Technology1 min ago
Us Soccer Team Ave Sued Us Soccer Federation
27 Answers
Well i mean.. we call it football don't we.
"28 members of the U.S. women's soccer team have just sued the U.S. Soccer Federation for "institutionalized gender discrimination.”
Team members are paid far less than the U.S. men’s soccer players despite being the most successful American soccer team in history."
Do we think the case will go far? I mean i think they should be paid equally for the same demand, but surely the demand on the men is greater, due to facing other men. It's not sexist or gender discrimination to say men are generally faster stronger if the top woman played the top man no question who would win. So is the men being paid more due to the extra effort they have to put in? Or is it "institutionalized gender discrimination"?
"28 members of the U.S. women's soccer team have just sued the U.S. Soccer Federation for "institutionalized gender discrimination.”
Team members are paid far less than the U.S. men’s soccer players despite being the most successful American soccer team in history."
Do we think the case will go far? I mean i think they should be paid equally for the same demand, but surely the demand on the men is greater, due to facing other men. It's not sexist or gender discrimination to say men are generally faster stronger if the top woman played the top man no question who would win. So is the men being paid more due to the extra effort they have to put in? Or is it "institutionalized gender discrimination"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oh my.. well if they have more viewers and support, then yes they should be paid more. Simply for the advertisements they promote either on side lines, on shirts or at TV intervals. So that would have nothing to do with ability or quality of play.
Maybe the men are just paid way too much and need a review on their pay? they should be paid less if they're not very good.
Maybe the men are just paid way too much and need a review on their pay? they should be paid less if they're not very good.
Interesting question.
There's an argument for not paying people to represent their country in a sport, beyond expenses and compensation for injury.
If you agree that it's OK to pay people to represent their country in a sport, then it's hard to come up with a reason why anybody should be paid more than anybody else. It comes down to what are they being paid for[i?
One way to look at it would be to forget gender differences and start with a single team E.g. in the men's soccer team, are some players paid more than others? If so, then it's easy to see how that principle could be extended to paying other teams less. But if not, then I would say there's no argument that all players should be paid the same, no matter whether they're male or female.
The next complication comes across sports. E.g. should US soccer players be paid more than US skiers for representing their country?
And then add in disabled, veteran and, coming soon, transgender categories and it gets [i]really] complicated.
So much easier not to pay anyone anything for the honour of representing their country ...
There's an argument for not paying people to represent their country in a sport, beyond expenses and compensation for injury.
If you agree that it's OK to pay people to represent their country in a sport, then it's hard to come up with a reason why anybody should be paid more than anybody else. It comes down to what are they being paid for[i?
One way to look at it would be to forget gender differences and start with a single team E.g. in the men's soccer team, are some players paid more than others? If so, then it's easy to see how that principle could be extended to paying other teams less. But if not, then I would say there's no argument that all players should be paid the same, no matter whether they're male or female.
The next complication comes across sports. E.g. should US soccer players be paid more than US skiers for representing their country?
And then add in disabled, veteran and, coming soon, transgender categories and it gets [i]really] complicated.
So much easier not to pay anyone anything for the honour of representing their country ...
// Do we think the case will go far? I mean i think they should be paid equally for the same demand, but surely the demand on the men is greater, due to facing other men //
So, if I have read that correctly, what you are saying is that the men play their equals, which is surely exactly what the women do in their games against other womens teams.
There is no monetary value in participating in a sport beyond what the public is prepared to pay, directly (e.g. as a spectator) or indirectly (e.g. through sponsorship or TV subscription) for you to participate in that sport. This is why men are usually paid more than women, simply because people are prepared to pay more.
The same thinking applies to all forms of entertainment, and it applies both ways around. I would pay more to see Julia Roberts in a play than Julian Roberts, for example.
It's nothing to do with the "cost" to the athlete or actor of being a participant, e.g. the hours of training they put in, the amount of skill they have, what they gave up to achieve their dream etc etc. It's all to do with the "value", e.g. how much people are prepared to pay to watch them do it.
The same thinking applies to all forms of entertainment, and it applies both ways around. I would pay more to see Julia Roberts in a play than Julian Roberts, for example.
It's nothing to do with the "cost" to the athlete or actor of being a participant, e.g. the hours of training they put in, the amount of skill they have, what they gave up to achieve their dream etc etc. It's all to do with the "value", e.g. how much people are prepared to pay to watch them do it.
"I don't think anyone other than yourself has suggested that scenario, and I really can't see why you have done so, other than to muddy the waters yet again."
At 13:22 i felt you were responding to my comment "Which would indicate the quality of play wouldn't be equal between the men and the women.". So when you quote from RRs link, i felt it was implying that the women were better than the mens team.
If not.. Then what was that answer all about? Why c&p that?
At 13:22 i felt you were responding to my comment "Which would indicate the quality of play wouldn't be equal between the men and the women.". So when you quote from RRs link, i felt it was implying that the women were better than the mens team.
If not.. Then what was that answer all about? Why c&p that?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.