FIFA entrenched in chauvinism over prize money

[Guest]

I believe that I am basically pro equality in all areas of life and particularly gender and race. Then I read articles like this:

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48535933?ocid=global_bbccom_email_05062019_top+sport+stories

 

And I wonder if I am.

 

I don't think it is at all odd that male professional footballers earn more than female professional footballers, in fact I find it strange that these well paid female footballers are complaining about it.

 

If the ladies were playing in the same team/competition and they were being paid significantly less then I would join their fight but is it any different to male professional Handball players being paid less than Male professional footballers?

 

There are very few sports where female and male compete in direct competition - like in show Jumping and equestrian sports - and this is simply because in general there is a large discrepancy between male and females in sport. In direct competition even a low level male will usually beat a top level female. Should males therefore claim that sport is sexist and insist that they be allowed to compete in the female tournaments and leagues in order to win the prize money available?

 

Thoughts?

[Stadt]

Men's world cup viewers - 3,572,000,000

 

Women's world cup viewers - 750,000,000

 

Sponsors pay more based on the exposure they'll get, when people are interested in women's football as much as men's (never) then the prize money should be the same.

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Men's world cup viewers - 3,572,000,000

 

Women's world cup viewers - 750,000,000

 

Sponsors pay more based on the exposure they'll get, when people are interested in women's football as much as men's (never) then the prize money should be the same.

750 million viewers / £24m female prize money is £1m per 30m viewers

 

3,572 million viewers / £315 male prize money is £1m per 11m viewers

 

 

I know it's obviously not as cut and dry as that but there is clearly a disparity in payments between the two genders. 

[Stadt]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

750 million viewers / £24m female prize money is £1m per 30m viewers

 

3,572 million viewers / £315 male prize money is £1m per 11m viewers

 

 

I know it's obviously not as cut and dry as that but there is clearly a disparity in payments between the two genders. 

There's only 24 teams in the women's world cup though

[Jordan]

I’ll always hear football fans talk about how football is more than a sport, and also talk about how unfair market forces are when it affects their fan experience.

 

Yet whenever the topic of women’s football comes up, people that offer socialist solutions for men’s football become rampant capitalists.

 

Women deserve a seat at the table when we’re discussing what we want football to be. I think you’ll find that if you listen to them, you’ll see their vision of football will line up a lot closer to what a lot of men think men’s football should be.

 

FIFA’s mission is about more than profit. As we know all too well, when it puts money above the mission, the results are terrible—everything from an unfair financial system to the Russia/Qatar fiasco to even the Afghanistan sexual abuse and rape situation (which we just found out today that FIFA knew about a year before they said they did, but kept mum).

 

FIFA has an obligation to promote and often provide equitable access and treatment. Equal pay quite likely meets these obligations.

 

If you think football means more than regular commerce and should be about more than profit for the kings and kingmakers, you should probably support fairness in football, which includes equal pay.

 

As for how well they’re compensated—the vast majority are compensated at a lot lower rates than you think. And even for those that are paid well: do you think Alex Morgan deserves more money, or do you think the federation heads, FIFA brass, major corporations, or oligarchs that get the profits do?

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

I wish people would stop treating it as if the men's and the women's game are the same product, they're distinctly not. 

 

If they can prove that women's football is receiving less of the money it generates compared to men's football then they have a case. If they just want the men's game to subsidise them then they need a better case than 'chauvinism'. 

[Dan]

Where's the inequality?

 

It's a meritocracy. It's not hard to understand.

[Ric Flair]

It's fairly simple from a monetary point of view. The men's game is a phenomenon, it is watched by billions of people. It is to some a religion, they live and breathe it. The grotesque amounts of money the sport generates is because of the popularity, fans queue up for days on end to get tickets at times, they fork out thousands a year following their teams and not to mention kits, merchandise and other stuff. Because of all this, the pool of money is dished out amongst the players who feed this obsession to the masses. It takes care of itself.

 

The governing bodies are a disgrace, could they do more to promote equally the game? Most probably, but their current problems are they are corrupt. If they cleaned up their act it would be a start. I would contest though that the women's game in terms of pay should be on merit, within the confines of the money generated within their game. If sponsorship, attendances at games and general viewing is low then that's the way it is. If the men's games has got to start subsidising the women's game because it's unfair how popular the game is then what a worrying precedent that is setting.

 

It's sadly not like for like.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Perhaps FIFA should've given the ladies the money that they spunked on that film about themselves with Tim Roth in that about 4 people watched

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I wish people would stop treating it as if the men's and the women's game are the same product, they're distinctly not. 

 

If they can prove that women's football is receiving less of the money it generates compared to men's football then they have a case. If they just want the men's game to subsidise them then they need a better case than 'chauvinism'. 

If this is true:

 

34 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

750 million viewers / £24m female prize money is £1m per 30m viewers

 

3,572 million viewers / £315 male prize money is £1m per 11m viewers

 

 

I know it's obviously not as cut and dry as that but there is clearly a disparity in payments between the two genders. 

Then they have.

 

Ideally anyone working in an entertainment industry - be it art, sport, music, whatever - should be paid relative to the revenue they generate and that should be equal across all demographics. I'm guessing that isn't the case, though.

[RonnieTodger]

Generally speaking, it’s all about what they bring to the table. In fairness to her, the disparity between interest and crowds in the US is far less than it is in the UK, but it’s still pretty big. 

 

It’s easy to shoot the women’s game down, but the prize money matters to them. You don’t even hear about it in the men’s game. Male players are obviously extremely wealthy from their clubs and endorsements. 

 

I dont begrudge women fighting for more, if it’s justified. They’ll never get the same as men (which they shouldn’t) and comparing the world cups doesn’t taken into account the day-to-day lack of interest in women’s football. The tribal nature of men’s football that creates fans just isn’t there for women and as long as it stays that way, they’ll never garner enough permanent interest, whether they fill stadiums in France or not. It’s a showpiece event and whilst I agree that the international players should earn more, I’m not sure that they should at club level. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

Just now, leicsmac said:

If this is true:

 

Then they have.

 

Ideally anyone working in an entertainment industry - be it art, sport, music, whatever - should be paid relative to the revenue they generate and that should be equal across all demographics. I'm guessing that isn't the case, though.

Well no because revenue isn't solely a function of viewers. Even if it was it could well be that there are increasing returns to viewers to a point between those figures (then decreasing) where an extra viewer generates more revenue. I'd imagine that's particularly likely as the men's game has far greater reach into some big markets. 

[AKCJ]

42 minutes ago, Stadt said:

There's only 24 teams in the women's world cup though

Ah fair enough. That probably evens it out.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Well no because revenue isn't solely a function of viewers. Even if it was it could well be that there are increasing returns to viewers to a point between those figures (then decreasing) where an extra viewer generates more revenue. I'd imagine that's particularly likely as the men's game has far greater reach into some big markets. 

True, guess you have to include sponsorship into the revenue model too, but the TV rights money is the biggest part of pretty much any football tournament income-wise, I'd wager.

 

You're right in that looking at it purely from viewer figures is too hard-and-fast too as other factors are a thing when it comes to overall revenue, but I really wouldn't mind seeing what the teams in the Womens World Cup do get paid as a proportion of overall revenue compared to the blokes.

 

Actually, doing some digging there...

 

WC2018 for the blokes - $6.1 billion overall revenue, roughly $450 million prize money, so that's about 7.5%.

 

....but I can't find any projected figures for the Women's World Cup for this year - at least any accurate, nonspeculative projections (there's a couple of news sites with those) anyway. If anyone else can Google-fu where I failed it might be interesting reading.

[KingsX]

This argument takes on a different dimension in the States, because the womens team is so much more successful than the men, and brings in similar gates.

 

You folks arguing “quality” are missing the point.  The moms/dads and daughters going in their tens of thousands every time the USWNT plays a friendly in Cleveland, are happy with the quality (and to see the US side that actually can beat the best in the world).  “Quality” is different things to different people, and should not determine fair compensation.  IMO, the basic determinant is simple:

 

How big is the pie, how much of it do you generate, and how much do you receive?

                  

If you want to get into subjective areas, I personally think growing the game to new (heretofore uninterested) millions -- in terms of healthy participation and family togetherness, as well as paying eyeballs -- weighs up to more, than the perceptions of hardcore football fans that the womens game is shit.

 

The USWNT's case hinges on the argument that U.S. Soccer has paid the women much less even though they bring in more money to the federation.

 

Good point @Jordan about who are the capitalists?  The US women proposed a revenue-sharing model to test the “market realities” cited by US Soccer. If the women performed well and brought in a ton of revenue, they'd get more money – and if they didn't bring in much money, they wouldn't get much. Their  lawsuit says this would have allowed the players and US Soccer to “share in the risk and reward of the economic success of the WNT”, but that US Soccer “categorically rejected” the idea.

 

This https://sports.yahoo.com/here-are-the-strongest-arguments-the-uswnt-makes-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html summed up the USWNT’s arguments (with some hard numbers):

 

1) The USWNT brings in more revenue than the USMNT

2) The USMNT gets higher bonuses for winning than the USWNT

3) U.S. Soccer has blamed ‘market realities’ on unequal pay but wouldn't prove that theory

4) The USMNT got larger World Cup bonuses from U.S. Soccer

5) The USWNT played on artificial turf repeatedly while the USMNT did not

6) The USMNT got charter flights while the USWNT didn't

7) U.S. Soccer didn't promote USWNT games as much as USMNT games

[Ric Flair]

14 minutes ago, KingsX said:

This argument takes on a different dimension in the States, because the womens team is so much more successful than the men, and brings in similar gates.

 

You folks arguing “quality” are missing the point.  The moms/dads and daughters going in their tens of thousands every time the USWNT plays a friendly in Cleveland, are happy with the quality (and to see the US side that actually can beat the best in the world).  “Quality” is different things to different people, and should not determine fair compensation.  IMO, the basic determinant is simple:

 

How big is the pie, how much of it do you generate, and how much do you receive?

                  

If you want to get into subjective areas, I personally think growing the game to new (heretofore uninterested) millions -- in terms of healthy participation and family togetherness, as well as paying eyeballs -- weighs up to more, than the perceptions of hardcore football fans that the womens game is shit.

 

The USWNT's case hinges on the argument that U.S. Soccer has paid the women much less even though they bring in more money to the federation.

 

Good point @Jordan about who are the capitalists?  The US women proposed a revenue-sharing model to test the “market realities” cited by US Soccer. If the women performed well and brought in a ton of revenue, they'd get more money – and if they didn't bring in much money, they wouldn't get much. Their  lawsuit says this would have allowed the players and US Soccer to “share in the risk and reward of the economic success of the WNT”, but that US Soccer “categorically rejected” the idea.

 

This https://sports.yahoo.com/here-are-the-strongest-arguments-the-uswnt-makes-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html summed up the USWNT’s arguments (with some hard numbers):

 

1) The USWNT brings in more revenue than the USMNT

2) The USMNT gets higher bonuses for winning than the USWNT

3) U.S. Soccer has blamed ‘market realities’ on unequal pay but wouldn't prove that theory

4) The USMNT got larger World Cup bonuses from U.S. Soccer

5) The USWNT played on artificial turf repeatedly while the USMNT did not

6) The USMNT got charter flights while the USWNT didn't

7) U.S. Soccer didn't promote USWNT games as much as USMNT games

I'm arguing that the quality by and large is what determines the difference in popularity. I know the US women's football scene is massive out there and if they aren't getting as much paid to them as they ought, then that's an issue with the clubs and the league surely? FIFA not chuffing up as much in prize money for the women's game across the board though is a wider and more contentious issue, for the majority of the world the women's game is night and day away from the men's game and how FIFA try and balance that if they even can. There's such disparity in the men's game, there's many inferior leagues in Africa, South America etc where the popularity of the game is off it's nut but the pay by comparison is much lower than in Europe. Is it fair? Should the world governing body make sure all men's football is more even?

[KingsX]

57 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm arguing that the quality by and large is what determines the difference in popularity. I know the US women's football scene is massive out there and if they aren't getting as much paid to them as they ought, then that's an issue with the clubs and the league surely? FIFA not chuffing up as much in prize money for the women's game across the board though is a wider and more contentious issue, for the majority of the world the women's game is night and day away from the men's game and how FIFA try and balance that if they even can. There's such disparity in the men's game, there's many inferior leagues in Africa, South America etc where the popularity of the game is off it's nut but the pay by comparison is much lower than in Europe. Is it fair? Should the world governing body make sure all men's football is more even?

 

Ric, I’m saying that “quality” is subjective, based on the customer experience.  And the experience generates the money.  People on this board have watched thousands of hours of football, and see quality as the athleticism and skill of the top 0.01%.  But parents enjoying family days, watching the US women beat Sweden or Mexico, rate the quality of that experience.  Which has built a TV audience.

 

I admit -- in the US, those dads may never have played (or were on a high school team the US women could beat).  Not so true for you.  However, some skills critical to my enjoyment -- trapping and controlling a ball, threading a brilliant pass -- women can do as well as men.  (actually the US women do them better than the US men  )  So I’m not holding my nose watching them in the World Cup.  I’m just thinking U-S-A.

 

Families having a great time at a USWNT game are not fools -- and they are not few.  Folks paying to watch their League Two side on a Saturday they could watch Chelsea on the tube, aren’t fools either.  But unfortunately they are few.  My point?  Even if you think the womens game should be a ghetto product for the “family market” -- that’s a big market.  Plant the seed and watch it grow.

 

I agree that can't happen in the third world, where sex roles are rigid and even the mens game generates little money.  But because the womens game has grown into something so positive in the US, I hope it also grows in the UK and Europe, and am arguing against those (not necessarily you) who say it shouldn’t, because of their own definition of “quality”.

[Trav Le Bleu]

When the men's netball team gets paid the same as the women, then we'll start talking.

 

 

 

(I checked - professional netball players exist)

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

Ric, I’m saying that “quality” is subjective, based on the customer experience.  And the experience generates the money.  People on this board have watched thousands of hours of football, and see quality as the athleticism and skill of the top 0.01%.  But parents enjoying family days, watching the US women beat Sweden or Mexico, rate the quality of that experience.  Which has built a TV audience.

 

I admit -- in the US, those dads may never have played (or were on a high school team the US women could beat).  Not so true for you.  However, some skills critical to my enjoyment -- trapping and controlling a ball, threading a brilliant pass -- women can do as well as men.  (actually the US women do them better than the US men  )  So I’m not holding my nose watching them in the World Cup.  I’m just thinking U-S-A.

 

Families having a great time at a USWNT game are not fools -- and they are not few.  Folks paying to watch their League Two side on a Saturday they could watch Chelsea on the tube, aren’t fools either.  But unfortunately they are few.  My point?  Even if you think the womens game should be a ghetto product for the “family market” -- that’s a big market.  Plant the seed and watch it grow.

 

I agree that can't happen in the third world, where sex roles are rigid and even the mens game generates little money.  But because the womens game has grown into something so positive in the US, I hope it also grows in the UK and Europe, and am arguing against those (not necessarily you) who say it shouldn’t, because of their own definition of “quality”.

That's fine but the conversation is about the WWC which as a competition attracts significantly less customers than the WC.  If the figures demonstrate that FIFA aren't giving prize money that equally reflects how lucrative each competition is then of course that's discrimination and should be treated as such.  Unfortunately nothing in the article goes into enough depth to determine that so obviously some people will be a bit taken aback at the cry of chauvinism when it's clear as day that there simply isn't the same audience for both competitions.

[Detroit Blues]

Another point you may consider. FIFA prize money is way more important to the women's game than the men. Most men's internationals make a comfortable living from their club teams. Most women playing in the World Cup are completely dependent on international football for their living. For example, the avg salary of women's players in the FA Women's Super League is £26,752 (as of 2017). Imagine what women in poorer countries make.

 

Also, to answer @leicsmac Forbes projected the Women's World cup to make something like $131M. 

Here is FIFA's financial report: https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2017.pdf?cloudid=pinrmrodexmnqoettgqw

FIFA does not separate their budget based on gender, so saying the money paid to women's footballers has to be based on revenue is not exactly true. I'm pretty sure FIFA loses money on the FIFA U17 and U20 World Cup, but does it in order to develop the product. 

 

My personal opinion - the women's game is rapidly growing despite FIFA. When the women's world cup started, FIFA didn't even want to call it a "world cup" because they were afraid it would be an embarrassment. Instead, it was more popular than expected and FIFA tried to retroactively act like they were a supporter of the women's game all along. 

 

FIFA should be doing a lot more to grow its popularity. The international level is by far the easiest to promote. You may not care for Women's Football, but when the World Cup is on, it is very easy to support the women representing your country. FIFA should not allow the prevailing narrative surrounding this World Cup to be about income inequality.  

 

These women's athletes should be well paid, and given the same treatment as the men. This should include the playing conditions, travel accommodations, and respect given to the athletes. We are not far removed from Sepp Blatter saying that women should be wearing tighter shorts to attract more fans.

 

 

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

We are not far removed from Sepp Blatter saying that women should be wearing tighter shorts to attract more fans.

 

[Guest]

Not sure that a discussion of Women's world football to United states women's soccer is the same thing but it's interesting nonetheless .

 

Is it true that the US league has a team salary cap in place? That would certainly affect individual salaries. Is it related to the soccer income?

 

As far as I'm aware the top female football player earns £350,000 a year.

[Kendal Fox]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's fine but the conversation is about the WWC which as a competition attracts significantly less customers than the WC.  If the figures demonstrate that FIFA aren't giving prize money that equally reflects how lucrative each competition is then of course that's discrimination and should be treated as such.  Unfortunately nothing in the article goes into enough depth to determine that so obviously some people will be a bit taken aback at the cry of chauvinism when it's clear as day that there simply isn't the same audience for both competitions.

Has there ever been an article riddled with pseudo-liberalism and moral superiority that actually goes beyond finger pointing, let alone penetrates the surface? I should add the BBC are the worst culprits.

[Kendal Fox]

Maybe I'm going off course a little but the problem I have with Women's football, much like Women's boxing is that try as I might, I don't find it enjoyable or entertaining to watch. The women just don't have the same fleet-footedness or coordination as the men. And even taking the physiological differences between men and women into account, they are still not anywhere near as pleasing on the eye - in these particular sports. Deep down, I think most people realise this, hence the gulf between viewing figures of the Men's and Women's world cups, and generally lower attendances to games. I think another question needs to be asked to the women who prefer to watch men's football over women's, but that never seems to be talked about either.

 

I know there is the obvious aspect of the relative infancy of the modern women's game, but again, if association football was invented by men and developed by them for several decades before women took part, obviously they're going to have majority of the accolades that go with that, much like an industry founded by women is going to have more of that gender's presence and influence.

 

But that consideration is never taken into account and is just swept under the carpet so the diatribes can be launched. Of course it's all my own view and some will think I'm wrong, but I do feel we're being forced down this path of disingenuity and placating for the sake of it in many areas nowadays.

[urban.spaceman]

The Patriarchy rightly imposes a fine for calling it ****ing soccer.