Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
2023-2024 European Football Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Purp" data-source="post: 2733076" data-attributes="member: 12852"><p>That's elucidating. Thanks. Not sure how it's pertinent to my comment about having no respect for Rapinoe off the pitch, but it's relevant to some of the controversy around the women's team. I still have a couple issues with this.</p><p></p><p>1) Comparing team pay for a World Cup performance and player pay for making the WC team is specious. The men's World Cup is the single biggest sporting event in the world every 4 years and I won't be shocked if it's got over 4 times more eye balls on it and even greater disparity than that in revenue generated. Should the women's team get paid a portion of the revenue earned from the men's World Cup? If the argument is an equal percentage share of revenue each team generates I'd 100% support that. But that's not the argument.</p><p></p><p>2) The men risk far more than the women every time they play for the national team; particularly in friendlies/exhibitions. The best male players earn millions per year and, as a result, stand to lose the opportunity to earn more millions were they to be seriously injured for the national team. For that reason alone I think a wide disparity in pay is justified on a purely market-based pricing of the labor the federation is trying to buy. I don't know if that gap is justified or should be narrower (I suspect it should be narrower because I suspect the women generate more than 8% of the revenue the men do), but I disagree that the numbers should be equal. If a woman was playing for the men's team and was getting paid differently than the other men on the team I'd be wholly in her corner on equal pay for equal play, but this is not the same. It's not truly equal play no matter how many times Meagan Rapinoe tries to convince us it is.</p><p></p><p>3) Quality of team play is also totally irrelevant. The Lakers have been absolute dog boat for several years or more, yet they continue to generate more revenue every year than any other team in the league. Should the best franchise in the WNBA get a share of the Lakers' earnings because they play better quality basketball? If the women are generating a disproportionate amount of revenue than they're earning in compensation that needs to be fixed. But that's not what's being argued. </p><p></p><p>4) All that said, I think it's ridiculous to pay $0 for a loss. Win or lose, especially in a friendly when managers are known to tinker and experiment making the team more susceptible to a loss, the players should be paid for their time both in training and on the pitch.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Purp, post: 2733076, member: 12852"] That's elucidating. Thanks. Not sure how it's pertinent to my comment about having no respect for Rapinoe off the pitch, but it's relevant to some of the controversy around the women's team. I still have a couple issues with this. 1) Comparing team pay for a World Cup performance and player pay for making the WC team is specious. The men's World Cup is the single biggest sporting event in the world every 4 years and I won't be shocked if it's got over 4 times more eye balls on it and even greater disparity than that in revenue generated. Should the women's team get paid a portion of the revenue earned from the men's World Cup? If the argument is an equal percentage share of revenue each team generates I'd 100% support that. But that's not the argument. 2) The men risk far more than the women every time they play for the national team; particularly in friendlies/exhibitions. The best male players earn millions per year and, as a result, stand to lose the opportunity to earn more millions were they to be seriously injured for the national team. For that reason alone I think a wide disparity in pay is justified on a purely market-based pricing of the labor the federation is trying to buy. I don't know if that gap is justified or should be narrower (I suspect it should be narrower because I suspect the women generate more than 8% of the revenue the men do), but I disagree that the numbers should be equal. If a woman was playing for the men's team and was getting paid differently than the other men on the team I'd be wholly in her corner on equal pay for equal play, but this is not the same. It's not truly equal play no matter how many times Meagan Rapinoe tries to convince us it is. 3) Quality of team play is also totally irrelevant. The Lakers have been absolute dog boat for several years or more, yet they continue to generate more revenue every year than any other team in the league. Should the best franchise in the WNBA get a share of the Lakers' earnings because they play better quality basketball? If the women are generating a disproportionate amount of revenue than they're earning in compensation that needs to be fixed. But that's not what's being argued. 4) All that said, I think it's ridiculous to pay $0 for a loss. Win or lose, especially in a friendly when managers are known to tinker and experiment making the team more susceptible to a loss, the players should be paid for their time both in training and on the pitch. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
2023-2024 European Football Thread
Top