Have you ever seen a languid jaguar? I have, up close. It looks at you like, "Hmm, I see dinner. ... Too bad I've already eaten." An apt description for Rapinoe.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt when the opening sentence refers to the "burglars that run U.S. Soccer" This is an opinion piece, and one that's very clearly going to spin everything to one side. This is more "trial by media" instead of "trial by court of law". There's a lot of cherry-picked numbers in the article without explanation of where they come from. A lot of WNTPA rooters have been crowing about the deal in Australia while ignoring that the USWNTPA would never agree to that deal as the Australia deal specifically includes only internal revenues. The WNTPA wants U.S. Soccer to pull enough money out of its coffers to make up the difference in FIFA payments.
Yes, it's an opinion piece, by Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post, and formerly of Sports Illustrated. She is one of the most honored sports columnists in the United States. As such, I think she can be relied upon to at the very least, accurately report the numbers being presented in the case by the Plaintiffs. As I indicated, the numbers are pretty startling. At a preliminary stage, it would appear the Judge accepts these numbers (along with the other evidence such as travel and accommodations, which, IMO, are a lock win for the Plaintiffs) to show disparate treatment, at least for the certifying of the classes.
From the article: "Yet they earned a maximum of $99,000 per year if they played 20 friendly matches, while men who played in 20 friendlies made $263,320." I have seen this in more than one article. Who are these guys playing and winning 20 games a year for the USA?
20 friendlies, which the team as a whole has never done, let alone any given individual. Note that 20 TOTAL matches has been exceeded fairly regularly. And still, I don't think even Michael Bradley, during Klinsi's most fevered portions of his tenure, got anywhere near 20 played in a given year.
Bradley had 18 games a couple of years but the US certainly didn't win them all nor was it a contractural obligation to play him.
If USSF really wants to push the "different work" side, they should point out that the WNT is effectively a club, while the MNT currently is not - but was in the early 90s. Clubs and national teams that are not effectively clubs do operate differently.
I'm guessing this horse left the barn, otherwise it would've been one of the grounds to oppose certification of the 3 classes.
Obviously, the argument is that they are extrapolating the men's per game pay and the women's per game pay, over a comparable 20 games in order to compare the figures. It doesn't really matter if they played 20 games or not, although one of the other arguments is that based on the per game pay plus win bonuses, the women have to play more games, and win more games for the pay to be equal.
Ashlyn Harris calls out USMNT's silence on USWNT lawsuit: It's the 'f— thing that's missing' https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/so...hing-thats-missing/ar-BBWWRi6?ocid=spartanntp
If the USWNT wants the USMNT to say something, maybe the USWNT shouldn't take every opportunity they can to crap on the USMNT?
I agree. It's hypocritical of the quoted players and I don't think it's a good look for the USWNT from a PR standpoint. However, I don't think that matters at this point given how dug in everyone on this argument.
Also, as I mentioned in the other place this was posted, the players' union issued a pretty supportive statement in my recollection (which was probably issued by the PA specifically because they were entering negotiations as well and were on an expired contract).
Holy crap. This. And frankly after the ambush of Graham Zusi back in 2016 when all of the #EqualPay stuff started, I'm not surprised that the individual MNT players are letting their union do the talking. EDIT:
That just doesn't seem correct to me-- I've seen a variety of statements both from the PA and individuals which have been almost entirely supportive. I did see one statement from a men's NT player that was along the lines of "they aren't as good as men," but I think only the one...
First time I've seen that. However, since there Union has already made a supportive statement, I disagree that at this stage the men need make individual comments. But I could be wrong, and that interview predated the Union's press release. And while it is a tough question because it's not very nuanced as asked, I'm not sure I understand why you consider it an ambush?
Another news/opinion piece I saw (fyi, I'm also posting this in the thread on USMNT board): What the USWNT can learn from Australia's equal pay deal https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/so...ias-equal-pay-deal/ar-BBWXdst?ocid=spartandhp
Not the person you originally asked, but I would consider an interviewer (who clearly has in mind the answer they want to hear) pressing an interviewee to give a specific answer with a specific wording when the interviewee already answered their question to be poor journalism at least. I would also consider adding an editorial section at the end of the interview where the interviewee isn't there to defend their statements, and where the interviewer puts word in the interviewee's mouth to be poor journalism as well. And for the record, editorial and opinion has a place in journalism and public forums of discourse, but reporting and interviews are supported to be about uncovering and presenting the truth. In an interview, you ask questions and let the answers be the revel about what the interviewee believes. They should stand on their own for good or bad. Pressuring an interviewee to change their answer because the interviewer doesn't like that answer (and Zusi clearly felt pressured and uncomfortable) doesn't aid in presenting the truth, it aids in scoring PR points and presenting the interviewer's opinion. Similarly, adding a coda after the interviewee has left where the interviewer puts their spin on what they though the interviewee meant/thought with their answers and what the interviewee thinks on the subject of the interview, doesn't aid in presenting the truth, it aids in scoring PR points and presenting the interviewer's opinion.
Well, the contrary argument is that the original answer was pretty nonresponsive to what was a yes and no question. Do you think the US women should be paid equally with the US men is a yes and no question.
Except that she never defined "equal". As Grant was well aware, both unions had negotiated separate CBAs based on the desires of their members. The men had negotiated for a CBA that was heavy on appearance fees, the women negotiated for guarantees. She didn't ask - "Should the women play under the compensation spelled out in the men's CBA"? The rub, especially in 2016 when this was recorded, was that nobody seemed willing to define "equal"