It is obviously ridiculous that the payout to the U.S. Women鈥檚 Soccer team for the World Cup victory is $2 million; the German men got $35 million last year. The $2 million is almost cute, considering it鈥檚 the same amount as for his vote to make Qatar the 2022 World Cup site.
For a long time money has measured worth. I鈥檓 sure Warner, , and others could prattle on about why women don鈥檛 deserve a big payday: women鈥檚 sports are not big time. When you consider low ticket prices, turf fields (rather than grass), shabby player treatment (competitors stuffed into the same hotels and practice venues), it hardly looks like the big-money (men鈥檚) World Cup event of July 2014.
For years, FIFA has treated the Women鈥檚 World Cup as an afterthought. When the U.S. women last won, in 1999, there was so little publicity that people only found out because Brandi Chastain whipped off her jersey, spurring debate about whether it was appropriate to show a sports bra in public.
Things are changing. The fashion forward will note that bras have officially become shirts (now they鈥檙e called 鈥渂ralettes.鈥�). The Women鈥檚 World Cup final became most watched televised soccer game in U.S. history. Commemorative t-shirts are selling out online. Carli Lloyd could earn $2 million (that number again!) just in commercial deals following her in the first few minutes of the game, the fastest ever in World Cup history.
Suddenly, rather than looking powerful, FIFA looks dumb and stale. For guys with a nose for cash, they are leaving a lot of it on the table. (You can鈥檛 watch a replay of Lloyd鈥檚 half-field goal online without viewing a commercial first.)
There is a big problem with the economics of how women are paid in sports (and elsewhere), which FIFA is helping to make obvious. I don鈥檛 want to say that money doesn鈥檛 matter (it does), but the U.S. women are playing out their power in a fresh feminist image that is a celebration of female skill and dominance. The effect is to make low wages look absurd. In much the same way that women have quietly come to own college campuses and advanced degrees, female athletes are demonstrating their clear-headed brilliance.
This isn鈥檛 about anger. It鈥檚 about proficiency鈥攐n the field and off. The U.S. Women鈥檚 World Cup win comes at a moment when . It comes as muscular Serena Williams is proving to be so dominant that I caught ESPN talking heads debating the other day if she might be the . Who was it? LeBron, Michael, or Serena?
We have reached this moment through an interesting d茅tente between old-time feminists and young women. We have don鈥檛 have to choose between sport girl or girly-girl: I saw an eight-year-old at a men鈥檚 soccer game wearing a party dress鈥攁nd cleats. This new feminism is about pink and sparkles and mettle, all at the same time. It is Serena tough. U.S. women driven. Amy Schumer sarcastic. And Taylor Swift nice.
Pop star Swift, like the U.S. women鈥檚 soccer team, has amassed a base of girl fans and built an empire by reaching out and preaching friendship, self-respect, and girl-to-girl support. She has embraced stuff that is sweet: cats and cookie baking. But don鈥檛 be fooled. She was the one who by threatening to withhold her album 1989 from iTunes (Apple fussed, then caved). That is power.
So when Swift invited the Women鈥檚 World Cup team to the stage before 60,000 fans during her concert at MetLife stadium following the team鈥檚 ticker tape parade in New York City, it was a visual demonstration of the new feminist might. It was women reaching out to one another and recognizing that success in one venue amplifies value in another. The bedazzled love鈥攁nd support鈥攕uits them both. Blatter once famously said that the only way to get people interested in women鈥檚 soccer was for the players to don very short shorts. Now, he鈥攁nd FIFA鈥攋ust look out of touch.
is writer-in-residence at 妻友社区, a journalist who frequently contributes to the New York Times, and author of several books including >