it was a royal thumping. I think the first goal happened so quickly that it kinda shocked Japan. Then when the 2nd one happened, they unraveled mentally which allowed the 3rd and 4th one from midfield. At that point, the game was basically over. The US just had to not completely f themselves. Will admit, I got a lil nervous when japan pushed it back to 4-2 early in the 2nd half, however when we answered with #5 so quickly, i think that really deflated the japanese.

7/6/2015 8:26:48 AM

overnights are a 15.2

to compare, the CFB semifinals were on par or worse. Rose Bowl had a 14.8 and the Sugar Bowl had a 15.2.

7/6/2015 9:48:03 AM

7/6/2015 10:31:19 AM

yuuuge equal pay lawsuit coming. I can't believe they pay them four times less.

3/31/2016 1:24:02 PM

It's all going to hinge on how much money the women bring in versus how much money the men bring in. The women might be more successful in competition, but if they don't bring in the same amount of money, then it's gonna be hard for them to argue that they should be paid the same.

3/31/2016 10:16:36 PM

I'd defer to the soccer hipsters(aimorris, ribs, nym10), but AFAIK, the women bring in more revenue than the men

[Edited on March 31, 2016 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ]

3/31/2016 11:18:33 PM

They are going to cherry pick stats and say "In 2015!!!!!"

Also you need to consider opportunity cost.

The real solution is to get rid of womens sports and make all sports accepted for men and women. That way everything will be fair

4/1/2016 12:53:06 PM

Quote :

"I'd defer to the soccer hipsters(aimorris, ribs, nym10), but AFAIK, the women bring in more revenue than the men"

You are wrong and it's not even close. The claim that the women bring in more revenue is ONLY true in 2015, a year in which our women's team won the world cup and our men's team was not involved in any significant tournaments (not even WC qualifying). It's actually cherry picking stats to suggest that the women bring in more than the men.

Although US soccer doesn't break out the revenue by team, but if you comparing 4 year cycles (including WCs--the big money makers for a national team-- for both sides), the men's team brings in far more revenue. This was confirmed by their response to the suit and quite frankly just makes sense given the relative popularity of the two world cups. The men's WC is many many times more popular by TV viewership or attendance.

This isn't a case of discrimination as the figures were collectively bargained for years ago. It's not as if US soccer just unilaterally decides the salaries. Although probably a smart PR move for the lawsuit, it's a little disingenuous at best to make this about gender discrimination.

[Edited on April 1, 2016 at 3:14 PM. Reason : d]

4/1/2016 3:05:16 PM

He is correct. Men's soccer is vastly more profitable than women's. Cherry picked data for 2015 and playing the bullshit gender wage war which the media will jump all over.

4/1/2016 3:39:48 PM

Usmnt and uswnt make very similar revenues in other years. Men are paid 4 times more. Theres no excuse especially when you consider that the mens team is relatively pathetic on the field.

4/1/2016 5:13:13 PM

You just pulled that completely out of your ass. Even if it were true, there would be no way for you to know that as that information isn't available publicly and aside from 2015 numbers no specific figures have been released. We do know that attendance figures and ratings for non WC games both favor the men's team by quite a bit. So the evidence points to your statement being completely false.

Then when you figure in the expected WC revenues (based on available sponsorship, ratings and attendance data) for each team it's not even close. This has nothing to do with the product on the field. The fact is that the men's game is far more popular and that translates to better revenues for even a middling team like ours. That then translates into more leverage and higher negotiated wages for the men's team. If there is any discrimination, it's the fans who choose to watch a mediocre men's team over a dominate women's team. Blame them.

[Edited on April 1, 2016 at 5:41 PM. Reason : D]

4/1/2016 5:37:49 PM

E man is just pushing his socialist, liberal views in another thread. The women's team is great and clearly outperform the men on the field, but men's soccer simply brings in significantly more revenue. Don't let facts get in the way of your bias though E troll.

4/1/2016 6:42:26 PM

Quote :

"You just pulled that completely out of your ass."

E Man strikes again on the wolf web dot com

4/1/2016 6:54:13 PM

Quote :

" Its victory in the 2015 World Cup final against Japan last summer was the most-watched soccer game of all time in the U.S. with over 26 million viewers."

Looks like you're right. Ratings are not even close.

Quote :

"U.S. Soccer estimates that the women’s national team will generate $17.6 million in event-based revenue between April 2016 and March 2017 based on a slate of up to 27 matches, according to the budget it proposed at February’s Annual General Meeting. (Those include a post-Olympics tour and an end-of-season tournament.) Over the same period, it expects the men’s team to bring in $9 million for up to 12 matches."

Doesn't look like the mens team is bringing in anywhere near 4 times as much.

4/1/2016 10:24:29 PM

Men's soccer as a whole obviously brings in more money than women's soccer as a whole. But it doesn't look like the US men's team makes all that much money. Probably because they suck at playing soccer.

4/1/2016 10:53:41 PM

On a per match basis the men generate more. How does the revenue share among teams for the WC?

4/2/2016 6:51:22 AM

They get paid to play soccer? In this country?

4/2/2016 3:29:04 PM

DUI for Wambach

4/3/2016 1:14:53 PM

Holy shit e man you are thick or trolling. Either way this is my last response to you. The last men's final had 1 billion viewers. So yeah it's not even close.

4/3/2016 3:03:09 PM

We are only talking about us teams though. I know this is the world cup thread but the comparison is uswnt vs usmnt. It just so happens that this was the only womens soccer thread on a sexist messageboard.

[Edited on April 3, 2016 at 3:16 PM. Reason : Men have never made the final so nice irrelevant stat]

4/3/2016 3:15:44 PM

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/im_not_for_equal_pay_im_for_fair_pay_landon_donovan_gets_schooled_on_the_soccer_wage_gap/
How many world championships has he won? Landon is a disgrace.

Quote :

"“From April 2016 to March 2017, the women are projected to generate $17.6 million in revenue and $5.2 million in net profit. The men are projected to generate $9.1 million in revenue and post a net loss of $964,000.” And soon, Well done. It’s not a court victory, but it is a sign that facts — and fairness — are often pretty clearcut."

You don't need to respond to me because the facts speak for themselves.

4/3/2016 5:07:05 PM

Quote :

"The last men's final had 1 billion viewers. So yeah it's not even close."

Cool, when was the appearance of the men's team in the final?

4/3/2016 5:27:25 PM

^ The men's final was 2014. The point was to compare apples to apples so when you compare men's revenue vs women's revenue, to be accurate and fair you have to compare 4 year WC cycles. Unfortunately US soccer doesn't divide up their men's vs women's revene numbers for us, but we can guess the division of the numbers by ratings and game attendance for the respective teams. Both of those numbers are heavily in favor of the men's team even with their lack of success.


http://www.espnfc.us/united-states/story/2840897/sunil-gulati-and-us-soccer-refute-claims-by-womens-team

Quote :

"It is important to put these numbers in context. The periods encompassing the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years will see the U.S. women's national team play two major tournaments: the 2015 Women's World Cup and the 2016 Olympic games. These years represent the peak revenue-producing periods for the women's team, and revenues are expected to go down in the two years following the Olympics. "

Now when the women's current contract us up at the end of the year, they will likely make much more than they do now and will likely be much more close to equal with the men's team. Apparently the last contract skewed towards guaranteed income and benefits with less emphasis on upside. Now the women's team wants the stability of guaranteed income with the upside that comes with doing well, staying healthy, etc. As is normally the case with wage negotiations, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

4/4/2016 2:02:56 PM

As someone who hasn't really followed women's soccer I don't really get what they are complaining about. At the risk of sounding sexist isn't it just common sense that the competition that generates more revenue, has much higher viewership, and is much harder to win would also come with the better salary? To me it comes down to popularity (mens game) > results (women's team). If I am way off base I would love some insight into this.

[Edited on April 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM. Reason : aa]

4/4/2016 3:48:31 PM

The worst punter in the NFL is gonna get paid more than the best elementary school teacher in the country because the NFL is more popular than watching teachers teach. Which is why the men's players get paid more.

But I don't blame the US women players for feeling how they do. They win championships. The US men are a laughing stock.

4/4/2016 4:30:36 PM

Quote :

"If I am way off base I would love some insight into this. "

Our men in particular don't generate that revenue and even a lot of the revenue they generate is basically generated by their oppenent (mexicans showing up to rose bowl to watch mexico beat the us). Give them that but can you really pay our men more because people want to watch germany's men beat brazil's men? That is the definition of sexism. Paying all unqualified men more because a few men on the other side of the planet happen to be earning more.

Our current women's team generates more viewers and revenue than our current mens team but are paid 1/4th as much because most mens teams generate more than most womens teams. We are literally paying them for having penises and people in this thread are willing to make statements like "if you only count the years where the women don't win big tournaments, then the women don't make more and if you count the years where they do win big tournaments, they win more. Well no shit. Our men don't even qualify for the olympics while our women earn it so of course it isn't going to be apples to apples. Thats the point.

If US soccer is one entity with two teams, they should be able to divide up the money according to whcih team earns the most instead of which sex typically earns the most in the rest of the world.

Quote :

" and is much harder to win"

what the fuck? I mean i guess it is harder to win when you aren't good at what you do. It is hard for our men to beat small island nations in the carribean. For heavens sake. They are the college punter that makes no money and doesn't get to the nfl. The elementary teacher makes about 80k more.

4/4/2016 6:39:58 PM

God dam he shits every thread up

4/4/2016 6:44:25 PM

he's untouchable

4/4/2016 7:12:15 PM

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/u0165t/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-sexism-on-the-soccer-field

4/7/2016 12:34:22 AM

[link]http://http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/04/06/uswnt-us-soccer-wage-discrimination-revenue-unequal-pay[/link]

Of particular note is the clause in the women'S contract that guarantees an equal wage to revenue ratio but that hasn't yet been met.

4/7/2016 11:37:45 PM