J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
This statement sounds pretty nasty to me, Mike.
- Status
S
snarflemike
Guest
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
That’s really, reallllly not how economics works.
Let’s say the previously given numbers are correct.
Collective income:
Men’s world cup generates $6,000,000,000
Women’s generates: $131,000,000.
Now, the men make 9%: $540,000,000
That means that the payout earned on men’s athletics is roughly 4.12 times as much money as women’s athletics makes.
It would literally be impossible to pay them the same amount without bankrupting the program four times over every year.
Now, to make them make the same thing, you could lower the men’s pay. To bring it down to the same amount:
Men’s current pay: $540,000,000
Women’s current pay: $17,030,000
So, if we were to reduce men to the same amount as women, $17,030,000, that means they would be making 0.28% of their profits.
At which point they would all quit to go somewhere else.
So, you really think it’s fair for men to make less than 1% off their profits, less than half of one percent, while women make 13%? That’s what passes for fairness in your world?
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
No Joe, you called another commenter a name and accused him of hating women athletes, which I do not see him actually saying or suggesting in his post.
L
LilyM
Guest
The men generate more revenue because male media owners, journalists and marketers make.aure they do. The idea that men are somehow intrinsically way more interesting or talented as athletes is ludicrously arrogant. It’s primarily down to how hyped up the biz gets.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Here is what the Washington Post has to say about this…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...earning-less-than-men/?utm_term=.a1338911e86d
It’s clearly a far more complicated situation. US Soccer on average pays almost the women the same as the men, but per player does pay the men more. HOWEVER, it looks like that’s because on the women’s team, each player is guaranteed a minimum salary of $100,000 + are eligible for bonuses. The men do not have a salary (they only receive bonuses) and only the men who play are eligible to get paid. In other words: the worst player on the women’s team will make at least $100,000 while the worst player on the men’s team might not reach that level of pay.
Also, the World Cup is totally different because FIFA receives FAR less revenue on the Women’s World Cup vs the Men’s World Cup. So they pay the Men’s teams far more money than the women’s teams.
So again: far more complicated.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I never said that, you’re reading into my statement.
I am speaking in strictly economic terms. Men’s athletics generate more money, period. We could argue until we were blue in the face about why and that wouldn’t change the reality of it. Men currently make a lower percentage than women. That the numbers don’t balance out isn’t any individual’s fault, it’s just the outcome of which sport brings in more money.
P
phil19034
Guest
No. The men generate more revenue because in other countries (where soccer is king), the fans love men’s soccer because the best players in the world are on their teams.ProdglArchitect:
The men generate more revenue because male media owners, journalists and marketers make.aure they do. The idea that men are somehow intrinsically more interesting or talented as athletes is ludicrously arrogant.
In the US - where soccer doesn’t even reach the level of ice hockey - yes, women’s soccer is pretty exciting to watch. We don’t have household names on the US Men’s Soccer team. But in Europe, South America, and in Africa - you DO have household names on their Men’s teams.
That’s why the World Cup pays far more to the men than to the women.
Last edited:
J
JanetF
Guest
What do their signed contracts stipulate to with respect to pay?
L
LilyM
Guest
Of course things can change. Women tennis players used to be paid.far less in comparison to the men until players like Billie Jean King started actively campaigning and making the pubkic aware that the differences were largely a matter of perception, which could and did change to a large degree. Pay and revenue differences are far from being set in stone.LilyM:
I never said that, you’re reading into my statement.
I am speaking in strictly economic terms. Men’s athletics generate more money, period. We could argue until we were blue in the face about why and that wouldn’t change the reality of it. Men currently make a lower percentage than women. That the numbers don’t balance out isn’t any individual’s fault, it’s just the outcome of which sport brings in more money.
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
Sure, give the women a raise. Then heavily fine anyone who tosses our flag on the ground or shows contempt for our national anthem.
Z
Zach
Guest
I don’t know about that. I don’t pay any attention to any media hype and I prefer some men’s sports. I’m not a fan of men’s or women’s soccer but I prefer watching men’s basketball or men’s golf to women’s. On the other hand I prefer some women’s sports to men’s - Tennis. Gymnastics. Figure skating.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
Because they bring in a heckuva lot more.
Where would the money come from?
Not in the economy of professional sports. People generally like men’s sports better and it brings in a lot more money.
It’s got nothing to do with gender. It’s simple economics.
P
phil19034
Guest
some details are on in this Washington Post article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...earning-less-than-men/?utm_term=.a1338911e86d
The women have a contract that says they are paid $100,000 per year + bonuses.
The men only make bonuses and have no guaranteed money (plus for the men, you have to play to get paid)
Some bonus money comes from US Soccer based on wins & loses. Other money comes from the tournament purse.
US Soccer pays the Men and Women approx equal - though on average the women makes 89 cents to each $1 the men make. HOWEVER - the women are paying more players - as everyone is guaranteed at least $100,000 in salary. The men who don’t play don’t get paid.
And the men’s international tournaments typically all have a higher payout (even to losers because they have a higher overall purse)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...earning-less-than-men/?utm_term=.a1338911e86d
The women have a contract that says they are paid $100,000 per year + bonuses.
The men only make bonuses and have no guaranteed money (plus for the men, you have to play to get paid)
Some bonus money comes from US Soccer based on wins & loses. Other money comes from the tournament purse.
US Soccer pays the Men and Women approx equal - though on average the women makes 89 cents to each $1 the men make. HOWEVER - the women are paying more players - as everyone is guaranteed at least $100,000 in salary. The men who don’t play don’t get paid.
And the men’s international tournaments typically all have a higher payout (even to losers because they have a higher overall purse)
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
And where would the money come from?
H
HollowMan
Guest
How hard is it to understand that they get paid less because, overall, women’s soccer brings in less money that men’s soccer.
When women’s soccer brings in the same money as men’s soccer, then you might have a point. But now, it’s just silly.
When women’s soccer brings in the same money as men’s soccer, then you might have a point. But now, it’s just silly.
L
Lemuel
Guest
So the owners of the women’s teams should be required to pay the same as men? Should a WNBA star get paid hundreds of millions like Kevin Durant or LeBron James? Where would this money come from?
Your plan would sink the WNBA is less than a season.
J
JanetF
Guest
So if the women want to be paid more, they need to negotiate their contracts to reflect that desire.
L
LilyM
Guest
Ir’s not like we are BORN liking men’s sports. A lot of money, time and eneegy is invested into engineering us into these likes and in keeping us liking.JoeShlabotnik:
Because they bring in a heckuva lot more.
Where would the money come from?
Not in the economy of professional sports. People generally like men’s sports better and it brings in a lot more money.
It’s got nothing to do with gender. It’s simple economics.
Look at Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi consistently wins in blind taste teats but Coke has genius marketing and branding so makes.more.revenue.
Pepsi didn’t give up and settle for a teensy tiny fraction of what Coke makes - there is more.than enough world out there for both to make big profits.
There is no reason for things not to be the same for men’s and women’s sports. IF promoters sponsors and marketers have the will. They are mostly male and seem not to. The two factors are possibly related.
I’m not suggesting an immediate huge pay rise.for women. But a rethinking of investment into promotion of women’s sports
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
That’s fine if the market agrees. So far, the market doesn’t agree.
- Status