Economics Thread

sturg33 said:
[Tw]1148053852966535168[/tw]
Click to expand...

I was thinking more in terms of how they’re treated versus the men when it comes to how US soccer allocates their budget dollars (advertising, travel, food, etc.).

I probably should have worded it differently because when it comes to actual pay, I think they have less to stand on. They collectively bargained for guarantee salaries and benefits, whereas the men (who have club teams as their primary source of income/benefits) bargained for more of a bonus structure. The women could choose to change that, but there’s going to be a trade off involved.
 
acesfull86 said:
I was thinking more in terms of how they’re treated versus the men when it comes to how US soccer allocates their budget dollars (advertising, travel, food, etc.).

I probably should have worded it differently because when it comes to actual pay, I think they have less to stand on. They collectively bargained for guarantee salaries and benefits, whereas the men (who have club teams as their primary source of income/benefits) bargained for more of a bonus structure. The women could choose to change that, but there’s going to be a trade off involved.
Click to expand...

I think this case will get settled before it goes to a jury.

A couple things to note. Both the men and women collectively bargain their contracts with the United States Soccer Federation. From a legal perspective this provides a significant amount of immunity to the USSF.

The other thing to note is that the TV contracts were bundled together. Not just men and women. But also for MLS. When this was first done, it was because the TV rights for the men's team (especially the World Cup) were highly coveted and the MLS and women games less so. The bundling was a way to help out the latter two groups. It was a form of hidden subsidy. Fast forward several World Cup cycles and we have a situation now that is a bit different. MLS and the women can probably attract a good stand alone TV contract. To remove this ambiguity US soccer should unbundle the contracts going forward so there is more transparency about who is generating which revenue stream (I think this has already happened to some extent with MLS). If there weren't this ambiguity it would be a lot easier to sort out whether the women's team is being discriminated against. Short answer, it isn't. I suspect it is still receiving a net subsidy, but because of the bundling of TV rights it is hard to establish this.
 
Last edited:
[Tw]1154740049508020224[/tw]

This administration will bring china to its knees.

Only thing that can stop it is a weak democrat being elected.
 
sturg33 said:
Coming out of a recession, Obama's 8 year GDP average was 2.1%

We had 2.9% in Trump first measured year (2018)
Click to expand...

The Great Recession wasn’t just a little dip into negative growth. Seems relevant to remember that.

GDP for the recovery was 2.3%. Last year was 2.9%. I feel pretty safe in saying that’s going to be the high-water mark. How is it that we’re talking this up like it’s a big accomplishment? Business fixed investment has been surprisingly low for the past few quarters, despite the tax cut talking points. Growth is being driven by strong consumer spending and (drumroll please) elevated government expenditures.

What’s actually happening seems to be pretty different than the talking points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top