Anyone who watches soccer, plays soccer, or is in the least bit a fan of the World Cup knows that Sunday's game was as close to nirvana as an American soccer fan can get. So as I and my whole family squealed with glee after the United States' historic win (and I ran up and down the street with an American flag four times), I never thought the win would be tainted by something like gender discrimination.
Now, anyone who truly knows me would attest to the fact that I don't just throw those two words around Yes, I am a woman, and yes, bad things have happened to me. That doesn't mean that every person who's done me wrong is a sexist. That's not what this is about.
What this is about is numbers. They are lovely in that we cannot argue with them to take a side. So why don't we take a look at some numbers that I have been noticing?
40+ -- This is how many players from all over the world, along with our very own Abby Wambach and Alex Morgan, filed a lawsuit concerning the playing surface of this year's women's World Cup. Fun fact: that surface - artificial turf - is well known for being more slippery than grass. Another fun fact: the men's World Cup teams have never played on turf fields. Isn't it interesting that instead of the field surfaces being reconsidered, you decided that the surface would remain turf despite being presented with studies which prove turf is in fact more dangerous than grass? I thought it was.
21 -- The day in January, 2014 when the players withdrew their lawsuit, as it became clear that legal action wasn't going to be completed by June, when the World Cup took place.
2018/2022 -- The years during which the next men's Cups will be held on natural grass surfaces.
3 -- The number of goals scored by Carli Lloyd, acting captain of the US team, in the first half of the final against Japan. She is the only player in women's World Cup history to score a first half hat trick in a final.
5 -- The number of goals that the US defeated Japan with. This number, in case you didn't remember, beats the all time high score of a women's World Cup final previously held by Germany.
2 million -- The amount of prize money, in total, that the US women's team was awarded for their brilliant victory.
8 million -- The amount of prize money, in total, that the US men's team was awarded for participating in the game last year.
15 million -- the total amount of money for payout for the World Cup this year.
576 million -- the total amount of money for payout for the men's Cup last year.
3 -- The number of times the US women's team has won the World Cup.
0 -- The number of times the US men have won.
Something just isn't adding up, and I am desperately waiting for some answers. So please, FIFA, enlighten me. Tell me my numbers are wrong, tell me that there's a reason for all of this that doesn't boil my blood. Tell me that there's a reason that the role models of so many little girls are only able to show them how to play twice as hard to be taken half as seriously as their male counterparts.
Tell me.
I'm waiting.
1. Men and women around the world play on artificial turf all of the time. It is actually essential for college sports programs to have artificial turf. More injuries do happen on artificial turf, but it depends on the quality of the turf. The women were playing on high quality turf so it really does not matter.
ReplyDelete2. What does highlighting the U.S. teams do for you argument? FIFA has no control of how well the U.S. teams do nor does it matter.
3. You also state, "Tell me that there's a reason that the role models of so many little girls are only able to show them how to play twice as hard to be taken half as seriously as their male counterparts." A comment in itself that is sexist because the men are playing just as hard as the women.
4. You comment on the pay can be explained with economics. More people watch the men's world cup, therefore, FIFA makes more money from the men. The payout is more for the men because FIFA makes more money from them. It makes perfect sense. NBA players make more money than players from the WNBA because the NBA makes more money. The same thing applies to FIFA.
I told you.
Your wait is over.
Wow! Thank you for taking time to read and respond. I wasn't sure if I would get much feedback, and I truly appreciate it.
ReplyDelete1. While I understand that turf is an entity that exists without much resistance in many college sports and beyond, I still think it has no place in the World Cup. Do I think that it was malicious to make the surface the only choice? No. I do hold on to my belief of the choice being irresponsible and discriminatory, even if unconsciously so. That many players would not have been so upset if it "didn't matter" to them.
2. I highlight the US teams simply because the women's team was the victor this time around. Had it been Japan as victors who were part of a pay gap, my research would have focused on them.
3. I think you misunderstood the comment (or perhaps I did not make it clear in my wording). I think every team gives their all; who wouldn't? But the US women in particular (again, I'm focusing on them here as a matter of where my knowledge is) have won three times to be paid four times less. In essence, I am saying that they are playing twice as hard as they need to, achieving greatness only to be rewarded lamely in comparison to the male team, who has achieved - through no lack of effort - nothing comparable.
4. I'd be a fool if I refuted the role that television ratings play in money, but that answer is a bit too simple to satisfy me. And let's say that it is simple economics, just as you say. That means that more people on the whole prefer men's sports: a fair enough assertion based on the data. Then that means that we have a bigger problem than just FIFA here, and I would agree. Do I think FIFA has the means to solve that monster of an issue? Not by a long shot. But I do think that the organization has the means to start acknowledging that there are indeed discrepancies that leave female athletes in a foul position that we have some means to address.