FIFA entrenched in chauvinism over prize money

[Dan]

I'd like to retract my earlier views and I've decided England Womens team deserves more money than the mens.

[davieG]

I've quite enjoyed a few of the games I've seen so have no problem with it, equal pay with it mostly coming from TV,  sponsors and gate receipts needs to be earned.

 

It's annoying though how the media do not differentiate between the two when headlining reports, if they're going to give them similar editorial space at least let us know which gender sport the report is for.

 

Anything would be better than the terrible game we endured last night, both teams lacked any sort of creativity, poor defensive play although obviously England were mush worst, fake injuries and 2nd rate refereeing. I can't think of a redeeming feature form the game.

[MC Prussian]

Ah, the cry for equal pay...

 

This needs to be dissected, no fan of populist headlines.

 

There's a lot less money in Women's Football overall still - if more sponsors and more people would be interested in following the sport, I'm sure the clubs and football federations could pay everyone, not just the female players, more money.

 

It's the same in every fringe sport, the less attractive and the less popular it is, the less money you can generate in terms of ad and TV revenue or by marketing.

That counts for both men and women - I mean, who follows men's team handball, for instance - anyone?

That some women still manage to misunderstand the concept of free markets and economical principles such as demand and supply is beyond me.

There's also other elements that come into play - such as physicality (strain on one's body), training efforts, competition in general (I still think due to the huge reservoir in men's football, they still need to go an extra mile to make it to the top), injury risks, etc.

 

Advocates of Women's Football easily ignore history and overlook how long it took for the men's side to generate income through the years and decades once the sport was established.

I just cringe every time women or their advocates demand some sort of instant gratification without wanting to go through the tough times before.

Quoting Bill Burr here - some women, particularly "modern feminists" want all the male benefits, just without the negative aspects or side effects.

 

"Male chauvinism" is then but another excuse, a buzzword to use as a shield.*

 

*Btw, what would female chauvinism be defined as? Can't get my head around "male chauvinism" being some sort of oxymoron.

[David Guiza]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Ah, the cry for equal pay...

 

This needs to be dissected, no fan of populist headlines.

 

There's a lot less money in Women's Football overall still - if more sponsors and more people would be interested in following the sport, I'm sure the clubs and football federations could pay everyone, not just the female players, more money.

 

It's the same in every fringe sport, the less attractive and the less popular it is, the less money you can generate in terms of ad and TV revenue or by marketing.

That counts for both men and women - I mean, who follows men's team handball, for instance - anyone?

That some women still manage to misunderstand the concept of free markets and economical principles such as demand and supply is beyond me.

1. There's also other elements that come into play - such as physicality (strain on one's body), training efforts, competition in general (I still think due to the huge reservoir in men's football, they still need to go an extra mile to make it to the top), injury risks, etc.

 

2. Advocates of Women's Football easily ignore history and overlook how long it took for the men's side to generate income through the years and decades once the sport was established.

I just cringe every time women or their advocates demand some sort of instant gratification without wanting to go through the tough times before.

Quoting Bill Burr here - 3. some women, particularly "modern feminists" want all the male benefits, just without the negative aspects or side effects.

 

"Male chauvinism" is then but another excuse, a buzzword to use as a shield.*

 

4. *Btw, what would female chauvinism be defined as? Can't get my head around "male chauvinism" being some sort of oxymoron.

I don't disagree with what you're saying overall, but I do take slight issue with the bits in bold.

 

1. I don't think it's fair to say that men go an extra mile to make it to the top simply on the basis that this is a larger crop. You could make numerous counter arguments to say that women have a tougher time of it, for example if a male footballer wants children at a healthy age (say 25-35 for example) it doesn't exactly affect their bodies or career in any shape or form. Women also, historically, don't have the same access to top level facilities and still face criticism by some neanderthals for wanting to play sport at a high level etc.

 

2. I agree that critics do overlook how men's football wasn't built in a day, but I think it's a little ironic to say that they 'ignore history' when women's football was literally banned for 50 odd years, by men, when it was at the height of it's powers. 

 

3. Of course there are some women, and men, that make silly arguments about equality when it's not really even going to be possible (and I think, in the immediate future at least, this is certainly one of them.) But, and I may be interpreting your post incorrectly, that's the kind of sweeping statement that sets feminism and women back. I think the absolute vast majority would be happy to accept all the negatives if it meant equality. 

 

4. Of course chauvinist is generally labelled at men because, in this sense, by definition it is behaviour or opining that the opposite gender is less able, important or intelligent than the other and that's a belief that is held by far more men than women. There are however plenty of example of female chauvinism by the same definition - in fact many critics of 'modern feminism' have labelled them as 'female chauvinists'. 

 

Ultimately, I think the vast majority on both sides of the coin and aware that the men's game generates a far great audience and therefore more money, sponsorship etc and as such will generate more money. Furthermore, a man at the height of his game is generally by default more athletic, stronger etc than his female counterpart and thus is makes for a 'better quality' of game and therefore should, in theory, be paid more as a result. I think it's probably a fairly small percentage of people that genuinely think there should be equality in football pay. In some respects it's actually a shame that it gets so much coverage because it's the kind of argument that is thrown back at women when there is a genuine case for equality. 

[Buce]

12 hours ago, Kendal Fox said:

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.

 

Of all the criticisms you can lay at their door that isn't one of them.

 

Unless you're gay?

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

I don't disagree with what you're saying overall, but I do take slight issue with the bits in bold.

 

1. I don't think it's fair to say that men go an extra mile to make it to the top simply on the basis that this is a larger crop. You could make numerous counter arguments to say that women have a tougher time of it, for example if a male footballer wants children at a healthy age (say 25-35 for example) it doesn't exactly affect their bodies or career in any shape or form. Women also, historically, don't have the same access to top level facilities and still face criticism by some neanderthals for wanting to play sport at a high level etc.

 

2. I agree that critics do overlook how men's football wasn't built in a day, but I think it's a little ironic to say that they 'ignore history' when women's football was literally banned for 50 odd years, by men, when it was at the height of it's powers. 

 

3. Of course there are some women, and men, that make silly arguments about equality when it's not really even going to be possible (and I think, in the immediate future at least, this is certainly one of them.) But, and I may be interpreting your post incorrectly, that's the kind of sweeping statement that sets feminism and women back. I think the absolute vast majority would be happy to accept all the negatives if it meant equality. 

 

4. Of course chauvinist is generally labelled at men because, in this sense, by definition it is behaviour or opining that the opposite gender is less able, important or intelligent than the other and that's a belief that is held by far more men than women. There are however plenty of example of female chauvinism by the same definition - in fact many critics of 'modern feminism' have labelled them as 'female chauvinists'. 

 

Ultimately, I think the vast majority on both sides of the coin and aware that the men's game generates a far great audience and therefore more money, sponsorship etc and as such will generate more money. Furthermore, a man at the height of his game is generally by default more athletic, stronger etc than his female counterpart and thus is makes for a 'better quality' of game and therefore should, in theory, be paid more as a result. I think it's probably a fairly small percentage of people that genuinely think there should be equality in football pay. In some respects it's actually a shame that it gets so much coverage because it's the kind of argument that is thrown back at women when there is a genuine case for equality. 

I do think that the players have a point to some extent, I just don't like the populism behind it, fueled by short-lived, sensationalist media interest and activism.

 

As for

1. Seeing that you have a vastly bigger player reservoir, it's still way harder to rise to the top as a male footballer, and I mean the period until you reach the age of 25, which in most cases is make-it-or-break-it time, for both men and women. Yes, women then face the big question regarding starting a family as a mother, with the biological clock ticking and whatnot. But that usually concerns the latter stages of a career, not the way to get there.

 

2. Women's football wasn't banned for 50 years in every single country, there are/were differences. It may have been officially banned, but the sport was exercised regardless. Personally, I find it a bit grotesque when you see what progress women made in football in between the late 19th century up until the 1930ies, only for the post-war period to stifle the development for about 20 to 30 years. You'd think that with the liberation following WWII, so would the sport profit from the newly-found feeling of freedom.

https://historycooperative.org/goal-the-story-of-how-womens-soccer-rose-to-fame/

Oddly enough, football/soccer in the US did better than in many European countries after the war, and gave the US ladies some sportive advantage, an advantage they've managed to keep up until today to some extent.

 

3. Yes, and I do hope the sensible women win this debate over the modern-day feminists.

 

4. I find it odd to double-down on the term "chauvinist" because of its historical connection to masculinity, "female chauvinist" to me sounds like a replacement term for "(modern-day) feminist".

 

I do hope women in football get paid more in the near future, but then everyone connected to the corresponding teams or football federations should profit from it, as well.

That'd only be fair.

[Ric Flair]

22 hours 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”.

I get what you're saying and it's interesting, it's not so much the women's game if it can continue to grow should therefore be given a slice of what the men's game is tapping in to more that if the " experience " of it is enjoyed by more and more people that it should be encouraged and promoted more and in turn with the money that is generated that the players are rewarded and in time the standard improves.

 

The real obstacle though, which sort of monopolises the elite leagues in men's football is customer experience as you describe above isn't generating billions of bounds though is it like the revenue paid to clubs for TV rights, sponsorship and various other grotesque money generation avenues. You only have to look at the money Premier League clubs make in gate money and in the ground revenue on match days compared with the aforementioned revenue they obtain and it shows the what's really driving the wealth in men's football in the top leagues. Should they be receiving all of this money which in turn they then pay vast amounts in transfer fees and salaries for these players? The demand to watch the Premier League for example knows no bounds and is continuing to grow and grow, so the quality is subjective in the sense that the world wants to see it, they pay for it, the hideous amount of money means we get the best players and managers and the " quality " is justified.

 

 

[Finnaldo]

Bigger argument for the US than across the pond to be fair, women's football has a way to go in Europe as it still suffers a certain level of apathy from your general football fan.

 

Side note: Using 'feminist' or 'feminism' as a derogative is a pretty weird thing to do, considering there's a number of different feminist movements and beliefs that aren't always analogue. It makes about as much sense as blaming Islamic Fundamentalists on 'Conservatives'.

[Mike Oxlong]

To be fair, the girls ought to sell more calendars 

[Guest]

Just now, Mike Oxlong said:

To be fair, the girls ought to sell more calendars 

 

What? At half time?

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

What? At half time?

You’re thinking of programmes 

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Male chauvinism" is then but another excuse, a buzzword to use as a shield.*

 

*Btw, what would female chauvinism be defined as? Can't get my head around "male chauvinism" being some sort of oxymoron.

In a sporting sense the Tennis Grand Slams is probably the closest you'll get to this although it needs a different word to chauvinism. 

 

Women get equal pay for providing an inferior product, whilst they also play fewer sets and don't touch the male players when it comes to the queue demand on tickets.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

You’re thinking of programmes 

but which ones?

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

In a sporting sense the Tennis Grand Slams is probably the closest you'll get to this although it needs a different word to chauvinism. 

 

Women get equal pay for providing an inferior product, whilst they also play fewer sets and don't touch the male players when it comes to the queue demand on tickets.

I've never understood the justification for that. It's surely anti-man sexism.

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, FIF said:

but which ones?

You’re getting to cerebral for me now FIF 

 

But good to know that the West Atlantic coast storms have not deprived you of your internet connection 

 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

You’re getting to cerebral for me now FIF 

 

But good to know that the West Atlantic coast storms have not deprived you of your internet connection 

 

 

They've been and still are very windy. The sea is tumultuous and moving in a different direction to usual. But as you say, internet is strong - so strong that I'll probably run out of posts for the day very very soon.

 

p.s.  the beach today: https://www.medoc-atlantique.com/pratique/webcams/webcam-soulac/

 

edit: et voila  You have reached the maximum number of posts you can make per day.

 

 

[KingsX]

23 hours ago, FIF said:

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.

 

US womens club soccer is small business (albeit gradually growing).  The minimum salary is $16,538, the maximum $46,200.  A club like the Portland Thorns (average attendance 19,461) could afford far more.  But seven of the nine clubs average about 5,000 or less.

 

For sure, if women don’t make the national team, they are minor league athletes and paid accordingly.

 

Alex Morgan is reported to make over $650K.  How much from the Orlando Pride, and how much from US Soccer, I’ve no idea.  These clubs do need USWNT stars to market themselves.

 

[Kendal Fox]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Of all the criticisms you can lay at their door that isn't one of them.

 

Unless you're gay?

Very funny! I was talking (typing) about the aesthetics of the way they play, not the aesthetics of their voluptuousness!

[Kendal Fox]

Don't know if anyone has already mentioned this but Hope Solo is the same woman that accidentally on purpose leaked explicit photos of herself online....

But apparently, sexually objectifying herself online is ok and in no way makes it harder to undo the sexism she talks about.

 

[KingsX]

9 minutes ago, Kendal Fox said:

Don't know if anyone has already mentioned this but Hope Solo is the same woman that accidentally on purpose leaked explicit photos of herself online....

But apparently, sexually objectifying herself online is ok and in no way makes it harder to undo the sexism she talks about.

 

 

    Sorry, FT is too busy googling "Hope Solo naked" to get back to you on this point.

[Izzy]

21 minutes ago, Kendal Fox said:

Don't know if anyone has already mentioned this but Hope Solo is the same woman that accidentally on purpose leaked explicit photos of herself online....

But apparently, sexually objectifying herself online is ok and in no way makes it harder to undo the sexism she talks about.

 

Always thought she looked a bit rough myself

 

[Jordan]

12 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Advocates of Women's Football easily ignore history and overlook how long it took for the men's side to generate income through the years and decades once the sport was established.

I just cringe every time women or their advocates demand some sort of instant gratification without wanting to go through the tough times before.

Quoting Bill Burr here - some women, particularly "modern feminists" want all the male benefits, just without the negative aspects or side effects.

To use England as an example: women's football clubs and governing bodies were banned from using FA-affiliated grounds from 1921-1971. That's just one hardship, and I'm sure you can find plenty of others.

 

Are you sure these "tough times" and "negative aspects" you want women to go through haven't been going on for a while, and aren't also being experienced right now? Also, why do you wish "negative aspects or side effects" on women? 

 

How would you even suggest women "go through the tough times before?" Round up all the women, build a time machine and send them to Victorian times to remake football from scratch?