Cybereagles

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'...

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

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

Now I understand why you support Trump.. See logic

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.

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'...

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...

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...