On it's face, sure. But in way that the #EqualPay thing is used, not in the least. I'm still waiting for a single reporter to put one of the WNT players on record on if they'd be willing to sign the MNTPA CBA with USSF. It's a simple yes/no question. Right?
Correct. They would not agree to the Soccer Australia thing, either. So, if they don't want the "exact same deal" then the onus is on them to define what they believe "equal" or "equal pay" to mean. And you'll notice they're calling out the MNT players and not the NWSL players.
Exactly. Calling out the MNTPA players is cherrypicking. It also ignores the block of players that they negotiated a "most favored nation clause" over without allowing them a seat at the bargaining table. It's all very Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
Well, it's not a very relevant question since the mens' CBA is years old and has lapsed. Plus, to what extent is the perks and bonus disparity set forth in the mens' CBA? I'm guessing the former isn't and the latter might be but not through the World Cup level. Is the CBA available anywhere for review?
The other issue with "equality" is that the WNTPA is far more restrictive with regards to membership and the ability to vote whereas the MNTPA is "if you've ever played you're welcome to join" https://ussoccerplayers.com/usnstpa-faq/ This leads to weird pressure with the WNT which helps to get Tom Sermanni fired when he was a couple friendly cycles from greatly expanding the number of players with enough caps to join the union and dilute the voting power - and changing the dynamic of what the WNTPA deems important in a CBA. When 90-95% of the members of the WNTPA go to the World Cup, the WNTPA is going to want guarantees that limit the player pool and concentrate opportunities and benefits to the anointed players. If you greatly expand the player pool, the WNTPA might very well look for higher appearance fees as most players are less certain of going to the World Cup/Olympics and are going to be more interested in cashing in on an appearance by appearance basis. @Beau Dure do you have the membership requirements? I can't find the current CBA
Wow, what a blindside. This should have resulted in the USMNT agreeing to play for per diem, and then campaigning for equal pay for both teams. NT duty doesn't increase anyone's income enough to put up with this.
The USMNT players' union make a statement about the women's CBA. You don't get more supportive of the women than this: https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba.html One key quote (The men, I think, are currently without a CBA? Can someone chime in if that is incorrect?): "Now, the Federation is taking the frivolous position that the USMNT players’ compensation should also stay at those 2011-2018 numbers. This is not because there is any basis for that position. Instead, it’s a desperate attempt to cover-up the fact that what they did to the women in 2017 is indefensible." The overall tenor of the long statement is this: "They’re [USSF] trying to protect their monopoly, their massive revenue streams, and their continued ability to exploit US National Team players... We do not want a US Soccer Federation that behaves like FIFA... What can you do? Tell the Federation’s sponsors you will not support them until the Federation starts doing the right thing and gives the women a new CBA that pays a fair share of the gate receipts and that television and sponsorship revenue to the players."
USMNT put out a press release supporting the women pretty much as soon as they filed the lawsuit.. The women returned that "favor" by taking a crap on the USMNT. There is no "finally" here. This is just a reiteration of their previous statement plus some self-serving comments about USSF "screwing over" the USMNT as well.
The MNT's first statement about the lawsuit is quoted above (was on the first page in this thread). This statement is a lot longer and pretty much slams USSF. I believe in the first statement the MNT was beginning negotiation and now they're playing without a CBA. It looks like everyone's negotiations with USSF are going real well...
I would be okay with USSF freezing USMNT salaries at 2011-2018 levels in exchange for equal pay for the USWNT. Although I'm not sure the women actually want equal pay. They want a continuation of the current model, with more pay. I'd much rather the USWNT go to a pay for play model for national team duty and have the NWSL paycheck be part of a NWSL CBA.
And it bears repeating that, among national team programs, US players of either sex get compensated well above nearly any other national team program's players by their federation. This includes most (all?) of the established big players in the game.
Aren't they also suing for back pay? I wonder how long that would date back for. I'm guessing that includes whatever bonuses the men would have won if they won the past two world cups? I guess I don't understand how that works since I thought that money came/was set by FIFA. USSF is going to be writing some massive checks soon. They are probably going to lose in court, not sure why they haven't just settled.
Comparing compensation of US players with the rest of CONCACAF is a meaningless comparison unless you also adjust for the economic levels of the countries and for the cost of living. The only meaningful comparison would be with countries with similar economies and similar cost of living. In CONCACAF the only country even close is Canada and a comparison with Canada would have little meaning because in reality even Canada is not close to the US in its overall economy. Maybe a comparison with England, France, Japan, Germany and some others might be valid but they get skewed by the relative popularity of soccer in those countries and by the very different culture in some. The only really valid comparison of compensation in the US is with other sports in the US but there you have the problem that soccer is unique in the way club and national teams play and interact and the fact that soccer is so much more popular worldwide than any other sport in the US. Actually I think that US Soccer needs to come up with a fair formula for compensation for players and coaches and staff and apply it equally to all programs. However I do not think that will happen because it would, I think, mean that the upholstered parasites running USSF would take a pay cut and a number of them would be found to be totally unnecessary to operations and their jobs would be cut. But said upholstered parasites are the ones that would try and set the compensation and they would act to preserve their jobs. I am not saying there is some great conspiracy in the USSF because I do not believe they are smart enough to act together to maintain their corruption. But rather it is more like a number of spiders living on a communal web. If something happens that threatens the web the spiders all act together to fix or eliminate the problem without any direct spider to spider communication at all.
I think it's highly likely that USMNT/USWNT players are compensated better than most, if not all, NT's, at least when you talk about base pay. In the early days, the USSF was the sole income of players. And it's rare that Unions or PA's lose money in subsequent negotiations. For example, I'm sure the French MNT made a lot of money at the World Cup. But I bet that the base pay is higher on the USMNT. The incentives for winning the WC are probably better too, though it's easy to inflate incentives that have a 99.9% chance of not reaching.
Sorry. I misread your post. I plead "old brain syndrome" and that "should" forgive most transgressions.
They would maybe sign up for that if the USSF subsidy to MLS and NWSL was equal. But that would mean cutting the subsidy to MLS in half, and as most of the USSF board is involved in MLS or SUM, that is a tough sell. Compensation gets complicated beyond the CBA with the Fed. Bradley has made 8 figures from MLS, which is subsidized by the USSF through the media rights deal with SUM. Could MLS pay Bradley that much if they didn't have that subsidy? If USWNT media rights were separate would Alex Morgan be making Bradley money? If they bundled NWSL owners and rights into the SUM agreement, would NWSL be much stronger and able to afford larger salaries for all the women playing in the league? I'm surprised, too, USSF isn't trying to settle this rather than continue to go down this road.
Settling would imply that the USSF is a rational entity. There is nothing in their history or statements that would make one believe that the USSF is rational. In fact there is little that even implies that the USSF is sane. I think that the USSF meets several definitions of various forms of insanity. BTW: Insanity of an organization is not always a bad thing but the particular ways that the USSF manifests its insanity does appear to be harmful to soccer in the US and to the people that actually play the game.
That is too simplistic a look. Would they even be involved in MLS without the subsidy? Toronto and its ownership entered the league after SUM was formed and the subsidy was put in place. Bradley had the option to sign with Toronto because of something USSF gives the men's game and not the women's game. For example, if USSF's SUM relationship is worth $50 MM to MLS, and their subsidy to NWSL is $2 MM, how does that $48 MM difference manifest? If it makes one league stronger and richer and USMNT players benefit, how is that equitable? USSF should settle with the women and get out of the SUM deal with MLS and start fresh with equal CBAs with the men and women.
They might be acting logically if protecting the SUM relationship is seen as more important than any other factor. If so, then the settlement will probably be bringing the NWSL into SUM.