The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Given this utterly absurd settlement on a completely baseless case, the us men’s team will now have to give much of the revenue they generate from parity this year to the women’s team. 

Why would you want to compete if that was the case?

I wonder why they settled.  The case had no merits whatsoever

I don't really understand the guys having to split their tournament money but if they are ok with it then so be it. Our women are much better on the world stage but I don't knwo for how much longer. Other countries have caught up and are even surpassing us.

With all that said I don't think anyone is actually playing on the National Team for the money.

Suggesting a player boycott tells me you don't understand the game or the players.

Keep in mind although the men's team earn more in tournament money, the formula splits evenly TV revenue, the TV rights are sold as a package, even though the women's games have significantly more viewers to the point the networks are buying the women's games and the men's games are just filler. If the TV rights were split and sold separately the women possibly would be bringing in more revenue than the men. 

No.

Of all the cases of women getting equal pay, athletics is the weakest by far.  

Professional sports leagues pay their players based on how much revenue is generated.   Take the NBA vs the WNBA for example.   The WNBA barely breaks even every year.  The revenue they generate from TV, merchandise, tickets, etc... is peanuts compared to the NBA.    If you give Sue Bird a Lebron James type contract, it will bankrupt the league.

Except in the one sport where the women's team is immensely more popular than the equivalent men's team.

More popular doesn't necessarily equal more revenue generated.

And the reason why it doesn't equal more revenue generated is because the rights are sold as a package; the USMNT is riding the coattails of the USWNT.

If you were to pick one of the strongest examples, in all of American sport, where the women have a completely solid and legitimate argument to be paid MORE than the men, the USWNT and USMNT would be near the top.  And yet this is the example D4L cites as worthy of a boycott.  Ridiculous.

The deal involves taking the money the men earn, and giving it to the women, just like liberalism

That entire sentence is wrong.

I haven't seen the numbers over the last couple years but when this all started the women were generating higher revenue for a  few years so that argument doesn't fly.

The saddest part is that it wasn't much and the women are at the top of the game. If our men had any amount of success on the world stage their money would easily double the women. Outside of the US women's soccer doesn't get a whole lot of respect.

But much of that is the accounting system.  If nike or addis wants the rights to sell official woman soccer merchandise they need to purchase a package deal with the men getting half even if the women's merchandise outsells men 20 to 1.  In any area where grouping the money benefits the men it is grouped and the men get half, anywhere keeping the funds seperate benefits the men it is accounted for seperately.  So of course the official numbers make it look as if the men are subsidizing the women.