Equal pay for Australia's soccer players

[Toni]

Why? Aren't all the teams working for the same federation? (honestly, I don't know the answer to that)

Do the teams within the federation compete with one another for their portion of the pay? (Again, I have no idea.)

I will say that it is obvious that some leagues are waking up to the fact that if they want to reach new fans, their best untapped pool of fans would be women and girls. One good way to attract fans--and money--is to develop the best female teams possible. And that means paying them well.

Yes, all teams compete with other teams, that's how football works? I don't understand your question.

Ah. In the US, for American football, say, the Colts pay what the Colts pay (and that varies by player) and the Vikings pay what the Vikings play (again, varying by player). There is no unified: All starting quarterbacks in the NFL get paid X dollars/year out of one giant purse, although I'm pretty sure the NFL would love that idea.

I'm not sure how the US soccer structure works.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say the representatives were not 'fine' with it.

I never said you did. I said apparently you feel you are more informed than they are.

Someone being paid more than the revenue they generate is market distorting and destroys wealth.

That is simply untrue as a statement. It assumes that the underlying markets are truly competitive, that there are no external effects, and that labor is simply an undifferentiated input that requires no specialized training or education.

Thankfully, in the real world of human beings instead of mindless economic robots, there is more to society than maximizing wealth.

I think more women and men who think female athletes should get paid the same as male ones, should go to women's games and boycott the male ones until parity is achieved in eyeballs and ticket sales and sponsorships. I think they should put their money where their mouth is.

Your "analysis" ignores that effect that successful teams have on the national federation's finances from youth sports. For example, in the USA, the women's national team inspires many young people to take up the sport (which means more revenue for the USSF) - something that is conveniently forgotten whenever the fervent market evangelists and misogynists complain.

Let's see if Johnny Public and Jane Normie give up the Superbowl.

There is a Superbowl in Australia?

 

[laughing dog]

We could look and see the results in the World Cup.
Men's team: 2-4-10 -18 GD (12.5% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Japan and Serbia.
Women's team: 7-6-13 -12 GD (27% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Brazil / Norway and draws against Norway / China / Sweden

The Matildas have been in the last 7 World Cups, the Socceroos, the last 4.
The Matildas have been in the quarterfinals 3 times, the Socceroos have advanced to the Round of 16 once. Even the US men's team has made it to the quarterfinal once.

I'm not sure which part of "they've never played the same teams" you're confused about.

Probably the part where JH thinks it is relevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We could look and see the results in the World Cup.
Men's team: 2-4-10 -18 GD (12.5% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Japan and Serbia.
Women's team: 7-6-13 -12 GD (27% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Brazil / Norway and draws against Norway / China / Sweden

The Matildas have been in the last 7 World Cups, the Socceroos, the last 4.
The Matildas have been in the quarterfinals 3 times, the Socceroos have advanced to the Round of 16 once. Even the US men's team has made it to the quarterfinal once.

I'm not sure which part of "they've never played the same teams" you're confused about.

Well, we can only go by their results in global competitions. It seems odd that you are whining that teams that do better should get more money, and the Matildas have done better in World Cups than the Socceroos.

Maybe you are right, that if the men played in the Women’s World Cup, the Socceroos would actually win games.

 

[Metaphor]

I never said you did. I said apparently you feel you are more informed than they are.

No, I said I was more informed than you.

That is simply untrue as a statement. It assumes that the underlying markets are truly competitive, that there are no external effects, and that labor is simply an undifferentiated input that requires no specialized training or education.

I don't see how you can see it to be otherwise. If you routinely pay women more money than they generate in sports, that distorts the labour supply to sports, at the expense of labour supply to other areas of the economy.

Your "analysis" ignores that effect that successful teams have on the national federation's finances from youth sports. For example, in the USA, the women's national team inspires many young people to take up the sport (which means more revenue for the USSF) - something that is conveniently forgotten whenever the fervent market evangelists and misogynists complain.

Is there nothing that doesn't imply misogyny to you?

I never made the argument that this wouldn't generate more money for the corporate interests over time (that's a separate debate). I said that it was male players paying the price.

There is a Superbowl in Australia?

No. I assume if you believe in equal pay for female athletes, you would and should put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Metaphor]

We could look and see the results in the World Cup.
Men's team: 2-4-10 -18 GD (12.5% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Japan and Serbia.
Women's team: 7-6-13 -12 GD (27% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Brazil / Norway and draws against Norway / China / Sweden

The Matildas have been in the last 7 World Cups, the Socceroos, the last 4.
The Matildas have been in the quarterfinals 3 times, the Socceroos have advanced to the Round of 16 once. Even the US men's team has made it to the quarterfinal once.

I'm not sure which part of "they've never played the same teams" you're confused about.

Well, we can only go by their results in global competitions. It seems odd that you are whining that teams that do better should get more money, and the Matildas have done better in World Cups than the Socceroos.

Maybe you are right, that if the men played in the Women’s World Cup, the Socceroos would actually win games.

They'd win the Women's World Cup very easily.

 

[Metaphor]

We could look and see the results in the World Cup.
Men's team: 2-4-10 -18 GD (12.5% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Japan and Serbia.
Women's team: 7-6-13 -12 GD (27% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Brazil / Norway and draws against Norway / China / Sweden

The Matildas have been in the last 7 World Cups, the Socceroos, the last 4.
The Matildas have been in the quarterfinals 3 times, the Socceroos have advanced to the Round of 16 once. Even the US men's team has made it to the quarterfinal once.

I'm not sure which part of "they've never played the same teams" you're confused about.

Probably the part where JH thinks it is relevant.

I wonder if he thinks curling players should get the same revenue as basketballers.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I said I was more informed than you.

So? The relevant issue is whether you are more informed than the federation and its players. It is pretty clear you are not.

I don't see how you can see it to be otherwise.

It is called education in economics. Your ignorance of economic theory does not make false statements true.

If you routinely pay women more money than they generate in sports, that distorts the labour supply to sports, at the expense of labour supply to other areas of the economy.

Only under the conditions that the markets for labor are competitive, that the supply of labor is an undifferentiated input between labor markets and that there are no external effects. Since the first two conditions are not factually verified, there is no reason to accept your conclusions as valid.

Is there nothing that doesn't imply misogyny to you?

What a silly question. Of course there are many things that have nothing to do with misogyny. But consistent illogical mewling about how women are getting a better deal or that men are getting screwed over in favor of women is not one of them. Duh.

Is there nothing that does not imply men are getting a raw deal to you?

I never made the argument that this wouldn't generate more money for the corporate interests over time (that's a separate debate). I said that it was male players paying the price.

How can the male players being "paying the price" if the contribution of women to the federation's finances is undercounted?

No. I assume if you believe in equal pay for female athletes, you would and should put your money where your mouth is.

First, that has nothing to do with the Superbowl. Second, that is a ridiculous position in questions of morality. One can certainly advocate for a moral outcome in which one has absolutely no monetary expense or input.

 

[Metaphor]

So? The relevant issue is whether you are more informed than the federation and its players. It is pretty clear you are not.

Why is that relevant? Am I incapable of reasoning about fairness?

It is called education in economics. Your ignorance of economic theory does not make false statements true.
...
Only under the conditions that the markets for labor are competitive, that the supply of labor is an undifferentiated input between labor markets and that there are no external effects. Since the first two conditions are not factually verified, there is no reason to accept your conclusions as valid.

I already said that a possible external effect-- more revenue overall for the corporation-- was a possibility (though hardly confirmed). But the corporation didn't pay the price-- male players will.

What a silly question. Of course there are many things that have nothing to do with misogyny. But consistent illogical mewling

Are you incapable of making a single civil post? Your ideological enemies are always mewling and blathering. Do they sometimes just argue?

Is there nothing that does not imply men are getting a raw deal to you?

Sure-- whenever they're not getting a raw deal.

How can the male players being "paying the price" if the contribution of women to the federation's finances is undercounted?

How on earth have they been "undercounted"???

First, that has nothing to do with the Superbowl.

Oy vey.

The Superbowl is a very popular men's sporting event. The reason the players in the Superbowl get such a lot of money is because people offer their eyeballs and money to watch it.

The reason that whatever the female equivalent isn't as well paid is because people are not offering their money and eyeballs.

Second, that is a ridiculous position in questions of morality. One can certainly advocate for a moral outcome in which one has absolutely no monetary expense or input.

I suppose you could campaign for veganism too and eat steak every night.

There's nothing morally good about offering equal pay for unequal performance. There's nothing morally good about deluding generations of women that their inability to match male performance in sports nevertheless does not mean they are not equal to men in sports.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Since the Socceroos (men) are now sharing the much higher revenue they generate with the women, I do hope the Matildas share some of the wealth with the under-15 boys who routinely beat the Matildas 7-0.

But I won't hold my breath.

I am not sure U-15s are given salaries. Even if they are, I am not sure why you reason the women's team would give them money, or what it has to do with who beat whom (I mean, was the women team arguing they deserve equal compensation based on beating the men's national team by a certain margin? I doubt that). It would be a matter of salary negotiation perhaps using the men's and women's national team salaries as a reference point.

This, of course, is setting aside that you very likely don't give a shit what the U-15 players are compensated, and were hoping people would just sort of excuse specious line which might illustrate some sort of hypocrisy if it weren't a non-sequitur.

If this is your concern, however, what is the compensation package for U-15s? I assume you have this information already available. I'm not finding the information readily available through perhaps I've used inadequate search terms.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Yet another conservative thread where success is only defined by $$$ but not actual "success"

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, we can only go by their results in global competitions. It seems odd that you are whining that teams that do better should get more money, and the Matildas have done better in World Cups than the Socceroos.

Maybe you are right, that if the men played in the Women’s World Cup, the Socceroos would actually win games.

They'd win the Women's World Cup very easily.

Good for them.

 

[Metaphor]

Since the Socceroos (men) are now sharing the much higher revenue they generate with the women, I do hope the Matildas share some of the wealth with the under-15 boys who routinely beat the Matildas 7-0.

But I won't hold my breath.

I am not sure U-15s are given salaries. Even if they are, I am not sure why you reason the women's team would give them money, or what it has to do with who beat whom (I mean, was the women team arguing they deserve equal compensation based on beating the men's national team by a certain margin? I doubt that). It would be a matter of salary negotiation perhaps using the men's and women's national team salaries as a reference point.

This, of course, is setting aside that you very likely don't give a shit what the U-15 players are compensated, and were hoping people would just sort of excuse specious line which might illustrate some sort of hypocrisy if it weren't a non-sequitur.

If this is your concern, however, what is the compensation package for U-15s? I assume you have this information already available. I'm not finding the information readily available through perhaps I've used inadequate search terms.

Under 15 high school boys teams are not compensated, partly because they play like under 15 high school boys, which is nowhere near the level of skill, finesse, stamina, grace, or strategy of the national men's team.

And yet the national women's team-- and apparently most normies-- believe that the national women's team deserves at least equal compensation to the national men's team, despite having even less skill, finesse, stamina, grace and strategy than 14 year old boys, and despite not generating anything like as much revenue, and despite the normies not watching the sport in anything like equal numbers or handing over their money to buy tickets.

We have sex-segregated sports in the first place because women aren't as good as men. Except sometimes, for the purposes of payment, of course they are.

 

[Metaphor]

Yet another conservative thread where success is only defined by $$$ but not actual "success"

aa

Oh, I'm 100% willing to define success on the basis that the sport itself defines it. Have two teams play each other and the one that scores the more goals against the other is the more successful one.

I await a Matildas vs Socceroos match to demonstrate to the world that the Matildas are not only equal to the men, but better than they.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

We have sex-segregated sports in the first place because women aren't as good as men. Except sometimes, for the purposes of payment, of course they are.

You mean like we have weight classes because small people are shit at martial arts compared to larger people?

 

[Metaphor]

We have sex-segregated sports in the first place because women aren't as good as men. Except sometimes, for the purposes of payment, of course they are.

You mean like we have weight classes because small people are shit at martial arts compared to larger people?

Yes, that is a very good analogy.

If you put a heavyweight champion boxer in the same ring as a lightweight champion, the heavyweight boxer would pulverise the lightweight and win.

That's why heavyweight is the most watched division with the highest purses and the most superstars. Because they're better at pulverising their opponent with their fists.

 

[laughing dog]

Probably the part where JH thinks it is relevant.

I wonder if he thinks curling players should get the same revenue as basketballers.

Probably he wonders when you will respond something that is relevant.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Heavyweights like Sugar Ray Leonard, Manny Pacquaio, Oscar de la Hoya, and Floyd Mayweather Jr?

N.B. Two of them fought for the largest purse of all time. One of them is the highest compensated of all time (though I am not sure if that is adjusted for inflation).

No doubt heavyweight is a spectacle and a draw, but when you look at highest compensated boxers and most watched bouts of all time, it spans a number of classes.

 

[laughing dog]

Why is that relevant? Am I incapable of reasoning about fairness?

If one has to ask why is it relevant to have more information about a situation, then I'd have to say one is incapable of reasoning, let alone reasoning about fairness.

I already said that a possible external effect-- more revenue overall for the corporation-- was a possibility (though hardly confirmed). But the corporation didn't pay the price-- male players will.

Since there is little reason to think that labor markets are competitive and that labor is an undifferentiated product, there is little reason to apply basic economic analysis to the situation.

Are you incapable of making a single civil post?

Ironic mewling certainly makes your point,

Your ideological enemies are always mewling and blathering.

Blatant misrepresentation of the arguments of others is both uncivil and intellectually dishonest.

Sure-- whenever they're not getting a raw deal.

Which, from our posting history, appears to be never.

How on earth have they been "undercounted"???

If their success induces more youths to join the federation.

Oy vey.

The Superbowl is a very popular men's sporting event. The reason the players in the Superbowl get such a lot of money is because people offer their eyeballs and money to watch it.

The reason that whatever the female equivalent isn't as well paid is because people are not offering their money and eyeballs.

There is no female equivalent. Duh.

I suppose you could campaign for veganism too and eat steak every night.

There's nothing morally good about offering equal pay for unequal performance. There's nothing morally good about deluding generations of women that their inability to match male performance in sports nevertheless does not mean they are not equal to men in sports.

There is nothing moral in any direction about market outcomes, so your response is moot. Market outcomes are market outcomes. If the men soccer players in Australia voluntarily agreed with this equal pay, then I fail to see how it is any concern of anyone else or how anyone could make some moral judgment about it.

 

[Metaphor]

Heavyweights like Sugar Ray Leonard, Manny Pacquaio, Oscar de la Hoya, and Floyd Mayweather Jr?

N.B. Two of them fought for the largest purse of all time. One of them is the highest compensated of all time (though I am not sure if that is adjusted for inflation).

No doubt heavyweight is a spectacle and a draw, but when you look at highest compensated boxers and most watched bouts of all time, it spans a number of classes.

If people find entertainment value in the different weight classes--great! If the biggest purses went to lower weight divisions-- great! It means that weight division had particular popular appeal at the time and/or individual boxers were popular, and people were attracted to it with their eyeballs and tickets.

But I can hardly believe any decisions about purses were made based on assuming all the weight classes ought be treated equally. They clearly are not.