The Student Room Group

Equal Play Equal Pay - Women's Football Pay

Equal play equal pay.png

Those that are familiar with the Women's U.S. National team will know of Hope Solo and Carli Lloyd. They are only two members within the team that are promoting the slogan, Equal Play Equal Pay, as they feel that women's football deserves to be paid the same amount as men.

This has developed into a campaign that is gaining more and more coverage. The U.S. women's team has been extremely successful, managing to win three world cups in comparison to the men's team that hasn't won it.

However in May 2016, although it wasn't the U.S. team, the Australian's women team lost 7-0 to an under-15's boy's team. Does this show the level that women's football is in comparison to men's? Should it be based on attendances and revenue? Should this even be an issue at all and equal pay should be granted?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
The reason why male footballers get paid more than female footballers is the same reason why a banker gets paid more than a cashier, the former makes far more money for the employer than the latter. Pay is and should be given based on performance and contribution to revenues.
(edited 7 years ago)
Just no. The quality of play is abysmal. They don't draw money like the men's game.
If women's football can bring in the same amount of money as men's football then yeah they should.
Original post by JohnGreek

To draw upon an earlier example, it's like saying that a female cashier who's the best in her department should be paid the same as a male private banker who's average in his department solely because of her sex. Performance should be gauged from within a person's line of work (i.e. cashiers vs cashiers or women's teams vs women's teams), not across it, particularly when there is such an objectively wide skill disparity. If anything, those obsessing with equality should run a computer model putting a women's team in an all-male league, predicting their performance (goals, wins-losses-draws, etc) and then award them a figure based on how well they did against male competition.


I'm guessing their argument is that it's footballs vs footballs as the comparison.
Lets have the US womens team play the mens
Original post by JohnGreek
I'd disagree with that, as that's way too vague as a market to have any meaningful discussion. If we go back to that cashier analogy, it would be like saying "finance vs finance" while ignoring the multitude of skill levels within that sector. The same can be said about football and its various leagues and competitions.


I was just pointing out that they would point to the skill rather than the monetary market as the comparison. I don't particularly care tbh.
Reply 7
"The U.S. women's team has been extremely successful, managing to win three world cups in comparison to the men's team that hasn't won it."

Okay, well then if they're so much better we should pit the USA men against the USA women. The women should win easily right..
Reply 8
lol at anyone who agrees with this
Reply 9
Absolute garbage.

If you attract less attendance/views, you will get paid less. It's the most basic economics.
Reply 10
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
"The U.S. women's team has been extremely successful, managing to win three world cups in comparison to the men's team that hasn't won it."

Okay, well then if they're so much better we should pit the USA men against the USA women. The women should win easily right..


Just stating the facts :innocent: T'was my attempt at maintaining a balanced argument :wink:
lol Hope Solo was in the fappening. :wink:
But anyway, as long as they can bring in the same performance level/crowds/views/sponsors I don't see why not.But I don't see that happening, ever.
You can have equal pay when you bring in the same crowds, revenue streams, tv audiences & standard of play. It's like Big John down the local pub claiming he deserves equal pay to Wayne Rooney just because they both play football.

Isn't the argument for USA internationals though? Almost every major international team give up their pay to charity anyway. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Arsenal Ladies should pay the same as Arsenal.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by fr0sr_
lol Hope Solo was in the fappening. :wink:


Yeah and her junk looked like a Salami that had gone through a shredder :eek:
One of the articles seemed to suggest that the female US team was bringing in higher viewing figures than the male one, if this is the case then there would seem to be some good reason for re-evaluating their relative pay.
Reply 16
No thats ridiculous. If they ever play one another there'd be police cases being filled at half time for assault. :eek:
Original post by fr0sr_
lol Hope Solo was in the fappening. :wink:


She's about as close as it's possible to being male without being one.
Original post by JuliusDS92
One of the articles seemed to suggest that the female US team was bringing in higher viewing figures than the male one, if this is the case then there would seem to be some good reason for re-evaluating their relative pay.


Except it's the MLS clubs that pay the players and not the national team. You would need to compare the viewing figures in the league for the male and female players, chances are it would be a lot higher for the male players.
Reply 19
Original post by JuliusDS92
One of the articles seemed to suggest that the female US team was bringing in higher viewing figures than the male one, if this is the case then there would seem to be some good reason for re-evaluating their relative pay.


It did during the women's World Cup but then the other 3 years the viewing figures are significantly lower it is why Fifa I think it is bases viewing figures from 4 year periods

Quick Reply

Latest