The figure is right, but it's really disingenuous in terms of context. The women's team was in a gold cup year, the men were not. Men,
on average,earn many many times the revenue during
likeyears--
for example.(And they are essentially going off American revenue/ratings, which is tiny compared to the world market.)
And while viewers made the Sunday match by far the most-watched soccer game in American TV history, little of that excitement could be seen in the tourney's marketing deals. Fox grabbed an estimated $17 million in ads from corporate sponsors of the elite women's matches - a tiny fraction compared to the$529 million ESPN pocketed in sponsorship revenue from last year's tournament in Brazil.
(For those that don't know how soccer works; the Gold Cup is played once every 4 years, the 3 off years are essentially eliminating teams and qualifying for it. So the three years before a gold cup is like the regular season of a sport in the U.S.; the gold cup year is like the play offs. In other words, the women here were comparing the play offs of their sport, to the hum drum normal games of the men's, and we're talking EARLY in the season, too, because the men just had their gold cup the year before; so the start of a season vs the play offs.).
When like for like, the difference in revenue is staggering---The fact is, the men's world cup has been played 20 times and made almost 5 billion dollars. It's a proven market. The women's cup has only been done 7 times, and on a far smaller scale.
They blame the smaller scale on less coverage and less hype, but that's ridiculous--Amateur clubs can regularly wreck national champion female clubs. There just isn't as much interest in the far less physical female clubs. (And if Ronda Rousey proves anything, it's that if you have more people watching? You'll get paid more, it doesn't matter what is between your legs.)...but the fact is, women's teams are just poor players compared to men's.
"We are the best in the world, have three World Cup championships, four Olympic championships, and the [men] get paid more to just show up than we get paid to win major championships," Solo said.
Note,
the best in the world here?Lost,
8-2 against the under 17 men's teamjust 3 months before the women's team went on to win gold, and it should be noted, THIS U17 U.S. male team?
Wasn't even good enough to qualify for the U17 World Cup, so it's a very mediocre team globally. (The best women's team in the world, playing against a high school age male club that has trouble competing globally, loses, bad, 8-2.)
So many of the clubs that are 'great' in the women's league, tend to be so because the competition is so limited. Many countries just don't have developed female teams because there is very little interest in domestic female play (So there are few sources/clubs to draw a national team from.) So the only countries with decent national teams are usually very egalitarian countries which subsidized them to start them (And lost money while they were being built up, like the WNBA) or they are soccer nuts, like Brazil. You can see the effect of this in the size of the female world cup tournament.
The number of teams for the women's world cup I believe is 24, for the men its 200(And it's only recently 24 for women, it used to be 12)---the competition is
A LOT higher. Of course they make more money, and are paid more. What they are asking here is to be subsidized from a MUCH larger, and much higher profit tournament for 'equal wages'.