It’s a pretty well-known fact: The U.S. women’s soccer team doesn’t actually represent the United States of America. Heck, many on the team are proud of it, especially those who used to kneel for the national anthem.
Star player Megan Rapinoe has led the team’s anti-patriotic social justice charge, much of which has involved complaining that they should be paid as much as the men’s team (despite bringing in far less revenue).
Well, in September, the women players finally got what they’ve always wanted… or did they?
According to ESPN, members of both the men’s and women’s teams, along with a few members of Congress, gathered on the field in Washington, D.C., after the USWNT defeated Nigeria on Sept. 6.
There, they signed a brand new collective bargaining agreement, which dictates that the men’s and women’s teams will share “identical economic terms, including commercial revenue sharing and equal World Cup prize money.”
Going forward, this will mean quite a bit more money shifting from the USMNT to their female counterparts.
For starters, the men’s team will have to split the $13 million in prize money from their World Cup win over Iran on Tuesday, forking over $6.5 million to the women’s team, Front Office Sports reported. For comparison, that’s more than the USWNT made for winning the last two Women’s World Cup championships.
Now, that doesn’t mean the women’s team is worthless. There are plenty of enthusiastic fans of women’s soccer — just not as many as there are of men’s soccer.
According to The Guardian, the 2019 Women’s World Cup pulled in only 31 percent of the viewers garnered by the 2018 Men’s World Cup, to name just one example.
And of course, more viewers means more money. NBC Sports reported that the 2010 Men’s World Cup brought in almost $4 billion, whereas the 2011 Women’s World Cup made $73 million.
So the men’s team brings in more money. But now, the women players will be paid the same. Finally, they have equal pay, right?
If “equal pay” means the guys make all the money and then give you half, yeah, I suppose this qualifies.
Hilariously, this deal is actually about as anti-feminist as possible: Men make the money and then provide for the women, who can count on their male partners’ support without having to worry about competing in the marketplace.
If the USWNT players are genuinely pleased with the deal, they should consider taking things a step further by marrying strong, conservative men. Then they can rely on male provision 24/7 by sharing 50 percent of their husbands’ earnings.
At that point, they can play all the soccer they want knowing full well that they’ll be taken care of.
If this is not the ideal many of the purple-haired USWNT feminists are looking for, however, perhaps they should take another approach: Get better at soccer to the point where people are actually willing to watch you play.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.