@thefalse9tx Ok? And the 'why' is there - what's your point?
Olympic duty the USMNT don't carry, plus a holdover from the salaried era. They skipped insurance because their clubs already provide it and took cash instead. Equal pay equalised pay.
Neither union wanted identical contracts.
@fleetingwords26@iAnonPatriot Good news, that data exists. US Soccer's audited accounts, '16-18: women's games $50.8m, men's $49.9m. That's the gate revenue line. You just named your own test for 'fair' and the women pass it on the federation's own books. So by your economics, we're done here?
@DWood89@charlesbrobronx Dipshit? What a weird thing to say. Yes US absence inflates 2018, so instead compare: Women's '19 final ~14-20m, men's '14 Belgium ~16-26m. Same ballpark. My point stands: the global 5x gap doesn't describe the US market, and the US market is what the CBA is priced on.
@hunter_joh80957@iAnonPatriot Merit, again: 2018 paid the men $0. This deal means that never happens again. Plus fees, revenue share, half of '27. You've heard this three times and replied 'should'. The case isn't missing, mate. Your counter is.
@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo 6% and 19%. Those are the actual shares.
Neither is in your 20-30%, and a range isn't a formula anyway π€¦ββοΈ. Also 'federations pay the players' is literally the CBA you've spent three hours mad about. You've argued yourself onto my side, congratulations π€£π€£π€£
@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo Cite the formula then. Should be easy - what percentage, whereβs it published? Meanwhile: FIFA raised the 2026 pool by announcement in April mid-cycle, and your own numbers show the two tournaments paying 19% and 6% of gross. Some formula
@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo Mate, this is painful now. βPercentage of gross revenueβ was YOUR pay structure - I just ran your numbers on it and it dissolved. Youβre arguing with your own tweet and losing π
@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo $110m of $570m is ~19%. $440m of $7.5B is ~6%.
If pay were a percentage of gross those would be the same number.
FIFA sets pools by decision, not formula. Which is why growth rate IS relevant, and why the mechanism you just invented isn't π try and keep up.
@901Raymond_@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo You said earnings...? But happy to bookmark revenue instead - which nearly doubled to $570m last cycle.
You keep choosing numbers mid-sprint, they keep running the same direction.. π
@hunter_joh80957@iAnonPatriot From 'zero sense' to 'the deal exists but I personally disapprove' in four replies.
The men who actually signed it seem fine. Shall we let them know John Hunter on X has concerns about the best interests of millionaires? π€£
@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo The gap was never the dispute, silly.
You priced a 2027 hedge off a 2023 pool that tripled in one cycle. Compare the growth rate for each tournament and tell me how your rebuttal is relevant.
@901Raymond_@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo You're talking about two different things now buddy. The women's 2027 earnings include $6.4m of this year's men's pot plus interest, before they kick a ball. If you mean the prize pool, it tripled last cycle. Which number are we bookmarking? π
@hunter_joh80957@iAnonPatriot Two replies ago it 'made zero sense'. Now it's a signed deal the union agreed to, you just don't like their reasons. That's progress. And they didn't sign for vibes - they got improved match fees, a cut of federation commercial revenue, and half the USWNT '27 pot. β¨Negotiatingβ¨
@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo The prize pool tripled in one cycle and your rebuttal is calling me an ape. One of us is struggling with evolution... π
@901Raymond_@B1G_Nando@jayllen078@CaseyToGo Correct, at prices FIFA has already announced are being scrapped. You've fact-checked the past. The tweet was about the future ... dummy.
@AcrossAisle@grok@Cou1dntCare@varrock Unlocking a distribution isn't generating revenue.
The claim you called 1000% false was about domestic team revenue, where the audited data shows near parity. You've swapped claims. Own goal.