Equal pay for Australia's soccer players

[Gun Nut]

For example, in 1920, Everton Ladies team pulled in a crowd of 53,000 for a game. The current men's team gets 39,000, and they're playing in the top English League. 1920 was before the FA here effectively banned the women's professional game, by the way, so some of this is catch-up in general terms.

7 years before television was invented (and nevermind how long it took for there to be a TV in every living room). in 1920, the 53,000 attendees were literally the only people on the planet that saw them play. Today, the 39,000 people that showed up at the stadium (risking life and limb, by the way) need to be added to the 3.8 MILLION remote viewers.

Come on... do better.

 

[ruby sparks]

For example, in 1920, Everton Ladies team pulled in a crowd of 53,000 for a game. The current men's team gets 39,000, and they're playing in the top English League. 1920 was before the FA here effectively banned the women's professional game, by the way, so some of this is catch-up in general terms.

7 years before television was invented (and nevermind how long it took for there to be a TV in every living room). in 1920, the 53,000 attendees were literally the only people on the planet that saw them play. Today, the 39,000 people that showed up at the stadium (risking life and limb, by the way) need to be added to the 3.8 MILLION remote viewers.

Come on... do better.

Congratulations. What is it, State 'Missing The Point' Day in Colorado?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know what universe you live in, but apparently it ain't the one where Microsoft was sued by the DoJ for exactly that and where Amazon is doing exactly that right now.

You are mistaken. The DOJ sued Microsoft claiming that Microsoft's practice of forcing customers to buy bundles of products was an anticompetitive practice. The bundling was not driven by cross-subsidization.

I stand corrected. However, the phenomenon I was talking about is real. I did not manufacture it from whole cloth like ruby implied.

 

[Metaphor]

Malicious? Gosh you are sensitive.

So if I'm sensitive and you can see that it upsets me, why do you persist? Is it a sadistic impulse to regularly upset people for no reason other than to upset them?

Would it make you feel better if a bunch of incels banded together to force the Aussie football association to reduce compensation to the Women's national team? After all, what is a free market worth if men can't control it?

No, that would not make me feel better. Why do you imagine it would?

Or rather, my answer is more nuanced. If the incels did not 'force' it somehow by blackmailing the federation or putting a gun to their head or changing legislation expressly forbidding it, but instead by starting a dialogue that convinced the public that athletes playing in completely different leagues and with completely different revenue streams do not need to be compensated equally to each other and in fact advocating equal pay in that situation is a strange, incoherent, and dangerous concept, and the federation responded to this new public understanding by compensating teams according to the revenue they bring, then I would indeed, 'feel better'.

 

[ruby sparks]

In other news, I read that several of the (extremely unsuccessful, internationally) USA men's soccer team are taking Oestrogen supplements in order to try to get into the (very, very successful indeed, internationally) USA women's team.

The triggerometer is going off the end of the scale.....

 

[ruby sparks]

However, the phenomenon I was talking about is real. I did not manufacture it from whole cloth like ruby implied.

I never said, or implied, that you invented it whole cloth. I said your point was bollocks. And it was.

 

[Metaphor]

However, the phenomenon I was talking about is real. I did not manufacture it from whole cloth like ruby implied.

I never said, or implied, that you invented it whole cloth. I said your point was bollocks. And it was.

My point was that cross- subsidisation by huge corporations is often frowned upon, and that's not bollocks, it's reality.

 

[Gun Nut]

For example, in 1920, Everton Ladies team pulled in a crowd of 53,000 for a game. The current men's team gets 39,000, and they're playing in the top English League. 1920 was before the FA here effectively banned the women's professional game, by the way, so some of this is catch-up in general terms.

7 years before television was invented (and nevermind how long it took for there to be a TV in every living room). in 1920, the 53,000 attendees were literally the only people on the planet that saw them play. Today, the 39,000 people that showed up at the stadium (risking life and limb, by the way) need to be added to the 3.8 MILLION remote viewers.

Come on... do better.

Congratulations. What is it, State 'Missing The Point' Day in Colorado?

I guess so, haha...
It must be me.

You can share the point (And then feel proud to make someone feel like an idiot. .win the woke war and all).. or it can be your group's little inside joke... don't care either way.
It seems you are comparing the turnout in 1920 to a turnout in 2019 on the face of it.

 

[Toni]

Malicious? Gosh you are sensitive.

So if I'm sensitive and you can see that it upsets me, why do you persist? Is it a sadistic impulse to regularly upset people for no reason other than to upset them?

Would it make you feel better if a bunch of incels banded together to force the Aussie football association to reduce compensation to the Women's national team? After all, what is a free market worth if men can't control it?

No, that would not make me feel better. Why do you imagine it would?

Or rather, my answer is more nuanced. If the incels did not 'force' it somehow by blackmailing the federation or putting a gun to their head or changing legislation expressly forbidding it, but instead by starting a dialogue that convinced the public that athletes playing in completely different leagues and with completely different revenue streams do not need to be compensated equally to each other and in fact advocating equal pay in that situation is a strange, incoherent, and dangerous concept, and the federation responded to this new public understanding by compensating teams according to the revenue they bring, then I would indeed, 'feel better'.

What has happened instead is that the FFA has reached an agreement with the men's and the women's leagues that gives the teams a percentage of the revenue the teams generate:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/7769...d-men-s-soccer-will-get-equal-share-of-revenu

Under the collective bargaining agreement between Football Federation Australia and Professional Footballers Australia, the two teams will be granted 24% of the revenue that they generate: 19% for themselves, and 5% to be invested in their names in the country's youth national teams. The share paid to players will rise one point a year.

There will also be an upgrade in parental leave and training and travel conditions will be equal to the men's.

https://www.ffa.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2019-11/PFA CBA Facts Sheet_v3.pdf

REVENUE SHARE MODEL
For the first time, players will
be paid as a % of the revenue
that their work and their value
generates for FFA. This
enables the players to be
rewarded for any growth in
the game whilst ensuring FFA
can effectively invest and
grow the rest of the game.

(bolding mine)

Apparently the FFA commissioners see the value that the women's teams bring to the federation.

Sorry (but not suprised) that you do not.

 

[Metaphor]

What has happened instead is that the FFA has reached an agreement with the men's and the women's leagues that gives the teams a percentage of the revenue the teams generate:

Thank you for the link to the NPR story. It contains new information that the previous (poorly written) story does not, and shows that the men's and women's team will continue to get a share of the revenue their own teams generate, without cross-subsidisation between the teams.

Apparently the FFA commissioners see the value that the women's teams bring to the federation.

Sorry (but not suprised) that you do not.

You are, of course, way off. I never objected to the women negotiating better conditions or anything like that. I objected specifically to the men's team giving up revenue they earned to supplement the women's team.

Now that it has been clarified that the Matildas are getting equal base salaries and the same percentage of the revenue they generate on their own, I've got no problem with the situation and I'm happy for them.

 

[Toni]

What has happened instead is that the FFA has reached an agreement with the men's and the women's leagues that gives the teams a percentage of the revenue the teams generate:

Thank you for the link to the NPR story. It contains new information that the previous (poorly written) story does not, and shows that the men's and women's team will continue to get a share of the revenue their own teams generate, without cross-subsidisation between the teams.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=whinge&s=g

I use that tool quite often. A lot of what floats around the internet is either overly sensationalized or leaves out important details—or both. I find NPR does not overly sensationalize and seeks to inform. I generally trust their reporting.

Apparently the FFA commissioners see the value that the women's teams bring to the federation.

Sorry (but not suprised) that you do not.

You are, of course, way off. I never objected to the women negotiating better conditions or anything like that. I objected specifically to the men's team giving up revenue they earned to supplement the women's team.

Now that it has been clarified that the Matildas are getting equal base salaries and the same percentage of the revenue they generate on their own, I've got no problem with the situation and I'm happy for them.

I wonder how you will feel if the women’s team out earns the men’s team.

 

[Metaphor]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=whinge&s=g

I use that tool quite often. A lot of what floats around the internet is either overly sensationalized or leaves out important details—or both. I find NPR does not overly sensationalize and seeks to inform. I generally trust their reporting.

Apparently the FFA commissioners see the value that the women's teams bring to the federation.

Sorry (but not suprised) that you do not.

You are, of course, way off. I never objected to the women negotiating better conditions or anything like that. I objected specifically to the men's team giving up revenue they earned to supplement the women's team.

Now that it has been clarified that the Matildas are getting equal base salaries and the same percentage of the revenue they generate on their own, I've got no problem with the situation and I'm happy for them.

I wonder how you will feel if the women’s team out earns the men’s team.

As I've said on numerous occasions, it's fair for players to get a share of the revenue they helped to create. If, in the future, more eyeballs and tickets and sponsorship dollars goes to women's soccer compared to men's, then the women players should get more money than the men.

Edit: I didn't actually answer your question, where you implied I'd be as mad as a cut snake because women, or something. I think I'd be amused, to be honest. Men are the main consumers of sport and elite male athletes are better at playing it than elite female athletes, so I don't believe the women's product is going to generate more revenue than the men's, but I don't entirely discount the idea.

 

[Toni]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=whinge&s=g

I use that tool quite often. A lot of what floats around the internet is either overly sensationalized or leaves out important details—or both. I find NPR does not overly sensationalize and seeks to inform. I generally trust their reporting.




I wonder how you will feel if the women’s team out earns the men’s team.

As I've said on numerous occasions, it's fair for players to get a share of the revenue they helped to create. If, in the future, more eyeballs and tickets and sponsorship dollars goes to women's soccer compared to men's, then the women players should get more money than the men.

Edit: I didn't actually answer your question, where you implied I'd be as mad as a cut snake because women, or something. I think I'd be amused, to be honest. Men are the main consumers of sport and elite male athletes are better at playing it than elite female athletes, so I don't believe the women's product is going to generate more revenue than the men's, but I don't entirely discount the idea.

No. I really just wonder how you will/would feel. And also what you will/would think. Probably I should not have typed that in. It was really just me wondering if your perspective would change. I don’t mean it in any nasty way.
Sometimes people react differently than they think they would when (something) happens. Nothing else and no speculation on my part about what or how your views might ircmight not change. I think I’m just in a weird mood. Please don’t take it personally.

 

[Toni]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=whinge&s=g

I use that tool quite often. A lot of what floats around the internet is either overly sensationalized or leaves out important details—or both. I find NPR does not overly sensationalize and seeks to inform. I generally trust their reporting.




I wonder how you will feel if the women’s team out earns the men’s team.

As I've said on numerous occasions, it's fair for players to get a share of the revenue they helped to create. If, in the future, more eyeballs and tickets and sponsorship dollars goes to women's soccer compared to men's, then the women players should get more money than the men.

Edit: I didn't actually answer your question, where you implied I'd be as mad as a cut snake because women, or something. I think I'd be amused, to be honest. Men are the main consumers of sport and elite male athletes are better at playing it than elite female athletes, so I don't believe the women's product is going to generate more revenue than the men's, but I don't entirely discount the idea.

One of the reasons men are the main consumers of sports is because they have traditionally been the main participants. Not simply because of ‘culture’ or gender differences. But because women and girls were forbidden from competing. Not just called nasty names or threatened—I’ve seen both of those happen. They were outright forbidden and where allowed, were given less access to training, facilities, access to avenues to participate, and so on.

I don’t know whether women’s sports will ever overtake men’s in revenue generation. I do know that there are many women of my acquaintance who really feel they missed out on opportunities they craved. I never had any strong feelings about participating in sports myself but even I played pick up games of basketball with guys who were much taller than I was and played an occasional game of football with guys who were twice my size. What I really wanted to do was to run track which only became open to girls my last year of high school. Unfortunately my family circumstances at that time prevented me from participating.

 

[dismal]

As I've said on numerous occasions, it's fair for players to get a share of the revenue they helped to create.

Not necessarily. It depends how instrumental the specific players are in generating the revenue. If I can sell just as many tickets with any one of 1000 people in my uniform the odds of any one person being able to negotiate a high share of the revenue generated are small. Take something like American Ninja Warrior. Probably generates a lot of revenue. Probably does not depend much on any one athlete to generate that revenue. Wouldn't expect the athletes to command a high share of the revenue. NCAA sports are an even better example. People cheer for the school's laundry more than the individual athletes. The key to the revenue, unlike major pro sports, is not having the best athletes in the world on the field.

When you're talking about national teams revenue is probably not high on the list of goals anyway. There's an element of cheering for the laundry. It's about pride. The main reason I want LeBron James on my national basketball team is not that he'll bring in more revenue than a bunch of college players, though perhaps he will. But if revenue was the goal and he did in fact bring in more revenue he as an individual would be entitled to negotiate a higher paying contract than a generic college player might. In reality, guys like LeBron make enough money that they are more likely to get him by appealing to his national pride. They may actually have to pay him less to get him to play than they'd have to pay a guy who would otherwise be driving Uber because LeBron doesn't need the money. (This might be an argument why women might be paid more.) If Russia could bid for LeBron's services, it might change the negotiating equation considerably. But it would probably also tarnish the whole national pride thing and soon people might not care at all about their national team.

Anyway, the main point here is gender and equality have nothing to do with it. There is no rational basis for it. In sports you get what you can negotiate based on the leverage you have.

 

[TSwizzle]

One of the reasons men are the main consumers of sports is because they have traditionally been the main participants. Not simply because of ‘culture’ or gender differences. But because women and girls were forbidden from competing. Not just called nasty names or threatened—I’ve seen both of those happen. They were outright forbidden and where allowed, were given less access to training, facilities, access to avenues to participate, and so on.

Just how old are you exactly ? 150 ? Or do you live in Bangladesh, Iran or something ? Where are women forbidden from competing in sports these days ?

 

[laughing dog]

One of the reasons men are the main consumers of sports is because they have traditionally been the main participants. Not simply because of ‘culture’ or gender differences. But because women and girls were forbidden from competing. Not just called nasty names or threatened—I’ve seen both of those happen. They were outright forbidden and where allowed, were given less access to training, facilities, access to avenues to participate, and so on.

Just how old are you exactly ? 150 ? Or do you live in Bangladesh, Iran or something ? Where are women forbidden from competing in sports these days ?

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the past tense. "Were" means in the past. The explanation is that there is not a long tradition of women competing in team sports (in particular) because they were either forbidden or strongly discourage from doing so in the not so long ago past. That explanation has nothing to do with competing today.

 

[Toni]

One of the reasons men are the main consumers of sports is because they have traditionally been the main participants. Not simply because of ‘culture’ or gender differences. But because women and girls were forbidden from competing. Not just called nasty names or threatened—I’ve seen both of those happen. They were outright forbidden and where allowed, were given less access to training, facilities, access to avenues to participate, and so on.

Just how old are you exactly ? 150 ? Or do you live in Bangladesh, Iran or something ? Where are women forbidden from competing in sports these days ?

I’m not old enough to collect social security.

When I was in high school: Girls in high school had no opportunity to play competitive sports, including running track or playing golf until I was a senior in high school. I ended up not going out for track as I had planned due to family circumstances—my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury and my out of school time was taken up with caring for siblings, the house, visiting my mother while she was hospitalized and in rehab and doing rehab with her when she was at home.

Prior to my mother’s injury I played a lot of pick up basketball and football with friends, including male friends. That is what opportunity I had and the girls I went to high school with had. I was never particularly good but a couple of my female friends were quite good. One could throw passes better (distance, accuracy) than any of the actual quarterbacks on the football team. They simply had no chance to play outside of pick up games.

 

[dismal]

One of the reasons men are the main consumers of sports is because they have traditionally been the main participants. Not simply because of ‘culture’ or gender differences. But because women and girls were forbidden from competing. Not just called nasty names or threatened—I’ve seen both of those happen. They were outright forbidden and where allowed, were given less access to training, facilities, access to avenues to participate, and so on.

Just how old are you exactly ? 150 ? Or do you live in Bangladesh, Iran or something ? Where are women forbidden from competing in sports these days ?

I’m not old enough to collect social security.

When I was in high school: Girls in high school had no opportunity to play competitive sports, including running track or playing golf until I was a senior in high school. I ended up not going out for track as I had planned due to family circumstances—my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury and my out of school time was taken up with caring for siblings, the house, visiting my mother while she was hospitalized and in rehab and doing rehab with her when she was at home.

Prior to my mother’s injury I played a lot of pick up basketball and football with friends, including male friends. That is what opportunity I had and the girls I went to high school with had. I was never particularly good but a couple of my female friends were quite good. One could throw passes better (distance, accuracy) than any of the actual quarterbacks on the football team. They simply had no chance to play outside of pick up games.

Wow, if girls are that good it seems like the answer is to stop having women's competitions at all. Just let them play with the guys.

Maybe when the Equal Rights Amendment passes we can do away with this "separate but equal" mindset that pervades women's sports.

 

[Toni]

I’m not old enough to collect social security.

When I was in high school: Girls in high school had no opportunity to play competitive sports, including running track or playing golf until I was a senior in high school. I ended up not going out for track as I had planned due to family circumstances—my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury and my out of school time was taken up with caring for siblings, the house, visiting my mother while she was hospitalized and in rehab and doing rehab with her when she was at home.

Prior to my mother’s injury I played a lot of pick up basketball and football with friends, including male friends. That is what opportunity I had and the girls I went to high school with had. I was never particularly good but a couple of my female friends were quite good. One could throw passes better (distance, accuracy) than any of the actual quarterbacks on the football team. They simply had no chance to play outside of pick up games.

Wow, if girls are that good it seems like the answer is to stop having women's competitions at all. Just let them play with the guys.

Maybe when the Equal Rights Amendment passes we can do away with this "separate but equal" mindset that pervades women's sports.

Wow.