In 2015, when the U.S. Women's National Team beat Japan to take the World Cup in Vancouver, the Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million in revenue, of which the players got 13 percent — $10 million. In 2010, the men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9 percent — $348 million — went to the players.What the activists want is not equitable pay, but equal pay -- even though there's nothing like an equal contribution to the pot. They act as if pay were an expression of their moral value as human beings, rather than their contribution to the economics.
The men simply make more money for FIFA — boatloads more money. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7 percent of the revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup was expected to earn $131 million for the 2019-2022 cycle and give out $30 million to participating teams. That's a whopping 22.9 percent!
In other words, the male players take home a smaller percentage of the money they earn for FIFA, even though they take home more money overall. The problem isn't FIFA being sexist against women — in fact, the percentage gap suggests a preference for women or at least an effort to make sure women make more money.
I don't think they fail to understand the economic argument. My sense is that this truly is a rejection of capitalism as a mode of social organization. Of course the men make boatloads more for the sport; of course it is already the men who are disproportionately underpaid compared with the women. That's not the point. The point is that pay should reflect moral, social values -- not economic ones.
That is of course how you get to a place like Venezuela, where enormous amounts of natural wealth still can't support a functional economic system. As someone pointed out this weekend, our socialists will tell you that they're aiming for Sweden or Norway, not Venezuela. What they forget is that Venezuelans were trying to be Sweden or Norway, too. (Also, they forget that Sweden and Norway largely abandoned socialist models; but that's a conversation more readily had at AVI's place, where he discusses it occasionally.)
Well, there's another aspect in which the women are paid neither equitably nor enough more than the men: the women actually win.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
One wonders if those demanding dollar for dollar equality between the players remember that this is a global sport. Outside of the US and Europe, how many places even have professional women's teams and the "farm clubs" that lead up to the teams? How many places allow women to play sports at all? No eyes, no players, no ad revenue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the desire is merely to show how socially aware and feminist the protesting parties are, then they're absolutely right on all counts.
LittleRed1
I’m not sure it matters who wins a soccer game. The point of the sport seems to be to have as little as possible of importance occur, presumably to give viewers more time to chat with each other instead of having to pay attention. If a game ends at zero all, eh. Who cares?
ReplyDeleteLR1, as I reflect on your argument, I realize the irony is that the success of the women's soccer team is really a product of American football.
ReplyDeleteAlmost no country in the world funds women's soccer to any serious degree. Our team is so great because it is drawn from feeder teams that are drawn from college programs that are hugely funded because -- via Title IX -- the colleges have to fund women's sports programs in order to justify their expenditures on their money-making college football teams.
It's doubly ironic, then, that the women's team is piggybacking off the greater popularity of another sport twice over. The college teams underlying their success wouldn't mostly exist except for government mandates for 'equal' spending, which they are now trying to replicate at the professional level.
So no wonder it seems plausible to them. It's already worked once. They'll probably end up getting equal or double pay, in spite of the fact that it's not economically sound at any level for them to receive anything like the funding they already do.
Sports is yang dominated for a reason. The women outwardly project male masculine energy, except in a very toxic or imbalanced fashion. I am not gonna mention some MMA female competitors, since I have nothing against them. But that would be a point.
ReplyDeleteWWFC however is ... strange. Its like female drama, linked with male masculine competition, but it's all drama, not real.
Oh well.
The UFC being more "real" doesn't necessarily make it better or less toxic.
The female soccer girls and lesbians, are competing with the men, except not in sports but using female weapons. That is... toxicity at its best, because it is the inapproriate alchemical mixture of masculine and feminine energies. Don't mess with that mortals, I warned ya.
The alchemical admixture of yin and yang is extraordinarily potent. It can be used as a great weapon or a great tool to advance the race.
ReplyDeleteThese level 1 or 2 souls that chose to incarnate as "transgender whatevers" are interesting. I do not know what their spiritual goals are, but they may gain something by taking a short cut to learn the masculine and feminine in one incarnation.
However, that is mighty difficult. The traditional method was through marriage. The females would focus on feminine power, and the males would focus on masculine power. Yang for yang, yin for yin. When they combined, it would be from a relatively mature admixture.
Now the mixture is toxic to the extreme. Femininity has been poisoned. Masculinity has been weakened.
Angels are masculine or yang because they project the Will of the Creator or the ALmighty, as well as love and an aura of power. While they have free will, they are male only in the sense that their purpose is to project power, not to receive help or aid. That is what servants do. They walk around representing their masters. They project not their own power but the power of who sent them. Angels are indeed servants in the mortal definition.
I just got back from Norway. A beautiful and wealthy country. It owes it's success to two things- #1-Norwegians. #2- North Sea oil. And they are getting rigorous on immigration control. The fly in the ointment is the Schengen agreement, essentially providing a way for the dissolute to come for a "visit", and overstay. Fortunately Norway provides little in the way of free lunches to non citizens.
ReplyDeleteFortunately Norway provides little in the way of free lunches to non citizens.
ReplyDeleteIt's also cold. Sweden, Denmark, Malmo, is a lot warmer. Norway is the fjords basically, other than their land trade route to Finland. Back in the day, that was just barbarian tribal steppe land.