3) For major soccer events, we know objectively what the true market value of tickets is. These tickets are sold on the open market by resellers whose only purpose is to maximize their own profit. This is the definition of market value.
There is generally understood to an inverse relationship between prices and demand (i.e. ticket prices and attendance numbers). Are you arguing that this isn't the case?
That's irrelevant. It doesn't explain why the market value for men's games, the price consumers are willing to pay, are significantly higher.
If the women can consistently generate equivalent revenue as the men over the long term, then I agree with you and women deserve equal salaries. However, in that case I don't think a lawsuit would be necessary.
I don't think comparing the US women's recent success means anything.
I think the economic realities argument will prevail in the court of law. That is the only relevant objective fact in this argument
Your belief that the USSF will just go ahead and offer the women a salary based on their income potential is not justified IMO.
If the argument is the women generate significant revenue, and do similar work (actually more work) for the same employer, I think the women win.
There is one economic reality that matters. Consumers are willing to pay far more to see men's soccer than they are to see woman's soccer.
Quote:Your belief that the USSF will just go ahead and offer the women a salary based on their income potential is not justified IMO.
That is exactly what they are doing. The USSF operates based on economic interest....
That is why the USSF is offering the women a salary based on their income potential.
Quote:If the argument is the women generate significant revenue, and do similar work (actually more work) for the same employer, I think the women win.
I think you lose this argument, and I am sure this will come up in court. You are using the term "significant revenue" which can really mean everything. The point is that over the long term, the men generate much more revenue than the women. That is why the men are paid more.
You are asking for the court to impose an artificial price that isn't set by the market.
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex
This case is about economic reality. I feel like I am repeating myself, but you keep trying to make it about something else.
1. Woman's professional soccer failed in the US simply because it wasn't economically feasible.
2. I am not a lawyer (and you aren't either). We will see how this plays in court. You are missing two clauses in the Equal Pay act that seem important. I don't think these women will win. The non-biased legal experts I have seen suggest that this lawsuit will fail.
3. The men and women play in completely different leagues. Comparing their relative positions says absolutely nothing about the quality of either team. That is like comparing the top Division 1 NCAA basketball team with the #10 Division 2 team, it isn't a valid comparison.
Central to the lawsuit is an evaluation of whether members of the men’s and women’s teams perform substantially the same job. Historically, courts have upheld wage disparities between men and women in sports under assertions that men face greater physical and public pressures than women performing jobs in the same field. But filing the complaint in California may help meet that bar, as a 9th Circuit pay discrimination case brought by former University of Southern California women’s basketball coach Marianne Stanley could provide a favorable precedent for the plaintiffs.
In Stanley’s case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the University of Southern California did not violate the Equal Pay Act even though it paid Stanley significantly less than its men’s basketball head coach, George Raveling. The court determined Stanley and Raveling did not perform substantially equal jobs, because the university required more public relations and fundraising activities of Raveling, and the men’s team generated more fan interest and revenue.
But that decision could help the women’s soccer players. Because compared with Stanley’s case, the roles and status between the genders in this case are flipped. In recent years, the U.S. women’s team has outperformed the men’s national team by consistently being ranked No. 1 worldwide and winning the Women’s World Cup in 2015 and gold medals in the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics. While the women’s team enters this year’s Women’s World Cup as favorites, the U.S. men failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, didn’t advance past the knockout stage in the 2014 World Cup and hasn’t secured an Olympic medal since 1904.
Because of the U.S. women’s national team’s recent success on the pitch, team members have faced increased performance and public relations demands, while enjoying higher viewership ratings. The lawsuit alleges that while members of the men’s and women’s teams are subject to the same training expectations, the women’s team completed 19 more games between 2015 and 2018. Following the team’s 2015 World Cup victory, members engaged in a U.S. stadium tour attracting tens of thousands of fans. According to the lawsuit, the federation’s budget projection was shifted from a combined net loss for both teams of $429,929 to a profit of $17.7 million. The U.S. women’s national team has also outpaced the men’s national team in viewership, as its 2015 Women’s World Cup championship game is the most watched soccer game in American history — for either gender.
4. If you can give me actual numbers comparing the revenue generated by men vs women's soccer over a 4 year cycle, then I will be impressed.
You are taking this as a matter of faith, there is no objective reason to believe that this will be true. And in case after case (tennis, basketball, etc. etc.) the evidence has suggest otherwise.
If it turns out to be the case that men's soccer is intrinsically more marketable than women's soccer even after equal time and investment in development, would you then accept that women players would be paid less?