What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

I see where tickets to the Everton vs. Leicester City game at the end of the year are selling for 15,000 pounds. Wow.
and Andy Carroll...you wish he could stay healthy if you are West Ham.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

The USWNT claims they're being discriminated against, the USSF says differently

While the women in the filing say they have earned nearly 25 percent less than their male counterparts this year, the figures supplied by the USSF show that for the 25 top-earning U.S. national team players over the past four years, 14 of whom are women, the average compensation is $695,269 for the women over that span, compared with $710,775 for the men, a difference of 2.2 percent.

In 2015, 14 of the 24 women's players earned more than $300,000 in salary plus benefits, and no one earned less than $249,000, according to federation numbers, adding that the top male player earned just more than $178,000 in salary in 2015.

USSF chief financial officer Eric Gleason said the USSF numbers also show that for the past eight years, there has never been a year in which the player-compensation-team-revenue ratio was greater for the men than for the women.
Click to expand...

And...
The discrepancies between the genders, the sport's governing body told espnW, are not due to discrimination but rather in large part to the different pay structures for the men and women negotiated in their respective collective bargaining agreements. While the women are paid annual salaries plus benefits, the men are paid per game by the USSF, which requires them to be called into camp by the head coach.
Click to expand...
And...
The U.S. women point to the fact that Tier 1 women's players, who made up the majority of World Cup roster, made a base salary of $72,000 in 2015, whereas the men earned more than $5,000 per game, which over the course of 20 games would exceed $100,000. But the USSF claims that is also an unfair comparison. The federation said that of the 49 men who played for the national team last year, none played all 20 games, only three played more than 13 games, and only 11 played in 10 or more. All Tier 1 women's national team players, meanwhile, earned $72,000 regardless of the number of games they played.
Click to expand...

Never let facts get in the way of a good argument...
 
Jimjamesak said:
The USWNT claims they're being discriminated against, the USSF says differently



And..

And...


Never let facts get in the way of a good argument...
Click to expand...

The more nuances that come up the more it seems this is the wrong bear to poke. To that end, insufficient research before proceeding with a very public lawsuit.

That they're drawing a salary (how many in that pool?) and the scale of it... I mean... I have to think that's half of what they make all year.

I generally sympathize with the notion you should be paid commensurate with income/profit with certain trade offs (you and I still get paid in a down quarter but don't get high in an up quarter, for instance). But I assume US soccer does a lot with its outreach and other things that I'm sure are multimillion expenses...

So then the worm turns... Is this really a women's issue or the age old issue of national team compensation as often contrasted with club compensation.

Maybe they thought gender was the reason they were being underpaid where the real issue is one that's always been a tension point on the men's side. "They" have money and "we" want more.
 
Patman said:
The more nuances that come up the more it seems this is the wrong bear to poke. To that end, insufficient research before proceeding with a very public lawsuit.

That they're drawing a salary (how many in that pool?) and the scale of it... I mean... I have to think that's half of what they make all year.

I generally sympathize with the notion you should be paid commensurate with income/profit with certain trade offs (you and I still get paid in a down quarter but don't get high in an up quarter, for instance). But I assume US soccer does a lot with its outreach and other things that I'm sure are multimillion expenses...

So then the worm turns... Is this really a women's issue or the age old issue of national team compensation as often contrasted with club compensation.

Maybe they thought gender was the reason they were being underpaid where the real issue is one that's always been a tension point on the men's side. "They" have money and "we" want more.
Click to expand...
It's not about gender or anything like that, it's pure selfish greed. The USWNT feels they carry the water financially for the USSF and that they should get the money they "deserve". It's been this way since before 1999.

First off, I will lay my bias out. I do not like US Womens National Team and I haven't since post 99 when they basically wanted to destroy the Men's game in this country at the expense of their own greed. It was the exact same thing as now, "we won so we should get everything! You're just wasting money on the Men's side, we are the future!"

I said before that the USWNT is more of a sorority than a soccer team. Players are guaranteed pay, guaranteed roster spots, guaranteed pay if they get cut! They actively push out players (and coaches) they don't like and keep younger players from getting a shot at all. If the sisters don't like you, you ain't joining.

What seems to be going on is USSF is likely taking efforts to use the increased revenue to fund a girls development academy and other programs whereas the USWNT wants the money for themselves.

The other factor is the USWNT sees themselves winning the World Cup and the Olympics and it feeds this vision that they're the ones generating the income, that the numbers lie and USSF is hiding money to prop up the Men's team and MLS.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

It'll be interesting to see how much the fact that both agreements were CBAs comes into play. Courts are less likely to find discrimination when the pay/compensation has been collectively bargaining. I suppose they're saying the bargaining process itself was discriminatory, but not sure that's a winning argument..

I would think a good argument could be made that the women's team gave up higher potential bonuses for the stability of actual salaries. And if they don't want that anymore, they are free to negotiate for that in the next contract.
 
unofan said:
It'll be interesting to see how much the fact that both agreements were CBAs comes into play. Courts are less likely to find discrimination when the pay/compensation has been collectively bargaining. I suppose they're saying the bargaining process itself was discriminatory, but not sure that's a winning argument..

I would think a good argument could be made that the women's team gave up higher potential bonuses for the stability of actual salaries. And if they don't want that anymore, they are free to negotiate for that in the next contract.
Click to expand...
I think the fact that everything is negotiated via a CBA is what dooms them in court. But this isn't about court, the WNT are simply playing the public sympathy card to garner a better CBA (and their lawyer, who has been involved in two previous lawsuits with US Soccer and MLS, is trying to get the financial data about Soccer United Marketing).

To be honest, I actually hope the players strike the Olympics and a C-team goes and wins a medal, the reactions will be priceless.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

BTW, all of this is based on the perception that the WNT is literally the best soccer team in this country, that Alex Morgan and Carli Lloyd could easily play in MLS and be the best (yes, I have actually heard this from many people).

Of course the USWNT regularly loses to the U17 NT when they scrimmage at the January camps but, again, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

Jimjamesak said:
BTW, all of this is based on the perception that the WNT is literally the best soccer team in this country, that Alex Morgan and Carli Lloyd could easily play in MLS and be the best (yes, I have actually heard this from many people).

Of course the USWNT regularly loses to the U17 NT when they scrimmage at the January camps but, again, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
Click to expand...

If they want to claim that, then let's solve this Billie Jean King style. WNT vs. MNT.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

Champions League Semis:

1st leg Tues 4/26 Man. City/Real Madrid - Wed 4/27 Atlético Madrid/Bayern Munich

2nd leg Tues 5/3 Bayern/Atlético - Wed 5/4 Real/City
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

Well, unless something happens in the next 2-3 minutes, Leicester only needs to win one of their last three (or draw their last three) to take the title, even if Spurs win out.

Edit: And it's official. Leicester have to simply not **** the bed and that title is theirs. Incredible.
 
Last edited:
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

Todays LC vs Man U game was so entertaining.! Just a great game. I would have guessed there would have been someone score in the second half but no. I thought the game could have been called a bit more tightly, but whatever. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what happens with spurs.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

manurespreader said:
Todays LC vs Man U game was so entertaining.! Just a great game. I would have guessed there would have been someone score in the second half but no. I thought the game could have been called a bit more tightly, but whatever. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what happens with spurs.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the ref letting some stuff go, but both Manchester and Leicester both took advantage. It was called consistently and that's all you could ask for. Leicester seemed to start out somewhat nervous and that's what led to the MU goal. They settled down afterwards, but by then the damage had been done.
 
Re: World Soccer XXVII: The REAL Football

Nevermind. The boring version just played out.

Although it was a (somewhat entertainingly) chaotic game at Stamford Bridge, so maybe not too boring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top