Chongo94
Active Member
Seems dubious to me b/c it says the federation is including payments it makes to the women's pro soccer league for salaries paid to national team players. That's certainly a subsidy the men don't get, but I don't think it's proper to include that outlay in comparing compensation received for games played in the national team kits.
It does help their case that they make subsidies to the professional women's league to grow that game. If they're making similar subsidies to MLS and not disclosing it in this report that would be dishonest, but I don't think they are.
I do think these numbers reinforce the stance that, as a percentage of revenue generated, the women are paid better than the men and that is more than equitable for the women. The figure about losses sustained in matches hosted domestically is also compelling. It's clear the women aren't generating as much revenue b/c there's no way their matches cost more than those the men play, yet the operating loss sustained for the men was 10% of the loss sustained on the women.
I get your point but I do think those payments need to be included in the discussion because as Eight mentioned, without the USSF, there would be no women’s national league, or at least it wouldn’t be sustained for very long. On the whole, of this report and numbers are to be believed, it doesn’t look very good for the women and may hurt their efforts.
I’ve always felt that the women’s case and argument should be lobbied at FIFA rather than the USSF but they’ve been reluctant to pursue that course.
It does appear, given how they USSF remained silent or refused to address things often, that they were doing their best to work with the women and come to an agreement. It also appears, with the way this was released and after the WC, that they may have more ammunition than many previously thought.
Last edited: