Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sponsorships are dictated by viewing figures, in fairness.
comment by Fourzah (U22366)
posted 4 minutes ago
It not just how many tv viewers, is the revenue generated from sponsorship etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The USWNT also received nearly $10 million more in salary and bonuses than the men from 2010-2018, but the men's team generated over $80 million more in revenue from 2009-2019, over a 238 game period.
Is this argument still going on?
Equality is one thing, however football, even in the mens game is not equal.
Two players, in the same team, performing the same role, don't even get paid the same.
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 22 minutes ago
You have to stop thinking about this as being about men and women though. More like one group of people operating at the top of their specialist field, wanting parity with another group of people doing a slightly less than average job in their more mainstream field.
Once you do that, their claims aren’t so hard to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are wrong. Firstly they negotiated their own terms.
Secondly, if you take your position it's like Rugby players complaining they dont earn as much as footballers. Both elite athletes, representing their country, but one is main stream the other is not by comparison. What they get paid s a commercial decision and reflects the value of their part of the sector and womens football is a small fish
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 minute ago
The US men’s best WC result came in the 1930s was it? Finished 3rd I believe...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The mens game is more competitive though. The US women play against mediocrity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
compare it to womens club football. Do you think man city's women get the same as men? Think about why not and ask yourself do they deserve it if they win their title this season.
Its the same thing. May be they're both the biggest fish in their ponds but the mens pond is way bigger, way more competitive and this contributes to the value of it
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Women’s football is shiitee and they can’t even play a decent game - just another case of the equality bollx getting too much of a say in something it really has no right in doing so
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
https://youtu.be/m59SmSplRvA
I rest my case 😂
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
This one is better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwmkBW9Hxec
It's not about sexism - it is simple math...the women's game doesn't generate the same spectators volumes, ticket sales, advertising , tv viewers, shirt sales etc. Simple logic really no point in trying to play the old sexist card.
I’d be interested to know - even without inflation factored - how much of an economic boost was given to the USA for hosting the 94 World Cup compared to hosting the Women’s World Cup in 2003.
Sign in if you want to comment
Judge upsets Rapinoe
Page 2 of 2
posted on 3/5/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/5/20
Sponsorships are dictated by viewing figures, in fairness.
posted on 3/5/20
comment by Fourzah (U22366)
posted 4 minutes ago
It not just how many tv viewers, is the revenue generated from sponsorship etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The USWNT also received nearly $10 million more in salary and bonuses than the men from 2010-2018, but the men's team generated over $80 million more in revenue from 2009-2019, over a 238 game period.
posted on 3/5/20
Is this argument still going on?
Equality is one thing, however football, even in the mens game is not equal.
Two players, in the same team, performing the same role, don't even get paid the same.
posted on 3/5/20
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 22 minutes ago
You have to stop thinking about this as being about men and women though. More like one group of people operating at the top of their specialist field, wanting parity with another group of people doing a slightly less than average job in their more mainstream field.
Once you do that, their claims aren’t so hard to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are wrong. Firstly they negotiated their own terms.
Secondly, if you take your position it's like Rugby players complaining they dont earn as much as footballers. Both elite athletes, representing their country, but one is main stream the other is not by comparison. What they get paid s a commercial decision and reflects the value of their part of the sector and womens football is a small fish
posted on 3/5/20
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 minute ago
The US men’s best WC result came in the 1930s was it? Finished 3rd I believe...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The mens game is more competitive though. The US women play against mediocrity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
compare it to womens club football. Do you think man city's women get the same as men? Think about why not and ask yourself do they deserve it if they win their title this season.
Its the same thing. May be they're both the biggest fish in their ponds but the mens pond is way bigger, way more competitive and this contributes to the value of it
posted on 3/5/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/5/20
Women’s football is shiitee and they can’t even play a decent game - just another case of the equality bollx getting too much of a say in something it really has no right in doing so
posted on 4/5/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/5/20
😂
posted on 4/5/20
https://youtu.be/m59SmSplRvA
I rest my case 😂
posted on 4/5/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/5/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/5/20
This one is better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwmkBW9Hxec
posted on 4/5/20
It's not about sexism - it is simple math...the women's game doesn't generate the same spectators volumes, ticket sales, advertising , tv viewers, shirt sales etc. Simple logic really no point in trying to play the old sexist card.
posted on 4/5/20
I’d be interested to know - even without inflation factored - how much of an economic boost was given to the USA for hosting the 94 World Cup compared to hosting the Women’s World Cup in 2003.
Page 2 of 2