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.

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'...

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