Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
What explains the pay gap in women's soccer?
The U.S. Soccer Federation says "market realities" explain the pay gap. Others say it's institutionalized sexism.
Naomi Baker - FIFA / Contributor
- The U.S. women's soccer team recently won its fourth World Cup title.
- The U.S. women's team has been far more successful than the men's team in recent years, yet men still receive higher pay.
- All 28 players on the U.S. women's team have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation over claims of unequal pay.
The U.S. women's soccer team won its fourth World Cup title on Sunday with a 2-0 victory over the Netherlands. Shortly after, the crowd started chanting "equal pay!" — referencing the claim that the United States Soccer Federation (aka U.S. Soccer) unjustly pays female players less than male players. It's been a long-standing point of contention between female players and U.S. Soccer — which is the body that governs America's national soccer teams — though it was only in March that all 28 female players on the U.S. team decided to sue U.S. Soccer.
The class-action lawsuit claimed that "female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts. This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players – with the female players, in contrast to male players, becoming world champions." The complaint added that U.S. Soccer also failed to provide female players with equal working conditions, promotion and support.
The @USWNT won their fourth World Cup yesterday. These players deserve more than just trophies, the team deserves e… https://t.co/xwG8FYe8wK— Gavin Newsom (@Gavin Newsom)1562607015.0
In a May court filing, U.S. Soccer argued that the pay gap is "based on differences in aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex." Last week, more than 50 members of Congress signed an open letter to U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro in support of the women's team. Some lawmakers also expressed support on Twitter. Meanwhile, the women's team's case is heading to mediation.
At this point we shouldn’t even be asking for #EqualPay for the #USWMNT - we should demand they be paid at least tw… https://t.co/npJbMUhnWL— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)1562520370.0
So, what explains the gender pay gap? How is it fair that the more-successful women's team earns less than the men's team? Does women's soccer simply generate less revenue? Is institutionalized sexism to blame?
There's no immediately clear answer, but you can get some insight by looking at the differences between the men's and women's teams in terms of revenue generation, collective-bargaining agreements and awards from FIFA.
U.S. men's teams have historically generated more revenue than women's teams. But that's beginning to change — at least in terms of gate revenues, which consist mainly of ticket sales. As The Wall Street Journal notes in a recent article:
"From 2016 to 2018, women's games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer's audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men."
But only about one-quarter of U.S. Soccer's total operating revenue can be attributed to gate revenues, according to the federation's financial documents. The other revenues come mainly from broadcasting and sponsorships, and it's difficult to parse out which teams contribute more to these revenues because U.S. Soccer sells sponsorships and broadcasting rights as a bundled package.
Still, there's reason to think that the recent success and popularity of the women's team is boosting revenues: Nike chief executive Mark Parker said that the U.S. women's team home jersey "is now the number one soccer jersey, men's or women's, ever sold on Nike.com in one season," according to The Washington Post.
The U.S. men's and women's teams have different collective-bargaining agreements with U.S. Soccer. The most noticeable difference lies in bonus structure and amounts. As a recent piece from The Guardian notes, male players stand to earn more money in bonuses as they progress through a World Cup. But that's just the World Cup: The men's and women's teams earn bonuses (of different kinds and amounts) in other games and tournaments, under a variety of differing conditions. Overall, men earn more in bonuses. But a recent update to the women's team deal has narrowed the bonus gap, and also made it so that female players earn a base salary (male players only earn money through bonuses).
In short, comparing earnings between male and female players is complicated, and a 1:1 comparison is impossible. For 2019, it looks like the women's team will earn more than the men's team — but only because of their extraordinary success, and the men's team's relative failure.
Understanding how the World Cup factors into the soccer pay gap requires some knowledge of the relationship between FIFA and U.S. Soccer.
FIFA runs the World Cup. It determines how much prize money the winning nation's team receives. After that team wins the World Cup, FIFA awards a predetermined purse of prize money to that nation's soccer federation — but those purses vary drastically by gender. As The Washington Post notes:
"Total prize money for the Women's World Cup in 2019 is $30 million — the champions will walk away with about $4 million. For contrast, in the 2018 Men's World Cup, the champions won $38 million from a total pool of about $400 million. In other words, the champions from the men's world cup were awarded more than the total prize money in the women's tournament. So there's no question that there's a huge gap in earning potential here."
Why such a discrepancy? The men's World Cup currently generates more money, by far. For context, FIFA earned upwards of $6 billion from the 2018 men's World Cup. Meanwhile, the women's 2019 World Cup is estimated to earn FIFA about $131 million.
So, even though the U.S. women's team is more successful than the men's team, the numbers suggest that men's soccer is currently a more valuable product — especially on the international stage. That means the male players deserve to earn more, right? Needless to say, not everyone agrees.
A recent op-ed from The New York Times editorial board argues that revenue is "the wrong measuring stick" in this debate.
"United States Soccer is a nonprofit, exempted from taxation because it serves a social purpose: "To make soccer, in all its forms, a pre-eminent sport in the United States," the Times editorial board wrote. "It should be obvious to the people who run the federation that the women's team is fulfilling that mission at least as well as the men's team."
The piece also notes that it's U.S. Soccer — not FIFA — that ultimately gives award money to players, and therefore the federation could use its discretion to pay all players equally. In short, this argument acknowledges that men's soccer brings in more money overall, but says that's not the most important measure by which this debate should be judged.
(It's worth noting the obvious: This current debate about women's soccer is embedded within a broader culture war over gender equality and the gender pay gap, and it's likely that many are treating this story as a proxy battle in that broader war.)
Another point that the Times and others have made in recent days goes something like: Sure, men's soccer earns more money, but that's partly because federations aren't investing enough money into women's soccer. If they did, women's soccer would be more popular and generate more money.
For now, the women's team and U.S. soccer are heading into mediation. The federation maintains that "market realities" are responsible for the pay gap in American soccer. But that could soon change if the women's team can strike a deal with U.S. Soccer on a revenue-sharing model.
"Under this model, player compensation would increase in years in which the USSF derived more revenue from WNT activities and player compensation would be less if revenue from those activities decreased," the 28 U.S. female players wrote in their recent court complaint. "This showed the players' willingness to share in the risk and reward of the economic success of the WNT."
U.S. Soccer "categorically rejected" this model. But the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association — which is the players union for the United States men's national soccer team — has expressed support for it.
"The United States National Soccer Team Players Association fully supports the efforts of the US Women's National Team Players to achieve equal pay," reads the statement. "Specifically, we are committed to the concept of a revenue-sharing model to address the US Soccer Federation's 'market realities' and find a way towards fair compensation."
Welcome to the world's newest motorsport: manned multicopter races that exceed speeds of 100 mph.
- Airspeeder is a company that aims to put on high-speed races featuring electric flying vehicles.
- The so-called Speeders are able to fly at speeds of up to 120 mph.
- The motorsport aims to help advance the electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) sector, which could usher in the age of air taxis.
Airspeeder, the world's newest motorsport, is set to debut its first race in 2021.
What can you expect to see? Something like a mix between Red Bull's air racing and the pod-racing scenes from "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" — manned electric cars flying close together in the desert at 120 mph, nose-diving off cliffs, and racing over lakes, all while hopefully avoiding collisions.
Airspeeder calls its vehicles flying electric cars, but it's probably easier to think of the wheelless multicopters as car-sized drones. Powered by electric batteries, the carbon-fiber craft use eight propellers to fly, and the tiltable motors are designed to allow pilots to navigate through the course's pylons at high speeds.
To prevent crashes, Airspeeder is working with the companies Acronis and Teknov8 to develop "high-speed collision avoidance" systems for its Speeders.
"As they compete, Speeders will utilise cutting-edge LiDAR and Machine Vision technology to ensure close but safe racing, with defined and digitally governed no-fly areas surrounding spectators and officials," Airspeeder wrote in a blog post.
Beyond motorsports, Airspeeder hopes to help advance the electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) sector. This sector is where companies like Uber, Hyundai, and Airbus are working to develop air taxis, which could someday take the ridesharing industry into the skies. By 2040, the autonomous urban aircraft industry could be worth $1.5 trillion, according to a 2019 report from Morgan Stanley.
Still, many technical and regulatory hurdles remain. Matt Pearson, Airspeeder's founder and CEO, thinks the futuristic motorsport will help to not only speed up that process, but also pave the way for self-driving cars.
"Even with autonomous vehicles on the ground, it's a difficult thing to get right because computers have to make decisions very fast," Airspeeder's founder and CEO, Matt Pearson, told GQ." But in a racing environment, you have a pretty controlled course and you have the ability to make all the vehicles cooperate with each other. You have a whole load of vehicles talking to each other, so if there's an incident or a pilot slows down or there's a traffic jam on the course they're all aware of each other. This is something we think will revolutionise autonomous vehicles on the ground. It's technology that will make flying cars a reality in our cities in the future."
Airspeeder has yet to announce a date for the first race, but Pearson said he hopes to put on three races over the first season. The company is developing two courses: one in California's Mojave Desert, and one near Coober Pedy in South Australia.
The way you speak might reveal a lot about you, such as your willingness to engage in casual sex.
- A new study finds a deeper voice is associated with self-reported extraversion, dominance, and casual sex.
- It was the first study on the topic to objectively measure voice pitch.
- The authors suggest that hormones like testosterone might explain their findings.
We make snap decisions about other people based on information that we can gather quickly. One of the many ways that we do this is by making bold conclusions about other people's personalities based on their voices alone. Various studies demonstrate that people associate a deep voice with dominance, but those with higher pitched voices are perceived as nervous or neurotic. Popular culture seems to agree with and reinforce these stereotypes.
Are these perceptions accurate? Maybe. A new study by an international team of researchers with the goal of more accurately determining what our voices reveal about us has demonstrated that there is some connection between how we sound and who we think we are.
The voice-personality connection
Lead author Dr. Julia Stern of the University of Göttingen explained:
"Even if we just hear someone's voice without any visual clues — for instance on the phone — we know pretty soon whether we're talking to a man, a woman, a child, or an older person. We can pick up on whether the person sounds interested, friendly, sad, nervous, or whether they have an attractive voice. We also start to make assumptions about trust and dominance. The first step was to investigate whether voices are, indeed, related to people's personality."
The study included data from 2,000 people from four countries involved in eleven previous independent studies focused on other questions. Each of these studies involved some kind of self-reporting of personality traits and vocal recordings. The recordings were analyzed with Praat, software that determined the frequencies of the participants' speaking voices.
The study is the largest ever conducted on the topic and the first to use an objective measure of pitch rather than subjective rankings such as "high pitched" or "deep." Each participant's vocal pitch was then compared to the self-reported personality data they provided.
The findings associated self-reported levels of dominant tendencies, extroversion, and increased interest in and acceptance of sociosexuality (casual sex or sex outside of a relationship) with a lower pitched voice. This was true for men and women of any age. The findings were in line with the previous, less robust studies on the subject.
Other stereotypes, like if a higher pitched voice hints at neuroticism, openness to new experiences, or agreeableness, were impossible to determine with the data at hand.
Voice isn't everything
It should be remembered that the personality traits that this study associates with vocal pitch are self-reported, so there are some serious limitations. For instance, it is entirely possible that vocal pitch is associated with thinking you're extroverted when you actually aren't. Furthermore, all four countries in the study are WEIRD, so the findings probably cannot be universalized.
Additionally, there are plenty of examples of people for whom the voice-personality link doesn't apply. For example, Teddy Roosevelt, an extremely extroverted, dominating man, had a fairly high pitched voice.
The authors do speculate that there could be a connection between testosterone levels in men, their vocal pitch, and their perceived level of dominance that would be supported by previous studies. However, they have no hypothesis explaining why that same relationship exists for women.
The authors suggest that further studies in this area could focus on finding a possible physical connection between these traits and vocal pitch and to determine if they hold for traits which are not self-reported.
Who needs steroids when you have the placebo effect?
- A study suggests that the effectiveness of sports drinks may depend in part on their color.
- Runners who rinsed with a pink liquid ran better than those who consumed the same but colorless drink.
- Improvement in their performance is likely due to a placebo effect.
The "placebo effect" is real. It's the name for a strange phenomenon that most notably occurs during clinical trials. People who are given an inactive substance, like a sugar pill, often experience the same therapeutic benefit as those who are given actual medicine. It's not their imagination — it really happens. (Even better, recent research suggests that therapeutic benefits occur even when the person knows that they were given a placebo.)
Now, a new study from the University of Westminster (UOW) Centre for Nutraceuticals in London and published in Frontiers in Nutrition suggests that the placebo effect may explain yet another phenomenon: Athletic performance.
The research showed that treadmill runners who rinsed their mouths with a pink liquid increased their performance over runners who swished with exactly the same liquid but without the coloring. Why pink? The color is generally linked to sweetness, and the researchers wondered if that association would subconsciously trick the runners into an expectation of more carbohydrates and thus energy.
Author Sanjoy Deb explains:
"The influence of color on athletic performance has received interest previously, from its effect on a sportsperson's kit to its impact on testosterone and muscular power. Similarly, the role of color in gastronomy has received widespread interest, with research published on how visual cues or color can affect subsequent flavor perception when eating and drinking."
Running for science
Credit: Ryan De Hamer / Unsplash
For the study, the researchers recruited ten healthy adults — six men, four women. All were regular exercisers, with an average age of 30. The participants were told that they would be testing the relative benefits of two commercial sports drinks after watching a brief video explaining the value of such beverages. Previous research found that mid-exercise rinsing with such drinks can reduce the perceived intensity of exercise.
The drinks consisted of 0.12 grams of sucralose dissolved in 500 mL of plain water — an artificially sweetened rinse low in calories. The liquids contained no other additives common to sports drinks such as caffeine. The pink version had non-caloric coloring added but was otherwise identical.
After a 12-minute warmup phase of jogging followed by running, the athletes ran at a difficult pace for 30 minutes, rinsing with their drinks as they ran. Following a brief cool-down, they were interviewed to capture their impressions of the exercise session. (Each runner tested both drinks.)
The researchers found that when the volunteers used the pink rinse, they ran an average of 212 meters farther and 4.4 percent faster. They also enjoyed the exercise more.
Deb said, "The findings from our study combine the art of gastronomy with performance nutrition, as adding a pink colorant to an artificially sweetened solution not only enhanced the perception of sweetness, but also enhanced feelings of pleasure, self-selected running speed, and distance covered during a run."
The researchers also plan to dig deeper into the phenomenon by investigating the possibility that the pinkness of the beverage is somehow directly activating the brain's reward areas.