DGS49
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 16,418
- 14,375
“The overall soccer-playing ability required to compete at the senior men’s national team level is materially influenced by the level of certain physical attributes. Such as speed and strength, required for the job.” Saying that a male player requires “a higher level of skill” than a female player and the men have “more responsibility” than the women, the filing created a storm that cost Carlos Cordeiro, the head of the federation, his job.
The economics of soccer are a matter for the bean counters to figure out. If the Women's national soccer team generates more net revenue than the men's team (revenues minus expenses), then that should be considered in their compensation. But the elephant in that room is that the Men can make a good living playing professional soccer elsewhere, and the women can't. So the men's compensation has to be sufficient to attract good players, justifying their foregoing other financial opportunities in professional soccer. This factor doesn't exist on the women's side.
This is analogous to the women's NBA. Even if those teams drew capacity crowds and large viewing audiences (they don't), the players have NO OTHER OPTIONS to play professional basketball, and their compensation reflects that. An NBA-caliber male basketball player can make a good living all over the globe, so the NBA can't get away with paying them a relative pittance.
But to deny that the players on the Men's soccer team are better than the women is preposterous. It's not even close. Not a single player on the women's team could even make the practice squad on the the Men's team. And the reason for the relative success of the Women's team internationally is that the Rest of the World simply doesn't give a shit about women's soccer ("football").
What kind of a country do we live in where someone loses his job for speaking an obvious truth?