re: TRIGGER WARNING - USWNT passes USMNT in generated revenue

quote:

---

Imagine being one of those cucks on video on Twitter crying after the win

---

Link?

I think only Ticket sales and merchandise could be done
For example jersey sales of the Women’s jersey or men’s

Tournament payouts has been said around here, it’s not close to the men’s but realistically it’s not watched on the same level so companies aren’t paying as much to be advertisers

I wonder what the difference is that Anheiser Busch pays for the WWC compared to the MWC

The following article provides a reference from Forbes magazine and quotes numbers:

https://humanevents.com/2019/07/08/there-should-be-equal-pay-for-the-world-cup-that-means-paying-men-more/

quote:

---

Forbes’s Mike Ozanian helped set the record straight when the lawsuit was first filed. Referencing the Women’s World Cup in Vancouver four years ago, Ozanian said, “The Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.”

In yesterday’s World Cup, participating teams received over 22 per cent of the revenue, whereas men only received seven per cent of the revenue in last year’s World Cup in Russia. Women are actually earning over three times more than men.

Because the Men’s World Cup made north of six billion dollars, that seven per cent equates to 400 million dollars for the teams.

The Women’s World Cup only earned around 130 million dollars, so the 22 per cent is only 30 million dollars.

Not only has the wrong victim of skewed pay been identified, but the wrong motive as well. The gap has nothing to do with “institutionalized gender discrimination” and everything to do with fewer people wanting to watch women’s soccer.

---

quote:

---

The Men’s World Cup in Russia generated over 45 times the revenue of yesterday’s Women’s World Cup. Why so much more? Have you ever watched women’s soccer?

A team entirely made up of adolescent males beat the U.S. women’s national team 5-2 in a scrimmage that was supposed to “tune up” the women’s team prior to their game against Russia two years back.

People opt to watch the fast paced, more aggressive gender. It is simply more exciting. Until this changes (which it won’t) the tournament revenue imbalance is not going away.

---

quote:

---

I’m sure it’s done the way it is solely to prevent the disparity being known

---

100%

this is one of those things that the women are using as major leverage b/c they know it's bullshite deep down

USSF bundled everything to show respect to the women and now it's basically their entire argument. it's amazing, really

this + the "pay for play" differences are the primary ones but this story is just a socio-political monster now so nobody wants to listen

Dahlkemper and Press are both hotter than Ertz by a lot. Ertz just has name recognition because of her husband.

quote:

---

USSF bundled everything to show respect to the women and now it's basically their entire argument. it's amazing, really

---

It tanks their argument if you unbundle it. Revenue from sponsorships are about half total annual revenue at about $50 million. so if we are looking at 2015-2018, 4 years, that's roughly $200 million. So the way they are calculating their revenue disregards this number because its bundled.

Let's assume that viewership for USWNT and USMNT are about the same for the world cup. Does the USSF get about the same amount for broadcast rights? Or are the Men's world cup games more expensive than the women's? I honestly don't know how any of it works. But we are looking at revenue for on average 4 games for the men and 6-7 for the women.

Outside of the world cup, nobody is watching USWNT friendlies, tournaments, and world cup qualifying. It wouldn't surprise me if the USMNT viewership crushes the USWNT there.