I don't have much of a dog in this fight because the women are paid as members of the national team under a contract their representatives negotiated, and I don't see what has changed to invalidate that.

That said, I empathize with the perspective that the USWNT isn't being compensated fairly if they are compared to the men, because the US Men's team is garbage, and the women's team is great – . And unlike a lot of sports, the WMNT revenue is comparable or better than than of the men's team.

Suggesting they try out for the men's team is la-la-la BS. Better lawyers representing them, yeah.

Could they just try out for the men's team? Yes and no. Here's a bit about the women's soccer team:

Aaron Heifitz, the publicist for the U.S. national women’s soccer team, described how the women’s squad performs against the best youth club players in Southern California: “The boys’ 13s we can handle pretty consistently, but when the boys start really developing at 14, and especially 15, that’s when you start to see real separation and they pass even the best women’s players. They’re just bigger, stronger, and faster.”

Yes, that's right - they lose to boys high school teams. That's the rule, not the exception:

Direct competition between women and boys tends to confirm the gap: the women’s Olympic hockey team has lost to boys’ high school junior-varsity teams; the women’s Olympic soccer team has lost to club teams of 15-year-old boys, the Colorado Silver Bullets professional baseball team has lost to American Legion squads — the list goes on and on.

From another source:

The 2014 Olympic women's hockey team lost 3 - 1 to the Salisbury School of Connecticut High School boys team in a game that -- wait for it -- prohibited checking! If checking had been allowed as it is in the rules the boys regularly play at, instead of being forced to play no-check rules the women are accustomed to, the results would have been even more hilarious.

US National Women's Soccer team lost 8 - 2 against a teenage boys soccer club. In soccer 8 - 2 is an absolute blowout, Biblical level of team destruction. This result is normal when they play 15 - 17 year old boys, apparently.

Why would anyone pay serious money to watch sports played at a high school level? That so few people are aware of these discrepancies testifies to the pervasiveness of decades of politicized hype surrounding sports played by women.

IMO, when it comes to trying to capture an audience, some sports are generally in tough. For instance, ever since I discovered the excellence of England's premiere league soccer, I can't bear to watch the North American professional teams play and I wouldn't bother going to see them.

Why would anyone pay serious money to watch sports played at a high school level? ~ Lastango at April 2, 2016 11:46 PM

Years ago, I watched a women's college basketball game. The athleticism was minimal, the discipline was lax, and the competitiveness was nonexistent. It was like watching a choreographed ballet with talentless dancers.

A few years ago, I finally watched another one. The improvement in the game was phenomenal. The players were leaps and bounds ahead of the earlier players, the game was competitive and engaging. However, it was still nothing near the men's level.

The reason most women's professional leagues don't pay at the level of the men's leagues is that they don't bring in the same revenue (advertising or attendance). If the women are bringing in the same level of revenue that the men are, they deserve some parity in pay.

Keep in mind that a great deal of the disparity that's at the heart of this dispute is the bonus payments the men get for winning at various levels.

If the men were to win the World Cup, the level of revenue they would potentially bring in dwarfs the best the women can do. The women won the world championship and achieved revenue parity with a men's team that probably won't even make the field this year.

Side note about the picture and PS I dropped in there. I loved running -- used to run seven miles three times a week from Venice and Abbot Kinney to Montana and Ocean in the middle of the night (always getting home before 2 am). Then a doctor told me I'd need both knees replaced by age 50, and I stopped the next day. I miss it, especially the late-night runs.

Growing up in a world full of "Participant" trophies can be a shock, huh?

I'm betting the Legends football teams aren't paying the players as much as the NFL does theirs either. And the first time a Legends running back meets the like of Von Miller on the field, they'll find out why. It's the nature of competition.

It is also the nature of people to be demented when it comes to consistency of thought. Such people as chant, "Diversity!" then complain because some of those diverse people are better at something. {dope slap} Of course they are!

I agree with Lastango.

This is also true of tennis. The top women's players can't beat the Division 1 Men's college players, unless they have having a really bad day.
This is true for all sports which require strength agility and speed.

About the only sport this doesn't hold for is shooting, which is one of the reasons I like it so much.

Props to Isab for her shooting. No quarter given there!

About your P.S.

We, also, had a girl run my cross country team in HS; mainly because she liked to run and there was no girls team. No one on our team had any problem with a girl joining the team. In fact, I think a lot of us thought it was kind of cool.

The only issue was with some other teams who balked at running against a "girl." Personally, I think they were too afraid of losing to a girl!

Compare that to a guy who wanted to join the girls field hockey team at our HS. Initially, the coaches refused to let him even try out.

Now, I could see if they made a claim that he was too big or too strong to be on the field with others (girls) who are generally smaller and weaker than him; just like you shouldn't have 6th graders playing tackle football against 12th graders. It is a safety issue.

But, no, that wasn't the reason the girls field hockey coaches gave. They claimed that girls field hockey was reserved for girls and that it was one of the few things that girls had for themselves - no boys allowed!

But, the school administrators insisted that they had to let him try out.

He made the team! Then the coaches and other team members treated him like crap. They even made him wear the skirt since it was, as they claimed, a part of the standard uniform; although, everyone knew they were just trying to humiliate him.

And, he, just like the girl who joined our cross country team, just wanted to play in the sport.

"Equality," despite their cry for it, isn't always what they are after.

I can see the problem, Amy. All that gorgeous, flowing red hair must have created some tremendous drag as you ran.

Frankly, I think the girls who assaulted you in junior high used your Judaism as the ostensible reason. They were jealous, plain and simple.

Hah -- Patrick, thanks.

And charles, love that!

First, in physical contests, women play women, men play men. This is physically fair; women do not compete at the level men do. That said, I watch college softball played at an excellent level and pro tennis played at an excellent level all the time. I choose to watch women play because it's awesome to watch them playing waaay better than I ever could. I don't watch crappy teams play; I won't support nonsense like that. But with soccer and tennis, these are two physical sports played by women that generate roughly the same revenue. Many men and women want to watch women play. And the men. So if they are bringing in equal revenue (women's soccer is projected to bring in more revenue than the men's squad for the next 2 years), then pay them right. Let them renegotiate that. Tennis likewise. There have been many matches played where women's matches drew more viewers than men's. Otherwise there wouldn't be an equal showing of the female matches; networks only show what people are actually going to watch. The sports have evolved, and it's time to acknowledge that. I'm looking at you, Raymond Moore.

Note sure why everyone is insisting the male players are better in this case. According to ESPN, the financial reporting/filings show the women's team makes more money for the league. $20 million more a year. And they win unlike the men's team.

So if the women's team consistently wins and brings in more money, why would they want to join the men's team?

If your brought in millions of dollars of profit more at the office than your nearest co-worker, but the co-worker was paid much more, wouldn't you want to bring that up to your boss and renegotiate your salary? Or would you say, yeah, but I get it, he can bench 100lbs more at the gym than I do?

It was nothing to do with physical strength in this case.

"The truth is," Sauer said, "the players are claiming discrimination based on a more conservative structure, based on guaranteed compensation rather than pay to play, which they themselves requested, negotiated and approved of not once, but twice."

Women bitching about not wanting exactly what the asked for? Qquelle surprise.

What goosegg said, tie their earnings directly to the revenue and bonuses for winning, like the men, fine them for missing games, like the men.

No maternity leave, like the men, ban domestic abusers from the sport like Hope Solo, like the men

If your brought in millions of dollars of profit more at the office than your nearest co-worker, but the co-worker was paid much more, wouldn't you want to bring that up to your boss and renegotiate your salary?

Thats really the only valid point, but then these ladies didnt want to negotiate for profit sharing, the negotiated for guaranteed income, flex time, and maternity leave

Now, what do you suppose the odds are they would be willing to drop all that? I'm betting their gonna want to keep their perks, their safety net, but STILL want profit sharing.

As for the talk on why they made more this year and are projected to make more next.

Why is that? is that gross, or net? what are the cost differences in their health care? payroll taxes? budget for away or home games? is the bill for stadium upkeep split between the sexes or is it all dropped on one sex? if so why? tax structuring or no ones ever bothered to change it since the ladies started using the facilities?

thousands of questions no one is asking.

What Lujlp said. They negotiated a contract. When that contract expires negotiate a better one. But if you insist on stability over profitability don't expect to make peak money. Meh.

"According to ESPN, the financial reporting/filings show the women's team makes more money for the league. $20 million more a year. And they win unlike the men's team. "

First of all, the "which team is better" argument is a swinging pendulum, as it is in all sports. There will be times in the future when the men's team is good and the women's team is bad. Second, what they are asking to do is change the terms of an agreement that they themselves negotiated. Basically, they want to break their contract. What is the incentive for the other side? There is none, and everyone knows that. So what they are trying to do is use political muscle to force U.S. soccer to do what they want. That's right, raw political power, with no consideration of ethics or morals. "I'm going to take things away from you because I can!" It's the language of bullies. We have far too much of that going on in the United States as it is.

As for other sports: With a few exceptions, racing is fairly gender-neutral in terms of physical skills. In fact, in certain categories of racing, women can have something of an advantage because, in general, they weigh less. What's usually lacking is the right mental attitude for the sport: women tend to be cautious drivers who don't take the risks necessary to win. And when they do try to take risks, they usually go way overboard and it becomes completely out of control. There are some exceptions. For reasons not clear to me, women who have the right skills and mental makeup seem to gravitate towards drag racing; Shirley Muldowney and Angelle Sampey are two good examples. Unfortunately, the best-known female racer right now is Danica Patrick, who was once a serious racer, but today she's more of a celebrity who does some racing.

"For reasons not clear to me, women who have the right skills and mental makeup seem to gravitate towards drag racing; Shirley Muldowney and Angelle Sampey are two good examples."

Timing and hand/eye coordination are everything in drag racing, and it's long been noted that women are wonderful at this. Note that other racing demands the long-term application of strength. There are exceptions, and each market may not have the individual capable of the best performance right now. How many women seek a dangerous activity for a profession?

Some sports feature an anomaly. Valentino Rossi apparently has no fitness regimen, yet has multiple championships in motorcycle racing in a class which does not call off a race for environmental reasons, and which now calls for 350 kph speed. Dr. Costa, of Clinica Mobile, has found his heart rate to be lower by a third than others at the same task.

Raddy, I've long suspected that Danica Patrick got out of Indycars primarily because NASCAR allows power steering, and Indycar doesn't.