Cybereagles

The Undisputed Number One Home for All Super Eagles Fans
It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:35 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:55 pm
Posts: 611
DIMKA76 wrote:
The female USA team certainly have a shout for equal pay. They are a class or two above their peers.


They lost to the U14 USA boys team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 4:08 pm
Posts: 11904
Location: seattle
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


As much as you hit all the right notes I would stay away from using terms like perceived value because it starts to sound African, discriminatory and gender based. And you and I know our history on women rights. The reality is that the women game is technically no where near the men’s game hence does not command same follower-ship nor does it generate same revenue directly or indirectly

_________________
make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 4:29 pm
Posts: 1795
jette1 wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


As much as you hit all the right notes I would stay away from using terms like perceived value because it starts to sound African, discriminatory and gender based. And you and I know our history on women rights. The reality is that the women game is technically no where near the men’s game hence does not command same follower-ship nor does it generate same revenue directly or indirectly


Caution accepted. Thank you.

_________________
"...Some say football is not a matter of life and death;
I can assure you it's more important than that..."
- Bill Shankly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:54 pm
Posts: 13601
The real deal wrote:
Just like the MALE gender has been so emasculated in western culture, almost to the point of extinction, this attempt at equating men and women is bound to end badly. Who in their right mind will equate men and women soccer?? Its crazy. That USWNT won the WC does not mean they can beat ANY of the Male team @ the Men's WC.....Can USWNT beat ogolo's Kenya ( I doubt it, lol) US U/20 male team? Accra Hearts of oak (lol)......Its ridiculous. There's NO NEED to EVER talk of PAY PARITY.......
The Female Heavyweight boxing champion shd try take on Male Featherweight #3 contender first........SMH


Now I understand why you support Trump.. :lol: See logic :lol:

_________________
NIGERIAN BADBOY!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:54 pm
Posts: 13601
This debate won't make a lot of sense unless someone can shed some light on where the pay to SE or Falcons come from.

Does it come from FIFA or the Naija government? Does FIFA give the NFF a certain amount based on the competitions we participate it in? Does FIFA give the NFF more for the competitions SE participates in versus the falcons?

Until we can answer all these questions, na jus free for all

_________________
NIGERIAN BADBOY!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:38 pm
Posts: 8713
Location: NJ,USA
Schillachi wrote:
The real deal wrote:
Just like the MALE gender has been so emasculated in western culture, almost to the point of extinction, this attempt at equating men and women is bound to end badly. Who in their right mind will equate men and women soccer?? Its crazy. That USWNT won the WC does not mean they can beat ANY of the Male team @ the Men's WC.....Can USWNT beat ogolo's Kenya ( I doubt it, lol) US U/20 male team? Accra Hearts of oak (lol)......Its ridiculous. There's NO NEED to EVER talk of PAY PARITY.......
The Female Heavyweight boxing champion shd try take on Male Featherweight #3 contender first........SMH


Now I understand why you support Trump.. :lol: See logic :lol:



:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Put up your counter logic so minds can compare....waiting....

_________________
Cujus esqulum, ajus es usqui ad inferos


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 5476
PEOPLE ARE OVER COMPLICATING THIS MATTER


Simply create a women's FIFA and a men' FIFA, with either allowed to make and distribute revenues as it is capable of and as it sees fit. Why aren't people pursuing this? Wouldn't this put a final and equitable full stop to this argument?
Bell

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:02 am
Posts: 487
Enugu II wrote:
jette1 wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.


5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.


But be sure your thinking is not clouded when talking of Revenue in relation the super eagles. We must look at revenue in its broadest terms. Nigeria has for years exported thousands of male football players abroad whom are not only bread winners for their families but have been ambassadors like emanalor of chelsea, ikoku of ESPN, the Olympic gold just to name a few. Super eagles put Nigeria on world stage more than our oil revenue has done. When the eagles play most bars and hotels in Nigeria are fully booked and make their most profit. A lot more money is put into the economy. So we must not think of revenue in the narrowest of terns. How many of you here bothered subscribing to sling TV during the just concluded women’s World Cup vs during the Afcon. It is just a fact of life. Our men’s national team is the reason thousands of football academies all over Nigeria are seeing success exporting players. We have couple of rag to millionaires who are now injecting into the local economy. That’s how you must look at revenue generation right this moment. Perhaps there may come a time when women football would yield same result but until that time comes we have what we have


Jette1,

The revenue you talk about does not go to the coffers of the payer. Remember that most of you have argued that the payer pays based on revenue received. Should you now argue that the NFF should pay based on what the bar owner in Ajegunle brings in? Or can NFF capture the revenue that 1naija's favorite bar owner gets when he drinks five heinekens in a Houston bar while watching Nigeria v Algeria? Nope. NFF, by the arguments here, pay out based on what revenue it captures or the subventions that it receives. Therefore the revenue that matters is the one that goes into the NFF coffers. It is that revenue that matters.



The difference in pay is based on value. The super eagles players have been making high incomes in Europe for decades. Their current worth has to be taken into consideration. You can't expect a person that makes 5 million pounds a year to get the same bonus as someone who makes 25,000, if that. The value of the players and the level of development of their competition has to be taken into account. The womens game is light years behind the men's game in every aspect (history, followership, legend, revenue, quality) name it. They are at a completely different stage in their development per the sport. The USA women's case is unique, especially in comparison to their men. In almost every other country the disparity in development is much more significant.

Remember the new testament story - rich people dropping large amounts into the synagogue offering pew, and then the poor widow comes and drops 1 coin. The verdict was that her offering was worth more. We could argue that she did not put an 'equal' offering, but that would be ignoring the context. We cannot ignore context, but we must look at true value.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:25 am
Posts: 34549
Location: ßos✞on ✈️ Mo✞own ✈️ Lægos
The real deal wrote:
Schillachi wrote:
The real deal wrote:
Just like the MALE gender has been so emasculated in western culture, almost to the point of extinction, this attempt at equating men and women is bound to end badly. Who in their right mind will equate men and women soccer?? Its crazy. That USWNT won the WC does not mean they can beat ANY of the Male team @ the Men's WC.....Can USWNT beat ogolo's Kenya ( I doubt it, lol) US U/20 male team? Accra Hearts of oak (lol)......Its ridiculous. There's NO NEED to EVER talk of PAY PARITY.......
The Female Heavyweight boxing champion shd try take on Male Featherweight #3 contender first........SMH


Now I understand why you support Trump.. :lol: See logic :lol:



:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Put up your counter logic so minds can compare....waiting....

It's not about being better, it's about being more commercially viable. It's not about which team can beat the other, it's about value and revenue.

The New York Knicks have been wallowing in a cesspit of mediocrity for decades yet are the most valuable NBA franchise. The LA Fakers were equally shite for the better part of a decade yet they are the second most valuable NBA franchise. The Dallas Cowgirls haven't won a playoff game since God spoke to Moses yet it's the most valuable sports franchise even over the New England Patriots that has been in four of the last five Superbowls winning three.

It's not about man vs woman, the Super Falcons just don't pull in as much revenue either from winnings or sponsorship as the Super Eagles. Could that be because people prefer mens football to womens? Possibly so. But the underlying reason for the disparity in wages is financial related, not gender.

It is what it is.

_________________
O-Qua Tangin Wann! Die with memories, not dreams.™

© ɹ ǝ ʇ s ɯ é ʎ ǝ ɥ ʇ
" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:25 pm
Posts: 7257
In fact, Falcons have a better justification to be better paid than the Super Eagles.
They have won more continental championships and qualify more regularly for international tournaments.

At the very least, both men and women team salaries should be at parity.

_________________
Kola nut lasts long for those that savor it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:50 am
Posts: 2474
Location: Nigeria
Enugu II wrote:
jette1 wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
Jette1,

The revenue you talk about does not go to the coffers of the payer. Remember that most of you have argued that the payer pays based on revenue received. Should you now argue that the NFF should pay based on what the bar owner in Ajegunle brings in? Or can NFF capture the revenue that 1naija's favorite bar owner gets when he drinks five heinekens in a Houston bar while watching Nigeria v Algeria? Nope. NFF, by the arguments here, pay out based on what revenue it captures or the subventions that it receives. Therefore the revenue that matters is the one that goes into the NFF coffers. It is that revenue that matters.


As much as I’m not confining revenue derivation to Just that collected directly by the government don’t lose sight of the fact that the more money your Ajegunle bar owner makes the higher tax revenue he Let’s the govt have but that is hardly my point. My point is that the super eagles already generate indirect revenues on various facets of the economy much more than what the super falcons would ever do.

Jette1

The point is the Ajegunle or Houston bar owner revenue should not count. Now, to be serious, the super eagles generate more revenue than falcons. No one would deny that. However, the issue is how much of that revenue really goes into the calculation for bonuses? Then how much of the government subvention to football go into bonuses?

EII, I think therein lies the answer. Every business venture would invest more in the arm that generates more revenue than in the one that generates less. Whichever way you look at it, more money is invested in the men's game because they are the more lucrative branch. What NFF will make by qualifying the men's team for the world cup is much more than what they will make by qualifying the women's team for the world cup.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:59 pm
Posts: 47178
Location: Nembe Creek...Oil Exploration. If you call am bunkering na you sabi.
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


Big Uncle,

The disparity in pay when representing a national team should not be the case. USA Basketball understands this and did the right thing by righting the wrong.

You represent your company or your country and happen to be a woman, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that there should be a disparity in pay. We are not talking about private enterprise here where the market determines the pay. This is GOVERNMENT where everyone is deemed equal. If the male players believe that they deserve more pay at the detriment of their female counterpart it is WRONG.

Same should apply in all the other sports categories. A male track and field athlete should not earn more than a female track and field athlete if they are on 'national assignment'.

As a professional, if I am going on a speaking engagement on behalf of a government agency, they pay both male and females equal amount regardless of the value each one of brings to the table. Why should it be any different in a sport that they are all representing the country?

Frankly, the government should be willing to take the lead in advancing gender equality with regards to remuneration when someone is making the sacrifice of representing the country. And yes, it is a HUGE sacrifice. Forget those that think it is hot buns.

_________________
THERE WAS A COUNTRY...

...can't cry more than the bereaved!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 4:29 pm
Posts: 1795
Cellular wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


Big Uncle,

The disparity in pay when representing a national team should not be the case. USA Basketball understands this and did the right thing by righting the wrong.

You represent your company or your country and happen to be a woman, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that there should be a disparity in pay. We are not talking about private enterprise here where the market determines the pay. This is GOVERNMENT where everyone is deemed equal. If the male players believe that they deserve more pay at the detriment of their female counterpart it is WRONG.

Same should apply in all the other sports categories. A male track and field athlete should not earn more than a female track and field athlete if they are on 'national assignment'.

As a professional, if I am going on a speaking engagement on behalf of a government agency, they pay both male and females equal amount regardless of the value each one of brings to the table. Why should it be any different in a sport that they are all representing the country?

Frankly, the government should be willing to take the lead in advancing gender equality with regards to remuneration when someone is making the sacrifice of representing the country. And yes, it is a HUGE sacrifice. Forget those that think it is hot buns.


Cellular My Guy,

It is my opinion that your point would be absolutely unimpeachable for any other 'normal' human endeavour...

But as I attempted to explain in my earlier comment, there is an irrationality attached to sport...

There is a notion that the monetary reward often accorded sportsmen (especially soccer players) by governments is 'irrational'; especially considering the average levels of remuneration accorded other non-sports-ambassadors by government.

Consequently, it is pretty difficult to begin to address fairness for remuneration with regard to sport when the reward system in sport is inherently irrational...(don't know if I'm making any sense)

For e.g. England promised her soccer team a reward of £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; England's Cricket Team just recently won the Cricket World Cup...their alleged reward? £200,000 each...
Not remotely close to £650,000...is it..?

If the reason for the discrepancy is due to the 'greater prestige' generated by football (reason for my controversial term - "perceived value"); then are there any grounds to challenge discrepancies in remuneration for sport...discrepancies apparently instigated by...oops... "perceived value"..?

If by that foregoing calculus, 10 AWCON titles may not be perceived as equal in "national prestige" to 1 AFCON title, it is only reasonable that more 'incentive' (reward) be allocated towards winning AFCON...

Until the women's game develops to a level where it is at par with the men's game (in terms of Awareness, Participation, etc), it would be pretty difficult to make case for parity.

Fair? I honestly don't know...

_________________
"...Some say football is not a matter of life and death;
I can assure you it's more important than that..."
- Bill Shankly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:14 pm
Posts: 13320
Location: USA
This whole movement just strikes me as odd. I hate gender discrimination but do believe "discrimination" based on value is appropriate. You cannot compare, in many instances, the economic profit from Men's sports to that generated by Women's sports. You cannot compare the economic profit generated by Cristiano Ronaldo to that generated by Francis Uzoho. How can one then expect the same remuneration for the average male player (compared to the average female player) and for Cristiano Ronaldo (compared to Francis Uzoho).

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:33 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:57 pm
Posts: 40348
Location: UK
So Father Tiko...
Would you consider a two-tier allowance for the Nigerian Olympic contingent, according to gender?
Does anyone know whether this is actually the case?

_________________
"Ole kuku ni gbogbo wọn "


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:41 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:57 pm
Posts: 40348
Location: UK
deanotito wrote:
This whole movement just strikes me as odd. I hate gender discrimination but do believe "discrimination" based on value is appropriate. You cannot compare, in many instances, the economic profit from Men's sports to that generated by Women's sports. You cannot compare the economic profit generated by Cristiano Ronaldo to that generated by Francis Uzoho. How can one then expect the same remuneration for the average male player (compared to the average female player) and for Cristiano Ronaldo (compared to Francis Uzoho).
This all makes perfect sense, but again you are drawing your references from commercial sport.
I really do not see what the nation, the government or the NFF have to lose by insisting that all footballers on national assignment in the same category (ie SMNT, SWNT) get equally remunerated.

On the contrary, they have just about everything to gain.
Who will see that as a bad thing?

_________________
"Ole kuku ni gbogbo wọn "


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:21 pm
Posts: 10645
they should abandon Falcons completely, they have improved zero to nothing in the world stage. Having said that, there should be equal pay/bonus if you are going to continue international female competition. Equal pay is the right thing to do, anyone saying otherwise would be on the wrong side of history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:59 pm
Posts: 47178
Location: Nembe Creek...Oil Exploration. If you call am bunkering na you sabi.
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Cellular wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


Big Uncle,

The disparity in pay when representing a national team should not be the case. USA Basketball understands this and did the right thing by righting the wrong.

You represent your company or your country and happen to be a woman, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that there should be a disparity in pay. We are not talking about private enterprise here where the market determines the pay. This is GOVERNMENT where everyone is deemed equal. If the male players believe that they deserve more pay at the detriment of their female counterpart it is WRONG.

Same should apply in all the other sports categories. A male track and field athlete should not earn more than a female track and field athlete if they are on 'national assignment'.

As a professional, if I am going on a speaking engagement on behalf of a government agency, they pay both male and females equal amount regardless of the value each one of brings to the table. Why should it be any different in a sport that they are all representing the country?

Frankly, the government should be willing to take the lead in advancing gender equality with regards to remuneration when someone is making the sacrifice of representing the country. And yes, it is a HUGE sacrifice. Forget those that think it is hot buns.


Cellular My Guy,

It is my opinion that your point would be absolutely unimpeachable for any other 'normal' human endeavour...

But as I attempted to explain in my earlier comment, there is an irrationality attached to sport...

There is a notion that the monetary reward often accorded sportsmen (especially soccer players) by governments is 'irrational'; especially considering the average levels of remuneration accorded other non-sports-ambassadors by government.

Consequently, it is pretty difficult to begin to address fairness for remuneration with regard to sport when the reward system in sport is inherently irrational...(don't know if I'm making any sense)

For e.g. England promised her soccer team a reward of £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; England's Cricket Team just recently won the Cricket World Cup...their alleged reward? £200,000 each...
Not remotely close to £650,000...is it..?

If the reason for the discrepancy is due to the 'greater prestige' generated by football (reason for my controversial term - "perceived value"); then are there any grounds to challenge discrepancies in remuneration for sport...discrepancies apparently instigated by...oops... "perceived value"..?

If by that foregoing calculus, 10 AWCON titles may not be perceived as equal in "national prestige" to 1 AFCON title, it is only reasonable that more 'incentive' (reward) be allocated towards winning AFCON...

Until the women's game develops to a level where it is at par with the men's game (in terms of Awareness, Participation, etc), it would be pretty difficult to make case for parity.

Fair? I honestly don't know...


Big Uncle, I am using the example of the same United States where their women are complaining about un-equal pay by their soccer federation.

Their counterparts in the USA Basketball agreed in 2017 to pay Men and Women representing their national team the same. The men have the superstars, the men agreed and sided with their female counterparts that it was unfair and helped compel the USA Basketball to adjust their pay. The US women want their USSF to do the same and go the route of the USA Basketball.

When it comes to Naijaria, other sports associations in Naijaria should negotiate with their athletes what they can and are willing to pay athletes regardless of gender.

Until the day NFF says that ALL national teams will be paid 'X' percentage of revenue generated, then they have to pay the women the same.



If I were the NFF/Sports Ministry, I will agree to pay $1k/2k to the team (Male & Female) and then have NFF pay say 30%-50% of revenue generated to the respective teams. That way, no one will be crying about discrimination. But the present way it is set up is discriminatory.

_________________
THERE WAS A COUNTRY...

...can't cry more than the bereaved!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:59 pm
Posts: 47178
Location: Nembe Creek...Oil Exploration. If you call am bunkering na you sabi.
ANC wrote:
they should abandon Falcons completely, they have improved zero to nothing in the world stage. Having said that, there should be equal pay/bonus if you are going to continue international female competition. Equal pay is the right thing to do, anyone saying otherwise would be on the wrong side of history.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Trust you to wan skatta everytin.

"So you no want half a loaf? Oya, I go throw this half to the dogs... and nothing for you!" :D :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:

_________________
THERE WAS A COUNTRY...

...can't cry more than the bereaved!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 4:29 pm
Posts: 1795
Damunk wrote:
So Father Tiko...
Would you consider a two-tier allowance for the Nigerian Olympic contingent, according to gender?
Does anyone know whether this is actually the case?


Its not my 'consideration' at all...

I'm simply trying to make sense of the 'nonsense'...

My humble opinion is all athletes on national assignment (male/female) should receive equal remuneration (irrespective of the sport, gender, etc)

And regarding your question, it would be crazy if the female athletes in the Nigerian Olympic contingent are paid less than their male counterparts...
But don't be surprised if footballers in the contingent receive far more than the rest of the contingent.

_________________
"...Some say football is not a matter of life and death;
I can assure you it's more important than that..."
- Bill Shankly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 4:29 pm
Posts: 1795
Cellular wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Cellular wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


Big Uncle,

The disparity in pay when representing a national team should not be the case. USA Basketball understands this and did the right thing by righting the wrong.

You represent your company or your country and happen to be a woman, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that there should be a disparity in pay. We are not talking about private enterprise here where the market determines the pay. This is GOVERNMENT where everyone is deemed equal. If the male players believe that they deserve more pay at the detriment of their female counterpart it is WRONG.

Same should apply in all the other sports categories. A male track and field athlete should not earn more than a female track and field athlete if they are on 'national assignment'.

As a professional, if I am going on a speaking engagement on behalf of a government agency, they pay both male and females equal amount regardless of the value each one of brings to the table. Why should it be any different in a sport that they are all representing the country?

Frankly, the government should be willing to take the lead in advancing gender equality with regards to remuneration when someone is making the sacrifice of representing the country. And yes, it is a HUGE sacrifice. Forget those that think it is hot buns.


Cellular My Guy,

It is my opinion that your point would be absolutely unimpeachable for any other 'normal' human endeavour...

But as I attempted to explain in my earlier comment, there is an irrationality attached to sport...

There is a notion that the monetary reward often accorded sportsmen (especially soccer players) by governments is 'irrational'; especially considering the average levels of remuneration accorded other non-sports-ambassadors by government.

Consequently, it is pretty difficult to begin to address fairness for remuneration with regard to sport when the reward system in sport is inherently irrational...(don't know if I'm making any sense)

For e.g. England promised her soccer team a reward of £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; England's Cricket Team just recently won the Cricket World Cup...their alleged reward? £200,000 each...
Not remotely close to £650,000...is it..?

If the reason for the discrepancy is due to the 'greater prestige' generated by football (reason for my controversial term - "perceived value"); then are there any grounds to challenge discrepancies in remuneration for sport...discrepancies apparently instigated by...oops... "perceived value"..?

If by that foregoing calculus, 10 AWCON titles may not be perceived as equal in "national prestige" to 1 AFCON title, it is only reasonable that more 'incentive' (reward) be allocated towards winning AFCON...

Until the women's game develops to a level where it is at par with the men's game (in terms of Awareness, Participation, etc), it would be pretty difficult to make case for parity.

Fair? I honestly don't know...


Big Uncle, I am using the example of the same United States where their women are complaining about un-equal pay by their soccer federation.

Their counterparts in the USA Basketball agreed in 2017 to pay Men and Women representing their national team the same. The men have the superstars, the men agreed and sided with their female counterparts that it was unfair and helped compel the USA Basketball to adjust their pay. The US women want their USSF to do the same and go the route of the USA Basketball.

When it comes to Naijaria, other sports associations in Naijaria should negotiate with their athletes what they can and are willing to pay athletes regardless of gender.

Until the day NFF says that ALL national teams will be paid 'X' percentage of revenue generated, then they have to pay the women the same.



If I were the NFF/Sports Ministry, I will agree to pay $1k/2k to the team (Male & Female) and then have NFF pay say 30%-50% of revenue generated to the respective teams. That way, no one will be crying about discrimination. But the present way it is set up is discriminatory.


KPOM.

I'm guessing that's the reward structure used by most govts in 'developed' countries where there are more questions asked over use of tax-payers' money...

_________________
"...Some say football is not a matter of life and death;
I can assure you it's more important than that..."
- Bill Shankly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 4:08 pm
Posts: 11904
Location: seattle
Cellular wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Cellular wrote:
FATHER TIKO wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
The argument is not as simple as most people are making here. First of all, whether it his about equal pay or equity in pay, there is a point to be made for the Falcons. Here are some points to think about:

1. This is not about what players get at their clubs. This is strictly about NATIONAL SERVICE and fair compensation for that service.

2. Wow, if this is indeed based one revenue as most of you have argued then that is NEWS not just to me but should be for all of us. The last time I checked the NFF was receiving money to run its programs from government subventions and NOT revenue generated by the Super Eagles! Now tell me again why Super Eagles should get more cut out of this GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION than their women colleagues who have done more by actually winning trophies?

3. How much television money or gate fees do the Eagles bring in deserving of the huge gap in pay between the Eagles and Falcons?

4. Many of you here have lambasted about mediocrity associated with bronze winning etc. :rotf: :rotf: Now, you have Falcons who have consistently dominated Africa as opposed to Super Eagles who have not. Is there no compensation for that difference? Remember it is about performance versus the so-called mediocrity.

5. While you may argue that Super Eagles' part-share should be based on a proportion of funds generated from FIFA and CAF, are the Falcons getting the same proportion from such funds?

6. While pay has been put up here by Oparanozie, it has been clear for years that the women team has been poorly treated for years in many areas when compared to the Super Eagles. Think about accommodation, think about transportation, etc.

The bottomline is that I will not dismiss Damunk's views by a simple waive of hand. There is certainly inequity, if not unequal treatment, that has been going around.



Enugu II,

My take is :
The SEagles & SFalcons are not strictly on a National Service...(their remuneration/compensation explodes that myth; as it is astronomically above the national pay-structure, and consequently anomalous)

There have been exhaustive debates about rewards accorded to sports people by their respective govts...rewards deemed indefensible by critics who argue the fairness of e.g rewarding each squad member of the England soccer team £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; compared to the total-pay package awarded a British soldier for winning a war...

It is sport.
The rewards/remuneration are loosely based on perceived value, so any debate about parity of any kind is difficult.

Until women soccer develops to the level where its perceived value equals the men's game, parity of remuneration between both genders will not happen.

The US Women team may have a point, because in the context of the development of the game in US, US women are not that far behind the men (there is a credible case that the cultural appreciation of the game in the US leans more to the female - the soccer-mom phenomenom)
So within the US environment, the perceived value of the game might be at par for both genders...

Is the same noise about parity being made by US Female basketballers..?

Measuring the SFalcons phenomenal success against the SEagles is crazy.
The current level of the women's game in Africa means 100 AWCON titles have less perceived value than 1 AFCON title.
With the current trajectory of the women's game this shall surely change in time...

The perceived value associated with the men's game in Nigeria (and Africa) is way above that for the women's game, so any talk of parity is premature.

Desire Oparanozie is merely 'fishing'... :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:


Big Uncle,

The disparity in pay when representing a national team should not be the case. USA Basketball understands this and did the right thing by righting the wrong.

You represent your company or your country and happen to be a woman, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that there should be a disparity in pay. We are not talking about private enterprise here where the market determines the pay. This is GOVERNMENT where everyone is deemed equal. If the male players believe that they deserve more pay at the detriment of their female counterpart it is WRONG.

Same should apply in all the other sports categories. A male track and field athlete should not earn more than a female track and field athlete if they are on 'national assignment'.

As a professional, if I am going on a speaking engagement on behalf of a government agency, they pay both male and females equal amount regardless of the value each one of brings to the table. Why should it be any different in a sport that they are all representing the country?

Frankly, the government should be willing to take the lead in advancing gender equality with regards to remuneration when someone is making the sacrifice of representing the country. And yes, it is a HUGE sacrifice. Forget those that think it is hot buns.


Cellular My Guy,

It is my opinion that your point would be absolutely unimpeachable for any other 'normal' human endeavour...

But as I attempted to explain in my earlier comment, there is an irrationality attached to sport...

There is a notion that the monetary reward often accorded sportsmen (especially soccer players) by governments is 'irrational'; especially considering the average levels of remuneration accorded other non-sports-ambassadors by government.

Consequently, it is pretty difficult to begin to address fairness for remuneration with regard to sport when the reward system in sport is inherently irrational...(don't know if I'm making any sense)

For e.g. England promised her soccer team a reward of £650,000 each if they won the FIFA World Cup 2014 in Brazil; England's Cricket Team just recently won the Cricket World Cup...their alleged reward? £200,000 each...
Not remotely close to £650,000...is it..?

If the reason for the discrepancy is due to the 'greater prestige' generated by football (reason for my controversial term - "perceived value"); then are there any grounds to challenge discrepancies in remuneration for sport...discrepancies apparently instigated by...oops... "perceived value"..?

If by that foregoing calculus, 10 AWCON titles may not be perceived as equal in "national prestige" to 1 AFCON title, it is only reasonable that more 'incentive' (reward) be allocated towards winning AFCON...

Until the women's game develops to a level where it is at par with the men's game (in terms of Awareness, Participation, etc), it would be pretty difficult to make case for parity.

Fair? I honestly don't know...


Big Uncle, I am using the example of the same United States where their women are complaining about un-equal pay by their soccer federation.

Their counterparts in the USA Basketball agreed in 2017 to pay Men and Women representing their national team the same. The men have the superstars, the men agreed and sided with their female counterparts that it was unfair and helped compel the USA Basketball to adjust their pay. The US women want their USSF to do the same and go the route of the USA Basketball.

When it comes to Naijaria, other sports associations in Naijaria should negotiate with their athletes what they can and are willing to pay athletes regardless of gender.

Until the day NFF says that ALL national teams will be paid 'X' percentage of revenue generated, then they have to pay the women the same.



If I were the NFF/Sports Ministry, I will agree to pay $1k/2k to the team (Male & Female) and then have NFF pay say 30%-50% of revenue generated to the respective teams. That way, no one will be crying about discrimination. But the present way it is set up is discriminatory.

:lol: :lol: you want pay falcons 30% of their generated revenue - that’s like 20,000 Naira each bro. You want make them stone you

_________________
make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:38 pm
Posts: 8713
Location: NJ,USA
If you are given the opportunity to watch Villareal V Kaizer Chiefs of South Africa or US WNT Vs Germany WC final, which one will you ( or 10 soccer fans ) choose?

_________________
Cujus esqulum, ajus es usqui ad inferos


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chriskendo43, Google [Bot] and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group