For all of you who have demonstrated the obligatory apoplexy (have any of you not done so?) about the U.S. women’s national soccer team being paid less than the men’s team: Is it pertinent that in 2018 the men’s World Cup in Russia generated $6 billion in revenue, 46 times this year’s women’s World Cup projected revenue of $131 million? Or that female players receive a higher percentage of their World Cup revenue than the men receive from theirs? Or that, as Christine Rosen writes , “the path to qualifying for the men’s World Cup is much more arduous and competitive than it is for the women’s World Cup. The men have to win more games over a longer period of time to qualify than do the women”? Are you also indignant — if not, why not — that the Rolling Stones make more than comparable women’s groups? And if there aren’t such comparable groups, do you, Sen. (“I have a plan for that”) Warren, have a plan for government to right this wrong? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, you say : “If you win 13-0 — the most goals for a single game in World Cup history — you should be paid at least equally to the men’s team.” At least. So, were the men ever to beat Thailand even more lopsidedly, would your dollars-for-goals metric remain gender-neutral?
Maybe we need an organization to coach college students to approach life understanding that they are masters of their own fate. True, no one can control when a hurricane hits or a server crashes. But we all control how we respond to the challenges the world delivers.
Jefferson had it right: “I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.”