text: In the case of soccer, it's not so much the revenue brought in, it's how much men make professionally vs. women. They have no choice but to pay the men much more because if they offered them a pittance they'd laugh and simply not come. The women have no such leverage with their pro leagues that don't make any money. Not saying it's right, but that's it. 
  
  In this (hockey) case I'd tend to side with the athletes. Even if they don't bring in much revenue, the USOC clearly values medals. So that alone should get them more funding than just 6 months' every 4 years. Women's hockey is hardly the only sport that doesn't draw spectators outside the Olympics, and they're relatively successful.