USWNT

[JJP]

We are talking about the US Women's team and not the rest of the world. Using World Cup numbers do not apply under this conversation. If we were talking about the game globally you certainly have a case.

What? How does World Cup numbers not apply? The World Cup (men's World Cup) is the single biggest sporting event in the world and draws more viewers and more eyeballs, thus generating huge advertising revenues and tv broadcast rights fees, than any sport in the world. It's the single biggest income generator for the men's team. What you are saying, disregard men's World Cup revenue to determine what male and female players should be paid, is completely senseless. That's like saying let's calculate Bill Gates wealth without his Microsoft stock.

In a World Cup year, the men's team generates so much more revenue, there is no comparison with the women. Comparing revenue in 2015 is misleading and cherry picking because that's a women's World Cup year and the men are missing World Cup revenue. The fairest way to compare revenue is to average revenue for a four year period, so both men and women get their big income generators factored in.

I'm just really flabbergasted at the absurd and pervasive PC bullshit that even makes this a conversation. Except maybe figure skating or gymnastics, there is no women's sport that brings in the tv viewership or ticket sales anywhere close to the comparable men's sport. Men's soccer generates hundreds of billions, women's soccer generates maybe in the hundreds of millions, and that's a stretch Your pay is based in large part on the revenue you generate. The women generate a lot, lot, lot less revenue. Therefore, they should not be paid equal to men who generate way more revenue.

I'm pretty sure that the women are in fact grossly overpaid compared to the amount of revenue they generate. I was actually shocked to learn that women's team members got a salary paid regardless of whether they played or won a game in international competition, and the salary is not bad. It's pretty much a guarantee that the men's World Cup revenue is subsidizing every other team including the women's team and the youth teams.

And, I would hope that US Soccer would do the right thing. They can't keep expecting the US Women to maintain their competitive level without some financial benefits. Here are some numbers when you compare the US Men to the US Women.

"The gap between projected revenue — $23 million for the USWNT and $21 million for the USMNT — in 2016 stands at $2 million, but, as demonstrated by the revenue detail, the USWNT’s revenue is set to nearly double what the USMNT will haul in ($17 million to $9 million) in 2017."

Again you're cherry picking numbers by not including World Cup revenue, Gold Cup revenue. You should google this. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how much more revenue the men's team generates. My point is, why do you even need that analysis? It's just so obvious there's no money in women's team sports.

 

[outside!]

There is no arguing that the men's World Cup generates more revenue than the women's World Cup. The USMNT is not the reason for that extra revenue however. The reason for that revenue is all the people around the world that tune in to see the World Cup. Only a small portion of those people tune in to see the USMNT. If you are talking revenue to US Soccer for World Cup appearances, the men's team does generate more revenue, since FIFA pays more money to men's teams. Are you saying that we should let FIFA dictate what is fair payment for the US National Teams? The US National teams are made up of players that have benefited from facilities and infrastructure paid for by ALL US taxpayers.

I would argue that the USWNT has done more to grow the sport of soccer in the United States than the USMNT. Providing equal opportunities for girls and women in soccer in the United States will help men's soccer in the United States much more than compensating the USMNT at a level higher than the USWNT. This is also about more than compensation for the USWNT. It is also about fair treatment when it comes to facilities, fields, airline flights, hotels, etc. The single best thing we can do to make the United States a world soccer power is to increase the popularity of soccer in the United States. Treating more than half the population of the country unfairly does not make much sense if you want girls to grow up to be fans of the game.

 

[LASTMAN14]

What? How does World Cup numbers not apply? The World Cup (men's World Cup) is the single biggest sporting event in the world and draws more viewers and more eyeballs, thus generating huge advertising revenues and tv broadcast rights fees, than any sport in the world. It's the single biggest income generator for the men's team. What you are saying, disregard men's World Cup revenue to determine what male and female players should be paid, is completely senseless. That's like saying let's calculate Bill Gates wealth without his Microsoft stock.

In a World Cup year, the men's team generates so much more revenue, there is no comparison with the women. Comparing revenue in 2015 is misleading and cherry picking because that's a women's World Cup year and the men are missing World Cup revenue. The fairest way to compare revenue is to average revenue for a four year period, so both men and women get their big income generators factored in.

I'm just really flabbergasted at the absurd and pervasive PC bullshit that even makes this a conversation. Except maybe figure skating or gymnastics, there is no women's sport that brings in the tv viewership or ticket sales anywhere close to the comparable men's sport. Men's soccer generates hundreds of billions, women's soccer generates maybe in the hundreds of millions, and that's a stretch Your pay is based in large part on the revenue you generate. The women generate a lot, lot, lot less revenue. Therefore, they should not be paid equal to men who generate way more revenue.

I'm pretty sure that the women are in fact grossly overpaid compared to the amount of revenue they generate. I was actually shocked to learn that women's team members got a salary paid regardless of whether they played or won a game in international competition, and the salary is not bad. It's pretty much a guarantee that the men's World Cup revenue is subsidizing every other team including the women's team and the youth teams.



Again you're cherry picking numbers by not including World Cup revenue, Gold Cup revenue. You should google this. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how much more revenue the men's team generates. My point is, why do you even need that analysis? It's just so obvious there's no money in women's team sports.

This is conversation is about US Women making more money. And is not solely specific to the money any world cup generates. The money the US Women generate overall is enough money to earn more.

If the 4 year period is used then I will agree that the US Men have generated more money from 2013-2016, but from 2014-2017 that gap is small and still does not inhibit the women from making more. Both these dates include world cup years. And, no cherry picking that is why I included the 2017 revenue (a non-world cup year).

The governing bodies in both figure skating and gymnastics acknowledge that the women in these two sports generate more money and are more successful than the men. Yet, these organizations find it necessary to pay each (men and women) the same in salary/incentives. Yes, of course men’s soccer generates more money, but again you’re talking about it globally. I am only referring to two teams who are under the same umbrella and paid by them. And, the money the women generate is more than enough to earn more.

Both the men and women are required to play a specific number of games each year. And they are identical in number which was 20 the last few years. For the US Women to get a salary they would have to play all 20 games, which of course does not happen. Otherwise they get paid much like the men per game and no salary. Per your 4 year period suggestion the US Women are paying their way.

It appears your point is that women’s sport in general does not generate monies, which is fine, in most cases that could be true. But, it does not mean they cannot earn a fair and legal amount, especially if what they are generating says otherwise.

 

[LASTMAN14]

There is no arguing that the men's World Cup generates more revenue than the women's World Cup. The USMNT is not the reason for that extra revenue however. The reason for that revenue is all the people around the world that tune in to see the World Cup. Only a small portion of those people tune in to see the USMNT. If you are talking revenue to US Soccer for World Cup appearances, the men's team does generate more revenue, since FIFA pays more money to men's teams. Are you saying that we should let FIFA dictate what is fair payment for the US National Teams? The US National teams are made up of players that have benefited from facilities and infrastructure paid for by ALL US taxpayers.

I would argue that the USWNT has done more to grow the sport of soccer in the United States than the USMNT. Providing equal opportunities for girls and women in soccer in the United States will help men's soccer in the United States much more than compensating the USMNT at a level higher than the USWNT. This is also about more than compensation for the USWNT. It is also about fair treatment when it comes to facilities, fields, airline flights, hotels, etc. The single best thing we can do to make the United States a world soccer power is to increase the popularity of soccer in the United States. Treating more than half the population of the country unfairly does not make much sense if you want girls to grow up to be fans of the game.

Good Stuff! Well said.

 

[soccerobserver]

What? How does World Cup numbers not apply? The World Cup (men's World Cup) is the single biggest sporting event in the world and draws more viewers and more eyeballs, thus generating huge advertising revenues and tv broadcast rights fees, than any sport in the world. It's the single biggest income generator for the men's team. What you are saying, disregard men's World Cup revenue to determine what male and female players should be paid, is completely senseless. That's like saying let's calculate Bill Gates wealth without his Microsoft stock.

In a World Cup year, the men's team generates so much more revenue, there is no comparison with the women. Comparing revenue in 2015 is misleading and cherry picking because that's a women's World Cup year and the men are missing World Cup revenue. The fairest way to compare revenue is to average revenue for a four year period, so both men and women get their big income generators factored in.

I'm just really flabbergasted at the absurd and pervasive PC bullshit that even makes this a conversation. Except maybe figure skating or gymnastics, there is no women's sport that brings in the tv viewership or ticket sales anywhere close to the comparable men's sport. Men's soccer generates hundreds of billions, women's soccer generates maybe in the hundreds of millions, and that's a stretch Your pay is based in large part on the revenue you generate. The women generate a lot, lot, lot less revenue. Therefore, they should not be paid equal to men who generate way more revenue.

I'm pretty sure that the women are in fact grossly overpaid compared to the amount of revenue they generate. I was actually shocked to learn that women's team members got a salary paid regardless of whether they played or won a game in international competition, and the salary is not bad. It's pretty much a guarantee that the men's World Cup revenue is subsidizing every other team including the women's team and the youth teams.



Again you're cherry picking numbers by not including World Cup revenue, Gold Cup revenue. You should google this. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how much more revenue the men's team generates. My point is, why do you even need that analysis? It's just so obvious there's no money in women's team sports.

JJ, I think the USWNT players did shift from where they started. In December They fired the head negotiator who has struck the more strident tone and who was demanding "equal pay". They shifted from asking for "equal" pay to asking for "fair and equitable " pay. I am not a labor lawyer but I believe the shift in emphasis acknowledges the differences in circumstances between the men and women's revenues and support. There were also Non monetary issues that were addressed that seemed important to the players.

 

[Legendary FC]

There is no arguing that the men's World Cup generates more revenue than the women's World Cup. The USMNT is not the reason for that extra revenue however. The reason for that revenue is all the people around the world that tune in to see the World Cup. Only a small portion of those people tune in to see the USMNT. If you are talking revenue to US Soccer for World Cup appearances, the men's team does generate more revenue, since FIFA pays more money to men's teams. Are you saying that we should let FIFA dictate what is fair payment for the US National Teams? The US National teams are made up of players that have benefited from facilities and infrastructure paid for by ALL US taxpayers.

I would argue that the USWNT has done more to grow the sport of soccer in the United States than the USMNT. Providing equal opportunities for girls and women in soccer in the United States will help men's soccer in the United States much more than compensating the USMNT at a level higher than the USWNT. This is also about more than compensation for the USWNT. It is also about fair treatment when it comes to facilities, fields, airline flights, hotels, etc. The single best thing we can do to make the United States a world soccer power is to increase the popularity of soccer in the United States. Treating more than half the population of the country unfairly does not make much sense if you want girls to grow up to be fans of the game.

I think what everyone is missing about this discussion is that it doesn't elevate pay for women in the NWSL (the real crime) which causes the need to pay the women more. The men on the national team are employed by their clubs. There is no expectation that the majority of their compensation is going to come from the federation. If US Soccer wanted to really improve the overall pool, pump those earnings into the league that they created and subsidized and insure that our extremely large player pool doesn't have talented players retire a year or two out of college because they can earn a great wage elsewhere. The new agreement just perpetuates the same old girls club.

 

[LASTMAN14]

I think what everyone is missing about this discussion is that it doesn't elevate pay for women in the NWSL (the real crime) which causes the need to pay the women more. The men on the national team are employed by their clubs. There is no expectation that the majority of their compensation is going to come from the federation. If US Soccer wanted to really improve the overall pool, pump those earnings into the league that they created and subsidized and insure that our extremely large player pool doesn't have talented players retire a year or two out of college because they can earn a great wage elsewhere. The new agreement just perpetuates the same old girls club.

Yes, there are many issues on the women's side that need to be answered in order to continue to maintain and further elevate the game.

 

[JJP]

There is no arguing that the men's World Cup generates more revenue than the women's World Cup. The USMNT is not the reason for that extra revenue however. The reason for that revenue is all the people around the world that tune in to see the World Cup. Only a small portion of those people tune in to see the USMNT. If you are talking revenue to US Soccer for World Cup appearances, the men's team does generate more revenue, since FIFA pays more money to men's teams. Are you saying that we should let FIFA dictate what is fair payment for the US National Teams? The US National teams are made up of players that have benefited from facilities and infrastructure paid for by ALL US taxpayers.

You are making points that have no meaning. FIFA pays each men's team a minimum of $8 million for being in the World Cup. Each round of progression brings more money. When you say the USMNT is not the reason for the extra revenue, what does that even mean? I haven't seen any analysis that says Germany accounts for 13% of the revenue, Brazil 15%, etc. How would you even allocate revenue generated by the World Cup to different teams? The relevant analysis is how much did USMNT get for playing in the World Cup, and in 2014 that was $9 million.

When you say, "should we let FIFA dictate what is fair payment?", again that's a meaningless question. Both USMNT and USWNT are paid based on their collective bargaining agreements with USSF. FIFA has nothing to do with those collective bargaining agreements. Each national soccer federation that sends a team to the World Cup receives payment from FIFA based on how the team performs out of a prize fund negotiated by the various federations and FIFA. That prize fund is determined largely by how much the TV rights can be sold for and the negotiating skills of FIFA vs the various federations.

So when you say we shouldn't let FIFA dictate what is fair, I honestly have no idea what your point is.

I would argue that the USWNT has done more to grow the sport of soccer in the United States than the USMNT. Providing equal opportunities for girls and women in soccer in the United States will help men's soccer in the United States much more than compensating the USMNT at a level higher than the USWNT.

I'm sure the USWNT has done more to grow soccer among girls.

Your statement "providing equal opportunities for girls soccer will help men's soccer" is your opinion, and may not be true. The growth of girls soccer due to Title 9 has wrecked men's sports in college, except for football and basketball, so I think you can validly argue the growth of girl's soccer has hurt men's soccer, at least at the college level. TBH, I don't know the answer to the question of whether growing women's sports helps men's sport. Certainly I have nothing against the growth of the women's game, and I hope the USWNT grows and makes more money and the best female players can get rich off the sport.

This is also about more than compensation for the USWNT. It is also about fair treatment when it comes to facilities, fields, airline flights, hotels, etc. The single best thing we can do to make the United States a world soccer power is to increase the popularity of soccer in the United States. Treating more than half the population of the country unfairly does not make much sense if you want girls to grow up to be fans of the game.

And what is unfair about what the women are being paid? It's what they bargained for, and from the links I've read that actually analyze the revenue and numbers, the women are overpaid relative to the revenue they generate. I guess you are trying to say that the women should be overpaid even more relative to revenue they generated in order for it to be fair, but that would mean making less money available to the men, who are actually the profit center.

How is that fair to the men? And what does fair even mean in a fight for money? Everybody will fight to get more than their fair share and then justify it with whatever point they can make.

 

[JJP]

I think what everyone is missing about this discussion is that it doesn't elevate pay for women in the NWSL (the real crime) which causes the need to pay the women more. The men on the national team are employed by their clubs. There is no expectation that the majority of their compensation is going to come from the federation. If US Soccer wanted to really improve the overall pool, pump those earnings into the league that they created and subsidized and insure that our extremely large player pool doesn't have talented players retire a year or two out of college because they can earn a great wage elsewhere. The new agreement just perpetuates the same old girls club.

You know, there's an easy solution, and it doesn't involve negotiation. There are a lot of female soccer players. They should buy tickets to NWSL games and watch it whenever it's on TV to drive up ratings and ad revenues.

 

[NoGoal]

You know, there's an easy solution, and it doesn't involve negotiation. There are a lot of female soccer players. They should buy tickets to NWSL games and watch it whenever it's on TV to drive up ratings and ad revenues.

What channel are NWSL games on? Do you mean buy NWSL tickets as in paying for it and not being mandated to go by their club teams to watch a game? That is a hard sell outside of little soccer girls and their parents.

 

[outside!]

I'm sure the USWNT has done more to grow soccer among girls.

I am pretty sure the boys are not going to grow up and produce little soccer players by themselves. Girls soccer players now, mean more women that will sign their children up for soccer in the future and more women soccer fans.

The growth of girls soccer due to Title 9 has wrecked men's sports in college, except for football and basketball, so I think you can validly argue the growth of girl's soccer has hurt men's soccer, at least at the college level.

No, Title IX has ensured that our tax dollars support both genders equally. Since women are 50.8% of our population, that seems fair. College football sucks up most of the money on the men's side, even though the majority of college football teams do not produce revenue for their colleges.

 

[LadiesMan217]

What channel are NWSL games on? Do you mean buy NWSL tickets as in paying for it and not being mandated to go by their club teams to watch a game? That is a hard sell outside of little soccer girls and their parents.

Hey! I paid $15 for parking....

 

[JJP]

No, Title IX has ensured that our tax dollars support both genders equally. Since women are 50.8% of our population, that seems fair. College football sucks up most of the money on the men's side, even though the majority of college football teams do not produce revenue for their colleges.

Give me a break. Division 1 college football coaches and basketball coaches get multi-million dollar contracts. You think taxpayers are funding that? During NCAA March Madness, the whole country is watching and gambling on men's college basketball. Do you have any idea how much hundreds of millions of dollars colleges earn from that one tournament? I'm not saying every school gets that kind of money, but the schools making money off of sports are doing it off men's football and basketball.

The reality is that men's college football and basketball are the revenue generators that fund all the other sports, both men and women. I'm not here to debate title 9, whether it's good or bad. I know mothers with sons who hate Title 9 and men with daughters who love title 9. My point on title 9 is that the growth of women's soccer has not helped men's soccer at the college level, because colleges only have so much money to throw at non-revenue generating sports, and soccer does not make money for colleges. When schools fund women's sports, they cut non-revenue generating men's sports to meet title 9 requirements and balance the budget.

This is pretty much acknowledged as fact, and a google search will turn up loads of scholarly articles confirming this. It's pretty easy to figure out once you know that men's football and basketball fund all other sports, and schools have to dish out 97 girls scholarships (to make up the 85 for football and 12 for men's basketball) before they can give out even one more scholarship for men's soccer.

I'm not here to bash on women's sports. I think it's great that girls are playing and being active and competing. I just think this "we're all in this together" and "helping girls will help the boys too" is BS. There are a lot of circumstances where it's a zero-sum game, especially when money is involved, and we all have to realize that putting more money into women's sports comes with the cost of less money for men's sports.

 

[NoGoal]

Hey! I paid $15 for parking....

$15? I guess someone has to pay for the Legends wrapped Mercedes golf cart.

 

[NoGoal]

Give me a break. Division 1 college football coaches and basketball coaches get multi-million dollar contracts. You think taxpayers are funding that? During NCAA March Madness, the whole country is watching and gambling on men's college basketball. Do you have any idea how much hundreds of millions of dollars colleges earn from that one tournament? I'm not saying every school gets that kind of money, but the schools making money off of sports are doing it off men's football and basketball.

The reality is that men's college football and basketball are the revenue generators that fund all the other sports, both men and women. I'm not here to debate title 9, whether it's good or bad. I know mothers with sons who hate Title 9 and men with daughters who love title 9. My point on title 9 is that the growth of women's soccer has not helped men's soccer at the college level, because colleges only have so much money to throw at non-revenue generating sports, and soccer does not make money for colleges. When schools fund women's sports, they cut non-revenue generating men's sports to meet title 9 requirements and balance the budget.

This is pretty much acknowledged as fact, and a google search will turn up loads of scholarly articles confirming this. It's pretty easy to figure out once you know that men's football and basketball fund all other sports, and schools have to dish out 97 girls scholarships (to make up the 85 for football and 12 for men's basketball) before they can give out even one more scholarship for men's soccer.

I'm not here to bash on women's sports. I think it's great that girls are playing and being active and competing. I just think this "we're all in this together" and "helping girls will help the boys too" is BS. There are a lot of circumstances where it's a zero-sum game, especially when money is involved, and we all have to realize that putting more money into women's sports comes with the cost of less money for men's sports.

I want to go on record and officially thank Title IX and NCAA college football and basketball for my DDs womens college scholarship.

 

[espola]

Give me a break. Division 1 college football coaches and basketball coaches get multi-million dollar contracts. You think taxpayers are funding that? During NCAA March Madness, the whole country is watching and gambling on men's college basketball. Do you have any idea how much hundreds of millions of dollars colleges earn from that one tournament? I'm not saying every school gets that kind of money, but the schools making money off of sports are doing it off men's football and basketball.

The reality is that men's college football and basketball are the revenue generators that fund all the other sports, both men and women. I'm not here to debate title 9, whether it's good or bad. I know mothers with sons who hate Title 9 and men with daughters who love title 9. My point on title 9 is that the growth of women's soccer has not helped men's soccer at the college level, because colleges only have so much money to throw at non-revenue generating sports, and soccer does not make money for colleges. When schools fund women's sports, they cut non-revenue generating men's sports to meet title 9 requirements and balance the budget.

This is pretty much acknowledged as fact, and a google search will turn up loads of scholarly articles confirming this. It's pretty easy to figure out once you know that men's football and basketball fund all other sports, and schools have to dish out 97 girls scholarships (to make up the 85 for football and 12 for men's basketball) before they can give out even one more scholarship for men's soccer.

I'm not here to bash on women's sports. I think it's great that girls are playing and being active and competing. I just think this "we're all in this together" and "helping girls will help the boys too" is BS. There are a lot of circumstances where it's a zero-sum game, especially when money is involved, and we all have to realize that putting more money into women's sports comes with the cost of less money for men's sports.

Most of the schools in the big 5 conferences turn a profit on football and/or basketball. Most of the others need funding from student fees or the universities (that would be taxpayers if they are a public school) to stay afloat.

You can google loads of scholarly articles confirming this.

 

[JJP]

Most of the schools in the big 5 conferences turn a profit on football and/or basketball. Most of the others need funding from student fees or the universities (that would be taxpayers if they are a public school) to stay afloat.

So what? Doesn't matter to my basic point that in college, growing women's soccer doesn't help men's soccer.

Title 9 just depends on two factors. 1) schools have to give out equal numbers of men and women scholarships and 2) does the school have a big time men's football and basketball program to fund other sports.

If the school does have a big time football and basketball program, they can fund fully 97 women's scholarships.

If the school doesn't have a profitable football program, they give out fewer than 85 football scholarships, or even cut football altogether, so they can then give out fewer women's scholarships to save money. I've never heard of a school cutting basketball because it's a cheap sport.

Either way, there's a limited pot of money and a limited number of scholarships and it's a zero sum situation where growing any woman's sport has the opportunity cost of limiting scholarships for men's sports. So growing women's soccer, at the college level, does not help men's college soccer.

Again, I'm not here to criticize Title 9. It's here to stay. I only brought it up because several people have made the argument that putting more money into the women's game will ultimately grow the men's game too. That may be true overall, but it's just not true at the college level.

And I don't necessarily agree that giving women pros more money will grow the game either. I've never made any soccer decision based on what the USSF paid national team members, I've never heard a kid say I don't want to play because I'll be underpaid when I make the national team.

To me, this is just a fight over how to split the pie and nothing more.

 

[espola]

So what? Doesn't matter to my basic point that in college, growing women's soccer doesn't help men's soccer.

Title 9 just depends on two factors. 1) schools have to give out equal numbers of men and women scholarships and 2) does the school have a big time men's football and basketball program to fund other sports.

If the school does have a big time football and basketball program, they can fund fully 97 women's scholarships.

If the school doesn't have a profitable football program, they give out fewer than 85 football scholarships, or even cut football altogether, so they can then give out fewer women's scholarships to save money. I've never heard of a school cutting basketball because it's a cheap sport.

Either way, there's a limited pot of money and a limited number of scholarships and it's a zero sum situation where growing any woman's sport has the opportunity cost of limiting scholarships for men's sports. So growing women's soccer, at the college level, does not help men's college soccer.

Again, I'm not here to criticize Title 9. It's here to stay. I only brought it up because several people have made the argument that putting more money into the women's game will ultimately grow the men's game too. That may be true overall, but it's just not true at the college level.

And I don't necessarily agree that giving women pros more money will grow the game either. I've never made any soccer decision based on what the USSF paid national team members, I've never heard a kid say I don't want to play because I'll be underpaid when I make the national team.

To me, this is just a fight over how to split the pie and nothing more.

"I'm not here to criticize Title 9". That's pretty funny.

Title IX doesn't require any institution to provide equal numbers of scholarships for men and women. If it did, no school would have a football team. ("In 2013-14, NCAA member schools fielded an average of 430 student-athletes, including 243 males and 187 females." -- NCAA, Oct 15, 2014) It only has to provide an equivalent and proportional opportunity for men and women to participate in similar activities. "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Policy decisions by the Department of Education and settlements to lawsuits over the years have added more details, but the general idea is still the same. In the case of soccer (which should be our primary concern here) the men and women's programs at any institution that offers both usually are remarkably similar in funding, structure, and operation - it's the simplest way to show equal treatment.

NCAA FAQ on the matter -- http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#how

 

[NoGoal]

So what?

I think E was pointing out not all men's football and basketball teams are profitable based on your rebutal below.

The reality is that men's college football and basketball are the revenue generators that fund all the other sports, both men and women.

Now you posted this below, which includes an if and big time. Much different than your post above.

If the school does have a big time football and basketball program, they can fund fully 97 women's scholarships.

I've never heard of a school cutting basketball because it's a cheap sport.

How is basketball a cheap sport? Do they not pay thier college coaches? The team doesn't get athletic trainers? The school doesn't allow the basketball players to use the gym and sports facilities? They travel in yellow school buses? Please explain how basketball is cheaper than other sports at a college university.

 

[Glen]

Interesting revenue/expense numbers from 2015: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/