Prove it.

jeffk said:

---

Prove it.

---

Dang. I've got nothing.

I guess that's checkmate.

You better not have jinx'd us, PatAg!!

Kramer said:

---

The WNT has been beaten on every front, with every tactic they've tried, every time they've tried it. They simply want money that does not exist. And they won't ever be satisfied with any agreement.

USSF has lots of problems and it's not a well run organization, but they are out of options. This was it for them. They've passed the buck to FIFA.

Also good to note, during the pandemic cancellations, the WNT got paid their salaries and benefits.

The MNT got...nothing.

---

It's like the women can't even be logically reasoned with, even with cold hard facts and math. It's almost like they are emotionally driven despite being wrong on every front. THAT'S SO WEIRD! How could women behave this way!!?!?

Prove to me how how a conditional statement can even be jinxed. You can only jinx something by predicting it, that's a fact. Look it up

Settled, 24 million.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-soccer-women-soccer-stars-settle-equal-pay-lawsuit-24-million-rcna17138

It is interesting to watch viewership of the Women's World Cup grow along with revenues.

Viewership of the final was up 56% from 2015 held in Canada despite two Mens finals being played the same day (Gold Cup and Copa America) and being played at 10a CDT.

The avg match had 17.27 million viewers up from 8.39 million in 2015.

I've got no issue with them fighting for more equity as the women's game grows.

I would argue that since the viewing rights (the avenue for the bulk of revenues) are negotiated as a bundle between then men and women and the women are bringing in 30% o what then men bring in terms of viewership that there is a justifiable disparity between the $400m prize pot and the $30m price pot for women.

If you were to give them 23.8% (based on viewership) of the price pot it would equal $102m.
(1.1b vs 3.5b). Got those numbers from FIFA/Forbes/CNBC/Guardian.


My guess is they know they won't get equal prize pot but somewhere closer to the number above.

They're not stealing anything, they are asking for their fair share of the revenues. The fact that the USWNT delivered 22% more viewers than the men's final in 2018 puts them in a particularly strong bargaining position to up their prize pool.

To my eyes it looks like the mens game is getting some $70m in free money.

They're basically asking for a raise. The market seems to support that raise, again no issue for me.

Knucklesammich said:

---

I would argue that since the viewing rights (the avenue for the bulk of revenues) are negotiated as a bundle between then men and women and the women are bringing in 30% o what then men bring in terms of viewership that there is a justifiable disparity between the $400m prize pot and the $30m price pot for women.

If you were to give them 23.8% (based on viewership) of the price pot it would equal $102m.
(1.1b vs 3.5b). Got those numbers from FIFA/Forbes/CNBC/Guardian.


My guess is they know they won't get equal prize pot but somewhere closer to the number above.

They're not stealing anything, they are asking for their fair share of the revenues. The fact that the USWNT delivered 22% more viewers than the men's final in 2018 puts them in a particularly strong bargaining position to up their prize pool.

To my eyes it looks like the mens game is getting some $70m in free money.

They're basically asking for a raise. The market seems to support that raise, again no issue for me.

---

Lets see how those numbers compare after the next Mens World Cup vs the latest Womens World Cup

deadbq03 said:

---

Knucklesammich said:

---

It is interesting to watch viewership of the Women's World Cup grow along with revenues.

Viewership of the final was up 56% from 2015 held in Canada despite two Mens finals being played the same day (Gold Cup and Copa America) and being played at 10a CDT.

The avg match had 17.27 million viewers up from 8.39 million in 2015.

I've got no issue with them fighting for more equity as the women's game grows.

---

Meanwhile, the 2018 World Cup averaged 191 million viewers per game, and an estimated 3.5 billion people watched at least one game.

I'm fully on board with equal pay when they get equal viewers.

---

It's not just an equal viewer. You have to pay the men enough to overcome the overseas travel and risk of losing their real salary.

TRM said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Knucklesammich said:

---

It is interesting to watch viewership of the Women's World Cup grow along with revenues.

Viewership of the final was up 56% from 2015 held in Canada despite two Mens finals being played the same day (Gold Cup and Copa America) and being played at 10a CDT.

The avg match had 17.27 million viewers up from 8.39 million in 2015.

I've got no issue with them fighting for more equity as the women's game grows.

---

Meanwhile, the 2018 World Cup averaged 191 million viewers per game, and an estimated 3.5 billion people watched at least one game.

I'm fully on board with equal pay when they get equal viewers.

---

It's not just an equal viewer. You have to pay the men enough to overcome the overseas travel and risk of losing their real salary.

---

I understand that, but it's probably a moot point. If the women's World Cup ever equals the men's in terms of viewership, it likely means that women's club salaries are on par with men.

And of course, this whole mental exercise is probably a moot point because it's outrageously unlikely to occur.

Quote:

---

And of course, this whole mental exercise is probably a moot point because it will never occur.

---

FIFY

Make no mistake they aren't in a position to get equal prize pools but they are in a position to increase their percentage especially since the rights to both as far as I've read are lumped together.

Right now they are generating 23% of the viewership and making 6% of the prize pool. To me that tells me they are in fact in a way subsidizing the mens' prize pool.

It's always an interesting discussion. Personally, I think USSF (which is a non-profit entity) should be focused on growing the domestic game and making sure our teams are competitive across age groups and genders. To that end, revenue generated is secondary and shouldn't really figure into compensation of the players in my opinion. Also, the Fed isn't hurting for cash - far from it. Figuring out a way to refigure the teams' compensation structure when the tournament pots are so different is a pretty difficult task. It'll be interesting to see how this next round of negotiations play out and what the women end up with moving forward.

If the answer is per game and not salary then they will see a drastic reduction in games.

It's two completely separate discussions.

1st discussion - FIFA prize money. If they women's champion wants equal compensation they'll have to equal world revenues on the world stage. Viewership is one piece; and world viewership is different than US viewership. Let's acknowledge that first. Sponsorship is a whole different component and sponsorship revenue is on a astronomically different level in the Men's v.s Women's World Cup. I suspect a world arbitration court will view it differently than a US arbitration court also.

2nd discussions - US equal pay. The USWNT Players Union agreed to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with US Soccer. The USMNT Players Union agreed to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with US Soccer. If those agreements were made in good faith and mutual decision, then those agreements should stand. You can't realize you got a worse deal than the other guy and then go back to renegotiate. You've got to suck it up until the deal is up and then drive a harder bargain next time. That's how it works right?

Parlow Cone re-elected over Cordeiro. I wonder how she got all those endorsements...

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usa/story/4609488/cindy-parlow-cone-re-elected-as-us-soccer-presidentdefeats-carlos-cordeiro

Quote:

---

Cindy Parlow Cone won re-election as U.S. Soccer Federation president on Saturday, fending off a challenge from predecessor Carlos Cordeiro.

Cone won 52.9% of the weighted vote from the USSF's National Council, and will now serve a new, four-year term that will expire in 2026, just a few months before the U.S. will co-host that year's World Cup with Canada and Mexico.

Saturday's tally was the closest final ballot in U.S. Soccer history.

---

Quote:

---

Yet Cone was able to secure enough votes -- she secured several public endorsements from members of the Athletes Council, which held 33.3 percent of the weighted vote -- to win re-election. On the eve of Saturday's election, Cone had received the endorsements of 32 players on the United States women's national team.

---

I don't know, maybe because she was a member of the USWNT and her opponent already had the job, resigned from the job for being stupid and therefore probably wasn't the best candidate.

Weird take.

Yeah, I was actually surprised that it was as close as it was.

You do know she was on the legal committee of leadership monitoring the case in 2020 that caused all the outrage? When she said she had not read that filing in 2020 would mean she wasn't doing her job. The grassroots organizations are unhappy. Then she signs a crap 8 year TV deal for the next 2 WC cycles.

It looks like the settlement was really a bribe for the winning votes especially when ypu consider the tweet below.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usaw/story/4608794/uswnt-players-endorse-cindy-parlow-cone-for-us-soccer-president

Quote:

---

The election will be held Saturday at U.S. Soccer's annual general meeting in Atlanta. Only U.S. Soccer constituents are eligible to vote in the election, and the USWNT players are represented by the 23-player Athletes Council. Alex Morgan, Ali Krieger, Sauerbrunn and Lynn Williams, who all signed the letter, sit on the Athletes Council.

---

One thing I would add -- and just added to story because I forgot it -- is: "If just three Athletes had switched votes to Cordeiro, Cone would have lost." https://t.co/EQM2iggQFv

— Paul Kennedy (@pkedit) March 6, 2022

Wait. You mean to tell me US Soccer is in an incestuous relationship with former NT players? I'm shocked.

Yeah, I don't think many of us here equate Cone with somehow being a revolutionary pinnacle of effective leadership, but when your alternative is Carlos Cordiero?

Bingo.