Women's Football - Wage Disparity Debate

[barry]

No, good point, you suggesting in the other thread that we replace the Women's World Cup with an Animal World Cup was a really considered point. Then in here you compared them to being worse at football than children (boy children obviously, not silly girls who run funny) and suggested that they should just shut up and be appreciative, not sure what of, being allowed to vote and wear long trousers presumably. It doesn't take a qualified psychologist to see you have some things to work out here.

They are going to court because they feel undervalued by their federation, much liek many federations across the world who treat the womens teams like a joke. You want them to make their game more watchable? In terms of profile the women's team is probably bigger than the mens in the US and the last world cup was leaps and bounds bigger and better than the last, what exactly do you want them to do? Aside from shut up and be quiet. They are the players, its their job to play the game not do the marketing.

Full disclosure i dont know the ins and outs, to be honest i only saw this thread because i saw you lposted in the sidebar and wanted to see what well thought out contribution you had to offer.

They lost to some random u15 team 5-2 so yeah they are worse than a children's team, probably lots of them.
Bigger than the men's team. How do you know this? Maybe for 3 months every 4 years. Women's football is a hard sell, the quality ain't there. It's worse than u15 football, and on the whole uncompetitive.
Like rugby, and cricket, etc there are some sports where the woman's game is so much worse than the men's game that they should do it for 30k - 40k a year and be happy with that. That's a fair wage. Thats far more than a non League footballer would earn for far less quality.
I bet these women still get paid in comparison to an average person and if they're so popular they should have nice sponsorship deals etc.
Bottom line is if these women brought in so much money, and were superstars the federation would pay them more, I'm sure. I think the federation looks at them as easily changeable commodities, and looking at the state of the women's game, i can't disagree.
Let's see how strongly they feel if this goes against them.

 

[Marty]

It seems to only be in football that people bring up the level of the female athletes and teams as a reason not to watch them.

Serena Williams in her pomp wouldn't have been a top 100 men's tennis player, yet crowds flock to see women's tennis.

The female 100m world record (achieved by a heavy doper who just wasn't caught at the time) wouldn't come close to qualifying for the major championships in the men's race, and this goes for pretty much all athletics events, yet that doesn't discourage people from enjoying seeing women compete at athletics.

Why this obsession with level? They're the best in the world in their gender, treat them as such and don't belittle them because they lost to mens and boys teams because of simple biology and athleticism.

 

[oidrive69]

isn't she the one who got caught up when all the nudes got leaked? and her minge looked like it had been pulverized with a meat tenderizer?

Yes that’s correct. I believe she’s been fingered more than David Attenborough’s passport.

 

[barry]

It seems to only be in football that people bring up the level of the female athletes and teams as a reason not to watch them.

Serena Williams in her pomp wouldn't have been a top 100 men's tennis player, yet crowds flock to see women's tennis.

The female 100m world record (achieved by a heavy doper who just wasn't caught at the time) wouldn't come close to qualifying for the major championships in the men's race, and this goes for pretty much all athletics events, yet that doesn't discourage people from enjoying seeing women compete at athletics.

Why this obsession with level? They're the best in the world in their gender, treat them as such and don't belittle them because they lost to mens and boys teams because of simple biology and athleticism.

Your being disingenuous as individual sports are easier to appreciate than team sports. Do you think women's cricket is good?? Don't give me your holier than though woman's rights response. Watch it and tell me you think it's good.

We watch a lot of football so we know what good football is. Women's football is non League standard, and that's being generous. They're the best women in the world at football, brilliant, i applaud them, but that doesn't change the standard.

Why should i lower my expectations just because of biology and athleticism.

Why should they get the same benefits for a vastly inferior, non competitive, product.

At the end of the day the money men will decide.

Lastly I would love to know if you actually enjoy woman's football?? Would you ever watch it over a men's game if both had the same importance to you?? I think I know what answer you'll give.

 

[Gassin's finest]

It seems to only be in football that people bring up the level of the female athletes and teams as a reason not to watch them.

Serena Williams in her pomp wouldn't have been a top 100 men's tennis player, yet crowds flock to see women's tennis.

The female 100m world record (achieved by a heavy doper who just wasn't caught at the time) wouldn't come close to qualifying for the major championships in the men's race, and this goes for pretty much all athletics events, yet that doesn't discourage people from enjoying seeing women compete at athletics.

Why this obsession with level? They're the best in the world in their gender, treat them as such and don't belittle them because they lost to mens and boys teams because of simple biology and athleticism.

'Cause you can't be bringing your bird to the football, can you? Don't know the offside rule, do they? Like they don't understand leg before wicket. They should be at home, keeping their ankles covered and their burkha's on, getting supper ready for when we get 'ome. Cor, women eh? Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

 

[Marty]

Your being disingenuous as individual sports are easier to appreciate than team sports. Do you think women's cricket is good?? Don't give me your holier than though woman's rights response. Watch it and tell me you think it's good.

We watch a lot of football so we know what good football is. Women's football is non League standard, and that's being generous. They're the best women in the world at football, brilliant, i applaud them, but that doesn't change the standard.

Why should i lower my expectations just because of biology and athleticism.

Why should they get the same benefits for a vastly inferior, non competitive, product.

At the end of the day the money men will decide.

Lastly I would love to know if you actually enjoy woman's football?? Would you ever watch it over a men's game if both had the same importance to you?? I think I know what answer you'll give.

If your criteria would count for everyone lower league football wouldn't exist and everyone would only support the big six because that's who plays the best football. Several players in the woman's game are very technically skilled but obviously lack the athleticism of the men, we can't hide from that fact.

I don't watch or enjoy cricket so I have no idea what standard we're referring to.

And yes, I watched the women's world cup last year and thought it was pretty good, there were some very good competitive games and Norway v England and Holland v Sweden in particular are games I still remember quite well. I have little interest in the domestic game but it's not for me to judge those who follow club teams passionately.

 

[nailsy]

If your criteria would count for everyone lower league football wouldn't exist and everyone would only support the big six because that's who plays the best football. Several players in the woman's game are very technically skilled but obviously lack the athleticism of the men, we can't hide from that fact.

I don't watch or enjoy cricket so I have no idea what standard we're referring to.

And yes, I watched the women's world cup last year and thought it was pretty good, there were some very good competitive games and Norway v England and Holland v Sweden in particular are games I still remember quite well. I have little interest in the domestic game but it's not for me to judge those who follow club teams passionately.

More people in this country watched the England vs USA womens football semi final than watched the mens cricket world cup final between England and New Zealand. We should probably just get rid of cricket really as it's not as popular as non-league standard football

. And also get rid of Wimbledon for the same reason.

 

[nailsy]

Your being disingenuous as individual sports are easier to appreciate than team sports. Do you think women's cricket is good?? Don't give me your holier than though woman's rights response. Watch it and tell me you think it's good.

We watch a lot of football so we know what good football is. Women's football is non League standard, and that's being generous. They're the best women in the world at football, brilliant, i applaud them, but that doesn't change the standard.

Why should i lower my expectations just because of biology and athleticism.

Why should they get the same benefits for a vastly inferior, non competitive, product.

At the end of the day the money men will decide.

Lastly I would love to know if you actually enjoy woman's football?? Would you ever watch it over a men's game if both had the same importance to you?? I think I know what answer you'll give.

If they both had the same importance then it wouldn't matter which one he watched would it? They'd both be equally important to him. It's toss a coin time.

 

[Marty]

If they both had the same importance then it wouldn't matter which one he watched would it? They'd both be equally important to him. It's toss a coin time.

If it were important enough to me I'd dual-screen with one on the TV and one on a laptop or phone so that is completely beside the point.

 

[Gassin's finest]

More people in this country watched the England vs USA womens football semi final than watched the mens cricket world cup final between England and New Zealand. We should probably just get rid of cricket really as it's not as popular as non-league standard football View attachment 67283 . And also get rid of Wimbledon for the same reason.

I'm onboard with this...

 

[Trotter]

Wow, just seen what they are really complaining about.
Whilst they basically accept that they more or less get equal pay on a per game basis, they are arguing that they should get significantly more than the men, it be back-dated and the per-game calculation for each game, should not be the numbers of matches they have played, but instead the number of matches they have won.
This is the bulk of the $66m claim they are making.
Has to fail.
In effect it is not equal pay they are after, but significantly more than the men, under the argument that they have won more games (rather than played more)
Yes, the smaller things like equal travel and hotels, no issue with, they should get, but the vast bulk of their claim must fail.

 

[RichieS]

The claim was a bit more complex than that.

And the more complex aspects of it are going to trial if I'm reading correctly. They're absolutely right that they should have access to the same standard of facilities as the men's team and that they, especially as the best side in the world, would reasonably expect to have their matches promoted to the same level. But I have to assume that what the judge said in dismissing the specific "equal pay" angle is true - rejecting the same agreement the men have and then complaining that they didn't earn as much under their own as they would have done is the very definition of having a giraffe, surely?

 

[RichieS]

I'm onboard with this...

What kind of Yorkshireman are you?!

 

[dontcallme]

And the more complex aspects of it are going to trial if I'm reading correctly. They're absolutely right that they should have access to the same standard of facilities as the men's team and that they, especially as the best side in the world, would reasonably expect to have their matches promoted to the same level. But I have to assume that what the judge said in dismissing the specific "equal pay" angle is true - rejecting the same agreement the men have and then complaining that they didn't earn as much under their own as they would have done is the very definition of having a giraffe, surely?

Yes, the next part of the case is still to be decided. at trial.

From what I have read the equal pay bit was right to be dismissed but it could be more complex as my knowledge of big business is very limited.

The equal promotion and facilities argument appears a stronger case but will wait for the trial conclusion.

 

[Gassin's finest]

What kind of Yorkshireman are you?!

I know, I'm a constant disappointment to my father.

 

[Trotter]

This was the Womens players spokesperson on announcing they will appeal

"Equal pay means paying women players the same rate for winning a game as men get paid," she said.
"The argument that women are paid enough if they make the same amount as men while winning more than twice as often is not equal pay."



Giving its ruling, the court said: "The women's team has been paid more on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis than the men's team over the class period."

They have totally lost any moral high ground at all, now that the facts have come out.

 

[Bobbins]

Just to bring this one back.

Man City v Chelsea on BBC One right now. Women's Community Shield.

The standard, as expected, is generally fairly poor. Nothing inherently wrong with that.

But the Chelsea striker, Sam Kerr - apparently one of the best strikers in women's football worldwide. Her goal record at club and international level is ridiculous (verging on more than a goal a game!).

She is absolutely awful. Chance after chance she's shanked into the shadow realm. Sure players have poor form or aren't match fit etc. But this is truly shocking.

 

[Bobbins]

Also, been a while since I watch women's football. Forgot how slow the pace of the games is.

One of the things I think contributes to that, and to the general lack of exciting, fast attacking play, is the tendency (and presumably, the need) for female players to massively telegraph their passes, particularly over any significant distance. Obviously, women aren't going to kick the ball as hard as men, and since they're using the same size ball, on the same size pitch, there is a definite need for the female players to change their body shape and position around the ball in order to achieve pace/distance on their passes, thus making it much more obvious what they're attempting to do before it happens.

You simply don't get the quick flicks, no-look or round the corner passes, or fast direct long balls of the men's game. There's much more need for slow build-up and a general lack of ability to exploit space. I think that is a big contributor to the general slower pace.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means it's a very different game to the men's game. And it makes it ever more obvious as to why the two sports should never be compared as some sort of level playing field.

 

[dontcallme]

Also, been a while since I watch women's football. Forgot how slow the pace of the games is.

One of the things I think contributes to that, and to the general lack of exciting, fast attacking play, is the tendency (and presumably, the need) for female players to massively telegraph their passes, particularly over any significant distance. Obviously, women aren't going to kick the ball as hard as men, and since they're using the same size ball, on the same size pitch, there is a definite need for the female players to change their body shape and position around the ball in order to achieve pace/distance on their passes, thus making it much more obvious what they're attempting to do before it happens.

You simply don't get the quick flicks, no-look or round the corner passes, or fast direct long balls of the men's game. There's much more need for slow build-up and a general lack of ability to exploit space. I think that is a big contributor to the general slower pace.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means it's a very different game to the men's game. And it makes it ever more obvious as to why the two sports should never be compared as some sort of level playing field.

Simple reality is that money doesn’t go to who is better. Money follows what is marketable and has high viewing figures.

For a while Ronda Rousey was very popular and as a result became one of the highest paid fighters in the world. The Williams’ sister make huge money.

Women players won’t earn anything like the men unless they can generate similar interest. I can’t see this happening.

I think they should look to change their game a bit. Slightly smaller pitches and goals with a slightly shorter game would suit them better and would be a good start.

 

[tommo84]

Also, been a while since I watch women's football. Forgot how slow the pace of the games is.

One of the things I think contributes to that, and to the general lack of exciting, fast attacking play, is the tendency (and presumably, the need) for female players to massively telegraph their passes, particularly over any significant distance. Obviously, women aren't going to kick the ball as hard as men, and since they're using the same size ball, on the same size pitch, there is a definite need for the female players to change their body shape and position around the ball in order to achieve pace/distance on their passes, thus making it much more obvious what they're attempting to do before it happens.

You simply don't get the quick flicks, no-look or round the corner passes, or fast direct long balls of the men's game. There's much more need for slow build-up and a general lack of ability to exploit space. I think that is a big contributor to the general slower pace.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means it's a very different game to the men's game. And it makes it ever more obvious as to why the two sports should never be compared as some sort of level playing field.

Personally I didn’t understand the strength of opposition to the suggestion some time ago that women’s football should/could be played on a smaller pitch. Tactics in the men’s game have evolved and developed as men have been able to move around the pitch quicker - as a result of the game becoming professional and players improving their fitness - and so the relative slow pace at which female players move around the pitch and cover off space has a detrimental impact on the game in my opinion. Ironically, by insisting on playing on a pitch the same size as the men, the women have ensured that their game is different to the men’s in a way which hinders their chances of truly tapping into the huge fanbase of the men’s game.

Until they tap into that market, the women’s game won’t generate anything like enough money to give female players ‘equal’ pay to their male counterparts.