Ubiquitous
2019-07-12 01:05:07 UTC
After the U.S. womens soccer team won the World Cup on Sunday, a major focus
from the team and the media was a complaint over an alleged gender-pay
disparity. Several media outlets published articles claiming there was a
discriminatory pay gap relative to the mens World Cup that needed to be
remedied. Articles in the Washington Post, CNBC, and Business Insider pointed
to the difference in total World Cup prize pools ($30 million for the women
in 2019 versus $400 million for the men in 2018) and individual pay on the
winning team ($110,000 for the winning female players in 2019 vs. $420,000
for the 2018 winning male players). Almost all of these articles were
misinformed.
In reality, relative to the mens World Cup, it was actually the womens
teams that were being paid a much larger share of what they brought in. While
these articles noted that the U.S. womens team brings in more money than the
mens team, they all managed to ignore the more-relevant disparity in
revenue: The mens tournament brought in over $6 billion in revenue in 2018,
while the womens tournament is estimated to only have brought in $131
million in 2019. The prize pools are taken from those revenue totals. In
other words, the womens prize pool was approximately 23 percent of their
total revenue, while the mens prize pool consisted of approximately 7
percent of revenue. The winning mens players received only about four times
as much as the winning female players, despite bringing in over 45 times as
much revenue. These numbers should make it obvious that there is no
substantive case that the womens team is underpaid relative to their male
counterparts, but the media managed to ignore those facts.
Instead the media focused on comparisons between the U.S. womens team and
the U.S. mens team, constantly pointing to the fact that the former wins a
lot more than the latter. But that comparison makes no sense. Each team
should be compared relative to its peers, or at least to its equivalents in
the other league. The fact that the women win more is irrelevant, as they
play in a different league against a different level of competition. Its
safe to assume the U.S. women would have trouble competing at a similar level
as the men. It would be like comparing the earnings of a great Arena League
football team to those of a bad NFL team. A lot of the confusion stems from
the media focusing on the fact that the U.S. womens team brings in more
revenue than the U.S. mens team, but that metric based on a different
number of games and focused solely on the U.S. teams is irrelevant when it
comes to the prize pools for an international competition.
Almost everyone who read about this topic from mainstream press sources came
away with the impression that the womens teams were being treated unfairly
in the World Cup despite the numbers clearly telling a different story.
Thats a problem with the press, not discriminatory pay.
--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
from the team and the media was a complaint over an alleged gender-pay
disparity. Several media outlets published articles claiming there was a
discriminatory pay gap relative to the mens World Cup that needed to be
remedied. Articles in the Washington Post, CNBC, and Business Insider pointed
to the difference in total World Cup prize pools ($30 million for the women
in 2019 versus $400 million for the men in 2018) and individual pay on the
winning team ($110,000 for the winning female players in 2019 vs. $420,000
for the 2018 winning male players). Almost all of these articles were
misinformed.
In reality, relative to the mens World Cup, it was actually the womens
teams that were being paid a much larger share of what they brought in. While
these articles noted that the U.S. womens team brings in more money than the
mens team, they all managed to ignore the more-relevant disparity in
revenue: The mens tournament brought in over $6 billion in revenue in 2018,
while the womens tournament is estimated to only have brought in $131
million in 2019. The prize pools are taken from those revenue totals. In
other words, the womens prize pool was approximately 23 percent of their
total revenue, while the mens prize pool consisted of approximately 7
percent of revenue. The winning mens players received only about four times
as much as the winning female players, despite bringing in over 45 times as
much revenue. These numbers should make it obvious that there is no
substantive case that the womens team is underpaid relative to their male
counterparts, but the media managed to ignore those facts.
Instead the media focused on comparisons between the U.S. womens team and
the U.S. mens team, constantly pointing to the fact that the former wins a
lot more than the latter. But that comparison makes no sense. Each team
should be compared relative to its peers, or at least to its equivalents in
the other league. The fact that the women win more is irrelevant, as they
play in a different league against a different level of competition. Its
safe to assume the U.S. women would have trouble competing at a similar level
as the men. It would be like comparing the earnings of a great Arena League
football team to those of a bad NFL team. A lot of the confusion stems from
the media focusing on the fact that the U.S. womens team brings in more
revenue than the U.S. mens team, but that metric based on a different
number of games and focused solely on the U.S. teams is irrelevant when it
comes to the prize pools for an international competition.
Almost everyone who read about this topic from mainstream press sources came
away with the impression that the womens teams were being treated unfairly
in the World Cup despite the numbers clearly telling a different story.
Thats a problem with the press, not discriminatory pay.
--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.