Actually, for the US Soccer Federation (or whatever they call themselves), the women’s team brought in $50M vs $49M for the men’s team. This deflates the claims in this article.
This really has nothing to do with USSF. The article correctly states that the *FIFA* World Cup brings in the most money, $6B vs. $100+M. End of story.
Women’s league soccer in the US has a tiny audience, it is dwarfed by MLS attendance, which is dwarfed by the Premier League and others.
This is simply about revenue and they don’t like the fact that women’s soccer, worldwide, is nothing compared to men’s soccer.
The claims of being “more successful” is also irrelevant. When has there ever been a 13-0 score in a men’s WC? Women’s soccer in general is nowhere near as mature as the men’s game - many countries don’t take women’s soccer seriously at all. Therefore it’s no surprise the US team does very well - their opponents are mostly terrible. The 13-0 score against Thailand underscores this. The level of competitiveness isn’t equal.
This is no different than two men’s teams being in different league levels. One may be in a lower league winning every game and another may be in a top league and lose every game. The players in the top league will get higher pay....and it’s the way it should be because of the revenue earned.
The bonus paid to US Soccer by FIFA for the US women's winning the women's world cup was $4 Million, most of that bonus was then passed thru to the individual players. The bonus paid to the French men's team which won the last men's world cup was $34 million. Of course they receive other cash from sponsors etc. I'd be interested to know where the $50 million and $49 million figures come from.