT contract, collectively bargained for by their union, in contrast offers "safety". The WNT members get paid even if they are injured or otherwise don't play. They get paid for maternity time, etc. They chose LOWER pay as a trade off against STEADY pay.

Outside of their World Cup dominance--the WNT is like Alabama football playing in the Mountain West, there's no real competition, while MNT is like NCSU football playing in the SEC--the WNT revenues are pretty small compared to the MNT esp. when "butts in seats" are considered (paid attendance at games other than World Cup).

A few high-profile wins every 4 years doesn't pay all the bills.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:07 AM

this has been disproven in multiple venues. the women pull more eyes than the men do. they put more people in the stands. the only reason people were filling the stadium to watch the Gold Cup was because 80% of them were Mexicans.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:10 AM

There's also the matter of a revealed clause from the USWNT's 2006 collective bargaining agreement, published by former U.S. star Julie Foudy this week on ESPN.com. It was designed to reward the U.S. women’s team if their compensation-to-revenues ratio was ever better in a calendar year than that of the U.S. men. The exact wording, per Foudy, was this:

"If in any calendar year, the ratio of aggregate compensation of women's national team players to the aggregate revenue from all women's national team games (including all games in U.S. Soccer promoted women's tournaments) is less than the ratio of the aggregate compensation of the men's national team players compensation to the aggregate revenue from all men's national team games (including all games in U.S. Soccer promoted men's tournaments), then U.S. Soccer will make a lump sum payment to the women's national team player pool to make the ratios equal."

The headline on Foudy’s story was: "Why Isn’t the USWNT Using Its Fair-Pay Clause?" The answer: The clause does exist, according to U.S. Soccer, which adds that the U.S. women have not been able to trigger it yet.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:11 AM [ in reply to Re: Soccer ]

Do you think the WNT members would play under the same exact terms that the MNT plays under?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:16 AM

I don't think they would. They earn minimal contracts with their club teams so it helps them a lot to have guaranteed contracts with the national team. Works out well for them overall I think.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:20 AM

Actually their club teams CAP their salary in the mid $40Ks

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 11:05 AM [ in reply to Re: Soccer ]

Not according the the numbers I've seen for non-friendly games. They play more games per year to bring in (recently, only recently) a small amount more total revenue on aggregate ticket sales. Butts-in-seats per game are not comparable (15k vs 50k for non-friedlies). It doesn't matter if the butts in the seats are there to see the MNT's opponents...the "victory tour" games the WNT will play will likely reflect the numbers from their 2016 victory tour and help revenues and they will probably out-earn the men in this regard.

2016 MNT attendance Total attendance: 415,903 Average attendance: 29,707
2016 WNT ("Victory tour" year) Total attendance: 335,433 Average attendance: 15,973

But 2108 was a really bad year for MNT

MNT Total Attendance: 169,141 Average Attendance: 24,163
WNT Total Attendance: 253,151 Average Attendance: 14,064

WNT played 18 total home games, including 5 WCQ games and 3 Tournament of Nations games and 3 Shee Believes Cup games. The MNT played 7 friendlies.

Of course, if the MNT continues to suck as bad as hey do, no one is ever going to see them play anyway and even the paltry wome's team revenues will tower over the men's and there'll be no revenue argument to make. OTOH if the MNT get's their act together and becomes a top-tier contender, their revenues will so far outpace the women's that it won't be funny.

Face it. The WNT is the best in the world, but the world wide marketplace for $$$ to be made getting people to pay to watch women's soccer (or women's basketball, or women's curling, or...) is nowhere near the size of the market for $$$ people will pay to watch top-tier men's soccer. So the best-in-the-world US WNT is raking in all the revenues they possible can and a far larger chunk of those revenues are being used to pay the WNT. The US MNT, which sucks, still pulls in revenues, and a smaller percentage of those revenues goes to the men's team members.

But I still content that the WNT would never agree to a pay structure that is identical in all facets to the men's because there's too much risk of NOT getting paid AT ALL in the MNT contract.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 11:17 AM

Some 2016 MNT games

June 3: USA vs. Colombia (Copa America), Levi’s Stadium, Santa Clara, CA: 67,439

June 7: USA vs. Costa Rica (Copa America), Soldier Field, Chicago, IL: 39,642

June 11: USA vs. Paraguay (Copa America), Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, PA: 51,041

une 16: USA vs. Ecuador (Copa America), Century Link Field, Seattle, WA: 47,322

June 21: USA vs. Argentina (Copa America), NRG Stadium, Houston, TX: 70,858

June 25: USA vs. Colombia (Copa America), University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, AZ: 29,041

September 6: USA vs. Trinidad-Tobago (World Cup qualifier), Everbank Field, Jacksonville, FL: 19,410

October 11: USA vs. New Zealand (friendly), RFK Stadium, Washington DC: 9,012

November 11: USA vs. Mexico (World Cup qualifier), Mapfre Stadium, Columbus, OH: 24,650

Some 2016 WNT games

February 10: USA vs. Costa Rica (Olympic qualifier), Toyota Stadium, Frisco, TX: 8,143

February 13: USA vs. Mexico (Olympic qualifier), Toyota Stadium, Frisco, TX: 15,032

February 15: USA vs. Puerto Rico (Olympic qualifier), Toyota Stadium, Frisco, TX: 7,658

February 19: USA vs. Trinidad-Tobago (Olympic qualifier), BBVA Compass Stadium, Houston, TX: 5,561

February 21: USA vs. Canada (Olympic qualifier), BBVA Compass Stadium, Houston, TX: 10,119

March 3: USA vs. England (She Believes Cup), Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, FL: 13,027

March 6: USA vs. France (She Believes Cup), Nissan Stadium, Nashville, TN: 25,363

March 9: USA vs. Germany (She Believes Cup), FAU Stadium, Boca Raton, FL: 13,501

One thing about WNT, their draw is pretty much the same no matter whether it's a friendly or a "real" game. Their "victory tour" status helped that in 2106. They drew 20K+ in a few friendlies (Japan, Switzerland, Romania). OTOH, their Olympic Qualifier games are on par with men's friendlies.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 10:53 AM

"deserve" more money. Who cares how they would fare head to head against the men?

This is primarily a question of economics with a secondary consideration towards the social impact.

Do they generate enough revenue to warrant higher wages?
- Yes? Then pay them more.
- No? Does their social impact and the value of having the most dominant team in the sport justify a bit of a subsidy?

I have a hard time believing that they deserve equal pay as the men because revenue generated from the men's game just dwarfs revenue from the women's game and that's a cold hard fact regardless of how you spin things. That said, there's no reason not to look into whether giving them a raise is justifiable.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 11:07 AM

I encourage them to sign a new contract with terms identical to the terms of the men's contract.

They won't though, even it it was offered to them. Too much risk of not getting paid at all.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 11:19 AM [ in reply to All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they ]

But that is the part that is off, the womens team generates more endorsement and ad revenue than the mens team. The butts in the seat is part but the women's team nets more (because they play in more games) although net attendance is lower.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 11:25 AM

Really?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#dd323136da4a

As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.

The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 11:43 AM

You are confusing FIFA and USSF. You are confusing seats with profitability. You are noting the tournament kickback/total revenue which I am fine as long as the % is equatable. USSF, on the otherhand has been very mum about the ad revenue and endorsement deals that are very much explicit in the equal pay scheme. The lawsuit is with USSF, not FIFA.


About 50% if the 105 million to the USSF is from ad/endorement deals and only 25% are "seats". Because the USSF "pools" the revenue together, you really can't say one is more valuable than the other. Still, the #1 soccer jersey is a USWNT.

My issue is that IF the USSF is going to pool their revenue, and then NOT treat each player as equal, then there is a MAJOR issue. If they want to split up the revenue into silos, and as long as both groups are getting equal cuts, well that is fine. However, it keeps coming back that the women are generating more net revenue per year than the men, must hustle more for that, and then get a smaller cut. That is 100% wrong.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 12:52 PM

I mention FIFA revenue specifically because it's World Cup revenue that is a big driver for the revenues the national teams earn. Further it offers a revenue proxy for the overall interest in men's vs women's games.

"USSF reported $152 million in revenue in 2017; keep in mind that fiscal year included the revenue from the Copa America Centenario which took place in the summer of 2016. There was $50 million in contributed revenue claimed for the “Administration of Commercial Rights for Copa America Centenario.” That was the main driver of the roughly $25 million increase in revenue compared with the prior year.

"The bulk of the remaining revenues coming from the Program Service revenues which totaled $97.0 million. That included Sponsorship and Royalties (i.e. SUM) at $48.9 million, National Team and Open Cup games at $33.2 million, Membership dues of $10.2 million, coaching school revenue of $1.8 million and $3 million of other.

Ultimately, though, the women are getting paid what they are paid because it's what the agreed to in their union negotiations with the USSF. I agree they should have equal pay, so let them sign a contract that matches the contract the men are bound by. They won't though, because it provides too much risk of not getting paid.

"The caveat here, of course, is that the women draw a salary for playing on the national team, while the men are only paid by U.S. Soccer for participation in camps, friendlies and tournaments. If the women’s salaries were replaced with the men’s bonus figures for friendlies, players would have earned $109,600 in 2015, nearly $40,000 more than their $72,000 national team salary — and that’s before we include any other bonuses or fees they’d receive for being named to tournament rosters and other non-game events.

"While U.S. Soccer is not responsible for FIFA prize money, it’s worth noting that the men’s prize money for losing in the round of 16 amounted to $9 million. The women’s prize money for winning the whole tournament was $2 million. If we distribute these totals evenly across the 23-player rosters, Lloyd’s and Solo’s earnings increase to $326,976 each. Dempsey’s and Howard’s, meanwhile, increase to $819,326 and $789,799, respectively. The 2014 men’s World Cup generated approximately $4.8 billion in revenue for FIFA. Revenue for the 2015 Women’s World Cup have yet to be reported but will certainly be much lower. [It was about

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 12:57 PM [ in reply to Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they ]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/06/the-sad-gender-economics-of-the-womens-world-cup/?utm_term=.80c48edbdd65

For the U.S. national team's stunning 5-2 win over Japan at the Women's World Cup on Sunday, a rout that made the Americans the first team ever to win three world championships, soccer's global governing body will award the team $2 million — about 5 percent of the $35 million FIFA gave to the German victors of last year's World Cup.

And while viewers made the Sunday match by far the most-watched soccer game in American TV history, little of that excitement could be seen in the tourney's marketing deals. Fox grabbed an estimated $17 million in ads from corporate sponsors of the elite women's matches — a tiny fraction compared to the $529 million ESPN pocketed in sponsorship revenue from last year's (men's) tournament in Brazil.

Yet even for all of their success, the players have gotten next to none of the backing or recognition of their male counterparts. Before winning the Golden Ball, an award for the World Cup's best player, Lloyd's few sponsorships included a deal last year with Usana Health Sciences, a seller of dietary supplements, and an agreement last week to represent Visa during the 2016 Olympics.

(For comparison: Last year's Golden Ball winner, Argentine star Lionel Messi, is one of the world's highest-paid athletes, expected to take home $74 million in winnings and marketing deals this year.)

The business of this year's Women's World Cup saw some big gains over the 2011 tourney. Fox aired 16 matches live with ads from more than 20 corporate sponsors, including Fiat and Nationwide Insurance, and brought in sponsorship revenue that was nearly three times as much as in 2011.

But companies that invested exhaustively in ad blitzes and social media around last year's tournament, like Adidas, proved staggeringly quiet during the Women's World Cup. And some of the ones who took up the slack, a FOX executive told Ad Age, were "non-traditional" advertisers relatively unseen in sports broadcasts, including grooming and personal-care brands like Clorox and Tampax.

Many companies, analysts said, remain skittish to spend money on a sport without the proven returns of a bigger spectacle, like professional football, or the market power other sports can command on shelves.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they


Jul 9, 2019, 12:56 PM [ in reply to Re: All of this seems irrelevant to whether or not they ]

You’re just making up something that isn’t true.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 10:57 AM

.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Re: Soccer


Jul 9, 2019, 12:13 PM

http://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/uswnt-vs-u-17-usmnt.1939180/

Interesting read...

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Disagree. Lloyd would rip those boys new buttholes


Jul 9, 2019, 12:22 PM

That Lavelle shot would beat any high school keeper. Actually, the left footed blast from Morgan (that the Dutch keeper stopped) would have scored on most.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Well the technical area isn't typically where female


Jul 9, 2019, 1:03 PM

athletes are lacking in comparison to men. It's generally just sheer size and athleticism. Men are bigger, stronger, and faster and would likely dominate play in the middle of the field as a direct result of that. They would win the headers, muscle the women off the ball, out-muscle them for position, and just beat them into space with superior speed. The technical superiority of the women would never get a chance to shine.

That said, i still think this is irrelevant to the money argument.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Well the technical area isn't typically where female


Jul 9, 2019, 1:47 PM

"That said, i still think this is irrelevant to the money argument. "

Not sure what you think IS relevent to the money issue.

If it's simply they are all playing the same game and should get paid the same, then does that apply to WNBA vs NBA salaries? If not, please explain why it's ok for WNBA players to make less than NBA players? If you think WNBA players hould make the same as NBA players, is there any reason other than sexism why they are not?

Please explain lower pay for NBA development leagues and minor league baseball teams, where men playing basketball and baseball make less than men playing in the NBA or MLB? Why are salaries in the CFL and Arena Football leagues lower than the NFL? It's obviously not sexism in these cases.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It's already baked into the revenue.


Jul 9, 2019, 4:53 PM

No need to account for it AGAIN.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Well the technical area isn't typically where female


Jul 9, 2019, 6:41 PM [ in reply to Well the technical area isn't typically where female ]

we aren’t talking about men. we’re talking about the clown arguing that the sc u-18 team would beat a team of women who play professional soccer. yes, the women may very well lose to a national boys 18 and under. there is significant talent ona team like that. sc? no.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Disagree. Lloyd would rip those boys new buttholes


Jul 9, 2019, 1:08 PM [ in reply to Disagree. Lloyd would rip those boys new buttholes ]

Lavelle would have never gotten the shot off against a boys team. They would have closed her down.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Disagree. Lloyd would rip those boys new buttholes


Jul 9, 2019, 7:07 PM


Lavelle would have never gotten the shot off against a boys team. They would have closed her down.



High school boys?

No way, no how.

I agree that wouldn't have flown against pro guys, but that would have turned any high school kid I've ever coached - and I've coached a bunch - inside out.

There isn't a supreme amount of difference between guys and girls, whatever you say. The guy's game is faster...but not that much faster. I was at a coaching clinic at Furman with a pro guy from Colombia and one of your own alums - former USC All-American CB Blakely Mattern - and I made the mistake of putting myself at keeper during a long-distance shooting drill. Your girl Blakely almost killed me; she was consistently out-shooting the Colombian pro guy and launching scud missiles in from 25 and 30 yards and I couldn't get near them, whereas I was able to parry and get my hands on what the Colombian dude was firing. Blakely's got a no-kidding howitzer for a foot...and as far as I know she's never gotten near the USWNT setup.

Anybody who talks smack about the women's game has simply not gotten near it, it's as simple as that. The elite female jocks play soccer in the USA; it's why we win so durn much.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Disagree. Lloyd would rip those boys new buttholes


Jul 9, 2019, 7:58 PM

I don't think anybody is smack talking the women who play soccer. I was thrilled to watch them win! People are just putting it out there that the best women in most sports are not close to the same level as the best men. Your example is just shooting the ball. I agree a pk or free kick that there isn't much difference between men and women tho the best man probably can kick much harder and further than the best women. Soccer is more than just shooting as you know ofcourse.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 46
| visibility 101
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic