http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/...laint.html

The U.S. Women's soccer team is arguably the best team in the world. They are suing for equal pay. Yes they are playing the same sport as men but should they be paid equal if their brand/product does not generate the same revenue?

Maybe they should try out for the men's team? Equal pay for equal job then they should be defending Messi or Ronaldo or Benzma.

If they are truly bringing in more revenue than the men (which the story on espn claims), then they should be paid more than the men.

Yeah I read and heard more on this issue. Seems like the women are generating more revenue. It appears they are trying to strike while the iron is hot. Good for them.

I could not find that part of the article where it says that the players on the US women's soccer team are forced to play soccer against their will. And has the US women's team ever gone head to head vs the men's team?

In other news, Last year's Kane County Cougars finished second in their division and went to the playoffs with a winning record. That was a lot better than the Chicago White Sox did. And yet the players on the White Sox get paid a whole lot more than those on the Cougars. That's not fair! Someone should sue.

Did you know that the Sean O'Pry, the world's highest paid male fashion model is worth $1.5 million dollars? That might seem like a lot of money, until you realize that Gisele Bundchen is worth $42 million. Sean should sue for more money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/female-mo...d=20534067

Are the Kane County Cougars generating more revenue than the Chicago White Sox?

Is Sean O'Pry more in demand than Gisele?

If so, then you have a point. If not, then you completely missed the point.

When the players on the US men's team are not playing on the world stage, they play for MLS teams, where the top players earn millions of dollars. Players on the US Womens' team earn less than $100,000 playing for their NWSL teams. The men's vs women's salaries are actually much closer on their respective US teams than on their league teams.

It takes many more dollars to lure the best male soccer players to play for the US team than it does to get the best women. If you increase the womens' US team salaries, the same players will show up. If you cut the male salaries, you will get players who can not even get signed by an MLS team.

If you think the revenue generated from womens' soccer is such a steal, then I would encourage you to invest in the business. Find a way to buy stock in a women's soccer team, or something. I am not going to research the details, because I do not give a crap about soccer.

(04-01-2016 08:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Yeah I read and heard more on this issue. Seems like the women are generating more revenue. It appears they are trying to strike while the iron is hot. Good for them.

If they're bringing in more revenue, yes they should be paid more than they currently are.

(04-01-2016 03:51 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  When the players on the US men's team are not playing on the world stage, they play for MLS teams, where the top players earn millions of dollars. Players on the US Womens' team earn less than $100,000 playing for their NWSL teams. The men's vs women's salaries are actually much closer on their respective US teams than on their league teams.

It takes many more dollars to lure the best male soccer players to play for the US team than it does to get the best women. If you increase the womens' US team salaries, the same players will show up. If you cut the male salaries, you will get players who can not even get signed by an MLS team.

If you think the revenue generated from womens' soccer is such a steal, then I would encourage you to invest in the business. Find a way to buy stock in a women's soccer team, or something. I am not going to research the details, because I do not give a crap about soccer.

Shi.tty point because the MLS generates more revenue than the NWSL so they can afford to pay their players a higher salary. US Women's soccer generates more revenue than US men's soccer so they would like the same kind of pay structure as far as higher revenue should pay more than a lower revenue sport.

And um....No one ever said revenue generated from women's soccer is a steal. Pointing out the fact that women's soccer generates more revenue than mens doesn't equate to thinking women's soccer is a steal/investable business. What an idiotic leap to make. Your posts keep getting dumber and dumber, I can't wait to laugh at the next one. Please start with more investment advice, you sound like you're a real winner there.

(04-01-2016 04:56 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 08:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Yeah I read and heard more on this issue. Seems like the women are generating more revenue. It appears they are trying to strike while the iron is hot. Good for them.

If they're bringing in more revenue, yes they should be paid more than they currently are.

But but... The MLS!!!

(04-01-2016 03:51 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  When the players on the US men's team are not playing on the world stage, they play for MLS teams

More than half of the US Men's team doesn't play in the MLS.

It's pretty clear. If the WNT brings in more money, they should be paid accordingly, it is the easiest argument. That being said, it is possible the WNT is paid less by the powers that be, such as FIFA, than the MNT team to participate in international competition. I think the article said something along the lines that the MNT as an organization receive far more for participating in international events than are paid out to women's organizations, probably as internationally the men's competitions draw more revenue. But in terms of popularity and revenue from domestic sources, the members of the WNT team deserve to be paid accordingly, to think otherwise is at best moronic, and at worst, plain sexist.

(04-02-2016 12:52 AM)PrideinthePack Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 03:51 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  When the players on the US men's team are not playing on the world stage, they play for MLS teams

More than half of the US Men's team doesn't play in the MLS.

The best American players, when in the prime of their careers, typically don't play in the US. They play in the top leagues in Europe.

-Tim Howard spent 10+ years in England and is only coming back to the US to finish his career.
-Clint Dempsey spent the 6 best years of his career in England.
-DeAndre Yedlin plays in England.
-Jozy Altidore spent 7 years in Europe.
-Christian Pulisic (17 year-old who debuted for the US team last week) plays in Germany.

This is why MLS will never be a top league and why the US will never be a top destination for the best players in the prime of their careers.

(04-02-2016 03:13 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(04-02-2016 12:52 AM)PrideinthePack Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 03:51 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  When the players on the US men's team are not playing on the world stage, they play for MLS teams

More than half of the US Men's team doesn't play in the MLS.

The best American players, when in the prime of their careers, typically don't play in the US. They play in the top leagues in Europe.

-Tim Howard spent 10+ years in England and is only coming back to the US to finish his career.
-Clint Dempsey spent the 6 best years of his career in England.
-DeAndre Yedlin plays in England.
-Jozy Altidore spent 7 years in Europe.
-Christian Pulisic (17 year-old who debuted for the US team last week) plays in Germany.

This is why MLS will never be a top league and why the US will never be a top destination for the best players in the prime of their careers.

I know. You should have quoted him. Not me.

I'm all for pay based on achievement, if a woman is a better achiever in the same exact position as a man, she should make more money. Plain and simple. However, there aren't many times people are in the exact same position.

Unless people start at the same time, work the exact same projects, pay is almost never the same. At most companies, people with the same job title don't even have matching salaries, bonus structure and perks are the same, but salaries vary.

I don't think this is a great comparison, because the product is different. Same sport, but the competition is way different. Other countries don't field anywhere near the resources or care for women's sports as America, therefore the result is a worse product. As for mens soccer, America probably gives the least resources compared to spending power and whatnot, because it's not as popular as the other 200 something countries that play soccer.

If we are talking straight salary base, just based on revenue generation from US viewers, the women would and most importantly, should make more. However, when the men play any team that's not a small Caribbean island, the overall viewership is going to be higher, so the whole pie is bigger, even if the states only made one slice. The prizes are bigger in mens because the other countries care more, plain and simple.

Not sure if it's discrimination or just other factors that could have been missed by the parties involved. But I think the key here is, the products are different and it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison they are trying to say it is. If the men were playing against a weaker field they could potentially be World Cup champs too.

They shouldn't get paid the same as the men unless they are able to negotiate to where they are making the same amount as the men. The men don't even make the same amount of money as each other.

How could anyone possibly be against them making more money? Especially if they generate more revenue than the US Men's team.

If the women are generating more revenue than men then they should get more. I read where the money was based off of the World Cup. If that is true, then the Pool of money for men was $500 million and the pool for women was $10 million. Men got $9 million of the 500 due to making round of 16. women got $2 million out of $10 million for winning.