If she said it, I’d be interested in the context. If she said it in the context of wishing women’s team sports were comparable to men’s team sports like they are in individual sports, more power to her.
I am interested to see if we can see a copy of the CBA like we did last time. I have a feeling that this is going to be the same as last time. Where the WNT contract was wildly different than the men and offered a lot more security than the mens. The problem is that the womens and mens game are run completely differently. Every 4 years: The women play have a Concacaf Tournament, The WC, and The Olympics. The Men have 2 Gold Cups, Would Cup Qualifying, and most likely the World Cup. In addition, they might have Copa America and the Confederations Cup. The men don't play in the Olympics, it's a youth tournament. For the women, the Olympics is a money making opportunity. IIRC the 2009 Confederations Cup runner up made more in prize money than the last two WWC appearances for the women. The mens game has a lot more money than the women. As long as the men make the finals, the payout they get from the Gold Cup is pretty close to the women winning a WC. Most of it comes from tv money, where the WWC is basically given for free. I think the argument for the WNT is that the advertising and tv money should be separate for the WNT than the MNT. The problem is that the tv money is basically nothing because major tournaments don't go through the fed. It is still funny to me (not talking about the injury), that the straw which broke the camel's back was the boondoggle the WNT were trying to have with a game in Hawaii in December. No one on the team had the forsight to see that it was going to be a bad idea.
The pay structure would be looked at by a Court to determine if there was indeed inequality in pay. However, I am not sure a separate deal to pay the women for club play, really affects the issue of what each gender is being compensated for international play. Are they not doing additional work for that additional income?
It's complicated, but at the most simplistic level, you could argue that it is harder to play men's international soccer than women's international soccer due to the level of competition vis-à-vis our national team. Thus, more difficult job equals higher compensation.
First, you’ve dodged my question: should Chelsea women get paid the same as the men? Answer it. Second, your “additional work” distinction is underdeveloped. Why would it matter whether the work is “additional” or not in creating a new claim for employment discrimination that would not otherwise exist?
Sure, more power to her, but that's like me wishing I ended up having Chris Wondolowski's career as opposed to the playing career I ended up having, i.e. you may as well be chucking coins into a wishing well.
I have no idea about English law on discrimination, so I don't even know if they would have an arguable case in England. I think they have an arguable case in the US. I'm not predicting a win or loss, but I think the people that call it "frivolous" are the ones that are wrong. I joked that I would take the case in 2002, and I think I'd still take the case as a Plaintiff's lawyer. However, the best tactics would be to leverage the case for a better CBA, which is what I expect both the aim and the result to be.
It is not that complicated. If it was "equal work," there would just be a single team open to hiring all genders. But that would mean that no women's game would exist. So a separate competition was created just for the women. They play in separate competitions that are not open to the men, so it is not the same work. And for many cultural, societal, and biological reasons, the men's game is more popular. This gives rise to revenue generation differences. This justifies salary differences. This is all true without even getting into the fact that the women just negotiated a new CBA. Notably, the Complaint does not even mention the CBA's existence. It is conspicuous by its absence.
Lloyd, Just to be clear, you think a legal case could be made in the US that the Chelsea's womens team should make the same salaries as Chelsea mens in absolute dollars?
Given what the WNT is trying to accomplish it makes perfect sense to ignore the agreed-upon CBA. Look, more power to them for trying to get paid. They have an opportunity in the news cycle coming up to work to their advantage. Best of luck to them; I just don't know that at the end of the day if the actual facts and actual situation work out in their favor here.
It may make "perfect sense" to ignore the CBA from a layman's perspective because the CBA creates negative legal and factual implications for the lawsuit. The USSF will raise these negative implications against them in Court, where ignoring them will no longer be possible.
Because the compensation for club play is directly tied to the stipulation that the player is a USWNT player? Most of the USWNT plays professionally in the NWSL because the USSF props up their salaries. Most of the NWSL teams don't make money, despite keeping their costs low by paying very low wages (the lower ends of the spectrum are basically semi-pro/don't quit your day job salaries). The USWNT compensation structure was created in order to allow WNT members to be full-time soccer players when most would not be able to feed themselves while doing it. Your definition of "work" means absolutely nothing, and doesn't exist in the real world, nor should it. Let's say I sprint 100 meters. How come I'm not paid for it? I ran the same distance as Usain Bolt! I had a time within seconds of his World Record. in fact, I'm fat enough and slow enough that I probably burned more energy than Usain Bolt. And yet, nobody cares. Why? Because compensation is tied to revenue generation, not to the work it takes to do the activity. And, the "deal" to pay for WNT salaries in the NWSL is not separate. You cannot just pretend that it does not exist, or is not relevant to a discussion of WNT player compensation just because it's convenient.
Ideal for any society that desires a complex economy where rights are protected and disputes can be resolved through something approaching a fair process. I guess you can live in Venezuela where such lawyers are not needed.
I don't think LH is running away from anything and I'm not sure he thinks it's fair. Rather, I think he's laying out a legal argument - I think it's a losing one but am appreciative of the perspective.
You're assuming that the WNT and whoever their representation is, is more concerned about the legal implications of not raising the CBA, and not how it plays in the court of public opinion. They're probably banking on public pressure on USSF to grant additional concessions.
Yeah, I appreciate the attempt at laying out the legal argument, because regardless of my personal opinion I think it's an interesting situation and discussion to have.
Then don't put it in there? The USMNT pays for the entire Federation already. It COSTS the USSF money to run the USWNT every year except for the WC year if the WNT win it. Nobody is asking for more bonuses for the MNT, but that doesn't mean the WNT get that money by default. Use it for youth soccer programs so that "pay to play" is a thing of the past. Pay for more futsal courts in urban areas, youth outreach, or a new soccer headquarters that's somewhere warmer than Chicago. Pay for more scouts, better technical staff, etc.
What other sports do professionals get paid to represent their country in international events? What’s the pay scale? Thanks.
I certainly don't disagree with your point that the WNT are banking on public pressure on USSF to grant additional concessions. I very much agree that they must be banking on that because they have a weak legal case. But the fact remains that the CBA's existence is what we lawyers call a "bad fact" for the lawsuit. Winston and Strawn's (the law firm representing the women) decision to leave it out of the Complaint was quite intentional. That being said, taking frivolous legal positions in a lawsuit to exert settlement influence can have negative consequences of its own, including sanctions by the Court and ethical investigations by the state bar. (Note I'm necessarily saying that threshold has been met here).
It's amazing how vociferous lawyers are about defending the status quo. Literally, the only people making any money on the negotiation and ultimate settlement of this deal outside of the courts, will be lawyers. They make a living on settling disputes outside of court. There will likely be no precedents set, no ability of either side to comment on the outcome, no public record of what transpired. Future generations of women who feel undervalued for whatever reason will not be able to point to this lawsuit as a precedent to base future litigation. Checks will be written, depositions will be taken, hours will be spent and paid for by the litigants for fees and expenses. Ultimately, not a ruling will be made that will serve to benefit society, despite the millions that will have been spent, unless the plaintiffs take this all the way to trial, which almost never happens. Attorneys have a powerful lobby at all levels of government, so I don't see the status quo changing anytime soon.