Five top US women footballers sue for better pay

[YoungWolf]

Pretty sure it happens with lecturers at university as one example of people in the same role earning different amounts of money based on sex. At my uni it does.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Is it purely down to their gender though?

How do they stack up on qualifications, experience, performance. There are so many factors that decide someone's salary that there is always going to be disparity, one might have been desperate to work there and took the first offer, another might have gone at a time when they were in desperate need of someone and so was able to milk them for more money.

 

[YoungWolf]

Well they are in the same role (course leaders of their own courses) with similar qualifications, to my knowledge of course.

i know what you are saying and they are fair points, my point in general is that we can't just pretend everything is fine and that there aren't gender inequalities when there clearly are, even if it is less so than previously (when I'd say it was more extreme). And that doesn't mean we can't continue to strive for further equality.

 

[daib0]

Really? There are women who have exactly the same job (not talking in terms of football) as a man and get paid less, how is that right?

The issue with women's football is that it has been at such a disadvantage until the world realised how ridiculous the idea that women shouldn't play football was. If we consider that the FA only took responsibility for it fully in 1993, that's over a hundred years behind the men's game. Before that, women were banned from playing on football league grounds for 50 years (1921-1971). Last year was a big year for women's football in England (FA Cup final staged at Wembley, 3rd at world cup) but it also highlighted how far behind it still is. Of course the quality isn't as good. Even now I know girls who are very talented at football who haven't pursued football as a career because it's not the best option for them.

Until you had exactly the same opportunity from the grassroots ages up to professional status, we can't know whether women's football isn't as good as mens. It's the fastest growing game but it's going to hit a block soon. It's fantastic that there is more coverage and some teams are going full time but there's going to be a point when the funding stops I worry. And when the people in positions of power are generally white middle class men it's not exactly going to serve their interests either is it.

great post ...

 

[Johnny75]

Pretty sure it happens with lecturers at university as one example of people in the same role earning different amounts of money based on sex. At my uni it does.

What a shock, a public body demonstrates more inequality than a private one. Mark's right, you can't know why one person gets more money than another in any profession unless you look at comparative data and if your university does that and still pays women less then than men just because they are women then I am sure there are discrimination cases to be fought there.

In regards to women's football. You make some good points but this isn't a new game that has just allowed women to play and you can take the point of view that money will change that when they go professional. Anybody watching the world cup will see that the majority of those players were professional and it was by and large a poor spectacle with a shocking lack of quality both in TV studios and on the pitch.

I have watched the women's football show on the beeb and it's abysmal stuff, punditry, presentation and the actual football. I know you have to give these things time but they should really start as they mean to go on.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Really? There are women who have exactly the same job (not talking in terms of football) as a man and get paid less, how is that right?

They're usually reasons for it. Companies don't actively offer different rates of pay for women as they do for men.

 

[lemonjelly]

Universities are not public bodies.

 

[Alan]

Really? There are women who have exactly the same job (not talking in terms of football) as a man and get paid less, how is that right?

The issue with women's football is that it has been at such a disadvantage until the world realised how ridiculous the idea that women shouldn't play football was. If we consider that the FA only took responsibility for it fully in 1993, that's over a hundred years behind the men's game. Before that, women were banned from playing on football league grounds for 50 years (1921-1971). Last year was a big year for women's football in England (FA Cup final staged at Wembley, 3rd at world cup) but it also highlighted how far behind it still is. Of course the quality isn't as good. Even now I know girls who are very talented at football who haven't pursued football as a career because it's not the best option for them.

Until you had exactly the same opportunity from the grassroots ages up to professional status, we can't know whether women's football isn't as good as mens. It's the fastest growing game but it's going to hit a block soon. It's fantastic that there is more coverage and some teams are going full time but there's going to be a point when the funding stops I worry. And when the people in positions of power are generally white middle class men it's not exactly going to serve their interests either is it.

Fantastic post, as always from you. Top stuff.

 

[Johnny75]

Universities are not public bodies.

You know what I mean though LJ. I realise they are Institutions and technically private company's but governed by public sector rules and propped up by the state in all but name.

 

[Alan]

I've always wondered how the research is conducted when you hear the headlines about women earning X% less than men, it's all irrelevant unless you're taking a direct comparison, like if you did an average of male wage/female wage at our work the male wage would be massively higher as there are very few women in construction specific roles, they're mainly admin/support staff and so obviously on a lower wage.

At least in America, the 78% figure so often quoted is based on position-to-position direct comparison.

 

[Johnny75]

At least in America, the 78% figure so often quoted is based on position-to-position direct comparison.

So not experience-to-experience comparison then? Which is quite often how salaries are scaled (and also ability-to-ability).

As you are literate in these things, who writes the most job descriptions, women or men? (I don't know but the data would be interesting)

 

[YoungWolf]

What a shock, a public body demonstrates more inequality than a private one. Mark's right, you can't know why one person gets more money than another in any profession unless you look at comparative data and if your university does that and still pays women less then than men just because they are women then I am sure there are discrimination cases to be fought there.

In regards to women's football. You make some good points but this isn't a new game that has just allowed women to play and you can take the point of view that money will change that when they go professional. Anybody watching the world cup will see that the majority of those players were professional and it was by and large a poor spectacle with a shocking lack of quality both in TV studios and on the pitch.

I have watched the women's football show on the beeb and it's abysmal stuff, punditry, presentation and the actual football. I know you have to give these things time but they should really start as they mean to go on.

I admitted myself I can't know why one person gets more than another in any profession, you are absolutely right there are too many variables. But I also think it would be foolish to think that everything is lovely and fine and that there isn't any inequalities that exist.

Women's football is becoming more professional and teams are training more often and with better qualified coaches. But did these women have as good opportunities in the most important years? Absolutely no chance. They a) won't have as good coaches in academies and b) won't train or play as often. And then ther eis the matter of facilities! So simply going professional doesn't make it equal either. It's a long process, one that will likely never develop to the standard of the men's game understandably. I think it's unfair to slate the women's game when there are so many barriers for it to overcome.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

But the comparison is always going to be there, that's reality - and it's a comparison that has to be made when equal pay is even being contemplated. It's drifting into the territory of tokenism to grant it credibility when you can genuinely see better quality in pretty low reaches of the amateur men's game.

Offering opportunities is a good thing, especially at grassroots level, but in its current form you can't expect women's football to be taken seriously.

 

[YoungWolf]

No, but I think the issue of building it as a sport should be taken very seriously. Which I don't think it is, not seriously enough anyway.

 

[Johnny75]

I'd agree with that YW, it should be built and they've made a good start. This start is not being helped by the BBC trying to give it parity with the men's game on it's website, in fact it's actively detrimental as it just pisses people off.

Let the game develop but simply knock this equal pay nonsense on the head quickly as that just makes people look a) bitter and b) silly for a lack of understanding.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Prior to Sky money getting involved, professional footballers earned pretty crap money and I really can't see women's football getting the audience that would make Sky pump there money into it.

I know what you're saying about grassroots, but women are never going to be to the same standards as men.

I've watched a bit of the women's T20 highlights and it's like watching kids cricket.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Just play the USA men's team against the women's team and base the salary differences (for the national sides) on Goal difference. JOB DONE!

 

[big mean bunny]

This might be worth a look at. Audience figures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33422820


For those that don't click. The Women's world cup final got 500k viewers in the Uk, the qtr final which involved England got 1.6 million.

I can't find the stat now, but the England v Italy world cup match got about 24 million. The 6 nations England v France match got over 6.5 million, so Women's footballers are a way behind the exposure of Rugby Union for example. That sport only turned pro early 90s? I remember my old mans labourer used to play for Northampton in front of about 6000 people and work on a building site during the week!

 

[Tredman]

Different in the US though isn't it, women's football is massive there.

 

[Alan]

Wambach immediately screwing the lawsuit over by being arrested for DUI. Won't do her cause any favors.