There’s one point in here that I’ve seen a few times that has bothered me a little. It’s the ‘if they both played 20 games’ scenario. Problem with that is that MNT players never get 20 games. Michael Bradley is the most capped player, and he’s never had more than 18, at least if wiki is to be believed. His average betwen 2007 and 2017, the years where he was clearly a first-choice player, was 12.6 games. (Of course, that’s going to miss how many times he was on the roster without appearing and what a player is paid for that). And he has outpaced almost everyone else, whereas more of the WNT players comparatively are every-game players and the WNT plays more games. One decides that they want to take a larger base salary but receive a smaller percentage of commission for the GP that they generate.
The second decides to skip the base salary and only take a larger percentage commission of the GP that they generate.
These two scenarios are both widely normal in a competitive marketplace… sometimes the first person comes out better and sometimes the second person comes out better.
Nobody wants to be honest and truthful about what is really going on… The ladies take a guaranteed national team contract that covers them even if they don’t make the team or are out injured. The men only get paid when they are called up for a friendly or competitive match. These are the agreements both sides of the argument agreed to.
The elephant in the room is… Women on the national team need the salary just to get by in the day to day for the most part because the club league that they play in doesn’t pay enough for the most part. The men on the other hand play in club leagues that are viable and generate considerably more revenue.
The fact that the men can earn a good living playing soccer outside of national team duty has nothing to do with the USSF.
