My Facebook friends have been signing petitions demanding that women soccer players be paid as much as men (apparently they didn’t realize that FIFA executives are more likely to be persuaded by briefcases full of cash). A variety of articles (example) point out that men generate more spectators and therefore more revenue, so therefore Econ 101 says that the men should be paid more.
Why does Econ 101 apply here, though? FIFA seems to be an unregulated monopoly. Various other monopolies, such as Major League Baseball, have moved money from the most profitable teams to teams in smaller media markets. The goal, as I understand it, was to make the season more competitive. But given that market economics are not applicable, what would be wrong with FIFA moving money from uber-profitable men’s teams and giving the money to women’s teams?
Separately, could it be the case that simply paying women a lot more would increase the number of spectators? A lot of sports figures are celebrities partly because they are rich and do things that mostly rich people do and that the public gets excited about. If female soccer players get a 5X boost in pay, for example, they might show up in the media a lot more often and then people would want to go the the stadium or turn on the TV to watch them play.
What do readers think? Would be it be fair or unfair for FIFA to insist that male and female soccer players, on average, are paid the same?
The celebrity side of things could attract broader viewership at least in theory. I can enjoy the strictly inferior performances of women in sport quite well whenever I buy hype that the contest is especially significant (world cup, olympic gold, college championship, etc). The athletic performances of elite women are also more relatable to weekend-warrior male soccer players (though on sport-specific skill+smarts the elite women are well superior). Related question: why no owners’ collusion to push salaries down? Superteams increase global revenue? Owners already capturing a large portion of stars’ added revenue so incentive to defect?
Considering it’s got something of a monopoly, how about just lower the guy’s pay until it matches the girls?
Actually, some aspects of economics do apply here. It is possible that the current, relatively low pay is not attracting the strongest, most talented and skilled, and most dedicated women, women who because of the relatively low pay, decided to either go into other sports or professions. Now, if the pay is significantly increased, like for example by 5X, then it might start attracting more women who previously did not consider soccer because of the low pay, women who are stronger, with better talents and skills. With better players, maybe women’s soccer might become more attractive to audiences in general, and thus making the investment worthwhile.
Another angle is also possible. Given that now we are living in the world of the Bruce Jenner->Caitlyn Jenner transition, if female soccer players’ pay rises to match those of male soccer players, maybe a few male soccer players who are not among the first-rate in the male realm might decide to get in touch with their feminine side and join the other league. With their superior strength(if not superior skill), maybe they will get to dominate the female World Cup. Even if their pay does not increase, the greater fame might get them better product endorsement deals/post-World-Cup careers. And if FIFA management disagrees with this transition, maybe a few protests and Justice Department investigations will help smooth the way.
Given the US Women’s team success vs. the men’s US team, I’d think they should be making more.
“My Facebook friends have been signing petitions demanding that women soccer players be paid as much as men.”
I would like to sign a petition demanding that your Facebook friends get paid less and that they pay their own employees (housekeepers, etc.) more – would they be amenable to that or would they consider that to be none of my business?
Bob – what other women’s sport (or occupation for which they would be qualified) pays more than women’s soccer?
Philip – notice that you say in baseball that they MOVED money to the smaller teams. This implies (correctly) that there was a relatively fixed pool of money to be redistributed. Kansas City gains, the Yankees lose (but they voluntarily go along with it for the good of the sport – if the Yankees won the world series every year because they could buy the top talent, after a while people would stop watching). Who would be the losers in your friend’s redistribution scheme? The male players? The ticket buyers? The owners of men’s teams? Or did they not think this thru and just expect additional money to magically appear out of thin air? Apparently “the rich” have infinite amounts of money so if you, as a liberal, can dream up some worthwhile place for them to spend it on, it’s entirely fair to demand that they do so. As Obama said, the rich should “spread the wealth”. In fact, liberals are capable of thinking of lots and lots of worthy causes that other people should be forced to spend their money on.
@Izzie,
Before MLB began redistributing SOME of the big team’s ancillary revenues the Yankees DID try to purchase all the best players. It did not equate into championships.
@Phil,
Save women’s Olympic figure skating, very few women-participation sports are popular with the public compared to men’s sports of the same type.
Try watching a few minutes of WNBA basketball and you’ll see what I mean.
We must end sexist “women’s” and “men’s” teams, and instead have unisex teams. Open the team tryouts to both sexes and let merit decide who plays and gets paid.
This plan does not go far enough. The ADA mandates that the Paralympics soccer league should receive equal resources. We won’t even go into the racial and class imbalances on the US women’s soccer team.
As soon as Pornstars and Supermodels start earning like their male counterparts.
but seriously,
NFL is non profit entity. all the profit is divided up equally between teams
of which 50% goes to players.
Contracts are negotiated by sport agents.
Are Women not able to hire lawyers and accountants to do that.
Which part is societies problem.
Try passing equal pay as a legislation, all the women will be laughed at.
They are trying similar bullshit with $10 bill like that is going to make women
earn more too.
Corporations have no problem paying women more when they bring in the dough.
All they have to do is do that.
Tennis players don’t get paid equally either. Nor are their trophies equal in value.
Nor do they play same amount of sets.
Women would get more respect out me
instead of nagging men to do something.
They should organize themselves into corporations,
make their own products, own games, etc.
Have their own schools.
Show the men that they are better.
Use their money against men.
then they can pay themselves more money.
This way they can have 15 years career and retire to have babies.
They can even start their own country.
Why can’t they do that?