Women's World Cup

[yimyammer]

I get the impression that is quite a common attitude in the U.S. Funny, the MLS gets a fair amount of coverage in the UK and is generally regarded as a reasonable standard league, probably on a par with say, the Belgian or Austrian leagues. Not yet at the level of the top European leagues but not light years behind either.

I think its because there's no emotional rooting interest that gets fans attached. The world cup and olympics have built in attachments for fans as everyone (I assume) roots for their home country regardless of the sport.

I don't watch US women's (or mens) soccer at any other time besides the world cup and olympics

my deep seeded attachment lies with the Cowboys since I've been a fan since I was in elementary school. No soccer team or any other sport can start and suddenly garner by interest. To me its why all the attempts to create rival pro football leagues fail. The NFL has the benefit of ridiculous emotional attachment by fans to their teams created over decades and thats seemingly impossible to compete with and allows owners to do whatever the hell they want and we fans are too emotionally invested to ever leave.

 

[AbeBeta]

Heck the USA vs Mexico game drew 5k more then the women's World Cup final.

In typical CNN fashion, you have to look past their narrative at the raw data.

Soldier Field has a larger capacity than where the Women's final took place - both games were basically at capacity (i.e., one or two thousand seats not filled as typically happens when rich people buy tickets in the event that their team ends up in the final). That's about capacity, not draw.

 

[Doomsday]

You completely ignored other sources providing the same data.
The WaPo article uses a 4 year cycle.

No one is arguing if the man had the same level is success they'd make more money or draw greater audiences but not making those games they can't draw those audiences or share in cuts of that money.

As noted above we spend insanely more to develop men's teams and pay the men more for FAR lesser results.
That's simply stupid economically.
Especially given the women's game is where growth is occurring.

The Men's gold cup drew more eyes largely because the opponent was Mexico. Mexico national team also had the majority of the crowd for a game played in Chicago.
To suggest it was our men drawing that audience would be disingenuous at best.
CNN/Fox News style crap for sure.

I used CNN, because that is what was shared as a reference point.

I am sure a ton of the men's revenue comes from people coming to see other countries play, like Mexico, however it is still revenue that wouldn't exist without the men's team and is part of their earnings.

I haven't seen any numbers yet for 2019 but just going off the 2018 revenue per event, the men will generate more revenue this year then the women by a wide margin.

19 events for the men will generate around $27 million
11 events for the women will generate around $10.5 million plus the $4 million from the World Cup

According to the WAPO article, games are only a 1/4th of the total revenues and sponsorship money is not divided up.

 

[erod]

So what do you have against the women getting paid what they men do? Don’t you want your daughters to be treated equally?

They are treated equally. What you want is handouts.

I understand basic economics, which is what I'm trying to explain to you. The men's cup actually brought in $6.1 billion in revenue, not $4 billion as I said earlier. The women brought in only $73 million. Do your math. Yes, the women play friendlies around the US and draw big crowds of young girls. They get paid for that. But they don't draw big TV ratings unless they're in the cup.

The women have no alternative elsewhere to play. The USWNT women make FAR more playing internationally than for pro teams. That is not the case for the men, who play internationally almost for charity in comparison. They get a pittance compared to their pro contracts, but it's enough to cover their expenses and troubles for flying halfway around the world to participate.

It's not just apples and oranges. It's apples and Volkswagens.

 

[jterrell]

I used CNN, because that is what was shared as a reference point.

I am sure a ton of the men's revenue comes from people coming to see other countries play, like Mexico, however it is still revenue that wouldn't exist without the men's team and is part of their earnings.

I haven't seen any numbers yet for 2019 but just going off the 2018 revenue per event, the men will generate more revenue this year then the women by a wide margin.

19 events for the men will generate around $27 million
11 events for the women will generate around $10.5 million plus the $4 million from the World Cup

According to the WAPO article, games are only a 1/4th of the total revenues and sponsorship money is not divided up.

The ratings say people will watch women's soccer.

Sunday's World Cup final between the USWNT and the Netherlands was played at 11 a.m. ET but was still able to draw a 10.0 overnight metered market rating, according to Will Thorne of Variety. For comparison, the 2018 men's final between France and Croatia that kicked off at the same time had an 8.3 metered market rating and was watched by about 12.5 million people in the United States.

The most-watched soccer match in United States history is still the 2015 World Cup final in which the USWNT defeated Japan 5-2 and the contest garnered 25.4 million viewers. However, that contest was also played during primetime.

According to Scott Roxborough of The Hollywood Reporter, the Netherlands drew record numbers for a women's soccer match with 5.5 million people, or 88% of the viewing public tuning in for the contest the USWNT won 2-0. And in the host nation France, which was eliminated by the USWNT in the quarterfinals, nearly six million people tuned into the match, which accounts for about 45% of the viewing public.

And in the United Kingdom during England's semifinal match with the USWNT, about 12 million viewers tuned in, which equates to around 50% of the viewing public. It became the most-watched program in England in 2019.

 

[jterrell]

I used CNN, because that is what was shared as a reference point.

I am sure a ton of the men's revenue comes from people coming to see other countries play, like Mexico, however it is still revenue that wouldn't exist without the men's team and is part of their earnings.

I haven't seen any numbers yet for 2019 but just going off the 2018 revenue per event, the men will generate more revenue this year then the women by a wide margin.

19 events for the men will generate around $27 million
11 events for the women will generate around $10.5 million plus the $4 million from the World Cup

According to the WAPO article, games are only a 1/4th of the total revenues and sponsorship money is not divided up.

The men and women are on different cycles so responsible people use 4 year windows.
The latest 4 year window saw the women earn 900K MORE for the federation.

The women outpace the men in uniform sales, TV ratings and basically every area.

Mexico would have drawn and does draw high Gold Cup ratings and attendance in the US whether the US men play or not so the men do not get credit for that anymore than they do the World Cup ratings in a tourney they didn't even qualify for.
The USSF already earns money for hosting games sans the US featuring Mexico.

Salaries should be based on many factors but performance ultimately should be a major factor.
There is no debate that investing in the women's game is BOTH effective in the US and profitable.
The USWNT having sandwiched two World Cup wins around the men's failure to qualify, 4 coaches in ~24 months and general lack of quality shouldn't be making less when they are earning more.
It's wrong on every level including simply on the market based results.

Title IX did force us to invest in women and now we have the best women in the world in virtually every major sport because of it.
Investing in the development of talent is always smart business.

 

[jterrell]

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/12/19/usmnt-tv-ratings-sink-47-bleak-2018-us-soccer-federation/

Missing the World Cup was a disaster for the USMNT in a variety of ways. Attendance and fan enthusiasm bottomed out as the US posted its worst average home attendance in twelve years. But nowhere was it bleaker than on television.

The World Cup is one of those rare times when millions of people are tuned in to watch the US play, but they didn’t have that this year. At the four games at the World Cup in Brazil in 2014, the US averaged 14,256,250 per game (overall in 2014 the average viewership was 4,306,933 though 15 games). At the four games at the World Cup in South Africa in 2010, the US averaged 9,921,000 per game. That’s a lot of eyeballs, and this year the US did not have that. Here’s how bad it was..............

 

[jterrell]

"https://t.co/gJZuFQnzpn">pic.twitter.com/gJZuFQnzpn</a></p>&mdash; FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) <a href=""

 

[Rockport]

They are treated equally. What you want is handouts.

I understand basic economics, which is what I'm trying to explain to you. The men's cup actually brought in $6.1 billion in revenue, not $4 billion as I said earlier. The women brought in only $73 million. Do your math. Yes, the women play friendlies around the US and draw big crowds of young girls. They get paid for that. But they don't draw big TV ratings unless they're in the cup.

The women have no alternative elsewhere to play. The USWNT women make FAR more playing internationally than for pro teams. That is not the case for the men, who play internationally almost for charity in comparison. They get a pittance compared to their pro contracts, but it's enough to cover their expenses and troubles for flying halfway around the world to participate.

It's not just apples and oranges. It's apples and Volkswagens.

They are not getting paid equally. They play for the US National Soccer team and should get paid the exact same pay as the US Men’s National Soccer team. You know nothing but discrimination and are setting a bad example for your daughters.

 

[erod]

They are not getting paid equally. They play for the US National Soccer team and should get paid the exact same pay as the US Men’s National Soccer team. You know nothing but discrimination and are setting a bad example for your daughters.

Oh my gawd, you have a 3rd-grade understanding of economics. I can't help you.

THE MONEY IS NOT THERE TO PAY THEM MORE!. That's why they have to play a billion friendlies to subsidize their program, and the men don't. The men rarely play games, yet make almost as much as the women, who play constantly.

Perhaps a government subsidy, eh?

Yes, they win more than the men. Because they play in a glorified rec league, that's why. The world doesn't care a lick about women soccer.

And that's unfortunate for my daughters, but the truth nonethless.

 

[erod]

"https://t.co/gJZuFQnzpn">pic.twitter.com/gJZuFQnzpn</a></p>&mdash; FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) <a href=""

Which means absolutely nothing.

Men's World Cup = $6,100,000,000
Women's Word Cup = $73,000,000

That's 84 times as much revenue. The Women's tournament made less than Demarcus Lawrence's contract.

Case closed.

 

[Rockport]

Oh my gawd, you have a 3rd-grade understanding of economics. I can't help you.

THE MONEY IS NOT THERE TO PAY THEM MORE!. That's why they have to play a billion friendlies to subsidize their program, and the men don't. The men rarely play games, yet make almost as much as the women, who play constantly.

Perhaps a government subsidy, eh?

Yes, they win more than the men. Because they play in a glorified rec league, that's why. The world doesn't care a lick about women soccer.

And that's unfortunate for my daughters, but the truth nonethless.

No you don't understand equality. In any job, if a man and a woman are doing exactly the same job then they should be paid the same. You can argue seniority should bring a slightly higher salary but if they are not getting paid roughly the same then it's discrimination and has been fully vetted in the courts. You're living in the 50's with your attitude.

 

[erod]

No you don't understand equality. In any job, if a man and a woman are doing exactly the same job then they should be paid the same. You can argue seniority should bring a slightly higher salary but if they are not getting paid roughly the same then it's discrimination and has been fully vetted in the courts. You're living in the 50's with your attitude.

OH. MY. GOD.

LOL, so every woman playing soccer professionally should get paid the same as the Barcelona team? I guess the best player in the WNBA should make the same as LeBron? Wow, that is really naive and disturbingly communist thinking you've got going there, Vladimir.

They are not doing the same job. This women's team lost to a 14-year-old boys team by three goals recently. Women's soccer is virtually a different sport altogether than men's soccer. There's a ball. The similarities stop there.

By your definition, it should be illegal to have men's and women's teams. There should be just one national team. You're either good enough or you aren't. Of course, your side has men competing in women's sports already, so that may well be on the way.

You're really get this debate handed to you. Do you wish to continue?

 

[Rockport]

OH. MY. GOD.

LOL, so every woman playing soccer professionally should get paid the same as the Barcelona team? I guess the best player in the WNBA should make the same as LeBron? Wow, that is really naive and disturbingly communist thinking you've got going there, Vladimir.

They are not doing the same job. This women's team lost to a 14-year-old boys team by three goals recently. Women's soccer is virtually a different sport altogether than men's soccer. There's a ball. The similarities stop there.

By your definition, it should be illegal to have men's and women's teams. There should be just one national team. You're either good enough or you aren't. Of course, your side has men competing in women's sports already, so that may well be on the way.

You're really get this debate handed to you. Do you wish to continue?

No I didn’t say that and you know it. Every man or woman that plays for the US National Soccer team should be paid the same. Don’t try and change it to fit your discrimination.

 

[erod]

No I didn’t say that and you know it. Every man or woman that plays for the US National Soccer team should be paid the same. Don’t try and change it to fit your discrimination.

Then the only way to do this without bankrupting the federation is to lower the men's pay. That means bye-bye Pulicic, Altidore, Berlin, McKennie, and 10 others.

 

[Rockport]

Then the only way to do this without bankrupting the federation is to lower the men's pay. That means bye-bye Pulicic, Altidore, Berlin, McKennie, and 10 others.

So be it. They always lose anyway.

 

[Rockport]

 

[Ghost12]

The ratings say people will watch women's soccer.

....once every 4 years.

 

[Carson]

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/12/19/usmnt-tv-ratings-sink-47-bleak-2018-us-soccer-federation/

Missing the World Cup was a disaster for the USMNT in a variety of ways. Attendance and fan enthusiasm bottomed out as the US posted its worst average home attendance in twelve years. But nowhere was it bleaker than on television.

The World Cup is one of those rare times when millions of people are tuned in to watch the US play, but they didn’t have that this year. At the four games at the World Cup in Brazil in 2014, the US averaged 14,256,250 per game (overall in 2014 the average viewership was 4,306,933 though 15 games). At the four games at the World Cup in South Africa in 2010, the US averaged 9,921,000 per game. That’s a lot of eyeballs, and this year the US did not have that. Here’s how bad it was..............

You blame them? US men’s soccer shows no originality or creativity. It’s boring.

It pains me to say this. I never miss a game. Non qualifiers, qualifiers etc

 

[Doomsday]

"https://t.co/gJZuFQnzpn">pic.twitter.com/gJZuFQnzpn</a></p>&mdash; FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) <a href=""

Wow, so the US team drew more viewers then France vs Croatia in the US. Shocking!