The categories of revenue that USSF does and doesn't put into the men's and women's revenue buckets are determined solely by USSF and have nothing to do with GAAP accounting practices, as I previously stated. It is not possible for us to itemize the impact of the MNT's or WNT's impact on advertising revenue and sponsorship deals with absolute certainty of course, but many indicators suggest that the WNT is more of the driving force for the reasons I have previously stated. The fact is that USSF has chosen to attribute only some of the revenue streams to the MNT and WNT revenue buckets, and those happen to favor the men, while it has left out the biggest ones (namely the VW and Nike contracts) which probably favor the women. USSF certainly could negotiate contracts separately in order to better asses their relative contributions to USSF's biggest revenue streams. And that doesn't even do things justice, because VW and Nike contracts are pretty much pure profit, while gate receipts aren't nearly as profitable since much of that it is eaten up by expenses. Regardless, even without negotiating separately for the MNT and WNT, there are mechanisms in place to determine how to value both the MNT's and WNT's percentages of the VW and Nike contracts, but USSF doesn't. If they did, I bet we'd all find out that Alex Morgan alone sells more jerseys than the entire MNT combined. Ultimately, we'd almost certainly find out that the WNT and the Mexican NT players are far more important profit drivers than the MNT players.
If USSF isn't going to base compensation on the actual value they provide, but only on the value they provide from some of the lesser revenue streams (and the ones that favor the men), it has no legitimate basis to value the men at a higher level and pay them more. In other words, when someone earlier in this thread something about paying the WNT based on "perceived" rather than actual value, the fact is that they're paying the MNT more based on their "perceived", and not their actual overall value.
Disagree with quite a bit of what you said, but you do a good job of conveying your point. The biggest issue I see is that your stance is entirely subjective and without any basis of facts.
Let's set aside FIFA prize money because we all know that greatly favors the men and no one will argue they bring in more from that standpoint. Let's set aside gate receipts, because you are correct, this is peanuts compared to what we are really talking about.
The reason I disagree - the TV deal is a huge driving factor in generating income, and the facts have been put out that the USMNT significantly draws more viewers than the USWNT. This isn't a 10%, 50% type of figure it is a multiple figure, especially in major tournaments. Given these numbers are published, it would be fair to assume that TV revenue would favor the USMNT somewhere in the 70%-80% range. If there were a mythical $100M TV deal, the men's ledger would show 70%-80% of that. That is a huge gap in revenue generation.
Now let's look at Nike sponsorship. I don't doubt at all that Alex Morgan sells more jerseys than the entire USMNT, but I haven't seen any figures to corroborate that. That said, that isn't how kit deals are structured. An equipment manufacture will look at current and potential future sales during the deals term to determine the annual $ figure they are willing to pay. They will also take into account the number of eyeballs that see these teams in their gear - we know that greatly favors the men. My guess the number of young boys and grown men that have purchased USMNT kits is far greater than the number of USWNT kits that are sold - but again, that is just my guess based on no factual evidence. These equipment deals are not structured on a "kick-back" type of agreement, where USSF would get x% of proceeds from jersey sales.
The VW sponsorship deal would be similar to Nike, except they are really just paying for the number of eyeballs that see their logo on the jerseys, very similar to a commercial. Again, this drastically favors the men.
I will agree with you that the USWNT, at this moment, may have a bigger power to grow the game. But they need to do that first and then it should be reflected in the next sponsorship deals. What I don't see is a top line or bottom line figure that puts the WNT anywhere close to the MNT.
I would actually argue the opposite of your take on USSF's negotiating tactics. I think they negotiate these deals together so they can provide the WNT with the salaries and payments, which are the best in the world, to match their on field performance. In a way, I think it is done to avoid conflict with the men's team, much more so than to hide anything from the women. Most USSF revenue generating actions come down to how many consumers are touched, whether it be buying jerseys, selling tickets or watching on TV. The fact of the matter is, the MNT provides more eyeballs (multiples of) than the WNT does.
Given the facts we have and using some subjectivity, if USSF's budget was $6 of every $10 generated toward their NT's - the men should receive $4.20 - $4.80 of that budgetary spend. When adding prize money to the mix the gap widens even more.
Very interesting conversation.