(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

It doesn't matter how good they are if nobody's watching. Look at the NBA. They're subsidized by the NBA. Look at UConn basketball. Do you think the women bring in more revenue than the UConn men? It's not even close.

(04-10-2017 12:32 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

It doesn't matter how good they are if nobody's watching. Look at the NBA. They're subsidized by the NBA.

It's a different situation. The NBA and WNBA have almost zero relationship with USA Basketball. We're talking about the federation, not a league. The federation is charged with growing the entire game. The league is about getting those tv dollars.

Now, I'm not the biggest equal pay advocate out there, but there are a lot of things to be considered. They deserved their pay raise though.

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

My kid wins first place medals all the time in her 5th grade CC and track... I guess she and Usain Bolth should get paid about the same thing.

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're talking about the federation, not a league.

And why should that matter?

(04-10-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're talking about the federation, not a league.

And why should that matter?

Leagues are for profit and I can understand the difference because the league is only there to make money. A federation has a different mission in my opinion.

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:32 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

It doesn't matter how good they are if nobody's watching. Look at the NBA. They're subsidized by the NBA.

It's a different situation. The NBA and WNBA have almost zero relationship with USA Basketball. We're talking about the federation, not a league. The federation is charged with growing the entire game. The league is about getting those tv dollars.

Now, I'm not the biggest equal pay advocate out there, but there are a lot of things to be considered. They deserved their pay raise though.

They deserve a pay raise only if the market is willing to pay them more.

(04-10-2017 12:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

My kid wins first place medals all the time in her 5th grade CC and track... I guess she and Usain Bolth should get paid about the same thing.

Does Bolt actually get paid much by the governing body? The entire organization had a salary cap of $2 million a couple of years ago. His money comes from Puma, Gatorade, events, etc.

Again, the analogy doesn't match up. Hockey has a similar situation though and they deserved their pay raise as well.

(04-10-2017 12:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:32 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

It doesn't matter how good they are if nobody's watching. Look at the NBA. They're subsidized by the NBA.

It's a different situation. The NBA and WNBA have almost zero relationship with USA Basketball. We're talking about the federation, not a league. The federation is charged with growing the entire game. The league is about getting those tv dollars.

Now, I'm not the biggest equal pay advocate out there, but there are a lot of things to be considered. They deserved their pay raise though.

They deserve a pay raise only if the market is willing to pay them more.

Is a non-profit operating in the market the same way as a for profit? I can see and agree with that argument regarding endorsements.

(04-10-2017 12:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're talking about the federation, not a league.

And why should that matter?

Leagues are for profit and I can understand the difference because the league is only there to make money.

Most leagues are actually non profit entities which cobble together for profit teams.

Quote:A federation has a different mission in my opinion.

The USSF is there to promote soccer right? So they need money to do that right?

If they decide to pay the women as much as the men where will the money come from?

If they decide to pay the men as little as the women, will the more talented men still play?

(04-10-2017 12:53 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:32 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They meet almost 100% of their job objectives, while the men fall short pretty consistently.

Like I said, there are a variety of things to be considered.

It doesn't matter how good they are if nobody's watching. Look at the NBA. They're subsidized by the NBA.

It's a different situation. The NBA and WNBA have almost zero relationship with USA Basketball. We're talking about the federation, not a league. The federation is charged with growing the entire game. The league is about getting those tv dollars.

Now, I'm not the biggest equal pay advocate out there, but there are a lot of things to be considered. They deserved their pay raise though.

They deserve a pay raise only if the market is willing to pay them more.

Is a non-profit operating in the market the same way as a for profit? I can see and agree with that argument regarding endorsements.

so where does their revenue come from ? it's not just falling out of the sky.

(04-10-2017 12:53 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Is a non-profit operating in the market the same way as a for profit?

Unless they have a money tree in their back yard then yes, yes it is operating in the same way as a for profit.

Non-profits need money to pay salary and operate. They can not be capricious about spending and they are just as beholden to the realities of a market as the for profit.

All that's different is what they do with the excess income...

(04-10-2017 12:56 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're talking about the federation, not a league.

And why should that matter?

Leagues are for profit and I can understand the difference because the league is only there to make money.

Most leagues are actually non profit entities which cobble together for profit teams.

Quote:A federation has a different mission in my opinion.

The USSF is there to promote soccer right? So they need money to do that right?

If they decide to pay the women as much as the men where will the money come from?

If they decide to pay the men as little as the women, will the more talented men still play?

And those leagues don't pay the players salaries.

I like that you asked multiple questions in your post. It shows that there are more things to consider than saying "they simply don't/do deserve as much"?

As I've been saying, there's a lot to look at and it's not as cut and dry as "they're not worth as much".

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They got equal per diems, etc. I don't think they every really wanted to be paid the exact same thing as the men, etc.

(04-10-2017 02:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:23 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What a quandary this is for "equal" pay. Does someone deserve equal pay for a lesser ability?

They got equal per diems, etc. I don't think they every really wanted to be paid the exact same thing as the men, etc.

I think they used it as a starting point for negotiations. Trump fans ought to be applauding their deal making skills.

(04-10-2017 01:03 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:56 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're talking about the federation, not a league.

And why should that matter?

Leagues are for profit and I can understand the difference because the league is only there to make money.

Most leagues are actually non profit entities which cobble together for profit teams.

Quote:A federation has a different mission in my opinion.

The USSF is there to promote soccer right? So they need money to do that right?

If they decide to pay the women as much as the men where will the money come from?

If they decide to pay the men as little as the women, will the more talented men still play?

And those leagues don't pay the players salaries.

I like that you asked multiple questions in your post. It shows that there are more things to consider than saying "they simply don't/do deserve as much"?

As I've been saying, there's a lot to look at and it's not as cut and dry as "they're not worth as much".

MLS technically does. I completely view this as a market/supply vs demand issue, there aren't really any notable women's leagues in Europe to threaten to go to. The women's teams of both USSF and US Hockey should be paid based on market value. Would you pay people more than they bring in?

(04-10-2017 10:19 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:03 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:56 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  And why should that matter?

Leagues are for profit and I can understand the difference because the league is only there to make money.

Most leagues are actually non profit entities which cobble together for profit teams.

Quote:A federation has a different mission in my opinion.

The USSF is there to promote soccer right? So they need money to do that right?

If they decide to pay the women as much as the men where will the money come from?

If they decide to pay the men as little as the women, will the more talented men still play?

And those leagues don't pay the players salaries.

I like that you asked multiple questions in your post. It shows that there are more things to consider than saying "they simply don't/do deserve as much"?

As I've been saying, there's a lot to look at and it's not as cut and dry as "they're not worth as much".

MLS technically does. I completely view this as a market/supply vs demand issue, there aren't really any notable women's leagues in Europe to threaten to go to. The women's teams of both USSF and US Hockey should be paid based on market value. Would you pay people more than they bring in?

MLS isn't non-profit.

Whether or not I paid them more would depend on a lot of things. They form a decent amount of exposure that the federation gets and they drive the recruitment of incoming players. It would also depend on what I consider to be the mission of the organization.

As of right now, they negotiated higher pay, which is good on them.

(04-10-2017 10:25 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:19 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:03 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:56 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Leagues are for profit and I can understand the difference because the league is only there to make money.

Most leagues are actually non profit entities which cobble together for profit teams.

Quote:A federation has a different mission in my opinion.

The USSF is there to promote soccer right? So they need money to do that right?

If they decide to pay the women as much as the men where will the money come from?

If they decide to pay the men as little as the women, will the more talented men still play?

And those leagues don't pay the players salaries.

I like that you asked multiple questions in your post. It shows that there are more things to consider than saying "they simply don't/do deserve as much"?

As I've been saying, there's a lot to look at and it's not as cut and dry as "they're not worth as much".

MLS technically does. I completely view this as a market/supply vs demand issue, there aren't really any notable women's leagues in Europe to threaten to go to. The women's teams of both USSF and US Hockey should be paid based on market value. Would you pay people more than they bring in?

MLS isn't non-profit.

Whether or not I paid them more would depend on a lot of things. They form a decent amount of exposure that the federation gets and they drive the recruitment of incoming players. It would also depend on what I consider to be the mission of the organization.

As of right now, they negotiated higher pay, which is good on them.

I would say it is safe to assume that they aren't what drives the recruitment of incoming players... what? Are those players going to become another nationality? Sign with another country for less money? The mission of the organization should be to grow soccer from the bottom up which it can't do with the WNT and MLS both wanting far more than their worth, stunting the ability of growth of soccer. (Doesn't help that MLS head honchos pretty much run USSF and SUM, conflict of interest much).

I'll agree it is good on them for negotiating higher pay, their antics to get it though were disgusting in my opinion, though those people involved with the antics are gone, so I'll watch the women's team again.

Regardless of whether it is nonprofit or not, where and how does USSF get their money?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-10-2017 10:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Regardless of whether it is nonprofit or not, where and how does USSF get their money?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Sponsorship deals negotiated through SUM.