Equal Pay - It's about more (than just) money

A few weeks ago, when the German national soccer team stood in the huge, noisy round of Wembley Stadium with their heads hanging, they didn't really look like winners. Nor, in fact, were they. And yet somehow they were. It's safe to say that at this moment, disappointment and frustration were the main emotions. About what they had just missed.

But 24 hours later at the most – after an exuberant celebration in the team hotel and a spectacular reception the next day on the Römer in Frankfurt – they will all have realized: we won! Maybe not that one European Championship title. But respect, recognition and acceptance. 

While soccer Germany – and especially the German tabloid press – once again feels deprived of a major title by the referees after a final match against the hosts at Wembley Stadium, we should actually be complaining about something completely different. For decades we have been depriving ourselves every day of what we soccer fans desire most: fair and honest sport, emotional, high-class and inspiring. We ignore it because it is played by women. 

We don't go to the stadium, we don't show the games on TV or only at the most inappropriate times and, above all, we only pay a fraction of what the game is worth to us. 

The latter follows a very simple market logic: remuneration in professional soccer – i.e. the entertainment industry – is based on sales. The more people watch, the greater the ticket and TV rights revenues, merchandise sales and competition bonuses. And the fact that so few people watch is primarily due to the fact that "women's soccer" is third- or fourth-class soccer. 

The problem is that this logic and these assumptions are fundamentally wrong.

This is not the fringe discipline of a popular sport. It is an equal and essential part of soccer. Of course, one can also differentiate terminologically between women's and men's national leagues or European and World Championships. But equally and at eye level. Not in a linguistically suggested two-class model. 

Would the German women's national team win against the German men's national team? No! Does it matter? No!  

In soccer, we have always drawn a gender-specific performance comparison that exists in this way only in soccer.  

Steffi Graf would probably never have won a tennis match against Boris Becker.  

If Magdalena Neuner had competed in the men's race, she would not have won a single title.  

Gina Lückenkemper was 0.8 seconds (7.85%) slower in her European Championships gold medal over 100m in Munich than Lucas Ansah-Peprah, who was the fastest German, but to be eliminated in the semifinals.  

Why do we draw a comparison in soccer that is unique in sports? Physical or athletic differences in men and women are a biological fact. But only in soccer do they seem to be relevant for judging and rewarding performance. 

From our point of view, this also sums up very well the statement of our brand ambassador Lina Magull.

This does not mean that women's soccer has always been on par with men's soccer, aside from athletic differences. For a long time, tactical and technical deficits were obvious. Why?  

Because in Germany women were not allowed to play soccer at all until 1970. It's not that easy to make up for a 100-year gap. Especially not when it comes to grassroot sports. But instead of trying to make up for this historical injustice with all our might, we use the inequality that has arisen from it as a legitimization for self-reinforcement.  

At this point, it is not about making amends. But it is about taking note of this historical fact and taking it into account in an assessment of the situation. 

Unfortunately, performance levels are not the only area that has been compromised in the past. Such a ban – especially if it enjoys social acceptance – also results in a complete withdrawal of public attention and appreciation. Perhaps this European Championship was not only the long-needed impetus to recognize the athletic excellence of the players, but also to acknowledge it accordingly.

Going to a women's Bundesliga match in the stadium can be at least as much fun as watching the men's Bundesliga. (A little insider tip: the beer tastes the same. We've tried it.) And they're also allowed to be shown on TV. By the way, ratings are also habit and opportunity. If you can watch more women's soccer, you'll end up watching more of it. Those who are only ever offered men's soccer are only interested in this.  

Or, in other words, the media don't just follow the market, they also construct it. 

Which somehow brings us back to the topic of money... 

Equal Pay. Currently, one of the most prominent distribution or money debates in Germany. After the gas levy and the new DAZN prices.  

The exciting thing about Equal Pay is that its complexity is often deliberately ignored or simply forgotten. Equal pay is not equal to equal pay. Above all, we have to differentiate between club and national team soccer, as well as basic salary and performance bonuses.  

Club soccer is indeed subject to the laws of the market. Therefore, the vast majority of professional soccer departments have now been spun off from the main clubs. Although equal salaries would be theoretically possible, they are in fact – as of today – utopian.

The national teams are different. They are subordinate to the DFB, legally and according to the statutes a non-profit association with the following task anchored in the statutes: "The purpose of the DFB is the promotion of sport. This purpose is achieved in particular by communicating values in and through the sport of soccer, with special consideration for the realization of equal rights for men and women" and "the appropriate support of socio-political aspects with the possibilities of soccer". 

This is what Equal Pay is all about at the moment. The women's national team plays the same major tournaments as the men's national team. Yet it represents soccer Germany probably better because it is at least as successful and with much less theatricality. The DFB justifies the unequal bonuses (ratio 6:1) with the revenues and bonuses received from UEFA and FIFA.

A distribution model that is based on the money distributed by associations that sell World Cups to Russia and Qatar should perhaps be reconsidered at this point. In the search for new maxims for action, it is sometimes helpful to take a look at one's own statutes. 

Now, however, it's about more than just money. It's about more than 23 female soccer players and the conversion of five-figure to six-figure bonuses.

It's about the message we're sending and the standard we're setting. Because this debate is not a sports-specific envy debate, it has long had a social dimension. It stands for the structural discrimination against women that still exists and for the sad truth that equal performance is not always rewarded equally.

At this point, our capitalist understanding of meritocracy becomes contradictory. And it is precisely then that politics and/or civil society must intervene. The DFB, as a very relevant part of this civil society – its relevance amounts to over seven million members – has a responsibility here. This responsibility is at the same time an opportunity: not to further reinforce or at least manifest historically constructed inequality, but to actively counteract it.  

Only if we no longer bow to the laws of the market economy, but redefine them to our own liking, do we have a chance of achieving equality. At this point, some might argue that it's all about sports. But it is not only about sports. For many people, sports, and especially soccer, are an essential part of our social interaction. Social decisions made in soccer have far-reaching consequences, and it undoubtedly serves as a prominent role model. 

That's why we believe we can influence social coexistence through sports. It would contradict our understanding of social responsibility to see ourselves only as a sports science service provider.  

Regardless of whether it's us, the DFB or any other player in sports. The sooner we understand that we, too, have a role model function, that it is in our power to initiate social change and construct equality, the sooner we will reap the fruits of our labor.

For some of us, that is justice. For the commercial players in sports, it is the opportunity of sustainable development of a future market. For us, the self-evident privilege of participating in this change. It is the chance to no longer have to confront our children with the fact that they have unequal opportunities in life and on the job market from birth, but to be able to explain to them that their equality is their birthright.  

It is the chance to break out of the vicious circle of self-reinforcing injustice, in which we understand existing inequality as legitimizing its continuation, and to construct an virtuous circle of self-reinforcing entitlement to equality. 

Be fearless. Be focused. B42