It is not my game, but ...

[The_Doc_Man]

The FIFA World Cup Women's Final this weekend was a really good game. I don't claim to know a lot about the game of Soccer that you folks call Football, but I watched the USA women's team grind down the Netherlands team for a 2-0 win. The announcers often tossed up graphics like "shots on goal" and such, but I was able to see that the USA team pressed very hard and protected their goal to make it easier for the goalkeeper. I didn't watch the USA men's team but I know they made it to the finals. They lost to Mexico 1-0. So by the fact that we had two teams in the finals, that speaks well of the quality of our USA program.

I wish the women's team well in their current lawsuit that will enter arbitration this week. They are suing the USA FIFA organization for gender discrimination on the basis of wages. It doesn't hurt their argument that they are bringing home the FIFA World Cup tropy for the second time in a row. However, there is a valid counter-argument to be had regarding the fact that the organization's revenues depend on televised game ratings and the money paid by networks to carry the games. If the differential in pay is commensurate with the difference in ratings and viewer share between men's and women's team games, their case might falter.

Football (either variety) was never my game. If I could claim to have any sport that I could play to any level of decency, it would be tennis. According to the old standards used to judge player levels for determining tournament seeding, I reached a 4.0/4.5 range. The people playing at Wimbledon are 7.0 by that older standard. I never made 5.0 because that is the level where the word "consistently" appears in each of the major tests. Now, with my age slowing me down and my knees are on the wrong side of some minor operations, my mobility isn't there any more. After my meniscus repair, I haven't been able to play in years.

 

[Jon]

Doc, I don't follow the women's football but my dad did recently. I do watch men's football though. It sucks up so much time so try to just watch highlights where I can, unless it's an important game.

There is a book called "Soccernomics", which talks about the underlying statistics of the sport. One thing I remember from it is what they consider to be the importance is the population of the country. If you have a larger pool of potential candidates, then you are more likely to find better talent. Since the population of the US is about six times the size of the UK, for every elite female soccer player in the UK, there will be six in the US. I think this is less significant in men's soccer because it is more established in the UK than in the US. But with women's soccer, it is a newer sport, so both countries are kinda starting from scratch. Consequently, the US has a huge head start for the reasons I mentioned above.

Regarding the equal pay, that is a difficult one. Imagine that women's soccer has to pay for itself, due to basic business economics. If you force the pay to be equal to men's and far less people watch it, you will make the whole thing loss-making. That would terminate the entire enterprise - they would go bust (no pun intended).

 

[The_Doc_Man]

New information (that was available only after the World Cup event was complete) is that the women's team had 20-30% more viewers than the men's team, which means that they brought in more revenue. Therefore, the counter-argument about the relative sizes of each viewing audience (which correlates to air-time for commercial spots) suddenly collapses. I agree that if you ask for too much money you kill the sport. In my rarely humble opinion, that is what has afflicted USA baseball and what will eventually impact USA (rugby-like) football. I already don't watch basketball because there are too many prima donnas on those teams.

 

[Jon]

I have a counter to the counter.

It might be different in the US, since the women are world champions and the men are so so. Consequently, that might be one reason for the higher viewing figures. Secondly, I wonder if there is a time lag between higher viewing figures and wages catching up. It is hard to do it preemptively. Lastly, perhaps the viewing figures are for the US networks. But what about overseas? It might be that the combined native and overseas viewing figures tell a different story. I know, for example, that my team (Manchester United) has a huge overseas following and deals are done with other countries. Not sure if it is the same for the women's world cup or not.

I am a great believer in letting the market determine the wages. Oh wait, I have another idea. What about the supply of players? That will influence wages. So, since the men's football is much more established, there might be greater skill in depth. Lots of good players about. But, the elite players are in scarce supply, and so command a huge premium. Maybe the women's game is played at a lower level, as they may not have played from being a tot since it was much rarer back then for women to play football. Consequently, there is less of a gap between the best and average players. Just a thought. No idea if there is merit to that argument but thought I would throw it out there.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think that perhaps 20 years ago there might have been some merit to the "limited talent pool" part of your argument, but I believe that argument has vanished over time. Rose Lavelle (who scored the 2nd goal in the finals match) is a member of the younger generation and a very strong addition to the team. She is not alone in being part of a really good talent pool. Some folks have argued that the current USWNT side is the strongest one we have ever had, with a great mix of talent and experience. Four years from now, some of the older members of the team may have retired. Megan Rapinoe is the oldest member of the team and might not be able to keep up the pace by the next tournament. Carly Lloyd and Alex Morgan are not youngsters either. Ms. Lloyd sat on the bench despite being a true star from the 2015 tourney, with a hat trick against the Japanese team.

As to the men being "so-so" there is the fact that they made it to the finals before losing to Mexico. If "so-so" means 2nd best in a world-level competition, that is itself a strong position - far from being "middle of the pack."

However, in the final analysis, the trick as always is how to pay the team, assure that the sponsors are happy, and not break the bank. The problem with letting the market determine the wages is that the <very long string of deeply vile expletives deleted> prima donnas suck up all the money for the rest of the team. If you have not seen the movie Moneyball, you need to see it to recognize that all too often, the "powers that be" emphasize and focus on totally wrong ideas. Letting the market "float" for players means you almost never pay most good players what they are worth.

 

[Bee]

Let's take a different sport, tennis. Women's earnings are less than men's. Prize money is lower for women than for men. And yet the women's game is watched just as much as the men's and the players have all come up through the junior circuuits.

So why the disparity?

 

[Jon]

I think we have to be careful when we say watched just as much. Are we talking TV figures or at courts? Are we referring to in our own country or worldwide? And who sets the prize money? Where does that prize money come from? How much less are their earnings?

Are there more men competing at a higher level than women? That would have a huge impact.

I am not defending inequality, or attacking it. I am merely asking questions to see why something is as it is, rather than assuming it is just a conspiracy against women.

By the way, female models earn much more than men. Just saying.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I saw an article elsewhere that I cannot reference for this discussion that suggests that the top men's starts in soccer get 100 million dollars whereas the top women's starts don't quite make it to 1 million dollars. Two orders of magnitude difference? They are not THAT good. They are not 100 times as good as the women. If we brought the women up to the 5-10 million dollar range, that is an order of magnitude boost and yet they would still be making 1/10th of the money that men make. In that perspective, you see that something is DREADFULLY wrong.

 

[Jon]

I don't know any footballer who makes 100M per year. Best in the world might get say $500K pw, at a guess. China is starting to inflate prices as they are sucking in lots of talent and offering ridiculous wages. They are the anomaly. I have no idea what the women earn.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I can't find the "huge disparity" article at the moment, but here is a link to the points being made in the women's team lawsuit. It's not a super-quick read but it is quite clear.

https://sports.yahoo.com/here-are-t...-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html

UPDATE: Found it.

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-much-money-usa-womens-100021498.html

The claims might be skewed a bit, but if the most you can pay members of the world champions of soccer is a million dollars give or take a few percent, there is NO WAY IN HELL that a men's soccer player should get 100 times that amount. Just no way.

 

[Jon]

My understanding is that it is illegal to have disparity on income based on the same job. But maybe that is only if you are employed as opposed to some type of contract to play in a tournament or whatever? It is all a big vague in my head. Bringing lawsuits is costly and risky, so I also understand in many cases nothing will be done.

I can understand how infuriating it must be to have disparity in legitimate cases.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem with "jobs" as athletes is that sporting events are part of the entertainment industry. That industry is noted for total screw-jobs so that the agents and the team owners get all the money they can. However, I don't believe that USA soccer for the national team falls in that exact category. I know there is a pro soccer league in the USA and several of the USWNT members are also players in that league. I think the suit is tightly targeted at the non-league issue of being paid as members of the national team. However, it is supposed to go into mediation this week. If it weren't for the tropical storm (Barry) in the Gulf of Mexico right now, some USWNT members might be here in New Orleans right now.

 

[Jon]

It would be interesting to see the arguments and the outcome of the lawsuit.

Are you going to be hit by something big then? Not sure how big you get the storms down that way. Is it part of tornado ally?

 

[Bee]

I need to check the history in more detail, but I can remember when I was younger that there was a huge disparity between football (soccer) and rugby (rugby doesn't really translate into Americanish) in the men's game because footballers were 'professional' and paid for their skills, whereas the rugby players were 'amateurs' and had day jobs like being teachers, firemen etc. Rugby (and other sports) was seen as a hobby and there would be a point in a player's career where they would 'turn professional' and therefore not be able to compete any more.

The rules changed in 1995 and rugby players became paid professionals - and that supports the argument about whether sport is a job or not. If it is recognised as a profession, it should be treated as, and remunerated as, work.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Are you going to be hit by something big then? Not sure how big you get the storms down that way. Is it part of tornado ally?

Thanks for asking, but ...

At the moment, Tropical Storm Barry is ill-formed and is more of a rain-maker than a wind-maker. We have a dry air mass feeding northeast to southwest from Alabama (where a high-pressure cell is currently centered), which kills what is normally the strongest side of a northern hemisphere storm. Therefore, as storms go, this is all show and no substance unless you are in a really low-lying area AND get hit by what little rain it has.

We are looking at 3 to 6 inches of rain in our area, though the marshes and coast southwest of here will get more rain. It will supposedly make landfall some time Saturday morning, though the exact time is a bit uncertain because of its disorganized nature. The weather guessers are currently projecting that the storm's track will cross Morgan City, Lafayette, and Alexandria, then split the difference between Monroe and Shreveport. You need a Louisiana map for that, but they are easy to find, right up the center of the state.

For what it is worth, that track goes straight up the Atchafalaya River basin. And "Atchafalaya" comes from two Choctaw Indian words "hatcha falaia" meaning "long river." I dwell on that because the Atachafalaya basin is a marshy area frequently hit by storms over the years. It is a favorite hurricane and tropical storm target. Sort of like tornadoes like trailer parks.

My dear Linda and I will be riding it out. I got some extra bottled water for us and some fresh bread. We have stuff to make sandwiches in the pantry and if this storm isn't a wind-maker, we probably won't lose power. Which means we won't lose the fridge, microwave, or induction stove-top or electric oven. If we do, we have a couple of fresh battery packs for flashlights. With minimal rain on the storm's northeast quadrant and the strongest winds moving west of us, we'll be fine.

Tornado Alley is more to the north from here by a couple of states. Find any USA map that shows the individual states. Tornado Alley is northern Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, northern Arkansas, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and basically the plains states east of the Rocky Mountains and west of the Appalachian mountains. But none of the "foothills." When it starts to get mountainous or even moderately hilly, that irregular ground interferes with circulation. Doesn't eliminate it - but changes the odds. We can get some tornadoes and waterspouts here, but the air over the plains is better for the adiabatic cooling required to start that kind of circulation. For us it is rare. For Tornado Alley, not so rare.

A third question is implied in what I quoted. We get big storms, but rarely. Hurricane Betsy in 1965 was a water-maker that flooded some parts of the city to eight feet depth out in the area we call the Ninth Ward. Hurricane Camille in 1969 was a wind-maker that topped out gusts of over 200 mph. We've had others, but Katrina was the one-two punch that hurt the most. In 2005, Katrina gave us sustained winds of 175 mph and dropped a lot of water as well. But there, the pumps and levees failed and that is why Katrina was so dangerous. That one hurt because with services out, it took 3 weeks for the pumps to be fixed well enough to drain everything again.

You can ask why we live here. The answer is simple: It is home.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Bee, I have watched televised rugby and it translates very well in some specific ways. Obviously, the forward pass in American football is not mirrored in rugby, but I can see the roots of the game.

You are right, the amateur or professional status makes a difference. However, the USMNT and USWNT are both comprised of professional soccer players who are also members of the USA competitive pro leagues. The dispute comes about because there IS an apples-to-apples comparison in situations and yet the disparity is there. The two "national" teams that represent the USA in the FIFA World Cup and in the Olympics are paid by a national organization. And that organization is responsible for the pay disparity.

 

[Jon]

Doc, I have to say you seem to know a lot about everything!

My dad told me yesterday that the news said there was 1 foot of rain in New Orleans. And I thought, I know someone from there!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In this case, the topic of your question was familiar to me - because I live here and HAVE lived here since I was "knee-high to a short duck" - as the Cajuns would say.