U.S. Soccer Thread

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/?fbclid=IwAR1UCJBCbI0w0i_m2gbwyahsZ1MkdNfUi2ArlF2F2wgCl7JpsLMErJ_OmZY#15c8a9a56da4

Revenue Disparity Explains Pay Disparity Between Soccer World Cup's Men And Women

News today that France earned $38 million from FIFA for winning soccer's World Cup in Russia, while the women's champion in France this summer will earn just $4 million, has prompted outrage.

The total prize money for the Women's World Cup in France this July will be $30 million compared with total prize money of $440 million for the men's teams at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

“The difference between the men’s and women’s prize money is ridiculous,” Tatjana Haenni, who oversaw women’s soccer for FIFA before stepping down in 2017, said, according to the Associated Press. “It’s really disappointing the gap between the men’s and women’s World Cups got bigger. It sends the wrong message.”

Nonsense. When viewed appropriately—based on how much money they generate—women actually make more than men.

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.

I won't rest until every player in the WNBA makes the same as the NBA.

Lol. Dude that s some funny shit right there. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mcgruff10 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/?fbclid=IwAR1UCJBCbI0w0i_m2gbwyahsZ1MkdNfUi2ArlF2F2wgCl7JpsLMErJ_OmZY#15c8a9a56da4

Revenue Disparity Explains Pay Disparity Between Soccer World Cup's Men And Women

News today that France earned $38 million from FIFA for winning soccer's World Cup in Russia, while the women's champion in France this summer will earn just $4 million, has prompted outrage.

The total prize money for the Women's World Cup in France this July will be $30 million compared with total prize money of $440 million for the men's teams at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

“The difference between the men’s and women’s prize money is ridiculous,” Tatjana Haenni, who oversaw women’s soccer for FIFA before stepping down in 2017, said, according to the Associated Press. “It’s really disappointing the gap between the men’s and women’s World Cups got bigger. It sends the wrong message.”

Nonsense. When viewed appropriately—based on how much money they generate—women actually make more than men.

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.

I was surprised being in Germany while the German team played - and no one cared. No one cared to watch the game. That would obviously not be the case if the mens team played. Viewership of the womens world cup must be next to nothing compared to the mens tournament. So obviously they draw in less money from all directions into the tournament.

Hopefully the status and popularity keep increasing. 

And I'm guessing in the US it looks different, with the womens team being so popular and soccer not having had as big of a grip on the sports scene as in Europe.

Jason P

“If the US men ever won ...”

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-mocup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/?fbclid=IwAR1UCJBCbI0w0i_m2gbwyahsZ1MkdNfUi2ArlF2F2wgCl7JpsLMErJ_OmZY#15c8a9a56da4

Revenue Disparity Explains Pay Disparity Between Soccer World Cup's Men And Women

News today that France earned $38 million from FIFA for winning soccer's World Cup in Russia, while the women's champion in France this summer will earn just $4 million, has prompted outrage.

The total prize money for the Women's World Cup in France this July will be $30 million compared with total prize money of $440 million for the men's teams at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

“The difference between the men’s and women’s prize money is ridiculous,” Tatjana Haenni, who oversaw women’s soccer for FIFA before stepping down in 2017, said, according to the Associated Press. “It’s really disappointing the gap between the men’s and women’s World Cups got bigger. It sends the wrong message.”

Nonsense. When viewed appropriately—based on how much money they generate—women actually make more than men.

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.

article is disingenuous in the break down.

reality is however its split among them 32 teams split 400 million.

womens side 24 teams split 30 million.....

seems the writer pointing out mens split a mere 7% tries to make it seem like they didnt get that much.....

MayDay10

Money coming in is the crux of it.  Cant just level it off IMO.  

There is a similar type of thing on a smaller scale with women's pro hockey.  The players want better pay, insurance, other perks that professional teams get... but the problem is, they play like 20 games and average about 1,000 fans per game, with no television, Id assume little/no corporate seating, limited sponsorship, etc.  Players walked out and the league (which was growing) is eating itself.  The players want the NHL to take it over, but Im sure the NHL is a bit tentative looking at the big picture and the whole 'equal pay' movement.

tempo_n_groove

MayDay10 said:

Money coming in is the crux of it.  Cant just level it off IMO.  

There is a similar type of thing on a smaller scale with women's pro hockey.  The players want better pay, insurance, other perks that professional teams get... but the problem is, they play like 20 games and average about 1,000 fans per game, with no television, Id assume little/no corporate seating, limited sponsorship, etc.  Players walked out and the league (which was growing) is eating itself.  The players want the NHL to take it over, but Im sure the NHL is a bit tentative looking at the big picture and the whole 'equal pay' movement.

I've yet to watch a full WNBA game or a Womens hockey game.  

Diana Turasi was AMAZING to watch in college but the talent peaks there.  

Womens soccer and Tennis though?  That is a better caliber of sportsmanship

Spiritual_Chaos

Here might be some perspective on the equal pay-thing:

Megan Rapinoe talks equal pay and Donald Trump | Pod Save America

https://youtu.be/qaqmfbj85iA

The Juggler

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Here might be some perspective on the equal pay-thing:

Megan Rapinoe talks equal pay and Donald Trump | Pod Save America

https://youtu.be/qaqmfbj85iA

Spiritual_Chaos

Swedish GOAT soccer player Zlatan on US soccer:

https://twitter.com/ESPNFC/status/1151706226545385472

MLS is not the level of Europe, to be honest. Before, I played with players either on my level or close to it. Which makes the game connect easier. ...

Here, I am like a Ferrari among Fiats. And it can happen that the Ferrari can become the Fiat, or the Fiat can become the Ferrari.

I had the same issue with the national [Swedish] team, though not as much. I said, ‘I don’t accept it. I don’t accept when the ball doesn’t arrive, or arrives too late. I want them to come up to my level.’

All of this makes me slow down a bit. The game here [in America] could be so much faster, so much more tactical, so much more rhythmic.

***

When I asked Zlatan what it will take for MLS to achieve parity with Europe and South America, he responds with a question.

“Do they want to make it?”

“Who is ‘they’?”

“They that control it. The owners. Do they want it to be big?”

“Yeah. Of course.”

“You think?”

“You don’t?”

“I don’t.”

“Why?”

“Because you don’t make money in soccer,” he tells me. “In Europe, I can pick two clubs that make money. The rest don’t; they do it out of passion. Here, with the sports, you make money. That’s it. And I think with all the rules you have here, you are not boosting up the soccer.”

What rules?

“The budget things. The salary cap. You cannot bring in players you want. They have more rules here than I have in my home.”

eddiec

And that's why there is zero parity in Europe. It's the same few clubs in each league battling for first...year, after year, after year, after year.

mrussel1

eddiec said:

And that's why there is zero parity in Europe. It's the same few clubs in each league battling for first...year, after year, after year, after year.

Salary caps are great for leagues.  Even baseball's modified one has closed the gap and allows the middle markets to compete for windows of time.  Baltimore is the exception.  I think Angelos is still just pouting about the Nationals and refusing to invest. 

Cliffy6745

They are a fucking disgrace 

Indifference71

Cliffy6745 said:

They are a fucking disgrace 

Yep.  Berhalter doesn't have a clue.  But hey, at least his brother is the current COO and likely next CEO of US Soccer.  No conflict of interest for anybody there!  What a joke.

Cliffy6745

Holy Jesus 

Indifference71

What an embarrassment.  Berhalter needs to go.  It's plain and simple at this point.  He clearly isn't the guy for the job and they need to get someone in there who knows what the fuck they're doing before WC qualifying starts up next year.  Will US Soccer actually do something about it?  Absolutely not.  The guy's brother is about to be the next CEO!!!!  What a joke.

jeffbr

Embarrassment is correct. The last WC qualifying weened me off of supporting the USMNT for the foreseeable future. I know in July in this thread I said I'd try to withhold judgement for a while, but I'm unable to. I'm judging the USMNT as unworthy of even a little bit of my support. They are a joke. USSF is a joke.  Our nation's best are bench warmers in Europe if they're lucky. We can't beat T&T when it counts. We can't beat Canada when it counts. We're like checkers players trying to compete in a chess tournament. Completely outclassed.

Cliffy6745

I watched most of the game off and on yesterday. It was bad. Pulisic especially looked bad. His worst game for the national team. The rest of the team was equally bad. They’re not qualifying for the next one either 

Indifference71

Tough game for Pulisic.  But he's the only playmaker they have and Berhalter subs him out in the 60th minute?!?!?  Once he went out the chances of anyone creating a scoring chance on their own went down big time.  

And I really don't think the talent pool is that bad.  A lot of young players like Pulisic, McKennie, Adams, Sargent, etc.. that have bright futures.  But this system that Berhalter insists on playing just isn't working.  Unless something big changes it's hard to see them qualifying for 2022.

jeffbr

Indifference71 said:

Tough game for Pulisic.  But he's the only playmaker they have and Berhalter subs him out in the 60th minute?!?!?  Once he went out the chances of anyone creating a scoring chance on their own went down big time.  

And I really don't think the talent pool is that bad.  A lot of young players like Pulisic, McKennie, Adams, Sargent, etc.. that have bright futures.  But this system that Berhalter insists on playing just isn't working.  Unless something big changes it's hard to see them qualifying for 2022.

You are right that Berhalter's system isn't working. It could work in a club setting where he sees and works with his players every day. It can't work in the national team structure where he gets a few weeks a year to work with them. He needs to change his system to fit the players he has rather than try to shoehorn the players into a new system they don't know. And as Grant Wahl pointed out, USSF is a seriously screwed up organization, and Berhalter should have been given the extra year in 2018 to start the new system, rather than whatever the hell they were doing for a full year before giving Berhalter the reins in 2019. But Earnie Stewart isn't going to fire his future boss's brother, so here we are. We'll likely not qualify for 2022. Not sure if we'll get an automatic berth in 2026, but that seems to be the only way this team would be able to play in that competition at this point. Getting beaten by Mexico in the Gold Cup, owned by Mexico in a subsequent friendly, and being beaten by Canada is a great start to Berhalter's legacy. lol.

Wobbie

you guys know way more about soccer that I but it seems like, where I live, the stud high school athletes are playing the “big 3” sports and  the leftovers are choosing soccer. it’s obviously not this way in europe or south america.