Blog powered by Typepad

« Cafe Classic: 3 Lessons for Truly Global Employee Recognition & Rewards Programs | Main | Introducing "Take Five: Connecting Reward Practitioners & Research" »

07/09/2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Here, here! If ever there was a clear pay discrepancy, this is it. The "excuse" I read was that the men's world cup bonus pool far exceeds what the women's bonus pool is. While the US can't fix that, they certainly can divvy up those pools as they wish - and they should give the larger percentage to the team currently doing better - the women's team. Should that change in future, fine, it gets divvied up to favor the men's team. But for now, there is a way to fix it. They just want to keep their excuses. Thanks, Dan.

Thanks for the comment Molly. From what I understand the bonus pools for both teams are negotiated by the organization and the representatives of the teams. The fact is that no one has served these women properly. They should be paid more than men while they are performing better than men. and vice versa.

What is the difference in base pay? That is in direct control of the USA Federation.
What is the ad revenue and per game attendance for the Men's World Cup series vs the Women's World Cup series? That determines the bonus pool.

Thanks for the comment, Steve. I wish the calculations were that easy. Base pay differs. The men essentially get no base pay. Some women do, others do not. The crowd sizes and ad revenue is more complicated. First, the ad and sponsorship monies are mostly pooled. Second, the revenue from ads, sponsorships and game attendance for the men are driven more by who they are playing than that they are playing. huge percentages of the crowds at men's games are there in support of the "other" team. When the women play the crowds are nearly 100% in support of the US team. In the end, all of this does n ot explain away the pay differential.

The comments to this entry are closed.