You missed a bit this time Mork. This is about Equal Pay for Equal Work in the US. The Women's team just picked up it's 4th star (WC Championships). I'm not so sure the men have qualified for 4 in my lifetime and have 0 stars.
The women sell more memorabilia and more tickets than the men's team. Their lawsuit does not suggest that the women should be compensated at the level that they have so obviously earned, but at a level equal with the men. Who, by your logic, are under performing and over paid.
This suit has nothing to do with the state of soccer in the world. It has everything to do with the state of equality in the US. And only the US.
And let the record show, I much prefer watching the US women's team. They play the game together and attack. It's good football.
And please don't use the tradition argument. I remember when tennis was absolutely forced to equal pay. Look today. Wimbledon, where the men's and women's prize pools are precisely the same. Look at all the revenue they lost for it!
I'm familiar with where the argument originated from, but my comment was more in general with where the narrative is right now, because it has become global as Soyrosa says, in her own country, as well as here in mine.
Regardless of the US women's team performing better than the men's US team, they are pretty much two completely different industries. Yes, in the States you can make the argument about equal work for equal pay, but at the same time it's not just about ticket sales or memorabilia, the men's league still forms part of the global soccer industry as a whole. Remember when a US. club team bought David Beckham, then there is the viewership, which is where most of the money comes from, the women's WC reaches 0,4% of what the the men's WC reaches.
My argument is in regards to the economics of the industry, which is being ignored in my opinion, all for the sake of gender equality. Demanding economic equality can only be done by completely ignoring the economics of the industry which is dictated by the consumer.
When it comes to Wimbledon, it's been packaged together, the women's tournament doesn't happen 6 months later, and the women's final had more viewership than the mens final, so they should get a bigger prize.
There is no market in Futball. None. It is a ruthless and utter monopoly. NOTHING is driven by the consumer. Nothing.
So, the normal 'end of monopoly' occurs. The only, repeat THE ONLY way to control a monopoly is legislate or adjudicate. The market has no influence whatsoever.
Speaking of monopolies and protecting them I have a question. How's your power supply doing? A protected monopoly.
That was a low blow. Sorry my friend, I'm off to a neutral corner to await the count :)
Hahahaha, not a low blow, that was funny, our power utility controlled by our socialist government is a joke.
Yeah the World cup football is a monopoly, but there is a market which generates revenue and salaries are still based on that revenue. It unfortunately chalk and cheese when you compare the two, men's WC generated $6 billion and women's WC generated $130 million.