Equal pay women’s World Cup

RedAsABeetroot said:
I was wondering about this today. If the Saudi League grows globally will the Saudis relocate the clubs they own lock, stock and barrel.
Perhaps they'll be a new housing estate behind The Strawberry with sentimental names like Shearer Street, Milburn Way and Keegan Close.
Click to expand...

I can see a situation when the Audi League doesn't play too many matches in Saudi.
I can imagine 10 Saudi teams swallowing up all the best players and playing a perpetual "good will tour" around the world.

It would draw huge crowds because many fans are more interested in players, rather than teams.


As for the OP: no problem with women getting equal appearance fees for playing for England, but it's not as if there's a payscale or a going rate in the men's game: each individual gets the salary they personally can command.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
There should be a set expense for playing for your country, men and women, nothing else.
Click to expand...
Why? Everyone involved makes money from these tournaments. FIFA, the FAs, all of the comoanies who supply drinks/food, the companies who make the kits/other merchandise, the clubs who own the stadiums - why should the players not make money? If it wasn't for the players, there's no tournament.

The male players for some countries don't need the money. So it's right that they choose to give it up (although they will make far more from sponsors during tournaments). It's different for the women, who have historically relied on the international games to be able to make a living.

The equal pay thing is complex as well at international level. Some countries FA's (the US/Canada) have usually made more in prize money from the women's team than the men's team. Should it not be the case that the women's team should be paid more in that case, going by some of the logic on here.

If the FA want to have a successful women's team, then they need to invest in the game. If FIFA want a successful women's game, they need to invest in it. That's exactly what they're doing. Matching tournament match bonuses helps, funding elite training does it, promoting the game on an equal level does it.

This isn't out of kindness, they're doing it because they will get a return down the line. Especially as women's football appeals to a different audience.

The question is ask is - why do people care how FIFA and the FA spend their money. They have enough of it, they wanted to take over the Women's FA. If they want to invest in women's football, that's their business. It doesn't do anything to take away from men's football.
 
El Guapo said:
That is an entirely different argument
Click to expand...
This whole argument is very subjective because of the fact of level of quality perhaps that we’re (really) looking at. In the end however it’s all about who is willing to pay to see the sport and the players and support it with season ticket subscriptions— single tickets purchases might not cut it.

The women’s national game has definitely made a big impact on the game but my argument is— is it sustainable and should the FIFA women’s game support other countries women’s soccer where the likes of Haiti etc have little chance of getting a piece of the pie?

As we all know the salary expectations of most jobs on the planet are always subject to scrutiny.

If you’re a special athlete you’ll attract money and sponsorship but if you’re a special engineer etc, the only thing you’ll attract is another “we’re hiring” email.

Point is here that we don’t get to choose sometimes what we want to be, most of the time you just have to go with the flow and hope you can support yourself. The women’s game probably is fighting for a good cause (their op) but as soon as the teachers go on strike then there’s criticism from all quarters.

Will the girls ever be happy — probably not but then again neither is Ronny lol 😆
 
Last edited:
Why don't male players in League One get the same pay as those in the Premier League? Because of the revenues they generate...

However, if the ladies want to argue that its pay for representing their country, then maybe that viewpoint has some element of validity. Playing for your country should be seen as an honor, food travel and accommodation should be paid for and the rest is the honour for representing your country, neither men nor women should be paid for that - not my opinion but a train of thought perhaps?
 
Equal pay against what exactly? They are not playing the same game so how can they expect equal pay as it's not the same job.

Do the England Mens C team (semi pro) demand to be paid the same as the woman?

I've said before, women's football should forge it's own path, not fly on the coat tails of the men's professional game. What has the women's game offered that deserves and seemly expects all the commercial opportunities that the men's game has worked so hard to obtain? It wasn't that long ago that football was on its proverbial knees.
 
There's two ways to approach this in my opinion.

On the one hand, you can construct all manner of well reasoned and costed metrics to justify a pay disparity and keep the status quo.

On the other hand, you could just level the thing and not fret about whether you've done the right thing. Because guess what? Of course you have.
 
exeterboro said:
As above In this instance, FIFA needs to be more transparent which is a whole other problem, but in an ideal world they would pay a % of the amount they believe a competition will generate in prize and attendance fees. So for both men and women the monies paid out of the collective pot will be 10%, which is equal from that point of view and not left to unseen people deciding it behind closed doors, but the problem is FIFA doesn't like transparency.
Click to expand...
Agree with the above, there should be an equal split based on % of tournament revenue.

If fifa come out and state both men and women will have a prize pool of 50% of the revenue created from each tournament then surely that is fair? If the men’s tournament generates 500 mill then their prize pot is 250 mill. If the women’s tournament then generates 750 mill then their prize put such be 375 mill.

Although actually then there is the argument that women’s football was banned for however long and therefore they have been put at a disadvantage so deserve reparations and should get a percentage of the men’s tournament also to make up for previous historical wrongs in stifling the development of the women’s game. Perhaps that would be fairier.

Either that or amalgamate the prize pots from both tournaments and share the split equally between them all, that seems reasonably fair.

In conclusion I have no idea what would be the best solution and I’m seriously dreading the day the bum faced population start their world cups and I get lost trying to come up with even further solutions for equality.
 
festa5 said:
And even Wimbledon isn't perfect because the men play best of 5 so it's now arguably unfair the other way.

Going off topic a bit but I'd absolutely love the women to have to play best of 5. I assume the issue would be scheduling. But no reason they can't from a physical perspective and it'd really separate the wheat from the chaff. Would be fascinating to see who comes to the fore if it happened. (Which it won't).
Click to expand...
Most mens tennis is best of 3. Its only the slams where it is 5. Given the scheduling nightmares they have had this last fortnight some people are proposing to do away with 5 set matches.
 
TheKrustyKrabsPatties said:
Agree with the above, there should be an equal split based on % of tournament revenue.

If fifa come out and state both men and women will have a prize pool of 50% of the revenue created from each tournament then surely that is fair? If the men’s tournament generates 500 mill then their prize pot is 250 mill. If the women’s tournament then generates 750 mill then their prize put such be 375 mill.

Although actually then there is the argument that women’s football was banned for however long and therefore they have been put at a disadvantage so deserve reparations and should get a percentage of the men’s tournament also to make up for previous historical wrongs in stifling the development of the women’s game. Perhaps that would be fairier.

Either that or amalgamate the prize pots from both tournaments and share the split equally between them all, that seems reasonably fair.

In conclusion I have no idea what would be the best solution and I’m seriously dreading the day the bum faced population start their world cups and I get lost trying to come up with even further solutions for equality.
Click to expand...
yes and it should be distributed equally between all the teams but I’m sure the likes of the US will argue they only come to see us lol 😆 and then there will be a legal challenge and so on. The game gotten so corruptible with corporate factions weighing in with a their brands I don’t think we’ll ever see a fair outcome.
 
Abel Tasman said:
Most mens tennis is best of 3. Its only the slams where it is 5. Given the scheduling nightmares they have had this last fortnight some people are proposing to do away with 5 set matches.
Click to expand...
That's what makes the slams special. They should be harder to win.

Yeah I know it's been mooted, but I don't think there's much support for changing it to 3 yet. Djokovic is in favour but not sure many others are.

There's also been suggestions of a compromise and possibly have the first 3 rounds as best of 3. But can you imagine the complaints the minute a few top seeds crash out? It would favour bigger servers in particular who could do almost nothing on return games and yet win 2 sets on tie breaks.

There are other solutions to scheduling issues. Obviously it's better than it used to be anyway with the roofs. They could also easily start earlier (again, think Djokovic is in favour).
 
festa5 said:
I think there's a case for it in international tournaments.

Yes the tournaments attract sponsorship, gate receipts etc etc but what the men get isn't that tightly linked to how much is generated. It's not like they can go and sign for another team.

It's essentially an allowance for representing your country. You become one of the best players and get selected you get that allowance.

Very different at club level where it's very much a business and wages are more reflective of how much money is being generated (and indeed not all players are paid remotely the same, even those at the same level).

And then clubs go and spend more than that anyway and get into debt.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. International pay should be equal as it is a flat fee. Club wages, where contracts are negotiated on an individual basis, Are a different matter altogether. It’s not even for men!!
 
Women's Football in this country was hugely popular with crowds of 50,000 plus, until it was banned for 60 years by Men. It doesn't take a genius to realise that women's Football has been severely affected in terms of revenue and popularity by sexists and misogynists.
So when discussing the amount due to female footballers, it's massively oversimplifying things to say "oh but it's not popular enough, so they only deserve what they're getting".
 
Last edited:
A Woman’s Game by Suzanne Wrack: The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Women’s Football

is a good read for anyone interested in the ban and the impact had on those involved....
 
If there’s a financial case for equal money then why not. They shouldn’t be equal money wise because it’s not fair, that’s ridiculous.
 
There 2 separate arguments here I think:

Should women receive the same money (payments and bonus) as men for representing their Country?
- As this if funded by the FA/UEFA/FIFA, then yes absolutely.

Should women be paid the same as men on professional contracts by clubs?
- Should be at the discretion of the employer based on the financial return of investment in that player.

I think we are moving in the right direction but probably not at the speed the current players would like.

We now have professional leagues, Euro tournaments, UEFA and FIFA International tournaments that did not exist not so long ago. Professional clubs are subsiding player development, facilities, stadia to help the game grow (not for nothing admittedly). TV companies are investing and showing live games via dedicated programming which has not happened before. We have come a long way but we have so far yet to go before parity of pay should be the main focus and concern.

Bearing in mind all of the above, the top 20 Women's teams in the world (club level) only generate £23 million revenue between them...Barcelona account for £7M of that...
 
Bobbygee said:
I might get completely shot down here but if a tournament doesn’t generate the amount of money that the men’s tournament generates.
Is equal pay/win bonuses right ?

What next women’s clubs teams matching the men’s wages? Bit far fetched but similar principles,m. The reason the men get paid so much is because of how lucrative the game is which also brings in foreign billions. The women’s game is very lucky that the men’s game props it up, club facilities etc etc, it’s great that clubs have taken on women’s teams but I bet it’s not financially lucrative to such clubs, is this business or sport? I’d say top level football is more business than sport (sad but true).

For me although they come under the same governing bodies just look at attendances at the women’s game (less than Rugby Union which is unable to sustain itself), and the money the woman’s game generates through TV rights that surely has to reflect the money on offer.

I’m all for equal rights but surely you earn equal rights by developing the sport it’s not like tennis where competitions, sponsorships and TV rights run concurrently.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of this from a while ago regarding equal pay and the NBA

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top