solo, morgan, lloyd, pinoe, sauerbrunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/s...loyd-alex-morgan-hope-solo-complain.html?_r=0 don't know if they drive the same revenue as the men. feds will also not go against their union bargained agreement. but they may be trying to get the feds to do 3 things: tip the scales on their behalf on that "we don't have a cba" claim, even out fifa payouts if at all possible, and most importantly open up sums books.
Fasten your seat belts boys and girls. AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggggghhh. I'm hoping and praying for a swift (yeah right, US legal System) and positive resolution for the ladies.
I think the biggest thing the USWNT are trying to do is put the USSF between a rock & a hard place when it comes to acknowledging the existence of a CBA. The SUM books revelation will be the most interesting part of this. There is a good chance that the disparity of investment to the USMNT (and by extension the MLS) is significantly higher than that of the USWNT and the NWSL. People seem really concerned about the future of NWSL, but I think opening the books on SUM will nullify any high ground USSF might have with how they invest in the league. SUM, in all likely hood, invests a stupefying & disproportionately large amount of money into MLS that the MNT players indirectly benefit from in ways that are hidden from view because of SUM's close books. The direct $ the USSF invests in NWSL players will probably pale in comparison.
I just hope they don't go the route of arguing equal pay for women with men. Truth be told this is not a women's pay issue. Or at least shouldn't be. The women SHOULD be paid more than they are, but ONLY because they draw that much money in. It's their TV ratings success and butts in seats success that should drive better pay. Then if it works out, hopefully they invest that into the future.
What happens if SUM splits up men's and womens revenue by having two different TV deals. Part of the bargaining power for the TV deal is due to all rights being tied
This will almost certainly not go to trial. If it does, the women will probably lose. Courts are generally reluctant, in the sports context especially, to make sweeping rulings regarding matters that are subject to collective bargaining.
Rights being tied together gives bargaining power when you are trying to introduce a product that is untested such as NWSL or MLS was back when SUM was started. WNT is a strong known commodity now. It's the sort of thing you can tie other weaker rights to or can stand on it's own just fine.
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/03/31/uswnt-eeoc-wage-discrimination-equal-pay $1.8million to player pool because they won the world cup + $1.20 per ticket sold according to this article for victory tour. Edit: I don't know how the table translates to the SBC.
I think the Women have a strong case, and I think there will be a favorable out-of-court settlement. The USWMNT is more important to US soccer right now, and until we get our men's talent pool in the same solar system of skill as our women's talent pool, the Men will be clawing to qualify for tournaments while the Women are favored to win those same tournaments. It would be wise for US Soccer to quietly get this settled and agree to equal pay and equal competition conditions (no more fake grass).
So the women's team had a $16 million profit while the men's team had a loss. Is this due to operating costs? I was surprised to see that the World Cup Final (for the women) had more US viewers than any men's game, ever?
The TV issues seem to be a mess also. On both men's and women's side. Guatemala- away game was only on BEIN and a spanish language station Guatemala home game- ESPN 2 Womens games have been on ESPN 3 (which is streaming and not on TV).
World Cup qualifiers, per FIFA, have their TV rights sold by the host. So the USSF has exactly zero control over the network on which their away qualifiers are broadcast.
I'm guessing the point was that the men's game was on a well respected TV channel (when USSF had control) while the WNT game was relegated to online only. For reference we're talking a MNT World Cup Qualifier versus a WNT independent tournament (vs. #2 team).
Very interesting progressions. From all the articles i've read, most writers are missing an important point and one that I'm sure the WNT considered. The WNT are salaried, MNT are not. If the WNT wants more money, which they are entitled too it, they will probably be restructured like the MNT. What these articles have failed to mention is how little the men make in an off season and that many of them aren't called into camps, so they don't make any money. Or, oppositely, top players are left off so others have a shot. It will allow for WNT coaches to be much more liberal with who they want to see in camps. It's really interesting.... Can the WNT argue they should get more than 5k for winning a match at the Algarve cup with no TV rights sold? with 30 people in the stands? There are years when the WNT also doesn't make money, such as the men's team, which nobody is mentioning. It really comes down to WC and Olympic years....however, I do believe if the WNT high level of play wares off and in the future they are not an elite team, they will not be as nearly as popular. Most of the income they made was on WC wins and victory tour, with out that.... I would not recommend getting away with the current salaried platform if I was a WNT player. Otherwise they will be playing for 9 month a year in France for 100k while hoping to get a release to play a friendly of the WNT.
But the USSF doesn't have control-- they control the rights, but a network has to be willing to do the broadcast...
Those same broadcasters have stated that WNT is great business. WNT has the record TV ratings (in US), not the MNT.
Part of the problem was that the WNT tournament was last minute and had to play the "final" at a terrible time as the other nations adhered to the FIFA Calendar and their respective club teams are not second in line to the national team. I looked at some of the old financial statements. http://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information For the FY 2013. The three highest paid USSF players (including men) were Alex Morgan, Becky Sauerbrunn and Rampone. That was the year in which the MNT did not play in a tournament and really only played a couple of high priced friendlies. What is apparent is that a large amount of non friendly bonuses is due to the money obtained from the tournament. The USMNT is expected to get 15 mil from the Copa America Tournament in the Summer. The USWNT only got two million for winning the world cup. Typical american cba in sports have the team receiving 35-50% of the revenue. As USSF is a nonprofit, the players tend to receive more. 20% of 15 mil is more than 100% of 2 mil. Similarly, the MNT money from big friendlies surpassed that of the WNT when they played the next three best teams in the world. The USWNT seems to say they deserve more of the SUM money. Although the SUM money comes from friendlies not FIFA events. It will be interesting to see how SUM had separated the money. One thing that has confused me is. Who will pay for the 600k to 1 mil that transporting and laying natural grass on turf is going to cost. The MNT will typically have a sold out friendly in a gigantic stadium or use the back end of a Club exhibition game when they play on grass on artificial turf. Otherwise they tend to play in smaller venues or natural grass venues. It also limits the available locations for the team to play. Will the WNT do the same? The one thing the USWNT cannot do is strike during the olympics if USSF can send a replacement team. The replacement team could medal which would lose some of the luster that the team has. Women's Basketball suffers from the fact they seem so much better than everyone else.
Actually, in the CBA, each player received $75,000 for winning the WWC. The $1.8 million to the pool is on top of that and is specifically for the victory tour. I would imagine the SheBelieves Cup falls under the regular friendly win bonus of $1350/game.
Aye, I tried to specify at the end that that value was specifically for the victory tour. Interesting to note that that $1.8mil would've been a lot less if they had not won the World Cup. The whole SUM thing reeks.
Cool. Have they also stated that they will broadcast every match, no matter who the opponent and what else is already scheduled and paid for? My point is that the USSF cannot compel a network to broadcast a game, and is not therefore to be blamed for it not being broadcast even if they controlled the rights-- unless several other connections have been made twixt cup and lip. My impression is that ESPN likes using the WNT to build the ESPN3 brand, among other motivations, as its-- the WNT's-- audience is disproportionately younger and more flexible.
That's the big one for me. Those books sure must be interesting to look at if it's taken this long for them to be released (which they still haven't). The article from yesterday also suggested that SUM, under their operating terms, is using the revenue brought in by the USWNT to help the MLS and not the team that's actually pulling in that money For those familiar with the EEOC or the US legal system as a whole, is there any way SUM can be forced to reveal their financial statements in their entirety? Quick note on the NWSL: they're not included in SUM's negotiating packages but because of the ways they're tied to USSF, it makes it almost impossible to do things on their own instead of waiting/relying on the go ahead from USSF.
I hear what you're saying, but If you look at how Capitalism works, it's not strange. It's all under one parent company, the Federation. MLS happens to make much much much more money than the NWSL, so it's more valuable. The fed, as an organization, needs the MLS they do not need the NWSL. However, the fed also floats the NWSL, with out the Fed, there wouldn't be a league. The fed should also be investing more into the NWSL, but how much is worth their return? Also, for the bette part of the first 2 decades of women's soccer the MNT floated the WNT.... it's one company. But, like all companies these days, yes, I think they pay their employees too little and the WNT needs more. If I were the WNT, I wouldn't want a structure like the MNT, it will be disastrous. I'd ask for a high base pay. there's no way in hell they will get 17k for a friendly, simply because nobody will pay the fed that much for a woman's friendly, which they will for a men's game. The real issue here is revenue generation.