eppinggas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:26 am
Slight tangent. Women's teams participating at the WC are being given £24mil. Men's teams were given £315mil in 2018: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48535933. Complaints about "male chauvinism".
I would 100% advocate equal pay when the broadcasting rights, general level of interest and attendances are in line with the men's game.
Until they are - the women's game will earn less money. The gap is closing, which I believe is a good thing as the women's game grows.
But I don't understand the whining when economics dictates how money is allocated.
You can't really expect wages to be high if there are less than 2000 watching your matches, or prizemoney be high if the income from ticket sales, TV rights and merchandise aren't huge.
However, if you are representing your country at the highest level, your expenses and remuneration should be the same whether male or female
Why ? In commercial world, what people are allowed to claim for expenses varies according to commercial value placed on the persons activity.
For example an MD may get to fly first/ business class and travel 1st class on train
A mere salesman may have to fly coach and travel standard class on train
Payment of expenses varies according to perceived income generation levels
I would watch a child playing over Hackney Marshes, if there was a connection with that child, but I wouldn't pay for the pleasure. This is how I see it with womens' football.
I cannot understand how they think that they should get similar commercial benefits to the mens' game and if they don't it's labelled sexism, or chauvinism.
Lovejoy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:33 pm
The South Korean goalkeeper about three foot tall, fill your boots France.
AND she's got really small hands.
And she dives like a miniature sack of spuds. The French have got their main tactic off to a tee. Give the ball to the six foot one forward to head and the Koreans will not stop her if they stood on each other's shoulders.
Lovejoy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:57 pm
The French have got their main tactic off to a tee. Give the ball to the six foot one forward to head and the Koreans will not stop her if they stood on each other's shoulders.
Wendie Renard is not a forward, she plays as a central defender and uses her height and heading ability to great effect at both ends of the pitch, especially a threat when she goes up front when her team wins a free kick or corner.
Mikero wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:19 pm
If you are 5'-4" you are going to struggle to do anything against 6'-1", needs two of them to block her run.
By the way Lewes FC pay their players male or female the same wages.
Mikero
Agree, South Korea were tactically naive in not attempting to block off the runs into the box of Wendie Renard.
If France play England, will be interesting to see what tactics England use to cope with the threat of Renard.
Certainly players like Millie Bright and Steph Houghton wont be so easy for her to dominate as she did last night against the small and lightweight South Korean ladies.
Mikero wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:19 pm
If you are 5'-4" you are going to struggle to do anything against 6'-1", needs two of them to block her run.
By the way Lewes FC pay their players male or female the same wages.
Mikero
It's an interesting Club and ethos. If they get the same gates, then in my books that's all well and good. I suspect that this is not the case though (I searched, no data available). Why should the men effectively subsidise the women? Surely this model is unsustainable in the long run. The better men players will get better pay elsewhere and leave. Principle vs money. Usually only one winner there.
eppinggas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:26 am
Slight tangent. Women's teams participating at the WC are being given £24mil. Men's teams were given £315mil in 2018: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48535933. Complaints about "male chauvinism".
I would 100% advocate equal pay when the broadcasting rights, general level of interest and attendances are in line with the men's game.
Until they are - the women's game will earn less money. The gap is closing, which I believe is a good thing as the women's game grows.
But I don't understand the whining when economics dictates how money is allocated.
You can't really expect wages to be high if there are less than 2000 watching your matches, or prizemoney be high if the income from ticket sales, TV rights and merchandise aren't huge.
However, if you are representing your country at the highest level, your expenses and remuneration should be the same whether male or female
Why ? In commercial world, what people are allowed to claim for expenses varies according to commercial value placed on the persons activity.
For example an MD may get to fly first/ business class and travel 1st class on train
A mere salesman may have to fly coach and travel standard class on train
Payment of expenses varies according to perceived income generation levels
Why? Because they are the best at what they do.
You're saying that the US women who have actually won the world cup should get less than the men, who haven't. Just because some companies flatter their senior staff.
You can't really expect wages to be high if there are less than 2000 watching your matches, or prizemoney be high if the income from ticket sales, TV rights and merchandise aren't huge.
However, if you are representing your country at the highest level, your expenses and remuneration should be the same whether male or female
Why ? In commercial world, what people are allowed to claim for expenses varies according to commercial value placed on the persons activity.
For example an MD may get to fly first/ business class and travel 1st class on train
A mere salesman may have to fly coach and travel standard class on train
Payment of expenses varies according to perceived income generation levels
Why? Because they are the best at what they do.
You're saying that the US women who have actually won the world cup should get less than the men, who haven't. Just because some companies flatter their senior staff.
No, it's nothing to do with being best it's to do with what income they are perceived to bring into organisation.
If the income is not being generated, then the players don't deserve it irrespective of what they win
Why ? In commercial world, what people are allowed to claim for expenses varies according to commercial value placed on the persons activity.
For example an MD may get to fly first/ business class and travel 1st class on train
A mere salesman may have to fly coach and travel standard class on train
Payment of expenses varies according to perceived income generation levels
Why? Because they are the best at what they do.
You're saying that the US women who have actually won the world cup should get less than the men, who haven't. Just because some companies flatter their senior staff.
No, it's nothing to do with being best it's to do with what income they are perceived to bring into organisation.
If the income is not being generated, then the players don't deserve it irrespective of what they win
The amount the FA pays England's men is about £2k per appearance, I've read. That's a token amount and doesn't reflect how much income they generate. No reason they couldn't pay the women the same (for all I know that could already be the case).
You're saying that the US women who have actually won the world cup should get less than the men, who haven't. Just because some companies flatter their senior staff.
No, it's nothing to do with being best it's to do with what income they are perceived to bring into organisation.
If the income is not being generated, then the players don't deserve it irrespective of what they win
The amount the FA pays England's men is about £2k per appearance, I've read. That's a token amount and doesn't reflect how much income they generate. No reason they couldn't pay the women the same (for all I know that could already be the case).
Where is the money going to come from if the women's game does not make sufficient profit?
It's a bit like arguing Leyton Orient should pay their players the same as Man City as both won their leagues. Basic financial commonsense dictates you can't survive if you pay out more than you earn
Just as an aside, I read elsewhere that the 2018 mens WC generated $6bn for FIFA incl tv deals and sponsorship, of which $400m was paid out as prize money that would in part cover wages. Whereas the 2019 Womens WC will generate $131m income, with $30m prize money paid out to competing nations. So proportionate to income the prize payouts are much higher.
Every year the womens game seems to attract more fans and media attention, but in comparison to the mens game it is still small fry. Which is reflected in the wages and across nearly all pro sports media coverage - including online spectator comment numbers. Exceptions are maybe tennis, athletics and multi-sport events such as the Olympics.
Lovejoy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:57 pm
The French have got their main tactic off to a tee. Give the ball to the six foot one forward to head and the Koreans will not stop her if they stood on each other's shoulders.
Wendie Renard is not a forward, she plays as a central defender and uses her height and heading ability to great effect at both ends of the pitch, especially a threat when she goes up front when her team wins a free kick or corner.
Well, there you go. That will teach me to make a quick post on my Ipad without consulting the match day program, Wikepedia, FIFA, etc. Shame on me for making such a horrific mistake.
Lovejoy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:57 pm
The French have got their main tactic off to a tee. Give the ball to the six foot one forward to head and the Koreans will not stop her if they stood on each other's shoulders.
Wendie Renard is not a forward, she plays as a central defender and uses her height and heading ability to great effect at both ends of the pitch, especially a threat when she goes up front when her team wins a free kick or corner.
Well, there you go. That will teach me to make a quick post on my Ipad without consulting the match day program, Wikepedia, FIFA, etc. Shame on me for making such a horrific mistake.
No need at all to consult anything on your Ipad about that !! Right from the start of the game you could see her lined up in the centre of the French defence. Just use your eyes and notice she just comes up for free kicks and corners. also listen to the commentary as they talk about the teams and what positions the players play in.
Wendie Renard is not a forward, she plays as a central defender and uses her height and heading ability to great effect at both ends of the pitch, especially a threat when she goes up front when her team wins a free kick or corner.
Well, there you go. That will teach me to make a quick post on my Ipad without consulting the match day program, Wikepedia, FIFA, etc. Shame on me for making such a horrific mistake.
No need at all to consult anything on your Ipad about that !! Right from the start of the game you could see her lined up in the centre of the French defence. Just use your eyes and notice she just comes up for free kicks and corners. also listen to the commentary as they talk about the teams and what positions the players play in.
I was listening to The Who - Live At Leeds at the time, much better than the BBC commentary. I just could take a game seriously that had a three foot tall goalkeeper with tiny hands who could not dive to save her life.
