Yeah, someone look up how the National Women's League doing in the US, I've heard its finances are hopeless.Generate equal revenue if you want equal pay. WNT should actually be deducted money due to how subsidized women's sport is.
The WNBA would also be skewed by a couple franchises that do OK overall (MN and LA). The talent pool is improving, but it might be a little too late. Trading for Lindsey Whalen made a lot of money in MN, and she sells a relatively large amount of tickets coaching at UofMN now that she's retired. It'll never be the NBA, but it's kind of fun if you're a fan of old-fashioned basketball instead of a game where the players are more skilled than the court is designed for.If this gets any traction, I hope the lawyers on US Soccer does the math and finds that the female players actually make a larger percentage of the total income for their sport versus the men. Just by the virtue of the men's making so much more money. Probably more likely in the WNBA vs NBA, but still, I'd find it funny.
I haven't read the complaint word-for-word, but, apparently, the go-to excuse for that obvious counterpoint is "It's not our JOB to make the league popular! That's for the governing body to do! it's CURRENT YEAR! There's no reason it can't be just as popular if not moreso, the fact it isn't is just further proof of how misogynist they are. We just want our EQUAL PAY NOW! Don't cloud the issue with these pointless economic arguments.... it's about WOMEN!!!!"Instead of just suing your way into equality, why not find ways to rebrand and grow awareness for the sport to get the women to draw the same revenue as the men?
Yeah, women's sports can be more fun to watch in some instances because the men are just too good while the women are good enough to play on a high level. Sounds a bit stupid, but tennis is a good example of where women can be more fun to watch and it ties into your NBA example. Women in tennis can't cover pretty much the entire court at all times, they can't explode into any direction in a split second, they're not as fast, they have to play the game of strategy and work towards setting things up in a way that is more noticeable to the viewer. That makes it more interesting in my opinion, but I'm just a casual viewer. Women in tennis makes a ton of money? Great, they earned that money. Women's soccer(and hockey) shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth though.The WNBA would also be skewed by a couple franchises that do OK overall (MN and LA). The talent pool is improving, but it might be a little too late. Trading for Lindsey Whalen made a lot of money in MN, and she sells a relatively large amount of tickets coaching at UofMN now that she's retired. It'll never be the NBA, but it's kind of fun if you're a fan of old-fashioned basketball instead of a game where the players are more skilled than the court is designed for.
Tennis equals out better, because short skirts are worth an extra 20mph on a serve.
In Berlin they organize an open-air event called "SexySoccer"They should try playing naked. Viewership would at least increase...1.5%?
As others have stated, the women's team has been far more successful on the international and Olympic level. What I think the team fails to grasp, however, that women's leagues in general aren't as popular as their male counterparts. Anecdotally, girls teams starting from elementary school age on up have had fewer individuals trying out for teams compared to boys and fewer teams resulting from those lower numbers.I actually think the women's team has been more watchable then the men's team the last several years.
This new lawsuit is puzzling. I believe within the last year or two the women's national soccer team threatened some sort of walkout unless they got better pay and working conditions. I thought a last-second deal was made to prevent the walkout. So, the new lawsuit and its timing is head-scratching to me . Did the terms of the previous agreement not get followed? Or is this a matter of, as @TowinKarz stated, "we want more, more, and even more"? Also, the timing of the suit to be filed on International Women's Day can't be political at all, right ?i.e. - Not my job to educate you shitlord, gimmie gimmie gimmie cuz' muh feels.
NYT throws those numbers out there without any context:One of the biggest differences in compensation is the multimillion-dollar bonuses the teams receive for participating in the World Cup, but those bonuses — a pool of $400 million for 32 men’s teams versus $30 million for 24 women’s teams — are determined by FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, not U.S. Soccer.
The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.
No, come on, they wouldn't be that cruel. They'll just have the government subsidize it from our taxes, they wouldn't make us actually watch it.So what's their solution? Force people to watch them play their dumb gay sport? Are we going full blown coupon the movie?