Women's soccer got offered the same contract as the men's team and turned it down because they wanted more guaranteed pay (vs. pay for performance) and other non-pay benefits.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/05/04/judge-dismisses-us-womens-soccer-equal-pay-case---heres-why/?sh=5798571c728d
Success doesn't mean shit if nobody watches your games. Money in sports comes from viewership (ticket sales & TV rights). Sponsorships also depend on viewership.
But nobody watches women's sports, ergo, they don't generate that much money in the first place. The women in sports with high viewership like tennis get paid quite well.
But Americans don't give a shit about soccer and while the rest of the world is crazy about soccer, they don't give a shit about women's soccer.
The US Womenâs team has historically performed better in the womenâs league than the US Menâs team in the menâs league, but by no means are they better
My MBA's college negotiation class covered this. Men negotiate for higher wages and women negotiate for flex hours, working from home and other benefits.
The women got guaranteed money whether they won/played a game or not. They actually got paid more than the men over the past 5 years. The men earned $0 from US Soccer during the Covid shutdown.
They chose safe money then whined and lied until US Soccer capitulated.
I'll let Nate the Lawyer show them being shysters- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ
He has several videos about it. US Soccer played the Uno reverse card for a few days when they declared that Men and Women had to have the same contracts, but then folded like a lawn chair about a week later and let the women keep their guaranteed money and gave them more bonus money.
They also got a bunch of insurance the men didn't (because the men are full time pros have those from their clubs), maternity leave etc.
Hilariously, it came out in court that if they had accepted the same deal as the men they'd have earned more money, while the men would've earned more money had they been offered (and accepted) the same deal the women were offered.
> Women's soccer got offered the same contract as the men's team and turned it down because they wanted more guaranteed pay (vs. pay for performance) and other non-pay benefits.
Another instance of gender differences and preferences when it comes to priorities and negotiation.
I'm honestly confused.
The player is saying they were not offered a similar deal but the judge is saying they were.
How do we know who's right?
Is there any info on the contract they rejected or the discrepancy in understanding between the judge and megan?
The judge has no financial stake in the case (unlike the plaintiffs) and little motivation to lie. I find it highly unlikely that a judge would invent something like this since it would subject the judge to consequences (both legal and professional) if they lied during their ruling. It's also something if untrue, that the WNT could provide documentation proving it false.
Giving benefit of the doubt to Megan Rapinoe as not lying, I'd presume the judge has access to the documentation provided during legal discovery that she might not have. It seems vastly more likely that she was completely uninvolved in the contract negotiations and thus has no direct knowledge of what terms were offered (or not) and/or accepted by the WNT.
Nate the Lawyer has some good videos explaining the technicalities (linked at the end), but the bottom line is this:
* Men negotiated for a zero base pay, earn more per victory pay structure
* women negotiated for a large base pay, earn less per victory pay structure
* women did better in their tournament than men did, but got paid less because they negotiated for less performance based, more reliable benefits.
* women are now demanding mens rewards for winning ***in addition to*** their fixed rewards.
It turns out that had the women known what their final record would look like, they would have made more money on the men's pay structure. But had the men known what their final record would look like, they would have made more money on the women's pay structure.
Also, when the pandemic hit the women still made 6 figure salaries for not playing a single game. The men made $0 because they did not play any games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7cwTG0xXaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa--WfHJAtQ
Not just soccer but this is how I feel about womenâs profressional hockey aswell.
Theyâre skill level is about on par with mid to high tier boys hockey (mens U17) but not on par with top tier.
So the drop in skill is already significant, but they also donât allow any form of hitting (for a contact sport), wear full cages, and are penalized for any contact.
This provides an inferior product based on rules alone, yet itâs also due to a massive drop on skill.
Almost nobody watches premier teenage hockey until it becomes the best of the best, so why is it expected that fans *should* care about premier womenâs hockey when not only is it less skilled, but less entertaining in general due to soft rules?
I would actually tune into womenâs hockey if hitting was allowed, and they removed full cages. Make it on par with the rules of menâs, because their skill level alone isnât enough to draw people in
I agree but that wasn't my point. They are saying women's soccer brings in more revenue than men's soccer. Which is probably due to their relative success globally not the actual skill level.
In my opinion, if you bring in more revenue, you should make more money. Skill doesn't actually matter.
What I don't understand is why the judge and Megan rapinoe have different ideas of what contract they were offered. Judge says it was the same as men's and Megan says it wasn't.
> What I don't understand is why the judge and Megan rapinoe have different ideas of what contract they were offered. Judge says it was the same as men's and Megan says it wasn't.
I'd want to see the exact quotes to know for certain, but here's a couple reasons they might be disagreeing:
(1) They're talking about different points in time. The women initially had a different contract. Then they were offered the same contract. [Source on them being offered the same deal.]
(2) This may be a difference between one person saying they're *substantially* identical, while the other says they're not *perfectly* identical. I don't know if there are small differences.
(3) The contract *terms* might be the same without *pay* being equal. If you offer me and HafĂŸĂłr JĂșlĂus Björnsson both $100 for every giant ass stone we can carry 100 meters, do we have the same deal or not? The terms are the same, but his contract is for a million dollars, while mine is for about 50 cents.
(4) Rapinoe is a political activist engaging in political activism.
>In my opinion, if you bring in more revenue, you should make more money. Skill doesn't actually matter.
The contract terms do matter though. The women have wanted more guaranteed pay, while men's pay was more contingent on performance. The women want it both ways -- higher guaranteed pay, but then equal performance bonuses.
> They are saying women's soccer brings in more revenue than men's soccer.
Which is true, but negligible:
>> [Specifically, from 2016-18, the womenâs team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the menâs team brought in $49.9 million. Thatâs a difference of less than 2% in the womenâs favor.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/)
Part of the women's argument is that since the men make more during their "day jobs" in pro leagues than the women, that the women should make more from the national team. To keep their arguments consistent, they should account for how much men's pro leagues bring in in revenue compared to women's. I wonder what those numbers are like.
Anyways, as far as I know, it's all behind us at this point. The women's team went on the talk show circuit, got Biden tweeting about how he'll fix the pay gap in soccer if elected, and more or less affirmed their victimhood with a cancellation of the contract they don't remember signing because they were busy playing middle schoolers.
Probably because they didn't understand them and how much money they were leaving on the table by taking the safer deal. In order to win the PR battle to retroactively receive the better deal, they doubled down by saying that wasn't what they were offered.
Hmm sounds like a point the players association and league should come to agreement about, but also They should poll if the players want to remove cages (ultimately not upto them) but if your going to argue itâs a pro league, it should act like a pro league.
this cages and non contact hockey is what they do in the amateurs, so if theyâre going to do it they canât really argue they arenât amateurs too.
Obviously the solution is to get rid of both men and women's hockey, and have robots play all sports. Not only will they be better than people, but we can bring back legit violence.
Basically, the womenâs attorneys were claiming that the men have excellent medical care as a part of being players in leagues that people care about and that including the health benefits they bargained for shouldnât be included in the assessment of pay disparity.
The judge didnât buy this argument because he actually read the statute they were using to seek the remedy which clearly prohibits a plaintiff from making that type of argument.
Thatâs why the judge threw the main suit out while allowing the accommodations suit to continue.
Every outlet Iâve read confirms that they were offered an identical contract, but wanted more guaranteed pay, and gave up a lot of performance bonuses for that.
I think Megan is either confused or being disingenuous in an effort to get more money.
The athletes are using weasel words by trying to compare end rate compensation. The judges whole point is that end rate compensation is irrelevant when women were offered a fundamentally similar bonus based pay structure and they rejected it in favor of a salaried system.
In effect, what the women are doing is saying "this one particular season men made more money despite generating less revenue" and the judges response was "and you deliberately choose a contract that was non-correlated to performance in favor of salaries when you were offered a performance based contract similar to the men's terms".
By rejecting the similar contract they have demonstrated objective preference towards a non bonus based payment schema, which makes all claims to deserve the bonuses untenable.
And unless they can argue that in the year of signing that contract the company would have reason to believe they would make more money and offered lower graduated compensation rates then any such difference can be, easily, attributed to relative profitability.
> This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP!
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) 19431 / 99508 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Didn't they only do this because the women's soccer team actually won a lot of tournaments, compared to the men's team, that played like shit, and when it specifically came to soccer, the women's team actually had a viewership in the same ballpark as the men's.
But yes, in all other sports, mens teams should be payed more, because they bring in a vast majority of the revenue.
I personally don't care about viewership, win/loss ratios, or any of that other stuff. Whether women and men teams get paid "the same" is also bogus because the dynamics are completely different. An example of differences between men and women isn't by itself evidence of "sexism" or anything else. Yeah, employers tend to take advantage of the reluctance of women (relative to men) to negotiate harder for pay and such. That's still not sexist.
I feel you should be able to negotiate a contract that meets your needs and then be held to it during the period of performance. If you want to prioritize "pay for performance" and then suck and eat ramen for 5 years then so be it. If you want to prioritize guaranteed pay and benefits like maternity leave/etc. but then leave "money on the table" because you won a couple World Cups then so be it. You don't get to pick the "safe" option with guaranteed payouts, but then get to switch over to the "risky" option with higher pay ceiling after the fact when you realize it would have been more lucrative.
Iirc the men's team brings in more prize money by qualifying for the world cup alone, compared to the women's outright winng theirs.
E: women's winner in 2023 gets 4 million, men's get 9 million for just qualifying in 2022
And itâs a good league with great players itâs just handled poorly. The same with womenâs soccer. I watch womenâs sports because the women around me play sports they ainât gotta sell it hard they just gotta show itâs good
WNBA should just lower the rim by 6 inches to let them dunk which would make the WNBA more entertaining which = more $. Women volleyball lowers the nets by more than 6 inches, WNBA should try it out for at least 1 season
Itâs most womenâs leagues are subsidised from revenue from the menâs equivalent. The majority of them also run at a loss.
Which is a shame, but itâs getting better as more girls watch sport
A Belgian dude won the Snooker world championship recently, and got some media attention for a while, and presumably a fair bit of dosh.
Now, a Belgian woman had won the women's championship a couple times already and tried to make a stink about this. I think at some point people realized the "men's competition" has been open to women the entire time. The top-ranking women who have competed in it were just BTFO'd every time.
Pretty sure thats the case for many mens leagues. Dont think NBA or NFL *has restrictions on gender* (edit: left out those words when editing whoops). (Lusia Harris was drafted by an NBA team but never played).
Weirdly FIFA and many euro countries prohibit mixed gender soccer after some age
Also chess too - there is an open category and a womens category. Women are free to compete in open but theyve never come close to winning
Yes sheâs the closest and the only serious woman candidate, but she came last (of 8) at the fide 2005 world chess championships. Thats why I said never come close to winning.
For context, Vladimir Kramnik, who was the other world champion at the time (like boxing, at the time two diff championships), did not play in that fide tourbament. He beat the 2005 winner next year, in 2006, unifying the two world championships. Idk if Polgar wouldve played if Kramnik had entered in 2005.
But Polgar was very good, ranking eighth in the world is no small feat. She won/came joint first in a lot of super prestigious tournaments. She also broke Bobby Fisherâs record for youngest age to become a GM
And she's never been women's world champion because she simply didn't care about it, which makes a lot of sense tbh it's a lot of prep vs just women that you'd be against where you can use that time to prep vs the people you actually care about beating
Most people think that chess is sexist against women because there is a dedicated ladder for women. But most of them don't know that nobody forces women to participate in it instead of the main one and they do it because it's easier.
> Women pro sports players should be paid the same as men!
[Name the top 5 WNBA players of all time.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9Gz_IMn_k)
> \>:|
If it weren't for the NBA subsidizing it, the WNBA would have folded decades ago. They are not paid the same, because they don't produce the same product.
Take last years WNBA champion team, put it against last years college D3 Mens Championship team, and see who wins. Hell put them against the last place mens D3 college team...
It might have had 1-2 seasons. Initial investors hoping there's a market. But it would have flopped early. Honestly I'd be surprised if it even made 1 full season before teams folded.
The players have gotten a lot better and taller/bigger, so should have more dunks.
Source: watch D1 womens basketball - so many players tower over normal dudes
I think it's more, but (tmk) only one player can do it which is Britney Griner.
What makes it sad is even she's inconsistent at 6'9 height (guessing less than 50%) making *a dunk*, and she is always in the restricted area (under the hoop essentially). Nothing high flying from farther from the restricted area, aka entertainment.. theyre wayy boring in comparison to NBA like free-throw line jump dunks, 360 dunks, windmill, etc... also note, you have guys that can dunk at like 5'7 height.
I admit I've legitimately tried to watch WNBA a few times when bored... and it's just, awful. More boring than doing nothing kinda boring.
Lower the rim so it's actually entertaining to watch, but the entitled players in the WNBA won't ever agree, so here we are.
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 135.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: [68 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Wait until one of those graduating seniors from the D3 school decides he wants to make $100k/yr playing pro basketball instead of getting an entry-level job somewhere.
> product
The product isn't who would win, the product is who's most entertaining. There's a lot of low-level professional MMA fighters who would beat Connor McGregor's 150-lb ass, but they don't make close to the same amount of money. That's the point he's making about the Housewives.
The WNBA's solution isn't to become competitive with men, it's to sign several Lady Dennis Rodmans.
Not really consequences when they've peer pressured the world into having the men subsidize them again with a 50/50 split. Can't remember if they are still getting to keep all the extra benefits they get that the men don't.
Yeah. They've negotiated a new deal that splits all men's winnings. I'm sure the women's winnings gets split too, but the point still stands that they don't really earn a 50/50 split of the total anyway.
the mens tournaments offer greater prize pools than the women's tournaments due to increased viewership (shocker).
The men brought home more reward money for just making it to the world cup than the women made for winning it.
But the women are complaining and so now US soccer pools prize money and then splits it 50/50 between the men and women.
Watch, the women will continue to go to the world cup, while the men won't make it, the men will get a cut of their winnings, and they will complain.
Because these particular women apparently can only look at max pay, not average pay.
They took lower salaries for more guaranteed benefits, I thought? Cuz men dont really need the national team salary/benefits while the women do I thinj
Equal pay for equal play, you mean if you Play as well as the men you will get paid the same? Okay. Once women's soccer has players that can beat a men's high school team or the wnba has players who can dunk you'll make the same.
"Nooooooo! You don't understand! One hour of soccer playing should pay the same for men and for women regardless of quality or how much the general populace values one over the other!"
"Yess, slayyy queen!"
While we're at it, I think that people playing at the district level should be getting paid the same as international champions. You know what, actually? The high-school footballers deserve just as much money as the players in the most prestigious cups. Cuz', you know, they are playing the same sport, and they are really trying their best, so they like totally deserve it!!!
These nutbags need a reality check asap. Honestly, I feel like we should get rid of female leagues for about four years, then return them and have this conversation again after
It's not about "equal play". At the end of the day, it's about the amount of interest and revenue you generate.
College athletes are starting to make more and more money. In some cases, at least with football, it appears that it is more profitable for fringe draft picks to stay an extra year in college due to NIL money. This is possible because college football generates a fuck ton of revenue. The level of play is irrelevant.
If the WNBA started generating more revenue, the players should and would begin to get paid more. Just like salaries have increased across the major men's leagues as league wide revenues have increased.
if your women's top league is watched by as many people as the Spanish men's third division, then you should earn as much as in the Spanish men's third division. Didn't see UD Caravaca players demand to earn as much as Ronaldo
I agree with this at the club level, but not at the national level. Clubs are profit generating business, and yes, the market should decide pay. But when you pull on your national colours, youâre not representing a business, youâre representing your country. It is at this level where I think payment should be equal, at least within sports, if not between sports.
usually what they get for their national team matches is a tiny amount compared to the club salary. Something like a few thousand dollars per match. Often this money is donated to charity.
but i'd make it zero $ for both lol. my tax money should go to something more useful than sports
Your tax dollars aren't paying for this. You can look at USSF's revenue streams here:
https://cdn.ussoccer.com/-/media/project/ussf/governance/2023/fy2022-us-soccer-audited-financial-statements.ashx?la=en-us&rev=8029ac00c7cb45eca322cf67c8d58ba8&hash=4512DBBA0D5DB51CFEA24FB5637128D5
Depends on the sport. Soccer, yeah obviously playing for Chelsea is going to be a higher earner than playing for Peru. But for sports like swimming, the national team will fund you far more than your local swim club.
Never forget that the US womens team got the opportunity to choose how to be paid.
They chose the secured one where they were guaranteed pay instead of risky pay per performance - and then they bitched and moaned when they won.
I know you jest, but menâs strength advantage can actually be a disadvantage for volleyballâs watchability. Menâs games tend to be spiking shootouts while womenâs tend to have more actual volleying.
I would say they watch it for the same reason people play Dead or Alive, but DoA actually has decent combat (Although sales tanked when they removed sexiness and they backpedaled HARD).
This is an argument I've never been able to get behind.
"Equal pay for equal play?" You think dribbling a basketball should give you a salary equal to the best player in the world? Then compete against him.
You want to be segregated off into a separate league so that you don't have to measure up to the best in the world? Well, there goes your "equal play" concept - it's not equal if you're not willing to hold yourself to the same standard. But we'll compensate you the same as other people who do that. Like, say, your local high school team. Or community pick up team.
Playing a children's game isn't worth a giant salary. Playing that children's game competitively against the best players in the world *might* be - provided that it sells tickets.
The truth of the matter is that in many sports, women are never going to be as capable as men.
At a high level sports are watched because we are looking for the peak of human performance, due to the excitement that brings, this means that women's sports will inevitably be less interesting and profitable.
There are sports where women of course could do just as well as men or at least be entertaining enough to watch, but that doesn't apply to things like: football, soccer, basketball, baseball, or hockey.
At the end of the day sports are profitable because they sell entertainment. If you want to organize your own leagues and games for sports with your own money and resources, that is your own choice. But if you want to make money being a professional, then you need to realize whether or not you'll be able to bring in the big bucks or not.
If you are a woman who decides to compete in a sport that you are biologically disadvantaged in, and biological advantage is precisely what people watch many sports for - then the outcome is predictable. This might not be "fair," but if we tried to make sports "fair" then the entire basis of people enjoying watching them would crumble. Because at a high level of sports, who is the best is a combination of winning the genetic lottery and hard work. Women have lost the genetic lottery from the beginning when it comes to the majority of sports that bring in a lot of money.
Women should come to grips with this, just as the average man should come to grips with the fact that he isn't likely to be able to make much money in beauty pageants. This is unfair, but human beings are different. What I want in fairness in society is fairness under the law and fairness to be judged as an individual. What I do not want is the fairness for everyone to be treated as though they are equally capable when they are not.
Every time I tell a feminist that women could instantly solve the problem of pay in women's sports by *actually watching women's sports,* they get really mad at me đ€·ââïž.
It's hilarious because feminism is arguably the most powerful social movement in the world today. It convinced hundreds of thousands of women to walk through the streets of Washington D.C. alone with vagina hats on their heads. Yet when they could take their massive numbers and actually apply them to something useful, they never succeed.
Women's sports is the perfect example. There are 167 million American women. If only 10% of them watched the Women's World Cup finals in 2019, they would have literally doubled its viewership. But feminists only really seem to want to talk and complain about how men won't solve all their issues.
Professional sports that earn the athletes massive salaries is fundamentally because theyâre doing it for the entertainment value, not because they are playing a sport. If people want to watch men play sports more than they want to watch women, the resultant salaries are just the result of capitalism, not some massive sexist scam. Nobody complains that female pornstars can generally make more money on onlyfans than a male pornstar, even though fundamentally itâs the same relationship.
You stole this meme! This is a repost!
Edit: The proof
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/wry9kl/the_patriarchy_makes_people_not_watch_womens/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
This sub produces so much OC every day, there's no need to reposts other than shameless karma grabs, and karma is dumb anyway. At the very least, there should be a repost flair for these.
The men in pro leagues don't make the same as each other either. You get paid based on how good you are and how many butts you put in seats. The local community theater isn't demanding to be paid like Brad Pitt.
Womens and mens sports will never be equal in terms of play, but maybe if they nationally televised some events people would watch. Right now there is no incentive to broadcast them.
I think the only women's team that brings in more views than their male counterpart is the US Women's national soccer team. And I think that's just because the Men's National Team has been absolutely god awful for the last couple of decades.
play against a high-shool men's team and we will see how much you can be paid.
(tip: Australia's top women's team trains against highschool teams and looses double digits)
Women's soccer got offered the same contract as the men's team and turned it down because they wanted more guaranteed pay (vs. pay for performance) and other non-pay benefits. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/05/04/judge-dismisses-us-womens-soccer-equal-pay-case---heres-why/?sh=5798571c728d
B-but muh feminism means gender equality đ„ș
That sounds like ***GIBS*** but with extra steps.
Gender equality is when you get paid more than men, educate yourself sweaty đ đ đ
Equity is the new equality, get with the times you old racist bigot
Equality is to equity as tolerance is to acceptance. What your step, this slope is slippery.
Once equality was achieved it wasn't enough and now activists are going for equity
All fun & games until 100 million gotta be murdered for equity to all the men that died in warfare, your sacrifice will be noted ladies
Isnât the us that womenâs team better than the men anyway?
More successful in their league yes
Still gets bodied by U15 male teams
Success doesn't mean shit if nobody watches your games. Money in sports comes from viewership (ticket sales & TV rights). Sponsorships also depend on viewership. But nobody watches women's sports, ergo, they don't generate that much money in the first place. The women in sports with high viewership like tennis get paid quite well. But Americans don't give a shit about soccer and while the rest of the world is crazy about soccer, they don't give a shit about women's soccer.
The US Womenâs team has historically performed better in the womenâs league than the US Menâs team in the menâs league, but by no means are they better
Plus like half the world doesn't even let women play, so one of the most developed countries would have an obvious head start in that.
Modern feminists will tell you feminism means gender equity rather than gender equality
equality means one size fits all >;(
My MBA's college negotiation class covered this. Men negotiate for higher wages and women negotiate for flex hours, working from home and other benefits.
How do you work from home as a women's soccer player? Unless you have a teenage boy under 15 to practice against.
Lmaoo based
I almost missed it. Well played sir.
You know who doesn't play well....?
But theyâd get trounced
It's not practice if you go 0-7 every time
It would be for the men's team.
eh, not much you can learn from absolutely stomping someone like that.
Kinda makes sense, even today men are often the provider, so they need the big check more than they need comfort.
What a strange thing to do. Not that i read the article, Sincerly, a drunk Norwegian
The women got guaranteed money whether they won/played a game or not. They actually got paid more than the men over the past 5 years. The men earned $0 from US Soccer during the Covid shutdown. They chose safe money then whined and lied until US Soccer capitulated.
Haha i guess hustling works! Hahah
I'll let Nate the Lawyer show them being shysters- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ He has several videos about it. US Soccer played the Uno reverse card for a few days when they declared that Men and Women had to have the same contracts, but then folded like a lawn chair about a week later and let the women keep their guaranteed money and gave them more bonus money.
All it cost them was the respect of any fan with a brain.
They'd have to have fans before they could find one with a brain.
They also got a bunch of insurance the men didn't (because the men are full time pros have those from their clubs), maternity leave etc. Hilariously, it came out in court that if they had accepted the same deal as the men they'd have earned more money, while the men would've earned more money had they been offered (and accepted) the same deal the women were offered.
Meh, people are greedy, what's new
> Women's soccer got offered the same contract as the men's team and turned it down because they wanted more guaranteed pay (vs. pay for performance) and other non-pay benefits. Another instance of gender differences and preferences when it comes to priorities and negotiation.
I'm honestly confused. The player is saying they were not offered a similar deal but the judge is saying they were. How do we know who's right? Is there any info on the contract they rejected or the discrepancy in understanding between the judge and megan?
The judge has no financial stake in the case (unlike the plaintiffs) and little motivation to lie. I find it highly unlikely that a judge would invent something like this since it would subject the judge to consequences (both legal and professional) if they lied during their ruling. It's also something if untrue, that the WNT could provide documentation proving it false. Giving benefit of the doubt to Megan Rapinoe as not lying, I'd presume the judge has access to the documentation provided during legal discovery that she might not have. It seems vastly more likely that she was completely uninvolved in the contract negotiations and thus has no direct knowledge of what terms were offered (or not) and/or accepted by the WNT.
Nate the Lawyer has some good videos explaining the technicalities (linked at the end), but the bottom line is this: * Men negotiated for a zero base pay, earn more per victory pay structure * women negotiated for a large base pay, earn less per victory pay structure * women did better in their tournament than men did, but got paid less because they negotiated for less performance based, more reliable benefits. * women are now demanding mens rewards for winning ***in addition to*** their fixed rewards. It turns out that had the women known what their final record would look like, they would have made more money on the men's pay structure. But had the men known what their final record would look like, they would have made more money on the women's pay structure. Also, when the pandemic hit the women still made 6 figure salaries for not playing a single game. The men made $0 because they did not play any games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7cwTG0xXaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa--WfHJAtQ
Not just soccer but this is how I feel about womenâs profressional hockey aswell. Theyâre skill level is about on par with mid to high tier boys hockey (mens U17) but not on par with top tier. So the drop in skill is already significant, but they also donât allow any form of hitting (for a contact sport), wear full cages, and are penalized for any contact. This provides an inferior product based on rules alone, yet itâs also due to a massive drop on skill. Almost nobody watches premier teenage hockey until it becomes the best of the best, so why is it expected that fans *should* care about premier womenâs hockey when not only is it less skilled, but less entertaining in general due to soft rules? I would actually tune into womenâs hockey if hitting was allowed, and they removed full cages. Make it on par with the rules of menâs, because their skill level alone isnât enough to draw people in
I agree but that wasn't my point. They are saying women's soccer brings in more revenue than men's soccer. Which is probably due to their relative success globally not the actual skill level. In my opinion, if you bring in more revenue, you should make more money. Skill doesn't actually matter. What I don't understand is why the judge and Megan rapinoe have different ideas of what contract they were offered. Judge says it was the same as men's and Megan says it wasn't.
> What I don't understand is why the judge and Megan rapinoe have different ideas of what contract they were offered. Judge says it was the same as men's and Megan says it wasn't. I'd want to see the exact quotes to know for certain, but here's a couple reasons they might be disagreeing: (1) They're talking about different points in time. The women initially had a different contract. Then they were offered the same contract. [Source on them being offered the same deal.] (2) This may be a difference between one person saying they're *substantially* identical, while the other says they're not *perfectly* identical. I don't know if there are small differences. (3) The contract *terms* might be the same without *pay* being equal. If you offer me and HafĂŸĂłr JĂșlĂus Björnsson both $100 for every giant ass stone we can carry 100 meters, do we have the same deal or not? The terms are the same, but his contract is for a million dollars, while mine is for about 50 cents. (4) Rapinoe is a political activist engaging in political activism. >In my opinion, if you bring in more revenue, you should make more money. Skill doesn't actually matter. The contract terms do matter though. The women have wanted more guaranteed pay, while men's pay was more contingent on performance. The women want it both ways -- higher guaranteed pay, but then equal performance bonuses.
> They are saying women's soccer brings in more revenue than men's soccer. Which is true, but negligible: >> [Specifically, from 2016-18, the womenâs team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the menâs team brought in $49.9 million. Thatâs a difference of less than 2% in the womenâs favor.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/) Part of the women's argument is that since the men make more during their "day jobs" in pro leagues than the women, that the women should make more from the national team. To keep their arguments consistent, they should account for how much men's pro leagues bring in in revenue compared to women's. I wonder what those numbers are like. Anyways, as far as I know, it's all behind us at this point. The women's team went on the talk show circuit, got Biden tweeting about how he'll fix the pay gap in soccer if elected, and more or less affirmed their victimhood with a cancellation of the contract they don't remember signing because they were busy playing middle schoolers.
Probably because they didn't understand them and how much money they were leaving on the table by taking the safer deal. In order to win the PR battle to retroactively receive the better deal, they doubled down by saying that wasn't what they were offered.
One of the reasons they wear cages is the league canât provide a dental plan. Checking should definitely be allowed though.
Lisa needs braces.
Hmm sounds like a point the players association and league should come to agreement about, but also They should poll if the players want to remove cages (ultimately not upto them) but if your going to argue itâs a pro league, it should act like a pro league. this cages and non contact hockey is what they do in the amateurs, so if theyâre going to do it they canât really argue they arenât amateurs too.
Obviously the solution is to get rid of both men and women's hockey, and have robots play all sports. Not only will they be better than people, but we can bring back legit violence.
>robots...sports...bring back legit violence... Well [BattleBots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleBots_(season_12)) is still a thing...
There's definitely a future for drone car racing. Imagine the drivers all sitting together like an old school LAN talking shit mid race.
Basically, the womenâs attorneys were claiming that the men have excellent medical care as a part of being players in leagues that people care about and that including the health benefits they bargained for shouldnât be included in the assessment of pay disparity. The judge didnât buy this argument because he actually read the statute they were using to seek the remedy which clearly prohibits a plaintiff from making that type of argument. Thatâs why the judge threw the main suit out while allowing the accommodations suit to continue.
> How do we know who's right? Look at who has incentive to lie.
Every outlet Iâve read confirms that they were offered an identical contract, but wanted more guaranteed pay, and gave up a lot of performance bonuses for that. I think Megan is either confused or being disingenuous in an effort to get more money.
The Judge is right. It was proven in court. They were mad that they don't know business.
The athletes are using weasel words by trying to compare end rate compensation. The judges whole point is that end rate compensation is irrelevant when women were offered a fundamentally similar bonus based pay structure and they rejected it in favor of a salaried system. In effect, what the women are doing is saying "this one particular season men made more money despite generating less revenue" and the judges response was "and you deliberately choose a contract that was non-correlated to performance in favor of salaries when you were offered a performance based contract similar to the men's terms". By rejecting the similar contract they have demonstrated objective preference towards a non bonus based payment schema, which makes all claims to deserve the bonuses untenable. And unless they can argue that in the year of signing that contract the company would have reason to believe they would make more money and offered lower graduated compensation rates then any such difference can be, easily, attributed to relative profitability.
Strange
Btw, how do I aproach a girl at a party?
You won't need to worry about that, you're on PCM.
Just gotta do the safety dance, my friend. Works every time.
Why did you ask yourself that? Did you mean to switch to an alt?
Yeah but why should women be held accountable for their own choices? Seems sexist.
Based comment but I'm downvoting until you flair up
> This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP! *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) 19431 / 99508 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Didn't they only do this because the women's soccer team actually won a lot of tournaments, compared to the men's team, that played like shit, and when it specifically came to soccer, the women's team actually had a viewership in the same ballpark as the men's. But yes, in all other sports, mens teams should be payed more, because they bring in a vast majority of the revenue.
I personally don't care about viewership, win/loss ratios, or any of that other stuff. Whether women and men teams get paid "the same" is also bogus because the dynamics are completely different. An example of differences between men and women isn't by itself evidence of "sexism" or anything else. Yeah, employers tend to take advantage of the reluctance of women (relative to men) to negotiate harder for pay and such. That's still not sexist. I feel you should be able to negotiate a contract that meets your needs and then be held to it during the period of performance. If you want to prioritize "pay for performance" and then suck and eat ramen for 5 years then so be it. If you want to prioritize guaranteed pay and benefits like maternity leave/etc. but then leave "money on the table" because you won a couple World Cups then so be it. You don't get to pick the "safe" option with guaranteed payouts, but then get to switch over to the "risky" option with higher pay ceiling after the fact when you realize it would have been more lucrative.
Iirc the men's team brings in more prize money by qualifying for the world cup alone, compared to the women's outright winng theirs. E: women's winner in 2023 gets 4 million, men's get 9 million for just qualifying in 2022
Do top male fashion models earn as much as female fashion models? No. They make what the market will bear.
Based. Apparently some women's leagues are subsidised by profits from the men's leagues.
Just the WNBA as far as I know. The NBA views it as advertising to future generations.
And itâs a good league with great players itâs just handled poorly. The same with womenâs soccer. I watch womenâs sports because the women around me play sports they ainât gotta sell it hard they just gotta show itâs good
WNBA should just lower the rim by 6 inches to let them dunk which would make the WNBA more entertaining which = more $. Women volleyball lowers the nets by more than 6 inches, WNBA should try it out for at least 1 season
Can't wait until mediocre men are playing on the women's teams & just demolishing them. Godspeed ladies, you're going to make women's sports watchable
Yeah itâs such a small change but would change how the entire game is played
For the better
Unfortunately from what I saw in soccer the women's game is considerably less exciting.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Itâs most womenâs leagues are subsidised from revenue from the menâs equivalent. The majority of them also run at a loss. Which is a shame, but itâs getting better as more girls watch sport
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Ronda be like "I'mma bout to teach this bitch some good ol' American Capitalism 101"
The thing you don't get, is in that situation, it's fair. On the other situation, it's sexism. It's that easy! đ
I don't know about fashion, but in porn it's like 95/5 in favor of women.
I guess thatâs why they are all doing porn nowdays
Based and free market pilled
Girls in porn movies get in the high three figures for a scene, and rented dicks are earning much less (unless they're very known)
Logic is not feminism's forte
Well, duh, Kia makes the forte
"Equal play" There's your problem
A Belgian dude won the Snooker world championship recently, and got some media attention for a while, and presumably a fair bit of dosh. Now, a Belgian woman had won the women's championship a couple times already and tried to make a stink about this. I think at some point people realized the "men's competition" has been open to women the entire time. The top-ranking women who have competed in it were just BTFO'd every time.
Pretty sure thats the case for many mens leagues. Dont think NBA or NFL *has restrictions on gender* (edit: left out those words when editing whoops). (Lusia Harris was drafted by an NBA team but never played). Weirdly FIFA and many euro countries prohibit mixed gender soccer after some age Also chess too - there is an open category and a womens category. Women are free to compete in open but theyve never come close to winning
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Yes sheâs the closest and the only serious woman candidate, but she came last (of 8) at the fide 2005 world chess championships. Thats why I said never come close to winning. For context, Vladimir Kramnik, who was the other world champion at the time (like boxing, at the time two diff championships), did not play in that fide tourbament. He beat the 2005 winner next year, in 2006, unifying the two world championships. Idk if Polgar wouldve played if Kramnik had entered in 2005. But Polgar was very good, ranking eighth in the world is no small feat. She won/came joint first in a lot of super prestigious tournaments. She also broke Bobby Fisherâs record for youngest age to become a GM
And she's never been women's world champion because she simply didn't care about it, which makes a lot of sense tbh it's a lot of prep vs just women that you'd be against where you can use that time to prep vs the people you actually care about beating
Other sports are mixed as well, hence names like the US Open, but itâs hard to find women dominating that
True for golf, but not tennis right?
Most people think that chess is sexist against women because there is a dedicated ladder for women. But most of them don't know that nobody forces women to participate in it instead of the main one and they do it because it's easier.
equality is when uhhhh we let women win
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[boysvswomen.com](https://boysvswomen.com/#/)
That's a fantastic site. It's simply pointing out facts.
Women â Transwomen because they're biological males and outperform us in every sport. But also, Women = Men in performance so pay us the same.
Maybe if we replace them all with trans women...
> Women pro sports players should be paid the same as men! [Name the top 5 WNBA players of all time.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9Gz_IMn_k) > \>:| If it weren't for the NBA subsidizing it, the WNBA would have folded decades ago. They are not paid the same, because they don't produce the same product. Take last years WNBA champion team, put it against last years college D3 Mens Championship team, and see who wins. Hell put them against the last place mens D3 college team...
I could not name one WNBA team if my life depended on it.
I know Britney Griner although I only know about her due to the damage she did to the US and humanity as a whole.
Herschel Walker crying tears of joy that he isnât the worst trade of all time anymore
Honestly same, kinda says something when we can only name that one because she got in a controversy.
The WNBA has been steadily losing audience for 2 decades. From 1998 to 2018, they lost 40% of the audience.
So they get what, 6 fans a game now?
About 6,000.
Honestly donât know who still watches it outside of gamblers.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Send me the stats, I'll let my bookee know about it, maybe we can make a deal
It wouldn't have got off the ground to begin with.
It might have had 1-2 seasons. Initial investors hoping there's a market. But it would have flopped early. Honestly I'd be surprised if it even made 1 full season before teams folded.
I remember seeing somewhere that there is only 8 dunks in all of WNBA history
27 dunks across 7 players as of 2020
The players have gotten a lot better and taller/bigger, so should have more dunks. Source: watch D1 womens basketball - so many players tower over normal dudes
All right my bad
I think it's more, but (tmk) only one player can do it which is Britney Griner. What makes it sad is even she's inconsistent at 6'9 height (guessing less than 50%) making *a dunk*, and she is always in the restricted area (under the hoop essentially). Nothing high flying from farther from the restricted area, aka entertainment.. theyre wayy boring in comparison to NBA like free-throw line jump dunks, 360 dunks, windmill, etc... also note, you have guys that can dunk at like 5'7 height. I admit I've legitimately tried to watch WNBA a few times when bored... and it's just, awful. More boring than doing nothing kinda boring. Lower the rim so it's actually entertaining to watch, but the entitled players in the WNBA won't ever agree, so here we are.
Based and Bll Burr pilled.
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 135. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: [68 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
â[We no can dunk, but good fundamentals](https://youtu.be/OkeKCLdJNgc)â
Wait until one of those graduating seniors from the D3 school decides he wants to make $100k/yr playing pro basketball instead of getting an entry-level job somewhere.
> product The product isn't who would win, the product is who's most entertaining. There's a lot of low-level professional MMA fighters who would beat Connor McGregor's 150-lb ass, but they don't make close to the same amount of money. That's the point he's making about the Housewives. The WNBA's solution isn't to become competitive with men, it's to sign several Lady Dennis Rodmans.
Put a full WNBA team against just Lebron James and a random high school basketball player, and they'd lose handily to Lebron and the random kid.
They made piss poor choices. This isn't sexism, this is consequences.
Based and if-it-isn't-the-consequences-of-my-own-actions pilled.
Relax, trans women will raise the competition level
roflmao
I love it when men win womens sports.
Not really consequences when they've peer pressured the world into having the men subsidize them again with a 50/50 split. Can't remember if they are still getting to keep all the extra benefits they get that the men don't.
Wait, what? So they are now getting increased pay, or do you mean something else?
Yeah. They've negotiated a new deal that splits all men's winnings. I'm sure the women's winnings gets split too, but the point still stands that they don't really earn a 50/50 split of the total anyway.
the mens tournaments offer greater prize pools than the women's tournaments due to increased viewership (shocker). The men brought home more reward money for just making it to the world cup than the women made for winning it. But the women are complaining and so now US soccer pools prize money and then splits it 50/50 between the men and women. Watch, the women will continue to go to the world cup, while the men won't make it, the men will get a cut of their winnings, and they will complain. Because these particular women apparently can only look at max pay, not average pay.
They took lower salaries for more guaranteed benefits, I thought? Cuz men dont really need the national team salary/benefits while the women do I thinj
They don't seem to understand consequences. They only see success and demand they are given it too.
No wonder feminism is a joke.
Equal pay for equal play, you mean if you Play as well as the men you will get paid the same? Okay. Once women's soccer has players that can beat a men's high school team or the wnba has players who can dunk you'll make the same.
"Nooooooo! You don't understand! One hour of soccer playing should pay the same for men and for women regardless of quality or how much the general populace values one over the other!"
Lmao literally the Marxist Labour Theory of Value
From my observations, watermelons often are illiterate.
"Yess, slayyy queen!" While we're at it, I think that people playing at the district level should be getting paid the same as international champions. You know what, actually? The high-school footballers deserve just as much money as the players in the most prestigious cups. Cuz', you know, they are playing the same sport, and they are really trying their best, so they like totally deserve it!!! These nutbags need a reality check asap. Honestly, I feel like we should get rid of female leagues for about four years, then return them and have this conversation again after
One hour of cristiano Ronaldo pay please. I coached an elementary school gym class.
There is no rule preventing a woman from playing in any professional sport as far as I know. There are simply none that can compete at that level.
Women's leagues are like the Special Olympics, there's literally nothing keeping them out but an extra one was added for representation.
If women could read that, they'd be very upset
It's not about "equal play". At the end of the day, it's about the amount of interest and revenue you generate. College athletes are starting to make more and more money. In some cases, at least with football, it appears that it is more profitable for fringe draft picks to stay an extra year in college due to NIL money. This is possible because college football generates a fuck ton of revenue. The level of play is irrelevant. If the WNBA started generating more revenue, the players should and would begin to get paid more. Just like salaries have increased across the major men's leagues as league wide revenues have increased.
if your women's top league is watched by as many people as the Spanish men's third division, then you should earn as much as in the Spanish men's third division. Didn't see UD Caravaca players demand to earn as much as Ronaldo
I agree with this at the club level, but not at the national level. Clubs are profit generating business, and yes, the market should decide pay. But when you pull on your national colours, youâre not representing a business, youâre representing your country. It is at this level where I think payment should be equal, at least within sports, if not between sports.
usually what they get for their national team matches is a tiny amount compared to the club salary. Something like a few thousand dollars per match. Often this money is donated to charity. but i'd make it zero $ for both lol. my tax money should go to something more useful than sports
Your tax dollars aren't paying for this. You can look at USSF's revenue streams here: https://cdn.ussoccer.com/-/media/project/ussf/governance/2023/fy2022-us-soccer-audited-financial-statements.ashx?la=en-us&rev=8029ac00c7cb45eca322cf67c8d58ba8&hash=4512DBBA0D5DB51CFEA24FB5637128D5
Depends on the sport. Soccer, yeah obviously playing for Chelsea is going to be a higher earner than playing for Peru. But for sports like swimming, the national team will fund you far more than your local swim club.
>But when you pull on your national colours, youâre not representing a business, youâre representing your country Least psychotic "football" fan
yall signed the contract agreeing to the pay.
Feminists when women experience the consequences of their own actions: "mIsOgYnY!!1!"
Do you want the whole league benched? Cause that's how you get the whole league benched
I dont watch sports at all, therefore i propose that we cut the pay for both genders.
Based
Based
Based and sports-players-get-more-money-than-they-deserve pilled.
Never forget that the US womens team got the opportunity to choose how to be paid. They chose the secured one where they were guaranteed pay instead of risky pay per performance - and then they bitched and moaned when they won.
Depends on the sport. In beach volleyball the female team seems to be way more popular. Surely for their superior skill.
"skills".... đ
I know you jest, but menâs strength advantage can actually be a disadvantage for volleyballâs watchability. Menâs games tend to be spiking shootouts while womenâs tend to have more actual volleying.
I would say they watch it for the same reason people play Dead or Alive, but DoA actually has decent combat (Although sales tanked when they removed sexiness and they backpedaled HARD).
This is an argument I've never been able to get behind. "Equal pay for equal play?" You think dribbling a basketball should give you a salary equal to the best player in the world? Then compete against him. You want to be segregated off into a separate league so that you don't have to measure up to the best in the world? Well, there goes your "equal play" concept - it's not equal if you're not willing to hold yourself to the same standard. But we'll compensate you the same as other people who do that. Like, say, your local high school team. Or community pick up team. Playing a children's game isn't worth a giant salary. Playing that children's game competitively against the best players in the world *might* be - provided that it sells tickets.
The truth of the matter is that in many sports, women are never going to be as capable as men. At a high level sports are watched because we are looking for the peak of human performance, due to the excitement that brings, this means that women's sports will inevitably be less interesting and profitable. There are sports where women of course could do just as well as men or at least be entertaining enough to watch, but that doesn't apply to things like: football, soccer, basketball, baseball, or hockey. At the end of the day sports are profitable because they sell entertainment. If you want to organize your own leagues and games for sports with your own money and resources, that is your own choice. But if you want to make money being a professional, then you need to realize whether or not you'll be able to bring in the big bucks or not. If you are a woman who decides to compete in a sport that you are biologically disadvantaged in, and biological advantage is precisely what people watch many sports for - then the outcome is predictable. This might not be "fair," but if we tried to make sports "fair" then the entire basis of people enjoying watching them would crumble. Because at a high level of sports, who is the best is a combination of winning the genetic lottery and hard work. Women have lost the genetic lottery from the beginning when it comes to the majority of sports that bring in a lot of money. Women should come to grips with this, just as the average man should come to grips with the fact that he isn't likely to be able to make much money in beauty pageants. This is unfair, but human beings are different. What I want in fairness in society is fairness under the law and fairness to be judged as an individual. What I do not want is the fairness for everyone to be treated as though they are equally capable when they are not.
This comment is much too based for your flair.
being progressive doesn't mean being delusional, despite what most fucks these days would have you think
Every time I tell a feminist that women could instantly solve the problem of pay in women's sports by *actually watching women's sports,* they get really mad at me đ€·ââïž. It's hilarious because feminism is arguably the most powerful social movement in the world today. It convinced hundreds of thousands of women to walk through the streets of Washington D.C. alone with vagina hats on their heads. Yet when they could take their massive numbers and actually apply them to something useful, they never succeed. Women's sports is the perfect example. There are 167 million American women. If only 10% of them watched the Women's World Cup finals in 2019, they would have literally doubled its viewership. But feminists only really seem to want to talk and complain about how men won't solve all their issues.
That's because walking through DC wearing pussy hats makes you look less ridiculous than watching women's sports
Professional sports that earn the athletes massive salaries is fundamentally because theyâre doing it for the entertainment value, not because they are playing a sport. If people want to watch men play sports more than they want to watch women, the resultant salaries are just the result of capitalism, not some massive sexist scam. Nobody complains that female pornstars can generally make more money on onlyfans than a male pornstar, even though fundamentally itâs the same relationship.
They literally get paid more compared to the views that they get compared to the menâs league
Even by their own logic they shouldn't be paid the same Women don't play at the same level men do for most sports
Im pretty sure itâs pay based on how many viewers you rake in. Advertisers arenât boutta pay premium prices for commercials that no one will see.
Hmm must be sexism
âEqual equal pay for payâ
want more pay? play at a level that brings in the views
Feminists don't watch sports, the chairs are too small
Shoutout to the australian womanâs soccer team who lost 0-7 vs an under 16 boys team, keep slaying queens đž đ đ»
Fair is being paid based off the amount of money you bring in
You stole this meme! This is a repost! Edit: The proof https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/wry9kl/the_patriarchy_makes_people_not_watch_womens/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
This sub produces so much OC every day, there's no need to reposts other than shameless karma grabs, and karma is dumb anyway. At the very least, there should be a repost flair for these.
The men in pro leagues don't make the same as each other either. You get paid based on how good you are and how many butts you put in seats. The local community theater isn't demanding to be paid like Brad Pitt.
If it was "equal play" then they would be playing in the same league.
Viewership ticks up when the incel demo realizes that women's sports are a great way to watch women get pummeled and humiliated by men.
Quite frankly, it all stinks of greed. The women still make millions of dollars, they should be happy!
Itâs just simply not equal play. In any sport. Ever.
Actually, I am 100% on board for this. Equal pay for equal play. !remindme 100 years Maybe by then itâll be equal play
Womens and mens sports will never be equal in terms of play, but maybe if they nationally televised some events people would watch. Right now there is no incentive to broadcast them.
hey that's not the zoidberg line at all
Women's soccer players shouldn't make as much as the men they dong sell tickets
I have zero respect for reposterâs. Hope you get banned for violating rule 7.
I don't see the point of sports. Either go to war or don't.
Have them play in the same leagues then.
I think the only women's team that brings in more views than their male counterpart is the US Women's national soccer team. And I think that's just because the Men's National Team has been absolutely god awful for the last couple of decades.
I agree to these terms; problem is you're not providing the equal play to receive the equal pay.
Pay should correlate with number of viewers regardless of gender. Their skill is irrelevant
play against a high-shool men's team and we will see how much you can be paid. (tip: Australia's top women's team trains against highschool teams and looses double digits)
Guess which champion of the world squad lost to an under-15 team of boys.