Anybody know the economics of this regarding the revenue generated by both World Cup tournaments?
Printable View
Anybody know the economics of this regarding the revenue generated by both World Cup tournaments?
According to BBC commercial rights are sold as a package with other men’s competitions so can’t be isolated in that way.
FIFA awarded over 10 times the prize money to men’s world cup compared to women’s.
Players are paid by their national associations so pay comparisons vary. In a couple of countries (NZ and Norway) men and women are paid the same when representing their country.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48530498
Lovely ladies deserve my equalityQuote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Maybe they should separate them and pay each group their true worth, or do you think there is some benefit in keeping them together?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloo
After decades of actively suppressing women's football, the authorities should give them more funding so they can grow the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
So they should implement a subsidised renumeration model, instead of allowing market forces to determine the pay levels?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
If it grows the sport, makes it more popular and makes it a more viable business in the long run why not fund it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Over 11 million watched the england semi final, the interest is there why not capatalise on it.
Revenue Disparity Explains Pay Disparity Between Soccer World Cup's Men And Women
$131 Million v $6 Billion
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...-is-justified/
Explained in 3 paragraphs :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Plus isn't the pay gap talking about the wages rather than just during the world cup?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-w...than-mens.html
Plus the men's prize money for winning the world cup percentage wise of overall income is higher than the women's is too.
Seems a bit simplistic to reduce it to what he has. Especially when ignoring how popular the women's game could become with decent investment and decent wages.
Surely this is an approximation as the sponsorship is split between both tournaments? There's no facts or references to where their figures come from. Either way, the governing bodies actively stopped women from playing so they should get more money than they earn to grow the game, which in turn will make more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
What's wrong with investing in something that could have growth potential, but isn't realised without some investment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Because the people receiving money don't have penises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
I think they are demanding a lot of money before there is any growth. The men's prize money is $400m from a turnover of 6 Billion, while the turnover of the woman's world cup is only $131m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
How much are they demanding?
Equal pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
Equal with who and how much is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Why do you think they shouldn’t get equal pay?
Correction: The men's prize money is $440m from a turnover of 6 Billion. So the women want to be paid $440m from a turnover of $131m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Is it correct that the USA womens team generate more revenue than the USA mens team?
I'm getting the feeling that economics is not your strong point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
How do you know the turnover is $131m when they don't split the advertising and TV revenue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
In the US, especially, it's probable that the women generate more income than the men.
I get the feeling you’ve chosen a position without knowing any of the facts again and that’s why you can’t answer the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
The equal pay equal play campaign and litigation that is currently ongoing is related to the wages the US national team players are played of which the USWNT brings in slightly more revenue.
The World Cup prize money has been discussed because percentage wise the men get a bigger cut but that’s not what the court case and campaign are about.
That's the figure Forbes are reporting, you'd better take it up with them if you have any issues with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
The Wall Street Journal reports that from 2016 to 2018, U.S. women's games generated about $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men's games.
News today that France earned $38 million from FIFA for winning soccer's World Cup in Russia, while the women's champion in France this summer will earn just $4 million, has prompted outrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
The total prize money for the Women's World Cup in France this July will be $30 million compared with total prize money of $440 million for the men's teams at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
“The difference between the men’s and women’s prize money is ridiculous,” Tatjana Haenni, who oversaw women’s soccer for FIFA before stepping down in 2017, said, according to the Associated Press. “It’s really disappointing the gap between the men’s and women’s World Cups got bigger. It sends the wrong message.”
Not quite sure what the issue is here. If the point is that national football associations should pay women the same as men then yeah, some obvious logic in that. But what they get paid by their clubs is surely a matter of market forces?
And what is meant by the "equal play" bit?
That article doesn't quote any sources or references. It's hardly robust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Like I said it’s being discussed because obviously it’s related and part of the wider issue. But the equal pay equal play campaign is relating to the wages of the USWNT and is related to the ongoing court case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
They're saying they play the same game, so they want to be paid the same money. As Croesy is saying, it is a bit different in the states, as the USWNT seems to generate more money than the USMNT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick
So suddenly Forbes are unreliable cos they don't agree with your opinion :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
No, I've found it. That number relates to the Women's World Cup in 2011. Let's use 8 years old data and not question it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/questio...world-cup-win/
Also, any comment on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroesyBlue
Surely basing the whole argument on income generated isn’t the point anyway, the women’s game given chance to grow the same way the men’s game has could generate a lot more money and paying the players more could help attract more people to the game and grow the women’s game too.
What’s wrong with that?
FIFA’s record finances reignites World Cup pay parity debate
U.S. coach Jill Ellis, who is leading her team’s title defense in France, said she is disappointed with the financial rewards.
“You want to make sure there is a fair apportionment of winnings going out,” Ellis said.
Most upsetting to critics is the fact that the financial gulf appears to be growing. FIFA has doubled the overall prize money fund to $30 million since the last Women’s World Cup in Canada in 2015. But that total amount is less than the $40 million increase that men’s World Cup prize money will get in 2022 — for a total of $440 million in prize money.
https://www.apnews.com/e05ab72c3cb04a1485094cc923162e99
Men. Women.Quote:
The Wall Street Journal reports that from 2016 to 2018, U.S. women's games generated about $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men's games.
Games played 20. 20
Pay per win. $17,625. $1,359
Pay per loss. $5000. 0
Selected for WC. $68,000. $15,000
WC bonus. $9mill. $2mill.
Is that how you would run a business by paying wages of 3.5 x your turnover?Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
Yes we've discussed this on the last page that it is part of the discussion because percentage wise men get more of the income generated compared to the women (14% to 7% I think)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
But the equal pay equal play debate is to do with the wages paid to the US players.
Instead of just googling and posting links that you think back you up why not try and learn about a subject before having such a staunch opinion on it?
Isn't that what men's football teams do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Comparing the growth of a worldwide sport to a normal business is pretty disingenuous isn't it? Look at the worldwide audience for this world cup, there's potential there and if people are interested in making money growing the game could make millions.
Wales-Bales, are you there? Hello?Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
They want more prize money .. a lot more!Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue