FIFA World Cup 2026
Poll
 | 2 votes (50%) | ||
| | 2 votes (50%) | ||
| | 3 votes (75%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (25%) |
4 members have voted
Certainly, not clearing the ball on what turned out to be Belgium's third goal was inexcusable, but he did make a couple of brilliant saves in the first few minutes of the game.Quote: SOOPOOUSA is a slightly inferior team to Belgium. The result is not a big surprise. Our goaltender was sub par.
link to original post
I don't think he was the deciding factor. I thought our defense looked not just slow, but sleepy. Belgium was constantly getting behind the US defenders.
FYI, except for Argentina winning, I would suggest that their goalkeeper had the worst match of the tournament. 2 goals allowed on 2 shots on goal (and arguably should have been 3 of 3!) -- 0.00% save percentage!
Mexico played its round-of -16 game at home in Mejico
Canada played its round-of-16 game on the road in the US.
All teams are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Quote: billryanThe US played its round- of -16 game at home in the US
Mexico played its round-of -16 game at home in Mejico
Canada played its round-of-16 game on the road in the US.
All teams are equal, but some are more equal than others.
link to original post
You do realize the location was dependent on how you finished in your group? Can’t blame this one on Trump! If Spain makes it to the final in 4 years they’ll be getting a home game.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: billryanThe US played its round- of -16 game at home in the US
Mexico played its round-of -16 game at home in Mejico
Canada played its round-of-16 game on the road in the US.
All teams are equal, but some are more equal than others.
link to original post
You do realize the location was dependent on how you finished in your group? Can’t blame this one on Trump! If Spain makes it to the final in 4 years they’ll be getting a home game.
link to original post
According to the BBC, the US team was promised all of its games would be held in the US, while Mexico and Canada were not. Canada became the first host nation to play a game outside its borders in the Cup's history.
Why would you want to blame Trump for this?
Quote: billryanQuote: SOOPOOQuote: billryanThe US played its round- of -16 game at home in the US
Mexico played its round-of -16 game at home in Mejico
Canada played its round-of-16 game on the road in the US.
All teams are equal, but some are more equal than others.
link to original post
You do realize the location was dependent on how you finished in your group? Can’t blame this one on Trump! If Spain makes it to the final in 4 years they’ll be getting a home game.
link to original post
According to the BBC, the US team was promised all of its games would be held in the US, while Mexico and Canada were not. Canada became the first host nation to play a game outside its borders in the Cup's history.
Why would you want to blame Trump for this?
link to original post
I don’t. In 2030 Spain, Portugal and Morocco are ‘main hosts’. Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay are also hosting a game each. So Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina are guaranteed at least two ‘road’ games. I would guess only S Spain could make it to Champion only playing games in its own country. Just like the US this year (had the US had a good team…)
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
Quote: billryanDue to a revenue-sharing agreement, the US Women's Soccer team will get half of the men's team payout for the Cup.
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
link to original post
Good. And it's about time. The women have been light years more successful on the international stage than the men. And the goal of international competition is to compete and compete successfully, and the women have held up their end of bargain.
Quote: billryanDue to a revenue-sharing agreement, the US Women's Soccer team will get half of the men's team payout for the Cup.
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
link to original post
Going by That Great Repository of Accurate Information, Wikipedia, the winners in the 2023 Women's World Cup got $10.5 million. Apparently, FIFA "suggested" that each player on that team receive $270,000 of that money, but couldn't enforce it. Note that USA's share was $3.25 million, of which $1.87 million was intended for USA Soccer and the other $1.38 million for the players, but it's not clear how much had to be given to the men's team as part of the deal.
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: billryanDue to a revenue-sharing agreement, the US Women's Soccer team will get half of the men's team payout for the Cup.
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
link to original post
Going by That Great Repository of Accurate Information, Wikipedia, the winners in the 2023 Women's World Cup got $10.5 million. Apparently, FIFA "suggested" that each player on that team receive $270,000 of that money, but couldn't enforce it. Note that USA's share was $3.25 million, of which $1.87 million was intended for USA Soccer and the other $1.38 million for the players, but it's not clear how much had to be given to the men's team as part of the deal.
link to original post
Sport aint about politically-correctness. It is about free market. The same complaint is loud in tennis yearly, not every 4 years. The TV audience is the major factor. Audience means MONEY. Politically-correctness would love to force male athletes share to 50-50 the revenue with the females in the respective sport. How fair would that be?
Still, the grand slam tournaments pay men and women absolutely equal. Women play 2 of 3 sets, men play 3 of 5. Attendance to womens matches are less than 2/3 of men’s. About the same on TV.
Quote: toolypQuote: ThatDonGuyQuote: billryanDue to a revenue-sharing agreement, the US Women's Soccer team will get half of the men's team payout for the Cup.
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
link to original post
Going by That Great Repository of Accurate Information, Wikipedia, the winners in the 2023 Women's World Cup got $10.5 million. Apparently, FIFA "suggested" that each player on that team receive $270,000 of that money, but couldn't enforce it. Note that USA's share was $3.25 million, of which $1.87 million was intended for USA Soccer and the other $1.38 million for the players, but it's not clear how much had to be given to the men's team as part of the deal.
link to original post
Sport aint about politically-correctness. It is about free market. The same complaint is loud in tennis yearly, not every 4 years. The TV audience is the major factor. Audience means MONEY. Politically-correctness would love to force male athletes share to 50-50 the revenue with the females in the respective sport. How fair would that be?
Still, the grand slam tournaments pay men and women absolutely equal. Women play 2 of 3 sets, men play 3 of 5. Attendance to womens matches are less than 2/3 of men’s. About the same on TV.
link to original post
Competitive international sport is about winning. And the USWNT has won more than the USMNT. Paying the women for their success on the pitch is fair, since they've earned it.
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
Quote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
Both the men's and the women's WC money is combined into a pool. USA Soccer keeps 20% and the 80% gets paid equally to the players. This arrangement due to a lawsuit settlement and new (current) CBA. FWIW, both the men's and women's English senior teams also receive equal match/appearance fees. Same as Brazil, Australia, Norway and New Zealand. Tournament bonus money still unequal though for the Brits.
3rd place matches certainly interesting and gives the players something to play for. I can see why NFL/college football or hockey wouldn't have them, The game is rough enough as it s, and why subject the players to the dangers of another game played. But a third place or repechage contest in the non-contact/non-collision sports sounds like fun, especially if individual records (Golden Boot) is on the line.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: toolypQuote: ThatDonGuyQuote: billryanDue to a revenue-sharing agreement, the US Women's Soccer team will get half of the men's team payout for the Cup.
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
link to original post
Going by That Great Repository of Accurate Information, Wikipedia, the winners in the 2023 Women's World Cup got $10.5 million. Apparently, FIFA "suggested" that each player on that team receive $270,000 of that money, but couldn't enforce it. Note that USA's share was $3.25 million, of which $1.87 million was intended for USA Soccer and the other $1.38 million for the players, but it's not clear how much had to be given to the men's team as part of the deal.
link to original post
Sport aint about politically-correctness. It is about free market. The same complaint is loud in tennis yearly, not every 4 years. The TV audience is the major factor. Audience means MONEY. Politically-correctness would love to force male athletes share to 50-50 the revenue with the females in the respective sport. How fair would that be?
Still, the grand slam tournaments pay men and women absolutely equal. Women play 2 of 3 sets, men play 3 of 5. Attendance to womens matches are less than 2/3 of men’s. About the same on TV.
link to original post
Competitive international sport is about winning. And the USWNT has won more than the USMNT. Paying the women for their success on the pitch is fair, since they've earned it.
link to original post
“Competitive international sport is about winning. And the USWNT has won more than the USMNT.”
It aint “competitive” that pays out; revenue signs the cheque. FIFA got a huge cheque in 2025 and now 2026, mainly from worldwide TV. Thats what pays out king-football, not “competitive” or King Donald.
Quote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
I also hate that the WNBA is televised. On those occasions, I'm limited to only 299 other viewing options.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
link to original post
The USMNT can't pull their own weight because they keep not winning on the world stage.
The USWNT pull their weight by winning,and more than the men do. And if crybaby men can't handle that, then the men can cry in their beer and find something else to do,while the rest of the US and the world celebrate. But I don't see any member of the USMNT complaining about the 50-50 revenue split.Just couch potato sexist men.
Quote: toolypQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: toolypQuote: ThatDonGuyQuote: billryanDue to a revenue-sharing agreement, the US Women's Soccer team will get half of the men's team payout for the Cup.
The US will receive about 16 million for advancing to the Round of 16, so every US player will receive a little under $250,000.
As the US Women's team is far more successful than the men's team, I suppose things even out in the end.
This payout is in addition to the rumored $10,000 per game the US pays its players.
link to original post
Going by That Great Repository of Accurate Information, Wikipedia, the winners in the 2023 Women's World Cup got $10.5 million. Apparently, FIFA "suggested" that each player on that team receive $270,000 of that money, but couldn't enforce it. Note that USA's share was $3.25 million, of which $1.87 million was intended for USA Soccer and the other $1.38 million for the players, but it's not clear how much had to be given to the men's team as part of the deal.
link to original post
Sport aint about politically-correctness. It is about free market. The same complaint is loud in tennis yearly, not every 4 years. The TV audience is the major factor. Audience means MONEY. Politically-correctness would love to force male athletes share to 50-50 the revenue with the females in the respective sport. How fair would that be?
Still, the grand slam tournaments pay men and women absolutely equal. Women play 2 of 3 sets, men play 3 of 5. Attendance to womens matches are less than 2/3 of men’s. About the same on TV.
link to original post
Competitive international sport is about winning. And the USWNT has won more than the USMNT. Paying the women for their success on the pitch is fair, since they've earned it.
link to original post
“Competitive international sport is about winning. And the USWNT has won more than the USMNT.”
It aint “competitive” that pays out; revenue signs the cheque. FIFA got a huge cheque in 2025 and now 2026, mainly from worldwide TV. Thats what pays out king-football, not “competitive” or King Donald.
link to original post
Funny how the US Olympic Committee gives out bonuses for gold, silver and bronze medalists, without regard to the sport or gender of the winner or the revenue potential of the sport or athlete. The paraolympians get the same medal payout as well.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
link to original post
The USMNT can't pull their own weight because they keep not winning on the world stage.
The USWNT pull their weight by winning,and more than the men do. And if crybaby men can't handle that, then the men can cry in their beer and find something else to do,while the rest of the US and the world celebrate. But I don't see any member of the USMNT complaining about the 50-50 revenue split.Just couch potato sexist men.
link to original post
When you are a professional, "winning" = "making money."
How much money is each team making? If this female team is so successful, why aren't they generating more revenue than the male team and expect to be subsidized?
All a big conspiracy, right?
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
link to original post
The USMNT can't pull their own weight because they keep not winning on the world stage.
The USWNT pull their weight by winning,and more than the men do. And if crybaby men can't handle that, then the men can cry in their beer and find something else to do,while the rest of the US and the world celebrate. But I don't see any member of the USMNT complaining about the 50-50 revenue split.Just couch potato sexist men.
link to original post
Perhaps those who disagreed with giving away half their bonus didn't participate.
Until the Women's World Cup can sell out stadiums and generate revenue like the men's tournament, I don't see why the players are being docked a third or more of their pay. However, every player agreed to it, so they shouldn't complain. I see why the women would agree to this, and why the powers that be would want it, but can someone tell me what the men get out of it?
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
link to original post
The USMNT can't pull their own weight because they keep not winning on the world stage.
The USWNT pull their weight by winning,and more than the men do. And if crybaby men can't handle that, then the men can cry in their beer and find something else to do,while the rest of the US and the world celebrate. But I don't see any member of the USMNT complaining about the 50-50 revenue split.Just couch potato sexist men.
link to original post
Perhaps those who disagreed with giving away half their bonus didn't participate.
Until the Women's World Cup can sell out stadiums and generate revenue like the men's tournament, I don't see why the players are being docked a third or more of their pay. However, every player agreed to it, so they shouldn't complain. I see why the women would agree to this, and why the powers that be would want it, but can someone tell me what the men get out of it?
link to original post
They don't get a call made to Peking where they lose their shoe contracts, is what they get out of it.
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
link to original post
The USMNT can't pull their own weight because they keep not winning on the world stage.
The USWNT pull their weight by winning,and more than the men do. And if crybaby men can't handle that, then the men can cry in their beer and find something else to do,while the rest of the US and the world celebrate. But I don't see any member of the USMNT complaining about the 50-50 revenue split.Just couch potato sexist men.
link to original post
Perhaps those who disagreed with giving away half their bonus didn't participate.
Until the Women's World Cup can sell out stadiums and generate revenue like the men's tournament, I don't see why the players are being docked a third or more of their pay. However, every player agreed to it, so they shouldn't complain. I see why the women would agree to this, and why the powers that be would want it, but can someone tell me what the men get out of it?
link to original post
The men get to wear their nation's colors and compete for their country on the world stage. If they don't like the women getting equal pay, any man is welcome to decline to play for the USMNT and just play for their MLS or European or whatever team and leave a roster spot open for someone else.
Quote: GenoDRPh
The men get to wear their nation's colors and compete for their country on the world stage. If they don't like the women getting equal pay, any man is welcome to decline to play for the USMNT and just play for their MLS or European or whatever team and leave a roster spot open for someone else.
link to original post
I would rather have the best 26 players, not the 26 players willing to give away half their bonuses. I'm enjoying this tournament, but I doubt I'll watch another match anytime soon.
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPh
The men get to wear their nation's colors and compete for their country on the world stage. If they don't like the women getting equal pay, any man is welcome to decline to play for the USMNT and just play for their MLS or European or whatever team and leave a roster spot open for someone else.
link to original post
I would rather have the best 26 players, not the 26 players willing to give away half their bonuses. I'm enjoying this tournament, but I doubt I'll watch another match anytime soon.
link to original post
And we're getting the best players.I am not aware of any US man who declined a tryout or roster spot because of pay. If anyone does, please let us know.
They aren't giving away "half their bonuses". They are being paid their full bonuses out their equal cut in USA Soccer WC revenues. The monies paid to USA Soccer don't belong to the men,, nor the women. They belong to USA Soccer, who are giving equal pay to the players on both teams.
Quote: toolypI bet on a repeat final: France-Argentina
This time around, the winner is… FRANCE (+500)
Side bet for big money: USA (+3000+)
link to original post
All said and done. I didnt win. Fifantino did. His wishes as a Catholic came true. A catholic world cup final for the 3rd time in a row. Sure yet another catholic winner. 18 of 23 winners in total. Is it the power of creed and prayer? Or just the Vatican Bank money. methinks both. Anyway huge revenues for Fifa and Fifantino. they are magnanimous too. they spread the wealth around but they also reward the merit. The financial success of FIFA World Cup 2026 will never be reapeated. unless hosted by usa again and again. God (and pope) willing.
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf I understand the agreement, the pool of money being assigned to the women's team doesn't go to this year's team, but will be paid to the women who make next year's team. Then, the smaller revenue earned by the women's team in the World Cup will be split between the men's and women's teams. It seems like an unusual arrangement. Do other countries operate like that? Did the English women's team pick up a third-place check?
Yesterday's third-place game was incredible. France slept through the first half, trailing 4-0 at the halfway point. They came out on fire and closed it to 4-3 while also missing two golden opportunities. They were down 5-3 and scored in extra time, but England nailed a sixth goal with little time left. America has done away with most third-place - the NFL and NCAA had them when I was younger. I wasn't expecting much out of it, but it seems when you are playing for your country, third place is taken seriously.
link to original post
I think a third place game is an Olympic tradition, where the significance of third place is obvious.
The men's teams subsidizing the women's teams is a recipe for making the whole sport economically non-viable. If they can't pull their weight, they should do something else. In MLB the large market teams subsidize the small market teams for a good reason in that they need competitive opponents, and they all subsidize their minor league affiliates because that's where major league players are developed. But what does the female team do for a related male team? Nothing. It ends up just being dead weight and causing a lot of drama and resentment, and ugliness like we see in the WNBA now. ESPN shoving it down our throats every day for years, and aside for 2 players on one team, we still hates it.
link to original post
The USMNT can't pull their own weight because they keep not winning on the world stage.
The USWNT pull their weight by winning,and more than the men do. And if crybaby men can't handle that, then the men can cry in their beer and find something else to do,while the rest of the US and the world celebrate. But I don't see any member of the USMNT complaining about the 50-50 revenue split.Just couch potato sexist men.
link to original post
Perhaps those who disagreed with giving away half their bonus didn't participate.
Until the Women's World Cup can sell out stadiums and generate revenue like the men's tournament, I don't see why the players are being docked a third or more of their pay. However, every player agreed to it, so they shouldn't complain. I see why the women would agree to this, and why the powers that be would want it, but can someone tell me what the men get out of it?
link to original post
The women's world cup sells out its marquee games just as the men's does. More obscure contests do not fare as well as with the men's game
Some actual numbers on this:
2016-2018 combined: USWNT $50.8M vs USMNT $49.9M — women's games out-earned men's games
2016 specifically: women drew $24.11M vs men's $22.24M
2017: essentially dead even (~$14.6M each)
2018: men slightly ahead ($13.00M vs $12.03M)
Essentially no difference in profitability.
More recent numbers are not available (these were made public because of the pay dispute). However, the women's game has grown significantly as a result since then so if anything the numbers are likely to be less flattering than men, with significant out-performance of women and dismal under-performance by the men.
If anything the women should be paid more as growth, which is everything in capitalism, is considerable in the women's game whereas the men's game has stalled in popularity. Generally speaking executives in a growth stock will be paid better than a traditional, profitable, but unexciting company with limited growth prospects.
I'd add: it just seems wrong to me to pay the women, who won 3 out of their last 4 major tournaments, less than men.... who just got humiliated by the mighty...Belgium. That is a country 20 times smaller with a fraction of the resources.
The men's tournament was broadcast on multiple networks, some in prime time. The 2027 women's tournament will be broadcast on Netflix.
Quote: billryanThe prize pool for the 2026 World Cup is larger than the total income produced by the last Women's World Cup. The last Women's World Cup produced about $570 million in revenue, while this tournament is estimated to generate upwards of $15 billion and pay out over $600 million in prizes.
The men's tournament was broadcast on multiple networks, some in prime time. The 2027 women's tournament will be broadcast on Netflix.
link to original post
The WC is one of a number of tournaments international soccer players participate in.
The pay settlement in question was concluded in 2022, four years before the current WC. At that time there was no noticeable difference in profitability between men and women's soccer in the United States. The settlement was fair on those terms.
The current men's WC was considerably more profitable than its predecessors due to a variety of factors. Almost certainly the next women's WC will break records also.
Quote: billryanThe prize pool for the 2026 World Cup is larger than the total income produced by the last Women's World Cup. The last Women's World Cup produced about $570 million in revenue, while this tournament is estimated to generate upwards of $15 billion and pay out over $600 million in prizes.
The men's tournament was broadcast on multiple networks, some in prime time. The 2027 women's tournament will be broadcast on Netflix.
link to original post
It seems like someone is laboring under the idea that what everyone is paid is just dreamed up by someone in an office, rather than determined by markets like everyone else.
Reality: with few exceptions such as in tennis, women's sports are not popular. People watch professional sports to see and be inspired by extreme physical acts that cannot be reproduced by an ordinary person. But the best female athletes cannot beat a team of teenage boys...
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/former-uswnt-star-carli-lloyd-admits-losing-to-under-15-boys-team-yes-its-true
Those boys are exceptional too but only by a little bit. If they're the better players, why don't they get a cut of World Cup revenue too? Even I have been treated gently by time and might do well in a senior sports league, but that does not mean I am entitled to pay, or high pay, for beating other old guys in a sport. It wouldn't be popular. New Balance wouldn't pay me for an endorsement. My play wouldn't be worth anything in the business sense, and to scream about deescreemeenation and demand money would be unseemly and make me as much of a pest and a turn-off as female soccer players are.
The notion that the dismal men's team should be paid more for failure because of freemarket economics is, obviously, absurd. It is supposed to be survival of the fittest, not surrender to the Flemish.
