News: Jermaine Jones criticizes the USWNT equal pay and says Alex Morgan too outspoken

I can't remember the exact numbers, but at some point I did a count of the number of players Ellis brought into camp and had on rosters since the US Women won the 2015 WWC (and published it on BS). The number brought in for looks was around 70. This is for a team that had just won the World Cup. That seems like a reasonable number, in that context. Plus, of course, Ellis saw the players playing in the NWSL that weren't called into camps as well as the players on the youth national teams.

If the number of men called into camps over the last year is in the range of 60, that suggests that the total to be called in over the 4-year cycle might be well above that number as well as Ellis' roughly 70.

Comparing the two sets of numbers, however, whatever they are, doesn't seem like a very meaningful exercise to me. The men had just failed to qualify for the World Cup and it appears that US Soccer, whether it was reasonable to do it or not, was trying to implement a pretty significant re-boot. Comparing a significant re-boot for the men to a more evolutionary process for the women who had just won the WWC simply doesn't mean much.

I do find the overall discussion here, by those who are trying to the thoughtful, interesting. My own take is that for reasons of history, in the realm of men's and women's roles generally, in the realm of media interest in men's and women's athletics, and in the development of men's and women's soccer in the US (which have significantly different histories), it's very difficult to do reasonable or fair comparisons between men's and women's soccer. Maybe it can be done, but the comparison would involve many complex factors.

 

I think that’s backwards. It’s not a priority for players because women’s sports leagues have never been a priority for fans. Not the other way around.

They can’t get paid by their clubs because people don’t show. It doesn’t matter to them if they’re at the club or on WNT duty. They care about getting paid.

People like women’s sports when it is high importance star oriented (like Serena Williams at a grand slam) or when it is Team USA. Most people who are big sports fans couldn’t tell you the names of more than 3 WNBA franchises. And the WNBA is probably the highest revenue women’s team sports league in the world.

 

That's over 4 years? Not sure how that does much. I just gave you the numbers for a theoretically greatest-number-case for the USWNT and a theoretically least-number-case (your assumptions) for the USMNT in the same year, 2014. The USMNT called in an entire World Cup squad + 2 more than the USWNT in a World Cup year for the men. In a year that allegedly should see them at a nadir.

Ya think?

So you didn't like the goalposts where they were and decided a relocation was in order?

See the numbers upthread again. I went and got 2014's numbers specifically at what I took to be a likely recommendation based on some implied and explicit parameters from you.

All of these comparisons by number are driven PRECISELY by that notion. Because everyone who shouts "EQUAL PAY!!" is inviting it by their lack of consideration and thoughtfulness (and in some cases, utter dishonesty).

 

Then they need to stop the tail wagging dog stuff and become club fans. This is a daily sport, not a quadrennial one.

Ignores the longterm health of their game. I said a few months ago on the men's forum that they should just ask USSoccer to subsidize the NWSL completely, instead of being a pool of selected players getting all of it for themselves.

I mean, I get why they do this closed system thing- they've won the last two WWCs and was a runner-up in the one before that. If it results in trophies, it does. But it takes away from the lifeblood of the sport, which is club ball.

When we start rearing our daughters the way we rear our sons, this may change.

 

I'm a lawyer and mediator.

The experts can't lie under oath. If they did, they'd be perjuring themselves. And, if they were caught lying under oath, they would not work again - or work very little. Whatever they say has to be defensible, has to have some basis in the fact, with their area of knowledge applied to those facts.

If you blatantly lied as an expert, then you are lucky you got away with it.

The women are lying to drum up support. And that's not ok.

 

No argument here.

 

I agree. The women's negotiation tactic is to win public opinion to pressure US Soccer into ripping up their CBA.
Other than US Soccer caving, I don't see how a judge throws out an agreed-to CBA. Unless the judge is political.
The most important negotiations will come when this CBA expires in 2021. But, unfortunately for the women, that always happens at the beginning of their dark period - 3 years until the next World Cup, when they return to being out of the spotlight.
So they have to put public pressure on US Soccer now, before the next Olympics, while the adoring media helps them in their "equal pay" fight.

 

1) i issue an expert report disclosing all assumptions, calculations, limitations and disclosures.

2) I answer the questions 100% truthfully.

3). I’ve never had even the slightest whiff of a Daubert or ethics challenge. Let alone something that rises to perjury.

4) if there is any impropriety re: non-disclosure that is between the attorney and their client. If there is an ethical problem in the process, it is that attorneys, functioning in an advocacy role for their clients, and in coordination with their clients, do not disclose all pertinent information to experts. I will consider all information provided to me, and I often ask for that information in writing. Which pisses attorneys off. Why? Because they don’t want a discoverable paper trail of questions.

5). Don’t ever question my professional credibility again. Not even with a conditional “if”, which is something attys do. You don’t know me. You have no reason to believe based upon anything I’ve said that I’ve violated even an ethical requirement, let alone a law. So stop.

6) if I were to speculate, based upon your reaction, I’ve struck a nerve. Experts (good and ethical ones anyway) are always independent. Always. Which means that any two experts, given the same set of facts, both competent, should arrive at roughly the same conclusion. Weighing of evidence and calculation/methodology issues are the two most common sources of contention...if experts are operating from the same facts. I have sat down with fellow experts rehashing “wars” years later and with near unanimity we agree that of attorneys just got the hell out of the way and let the experts sit down together mulling shit over, the the legal world would be a better place. Attorneys are never independent. And they are granted much more leeway in their role as client advocates than I will ever have. If there is a problem in this process that you have, it is with the adversarial aspects of our legal system. Experts function more or less in an inquisitorial role.


Now that that’s been addressed:

The women are allowed to cherry pick whatever facts they want in the court of public opinion. As an attorney and mediator, you should know better. Their lawyers are too. Again, you should know that. Attorneys and clients do this. All. The. Time. You should know that. The attorneys can even cherry pick their facts in pleadings. I haven’t seen a pleading in my life that does not contain spin. They can omit facts from me also. I don’t like this, because it makes depositions and my job generally a pain in the ass. But I can’t legally or ethically induce them to provide me with all information. I can only disclose what I have considered. What they can’t do is conceal information from the other party that has been determined to be relevant/discoverable by a court or arbitration/mediation body.

You may not like this. But that is the system that you claim to play in. So you know this. You may have a moral issue with the PR game, but you are supposedly an attorney. If you have a moral issue with anything done to date, then you have a moral issue with most of your colleagues and your profession at large.

 

It's also not a priority because of the contracts. The NWSL is put in an odd position because their main stars miss so much time. How do you market people that aren't there? It's backwards because we are on our third pro league this century and no one has thought this is a problem.

We know they care about getting paid. They care enough to limit other people's opportunities through contracts. Somehow it's spun as equality, merit and inclusion.

Which is a damn shame but true. NWSL should focus on building their league and not being semi pro practice cones for the lucky few.

 

I don't know if it should be subsidized completely but open the subsidies and player pool. Rather than giving 20 women close to 200,000 each, give 200 women 20,000 each and allow anyone a chance to play for USWNT. My guess is if it was put to a league vote 90% would agree with this.

 

I agree with you. It is a problem. I'm just not sure how much of a real boost the league would get if the stars were always there. Look at the men's side. We know they aren't world champs or anything, but every cycle where the USMNT has done well, people are wondering if this is the year MLS gets an attendance boost now that we can market star X of the tournament in MLS. Beyond a temporary bump, it never happens. People have really short memories and converting "Go USA!" to club followings has been difficult for both men and women.

I mean, the WNT full squad pulled 14,500 in Philadelphia vs. Japan "A". The last two WWC champions, running up to the WWC, both world class teams, in a match that at least has been branded as something more meaningful than a friendly. What's the ceiling for a club team playing 12 matches at home with only 3 "USA stars"? Keep in mind "pretty good" is already at 5K. 8K? Ideally, everyone becomes the Thorns, but I don't see it.

Yeah, that's not lost on me. I got a kick out of Warren championing the WNT when she's basically making a case for the 1% of the sport...not the majority of the league working in the gig economy alongside soccer to make ends meet. And I actually like Warren a lot. She doesn't get the irony here though.

Yeah it pisses me off too. If people really care about gender equality beyond posturing as keyboard warriors, they'd go to the damn games...stars or not. The problem NWSL has IMO is that they have no leverage. They need the WNT more than the WNT needs them. They can't pay the better salaries without people showing up and to some degree (although I think it's overblown) attendance is suppressed because the stars aren't turning out. I think the lack of cooperation between NWSL and MLS has hurt them a lot.

 

But if you do that, the WNT waltzes to Europe. Having the core players appearing more regularly would help NWSL some. But losing them to Europe where you can't even market them at all would hurt NWSL a lot.

Top to bottom, NWSL is first rate globally. If you thought attendance was bad now, just wait until the league becomes unambiguously second rate when the 15-20 most prominent American faces bolt.

I don't know what the answer is, but it requires 1) making sure the core WNT are paid enough to stay in NWSL and 2) bringing up the base salaries so that players 1 to at least 18 can live without becoming Starbucks baristas. If that's MLS co-branding, the women+men giving up WC bonus $$$ to subsidize something above NWSL slave wages...I dunno.

 

There are definitely no easy solutions. The only real thing that will help is fairly unlikely to happen: a long-term, sustainable uptick in overall interest in NWSL.

We've seen bumps before from WWC and Olympics. They don't stick.

 

We don't know this. Waltzing to Europe may cause a player to earn fewer caps and endorsements. We've never seen this tried but I think there is enough quality in the NWSL where other players will step up. I know USSF wants to market a comfortable group of stars but is this the best way to grow the game?

I don't know the answer either. I do know that the few people I discuss this with in real life are basically clueless so I really appreciate this board.

 

Timon19, I appreciate that you took time to do the 2014 numbers. The men are calling in more players than the women, perhaps a lot more as you suggest. (As those who know me from other threads can attest, I like massive data sets before drawing firm conclusions, which is the only reason I say "perhaps").

I'm wondering, seriously, is this relevant to questions about what the women's pay should be? Or are you providing the info simply because some posters are trying to compare the women's and men's pay? I can't tell from what you've posted (and I went back and read all your posts on this thread). Can you explain a little more of what your thinking is on that?

So you know where I'm coming from, I think it's really hard to compare the men and the women, in any respect and certainly when it comes to what their pay structures should be. There's history since time immemorial and more recently that makes it almost impossible and there are obvious structural differences between their competitive and contractual situations. And, it means, to some extent, pitting the men and women against each other, which I think is undesirable. My impression from your posts is that you are not a fan of comparisons either.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the mentality. Just that it's the mentality. And as far as it being a daily sport and not a quadrennial (or periodic) one... Tennis is more than the later rounds of grand slams. Volleyball (men's and women's) isn't just the Olympics. Track and field is a bunch of Grand Prix events. Even water polo and team handball are daily things with players who make good money. But for whatever reason as sports fans in this country, we collectively focus on the big 4 on the men's side, and to a lesser extent men's soccer. The other stuff is every Olympics or World Championships or whatever.

The women are ignoring the long term health of their game. Which means they are acting like men.

The NBA player's union does squat for the G league. The MLB player's union has $4.1 billion of salary between 750 players on their 25 man rosters. Most AA and AAA guys are making <20K per year. A 3% solidarity tax on MLB salaries would pay every AA and AAA roster player 75 grand a year. That's the lifeblood of MLB. Think how much better the quality would be to better refine young guys coming up the system if there wasn't a revolving door of players leaving because they hafta work in an Amazon warehouse every winter. That's the talent pipeline. But there's no real global competition so MLB doesn't pay a price for it.

Athletes at the top of the food chain bear an uncanny resemblance to business execs who complain about sharing.

I don't think US Soccer has the money to go out and subsidize a decent NWSL. 18 players x 9 clubs x 40 grand a player = $6.5 million. Doesn't seem like much, but that's a helluva lot considering USSF's revenues and their overall obligations as part of their mission. If their job was as easy as running an NBA team or something similar, $6.5 million is nothing.

Dunno if we should be raising our daughters the way we do our sons or the other way around. Our daughters don't have a thing for going out and murdering people the way our sons do. But yeah, it will change. I can't forsee a day where the highest paid women soccer players make what men do, but I think having viable leagues is doable. A bench player should be able to earn as much as a kid coming out of school makes in an accounting department.

 

They'd definitely lose our on endorsements to some extent, but if the difference is 50K here vs. 250K playing for a team subsidized by Barca but with lower endorsements, I think most players will go the 250K route. Unless we're talking the Landon Donovan equivalent. Like a Rapinoe toward the twilight of her career whose brand is pretty much bank right now. But we have seen it tried. USWNT previously have gone over and taken the club cash and it hasn't really hurt them in terms of caps/roster security. This was before the player stipends kicked in, but if those go away, I'd expect a reversion.

I think the league should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. For a pro sports league in this country--and especially a women's pro sports league--I think it's critical to have those faces. But that shouldn't be the only strategy. You've got to be able to build a base via grassroots, partnerships, etc. NWSL has made one of the mistakes MLS made early on: a youth focus. Don't sell the game to soccer moms and little girls. Sell it to 20 and 30 something female equivalent of the men's fanbase. Don't play in shitty suburban stadium complexes.

 

Right. Problem is, from early 2000s until today, the women have always overestimated their real support.

 

The women don’t have a 20-30 something female fanbase, unless you can get that lesbian population growing, and they are currently running off the moms.

 

There is no such thing as "branded more than a friendly" The S B Cup will never be a major event. The ICC will never be the CL or the FA Cup. Womens soccer in the USA is the WC/Olympics and then pretty much nothing of relevance.

The USSF want to pay the minimum amount required to safeguard International relevance. They have no interest in really growing the game via direct investment. They want parents via the GDA to do that. They want College dreams to do that.

The system is filled with competing interests that make it sub optimal. The one thing that bails it out is the sheer volume of kids playing.

 

But you're not talking about soccer here. Someone who thinks soccer is kinda cool will turn in to a World Cup every four years and have a good time watching. A soccer fan has a club that s/he watches every game that club plays if they can. They support their club first. That's SOP everywhere on the planet.

There's zero comparison between NWSL and MLB in terms of risk of them folding, though. And those guys are being paid by the counterpart to soccer clubs. They're not on the teat of baseball's national governing body.

I get that.

Does the USSF pay every woman with a chance of being selected for the NT, or are some locked out because the USSF can't pay everybody? Who decides which players make the salary cut and which have to survive however they can and play soccer as a hobby (NWSL)?

A minuscule percentage of males (mostly White) commit those crimes. I haven't shop up a church, and neither have you.

Are you sure you don't mean WUSA? MLS never tried to sell to children.

I never did get why the women's leagues prior to NWSL tried to appeal to a demo that had no money of their own and no way to travel to matches on their own. And even that demo would be happier to see pro soccer on a weekly or semi weekly basis instead of having to wait another four years before their heroes came 'round again. Even kids know that friendlies are meaningless.

When WUSA was the LatestBigThing, they played at Bobby Dodd (GA Tech) and Herndon Field (formerly Morris Brown College's stadium). Both are in town. I saw 'em at BD three times, none at Herndon. They just never seemed to fill it the way AUFC did.

 

There are plenty of 20-30 something women interested in the women's game. Straight, lesbian, etc. The problem is that NWSL tries to pander to the pearl clutching suburban demo. The venues need to be in the middle of urban areas, not out in the burbs. It's the same thing MLS tried early on.

 

Why do you think the NWSL does that? If there was this huge 20-30 year old demographic just waiting to be pandered to, they would have damn well done it. You can’t manufacture a fanbase(men or women)in soccer....in the United States, just isn’t possible.

MLS grew through prudent spending and just being able to wait the bad times out. MLS did not market itself into prosperity. The problem with the women’s game is they think the interest is much bigger than it actually is. MLS understood that from the start.

 

Womens soccer in the USA is driven by parents with College dreams and disposable income. Elsewhere its driven mostly by culture and professional Clubs.

Neither model thrives on a huge level of Club based fan interest yet. Fans tend to gravitate to the highest quality of any sport. Soccer fans support Barca or Liverpool etc. Not sure they have the capacity to spend money on say Orlando Pride. once every 4 years they bask in the national glory, but outside of that, how many really care ?

 

22 players are allocated to the NWSL, and USSF pays their club salary. The number of allocations will stay constant through the end of the current CBA (2021). The list of allocations is made each year, and is usually connected to who the "core" USWNT players are. This is different than USWNT contracts since only 18 players are currently on a WNT contract (unless exceptions were made for the WWC roster?). The number of WNT contracts will continue to drop by one each year through the end of this CBA (so down to 16 in 2021). The rest are paid on a per-game, per-camp basis.