Equal pay for Women's Soccer?

The USWNT is hardly ‘faltering’.


Apart from the pay debate, I'll be satisfied when we start calling soccer football and call that other game where only one player gets to touch the ball with his foot something else.   Maybe rugby light.


PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."

Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?


qrysdonnell said:


sprout said:
With the amount of visibility of this case, I'm betting there will be changes made to make things appear more equitable. 
That said, I am reading that there are a few differences in the men's and women's bargaining agreements, such as more risk and fewer benefits in the men's contracts than the women's. So, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
This is because all of the men's team make decent salaries at their clubs, thus playing on the national team is really more about honor than income. Most of these guys make decent salaries. Michael Bradley makes about $6.5 million a season at Toronto. Jozy Altidore makes about $6 million in total compensation. It's a little harder to dig up salaries for some of the players playing abroad but I'm pretty sure Pulisic will be getting paid pretty darn well at Chelsea. Even a younger player who hasn't moved to Europe yet (Bradley and Altidore went and came back) like Aaron Long with the New York Red Bulls gets about $800K a year.
The NWSL has a cap of $41K for a player, $410K for a team. So someone who isn't a 'star*' player like Bradley, Altidore or Pulisic like Aaron Long gets 2 NWSL teams worth of pay a season. (*Now, a real question is if Bradley and perhaps Altidore are really the stars they're supposed to be, but that's another topic for another day!)
Just because random people that don't follow men's soccer don't know the names doesn't mean that what goes on on the men's side is entirely small potatoes.
And that's the big difference. The men's side is really part of the global football economy, where the best players from established clubs play some extra games for their country as an honor. On the women's side, this is their bread and butter, and the national team essentially keeps the star players happy enough that they can play in the domestic league where they essentially don't get paid.
There are differences on just about every level. The best solution should be for people to support the women's league to the point where these women get real salaries from their day jobs, but that league is on relatively pretty shaky footing - with the NJ team being pretty much the shakiest at the moment.
So while I'm somewhat sympathetic to their cause, I do think they're over simplifying the issue.

Thank you for this explanation, because I think pretty much none of us posting on this thread , including me, actually understand the detailed economics of soccer in the U.S., as it's a lot more complicated than other sports and also simply not talked about as much. And the news media gets no points for trying to sort it out either.




drummerboy said:


PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?

So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?

I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.


PVW said:


drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.

I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)


It's pretty simple.



Professional athletes work for the entertainment industry. So while the performers at Maplewoodstock may be brilliant and talented musicians, they won’t make the same as Bruce Springsteen for a performance, because the ticket sales aren’t the same. 


drummerboy said:


PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.


Dennis_Seelbach said:


drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.

 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  

Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.


proeasdf said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.

 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?


Dennis_Seelbach said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:


proeasdf said:
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
Click to Read More
proeasdf said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:





 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
Click to Read More

 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?

 Let's endeavor to do the same analysis for US men's Major League Soccer ("MLS").  US MLS is actually made-up of 21 US teams and 3 Canadian teams.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer   According to the Wikipedia entry (see link above), the MLS soccer has average attendance of 20,000 fans per game.  Each team plays 34 regular season games plus seven ("7") preseason games.  New York Bulls MLS tickets range from $35 to about $220.  See https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/00005627E84A437A?did=fireworks2&CAMEFROM=CFC_NYREDBULLS_WEB_RBNYSITE_SINGLETOR&f_hybrid_map=true&ab=efeat6505v1


34 regular season weeks of games + 7 preseason weeks of games= 41 games total (not including post-season nor tournaments).  41 weeks of games x 12 matchups=  492 regular and preseason matchups multiplied by 20,000 fan attendance per game=9,840,000 attendance at preseason and regular season matchups (slightly higher than dated info for regular season of about 8.5 million per year attendance).  Let's say primary market ticket price averages $60 per matchup.  This should generate gross revenue for preseason and regular season of $590,400,000 (9,840,000 tickets x $60/ticket).  NY Red Bulls have 29 players and 4 coaches for a total of 33 players and coaches. See: https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/players and https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/club/technical-staff

 Let's assume all 24 teams have 29 players and 4 coaches for a total of 33 players and coaches.  Therefore, headcount should be 792 MLS players and coaches total.  Which works out gross revenue (before post-season, television broadcasting rights, souvenirs, etc) of about $750,000 in gross revenue per player or coach ($590,400,00 divided headcount of 792= $745,454.55/player or coach). 

Under my analysis here, the MLS players and coaches are generating about 700% per capita of what the woman's soccer league is generating ($745k vs. $108k).   It is not surprising to me that those generating more money in this entertainment business would earn more than those generating a small fraction of the MLS total.

PS If you disagree with my pro-forma analysis then let me know where I have gone astray and I will try to rerun the numbers.


Dennis_Seelbach said:


drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.

 Please provide us with your analysis of gross revenues for male and female national soccer teams.


drummerboy said:


PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Got it -- so rather than saying "women are paid less than men, that's a problem, and here are some challenges that will make this hard to fix," you opted to go for "women are paid less than men, and here's why they deserve it." 

I guess that is a pretty simple point.


PVW said:


drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Got it -- so rather than saying "women are paid less than men, that's a problem, and here are some challenges that will make this hard to fix," you opted to go for "women are paid less than men, and here's why they deserve it." 
I guess that is a pretty simple point.

 Did you read my posting where I go through the numbers?  It appears that male players and coaches are generating about 700% of the revenue per person that the women's players and coaches are generating.  See my post from 11:01PM today.   Let me know your thoughts.


For someone who acknowledges this ...

proeasdf said:

I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer. 

 ... you do go on.

Please provide us with your analysis of gross revenues for male and female national soccer teams.

A summary of a Wall Street Journal article:

Financial reports seen by the business newspaper show that a surge in ticket sales for the women’s games helped earn the United States Soccer Federation $50.8 million from 2016 to 2018. The men’s team, meanwhile, apparently only generated $49.9 million over the same period.

The firewalled WSJ link:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600


DaveSchmidt said:
A summary of a Wall Street Journal article:
Financial reports seen by the business newspaper show that a surge in ticket sales for the women’s games helped earn the United States Soccer Federation $50.8 million from 2016 to 2018. The men’s team, meanwhile, apparently only generated $49.9 million over the same period.

The firewalled WSJ link:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600

 Hey thanks for the link.  Unfortunately, I am not able to access it as I do not have a WSJ subscription.  However, I was able to search for USSF audited financials and found the following link:  https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/financial-information  I then examined the USSF 2018 (for the year ended 03312018 -most recent year available) Audited Financial Statements.  However, some notes on these financial statements: i.) deals with all levels of the USSF including amateur, youth and referee;  ii.) financial statements do not break-out revenue between the Men's National Team ("MNT") and Women's National  Team ("WNT");  iii.) financial statements do break-out expenses between the MNT and WNT.  Set forth below as an attachment is a summary of the revenue and expense reporting for the years ended 03312018 and 03312017.  If someone has a breakout of the various revenue streams between the WNT and MNT that would be helpful.  If I receive such information then I will be happy to update my analysis.

My analysis here does not come to any conclusions because we do not have a break-out of revenuesn between the WNT and MNT.

PS For point of clarification, I have no specialized skill with soccer finances/economic modeling.  But many years of experience preparing financial models.


PPS The USSF revenues represent a separate entity generating revenue from ticket sales, broadcasting  games of the WNT and MNT.  This revenue stream is separate and apart from revenues and expenses of: i.) Major League Soccer ("MLS") and its various teams; and ii.) National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) and its various teams.



 


proeasdf said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:



proeasdf said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:



Dennis_Seelbach said:



proeasdf said:
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
Click to Read More
proeasdf said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:





 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
Click to Read More

 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
Click to Read More
Dennis_Seelbach said:



proeasdf said:
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
Click to Read More
proeasdf said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:





 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
Click to Read More

 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
Click to Read More
Dennis_Seelbach said:



proeasdf said:
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
Click to Read More
proeasdf said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:





 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
 Not so simple. The question is the salaries paid for playing on the National team. It seems that the ladies National program brings in more than the men, irrespective of the players other pro contracts. On that basis, the women should be paid better, as they earn more for the national program.
Click to Read More

 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
 Let's endeavor to do the same analysis for US men's Major League Soccer ("MLS").  US MLS is actually made-up of 21 US teams and 3 Canadian teams.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer   According to the Wikipedia entry (see link above), the MLS soccer has average attendance of 20,000 fans per game.  Each team plays 34 regular season games plus seven ("7") preseason games.  New York Bulls MLS tickets range from $35 to about $220.  See https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/00005627E84A437A?did=fireworks2&CAMEFROM=CFC_NYREDBULLS_WEB_RBNYSITE_SINGLETOR&f_hybrid_map=true&ab=efeat6505v1


34 regular season weeks of games + 7 preseason weeks of games= 41 games total (not including post-season nor tournaments).  41 weeks of games x 12 matchups=  492 regular and preseason matchups multiplied by 20,000 fan attendance per game=9,840,000 attendance at preseason and regular season matchups (slightly higher than dated info for regular season of about 8.5 million per year attendance).  Let's say primary market ticket price averages $60 per matchup.  This should generate gross revenue for preseason and regular season of $590,400,000 (9,840,000 tickets x $60/ticket).  NY Red Bulls have 29 players and 4 coaches for a total of 33 players and coaches. See: https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/players and https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/club/technical-staff
 Let's assume all 24 teams have 29 players and 4 coaches for a total of 33 players and coaches.  Therefore, headcount should be 792 MLS players and coaches total.  Which works out gross revenue (before post-season, television broadcasting rights, souvenirs, etc) of about $750,000 in gross revenue per player or coach ($590,400,00 divided headcount of 792= $745,454.55/player or coach). 
Under my analysis here, the MLS players and coaches are generating about 700% per capita of what the woman's soccer league is generating ($745k vs. $108k).   It is not surprising to me that those generating more money in this entertainment business would earn more than those generating a small fraction of the MLS total.


PS If you disagree with my pro-forma analysis then let me know where I have gone astray and I will try to rerun the numbers.
 And, how do the differences between fixed and variable costs work in your analysis?  Many operations have essentially non-variable (AKA inelastic) fixed costs.  I know nothing of the economics of men's soccer or women's soccer.  


However, I think the first question is how much does the league and each team need to gross in order to break even.  My understanding is that the Piscataway Women's soccer team, Sky Blue FC, has average attendance of about 1400 people per game (Sky Blue has a very poor record in 2019).  See https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-nwsl-attendance/  Meanwhile, the number one team in the league, Portland Thorns FC, have an average attendance has ab average attendance of about 18,000.  See link above.  In 12 ("a") weeks of competition, the entire league (consisting of nine ("c") teams) has had overall attendance of about 265,000 ("b") fans.    Thus average attendance per game is 5521 attendees per game ("b/a"/4="265,000/12"/4).  
Let's assume that the average ticket price for attendees is $50/ticket (Sky Blue FC tickets range from $25/ticket to $90/ticket for single tickets with substantial discounts for season tickets).  Thus, the total gross revenue for the first twelve weeks of the season is approximately 13.25 million dollars (this does not include advertising revenue nor television/cable revenue).  Sky Blue FC has 22 players and 3 coaches.  See https://skybluefc.com/roster/  Meanwhile the Portland Thorns FC have  28 players and 4 coaches.  We have not accounted for the front office (typically, ticket sales, advertising, vending, etc).  Let's assume that each team on average has 25 players and 3 coaches.  Therefore, the league has a projected 225 players and 27 coaches for a total of 252 total players and coaches combined.  This works out to about $18,000 in revenue per month for each player and coach ("$13.25million/252people"/3months=$17,526.46/month per person).  This is not a lot of money for the entertainment business. 


Remember that the season consists of 25 season games (before finals) and 4 preseason games for a total of 29 weeks of play (other than finals) or about 6 months of revenue production.  Which means about $108,000 in revenue (other than finals) is attributable to each player and coach ($18k/month x 6 months).   IMHO, not a lot of money.  Likely, that fixed costs (other than salaries) approach 50% of gross revenue.


Solution: sell more tickets and sign more networks up for broadcasting rights.
 You're reference to pro leagues has ZERO applicability to the question at hand...National Team salaries and revenues. Men's and women's teams have, practically, the same revenues, so why should their National Team salaries be so disparate?
 Let's endeavor to do the same analysis for US men's Major League Soccer ("MLS").  US MLS is actually made-up of 21 US teams and 3 Canadian teams.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer   According to the Wikipedia entry (see link above), the MLS soccer has average attendance of 20,000 fans per game.  Each team plays 34 regular season games plus seven ("7") preseason games.  New York Bulls MLS tickets range from $35 to about $220.  See https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/00005627E84A437A?did=fireworks2&CAMEFROM=CFC_NYREDBULLS_WEB_RBNYSITE_SINGLETOR&f_hybrid_map=true&ab=efeat6505v1


34 regular season weeks of games + 7 preseason weeks of games= 41 games total (not including post-season nor tournaments).  41 weeks of games x 12 matchups=  492 regular and preseason matchups multiplied by 20,000 fan attendance per game=9,840,000 attendance at preseason and regular season matchups (slightly higher than dated info for regular season of about 8.5 million per year attendance).  Let's say primary market ticket price averages $60 per matchup.  This should generate gross revenue for preseason and regular season of $590,400,000 (9,840,000 tickets x $60/ticket).  NY Red Bulls have 29 players and 4 coaches for a total of 33 players and coaches. See: https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/players and https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/club/technical-staff
 Let's assume all 24 teams have 29 players and 4 coaches for a total of 33 players and coaches.  Therefore, headcount should be 792 MLS players and coaches total.  Which works out gross revenue (before post-season, television broadcasting rights, souvenirs, etc) of about $750,000 in gross revenue per player or coach ($590,400,00 divided headcount of 792= $745,454.55/player or coach). 
Under my analysis here, the MLS players and coaches are generating about 700% per capita of what the woman's soccer league is generating ($745k vs. $108k).   It is not surprising to me that those generating more money in this entertainment business would earn more than those generating a small fraction of the MLS total.


PS If you disagree with my pro-forma analysis then let me know where I have gone astray and I will try to rerun the numbers.

 Again, apples and oranges. The issue is NATIONAL TEAM, not MLS or any other entity. Do your same analysis, but only on NATIONAL TEAM operations, and then we can talk.


That report is basically saying that one year before a World Cup the USMNT failed to qualify for, the USMNT was $5million more expensive than the USWNT was a year before a World Cup they qualified for.



PVW said:


drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Got it -- so rather than saying "women are paid less than men, that's a problem, and here are some challenges that will make this hard to fix," you opted to go for "women are paid less than men, and here's why they deserve it." 
I guess that is a pretty simple point.

 That’s BS. Of course women are paid less than men- many studies show the disparity. And it’s a real issue to fight for. This soccer thing is not an example of the disparity. There are real reasons the men’s team makes more than the women’s team. It’s a bad example and doesn’t reflect the real reasons there is wage disparity.


Dennis_Seelbach said:


 Again, apples and oranges. The issue is NATIONAL TEAM, not MLS or any other entity. Do your same analysis, but only on NATIONAL TEAM operations, and then we can talk.

My analysis above  (posted at 628AM) is entirely about the men and women's national team revenue for 2017 and 2018.  Take a look and provide your comments.  The post from 628AM is NOT about MLS. 


PS If you paste the WSJ article that you linked to that would be helpful (as cannot access the WSJ due to lack of subscription).  Many thanks.


ridski said:
That report is basically saying that one year before a World Cup the USMNT failed to qualify for, the USMNT was $5million more expensive than the USWNT was a year before a World Cup they qualified for.

 Agreed.  I don't think any conclusion can be made regarding revenue numbers from these expense numbers (which are broken out between MNT and WNT while there is no break-out for revenue numbers).  


Does anyone have a break-out of 2017 and 2018 revenues for the MNT and WNT (so that we can complete this analysis of the revenue for the MNT and WNT)?


proeasdf said:

PS If you paste the WSJ article that you linked to that would be helpful (as cannot access the WSJ due to lack of subscription).  Many thanks.

And undermine the financial model The Journal has prepared? No, thanks.

The gross revenue figures, which you requested, were in the excerpt I copied from a free site. I (not Dennis_Seelbach) added the WSJ link mostly just to show that there was in fact an article.


DaveSchmidt said:


proeasdf said:

PS If you paste the WSJ article that you linked to that would be helpful (as cannot access the WSJ due to lack of subscription).  Many thanks.
And undermine the financial model The Journal has prepared? No, thanks.
The gross revenue figures, which you requested, were in the excerpt I copied from a free site. I (not Dennis_Seelbach) added the WSJ link mostly just to show that there was in fact an article.

 As explained, I cannot access the WSJ article (a link is nice but not helpful).  

And, now explain to me how you would be "undermin[ing] the financial model The Journal has prepared" by posting such article?

Are you suggesting that the numbers that I distilled from the USSF's 2018 financial statements are wrong?

Do you realize that the USSF financial statements are a primary source?

Do you realize that the WSJ article about primary sources is at best a secondary source?


proeasdf said:

And, now explain to me how you would be "undermin[ing] the financial model The Journal has prepared" by posting such article?

 The financial model prepared by The Journal is this: Readers pay their share for the journalism that costs money to produce.


DaveSchmidt said:
A summary of a Wall Street Journal article:
Financial reports seen by the business newspaper show that a surge in ticket sales for the women’s games helped earn the United States Soccer Federation $50.8 million from 2016 to 2018. The men’s team, meanwhile, apparently only generated $49.9 million over the same period.

The firewalled WSJ link:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600

 Found away around the WSJ paywall:  Here is a reprint of the WSJ article linked above:

Paste-up of the article does not seem to be perfect.  Especially with regard to revenue.  When I went back to the site, the paywall is back up (so I cannot correct right now).


=================================================

U.S. Women’s Soccer Games Outearned Men’s Games
The 2015 World Cup title was a catalyst to boost women’s game revenues, which in recent years exceeded the men’s


By Rachel Bachman

June 17, 2019 6:00 am ET

PARIS—In the three years after the U.S. women’s soccer team won the 2015 World Cup, U.S. women’s games generated more total revenue than U.S. men’s games, according to audited financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation.

The ability of the women’s team to generate gate revenues that equals or exceeds the men’s team is an important battleground in the U.S. women’s March 8 gender-discrimination lawsuit against the federation. In the suit, all 28 members of the U.S. women’s national team player pool allege U.S. Soccer has paid them less than the men’s team, along with denying them equal playing, training and travel conditions and promoting their games less.

U.S. Soccer has made revenue generation a key part of its defense. In U.S. Soccer’s May 6 legal response to the suit, the federation said the men’s and women’s teams are separate organizations with separate collective-bargaining agreements. It said that any alleged pay differential between the men’s and women’s teams is “based on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex.”

U.S. Women Catching UpU.S. men's soccer events once brought inmuch more revenue than U.S. women'sevents, but that gap is closingSource: U.S. Soccer

.million

Men's national team event revenue

Women's national team FY2010’12’14’16’180510152025$30


But U.S. Soccer’s numbers show that while men’s games used to generate millions more than women’s games, in recent years the gap in revenue all but disappeared.

From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer’s audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men. Game revenues are made up mostly of ticket sales. In the last two years, at least, the men’s tally includes appearance fees that opposing teams pay the U.S. for games.

“The event revenue from the USWNT demonstrates the potential that can be realized when investment is made,” said Becca Roux, executive director of the U.S. women’s national team’s players association. “While there is still a long way to go, I applaud U.S. Soccer, their partners, and our partners for the new marketing initiatives over the past couple of years. I hope it serves as a case study and example for other federations around the world to emulate.”

U.S. Soccer declined to comment.

To be sure, ticket sales are only one revenue stream that the national teams help generate. U.S. Soccer brought in nearly $49 million in marketing and sponsorship revenue in 2018, nearly half of its $101 million operating revenue, according to federation records.

Marketing and sponsorship revenue includes the sale of broadcast rights for U.S. Soccer games and sponsorships sold to Budweiser, Nike and others.

Alex Morgan takes a selfie with fans after a game in San Diego in 2016. PHOTO: TODD WARSHAW/GETTY IMAGES

But U.S. Soccer sells broadcast rights and sponsorships as a bundle, not separately for each national team. That makes it difficult to parse the value that broadcasters or brands see in the men’s team versus the women’s team.

U.S. Soccer doesn’t earn broadcast-rights fees from World Cups. In the U.S., those tournaments’ English-language broadcast deals are between Fox Sports and FIFA.

But U.S. Soccer and Major League Soccer have a separate eight-year deal through 2022 with ESPN, Fox Sports and Univision Deportes for the right to broadcast other U.S. men’s and women’s soccer games along with MLS games. TV ratings for U.S. men’s games tend to be higher than those for U.S. women’s games, according to data collected by U.S. Soccer.

David Neal, executive producer of FIFA World Cup on Fox and VP, production, said it was difficult to parse the broadcast value of U.S. men’s versus women’s games.

U.S. women’s players huddle after a match at Red Bull Arena in May. PHOTO: RICH GRAESSLE/ICON SMI/ZUMA PRESS

“I don’t know how you quantify that,” Neal said. “But right now the shining star of U.S. Soccer is the U.S. women’s national team. These women are heroes and I think that carries great value.”

The U.S. women have won an unmatched four Olympic gold medals and three World Cup titles, and are in France trying to win a fourth. The U.S. men have never won a World Cup and failed to qualify for the 2018 tournament. The full U.S. men’s team doesn’t play in the Olympics, whose men’s competitions include mostly players under 23 years old.

There are signs that the U.S. women’s equal-pay fight has spurred more marketing deals with the federation.

Christian Pulisic and Michael Bradley after the U.S. men failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.PHOTO: ANDREA DE SILVA/REUTERS

Visa recently entered into a five-year deal with U.S. Soccer, and the company said it’s earmarked at least 50% of its investment for the U.S. women’s team and women’s soccer programming initiatives.

As part of its sponsorship as the official women’s deodorant of U.S. Soccer, Secret released an ad featuring soccer-playing girls. It ends with an image of U.S. forward Alex Morgan and the words, “Secret supports equal pay for all.”

U.S. Soccer is a nonprofit organization whose charge is to govern soccer in the U.S. Its mission, stated on its tax filings, is to promote soccer and make it “the pre-eminent sport recognized for excellence in participation, spectator appeal, international competitions and gender equality.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS



conandrob240 said:


PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
 This would make sense, if women were allowed to play in the NBA or in men's soccer. Otherwise, the argument is basically "women don't do the same job as men so they shouldn't be paid the same, but also they're not allowed to do the higher paying jobs."
Do you think for a minute that if there were a woman capable of playing in the NBA or men's soccer, that they wouldn't be there already? Do you really think that women don't play at that level simply because they're "not allowed"?
So that's why it's ok that they're paid less, because we've structured our athletics in a way where a women can never qualify for equal pay?
I don't know if the correct answer is "sports should not be gender segregated."  I do know "women should be satisfied with structural inequity" is the wrong answer.
I don't think you actually responded to my point. 

Women athletes get paid less because they produce less revenue. And they don't play in the NBA or men's soccer because they're not "good" enough to play there. (boy, gonna get in trouble for that one)



It's pretty simple.



 Got it -- so rather than saying "women are paid less than men, that's a problem, and here are some challenges that will make this hard to fix," you opted to go for "women are paid less than men, and here's why they deserve it." 
I guess that is a pretty simple point.
 That’s BS. Of course women are paid less than men- many studies show the disparity. And it’s a real issue to fight for. This soccer thing is not an example of the disparity. There are real reasons the men’s team makes more than the women’s team. It’s a bad example and doesn’t reflect the real reasons there is wage disparity.

 There is no study that shows that women get paid less then men for the same job.


drummerboy said:

 There is no study that shows that women get paid less then men for the same job.

The question I think PVW is asking is: Why aren’t the jobs, or at least more of them, the same?


DaveSchmidt said:


drummerboy said:

 There is no study that shows that women get paid less then men for the same job.
The question I think PVW is asking is: Why aren’t the jobs, or at least more of them, the same?

I don't understand  (my comment was meant to be more general than just soccer.)

Why aren't what jobs the same? How do you make more jobs the same?

What?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals

Advertise here!