Come on. Played zero minutes in the She Believes tournament. Cut from Olympic qualifying. Played 10 minutes in 7 games at the WC. Ellis always plays people out of position in midfield over her. She's a free practice player on contract that is how she is used and valued.
HAO had to be part of the 2016 team because of the WC victory tour. She's on salary all year. Since, she's been left off the team and not been invited to play, that's pretty factual.
I was referring to a hypothetical situation, the WNT was using the same payment system as the MNT, that if a player was injured in camp, they wouldn't be left out in the woods to find a way for adequate healthcare. I have a feeling that any smart doctor would jump at the chance to be listed as the trusted surgeon for the USWNT.
Right-- but you are drawing inferences from those facts and declaring those inferences to be facts. That's the level of thinking favored by lynch mobs... BTW--"invited to play?"
It is fact, she was left off the team. in the men's system that means zero money for those matches. for the current women's system, she still makes money.
That does not mean that Ellis wants to get rid of her-- which was the part I objected to. It may mean that, but it may mean other stuff too. And the fact that she was called back after qualifying would argue against it. Why did she call her back if she didn't have to? There are plenty of other players she could have called in for practice without having to pay, aren't there?
You're forgetting the original posters point. the WNT has contracted players, the MNT doesn't. Ellis can only bring so many un-contracted players on rosters... yes, contracts can change, but it's not something that happens often for the WNT. The contracts are by year, not by "after qualifying" for the Olympics: HAO hasn't been hurt. There's a reason she NEVER plays and is left off rosters.
Oh, I'm sure there is. I'm also sure neither of us knows it for sure. You are speculating, but framing your speculation as fact-- which may well represent a failure of imagination rather than perceptivity...
Well there is a perceived reason. Ellis usage patterns r very odd so I dont think it can be summed up in just HAO doesnt fit the system. It wasnt long ago that O'Hara never got any time and now she seems to be starting a lot. Dunn didnt fit the system at all until she did. JJ went from practice player to starter over night.
Oh, are you the one who always finishes arguments with: "you don't know what's in their head, only they do"? I understand what you're saying, but track history and current situations do allow for an understanding of what is happening. Kernel - you can't compare 22 year olds to 3o+ year olds, such as JJ's development to HAO's decline. And Dunn was left of the team for Boxx, who was contracted....
Largely because of the resources the USSF has funnelled into women's soccer. You lose me when you denigrate the progress that the MNT has made. Very few nations in the world have the record of getting out of the knock out rounds since '94 (only twice failed). Insulting the MNT is not going to garner my support. If that means give the women the same kind of 1099 agreement the Men have, that would be great. The only relationship is that you get paid when you're in camp/games. You're on your own for the rest of it. As I've said, I've lonnnng felt that the women's contract agreement kinda handcuffs the coach. There were women on the victory tour who nobody was showing up to see - whose spot could have gone to someone that didn't have a contract, to start developing the next generation. No fewer people would have showed up.
they did qualify and play Columbia June 3rd. From my understanding the Fed is guaranteed this money. We are hosting.
So then, the women, based on this type of argument, should make half of what the men make. But, they're not even close to that.
It seems to me there's a lot being missed in this discussion. But first, to be clear on where I'm coming from, I think the women are way underpaid. 1. The premise of the WNT EEOC complaint appears to be based on "equal pay for equal work." Isn't there a legitimate question about whether there is equal work? For a long time, I've argued, against fans who say men are way better soccer players than women so the men's game is better, that men's soccer and women's soccer are two different games. If that's true, then isn't it also true that playing men's soccer and women's soccer aren't "equal work"? 2. The discussion about the men's pay structure and the women's pay structure, and their differences, seems to me to have shortcomings. If "equal pay for equal work" isn't the standard because the work isn't equal (that could the a wrong premise), shouldn't the pay be based on net revenue? In that case, at least based on current projections shouldn't the women get a lot more than they currently are getting, regardless of the pay structure? In other words, isn't there a difference between the amount that should be distributed to women and how it should be distributed? 3. There seem to be arguments against the women based on how FIFA distributes its revenues, with FIFA vastly funding men in relation to women. So, does that mean that if the rest of the world discriminates against women, then it's ok to do it in the USA too? 4. And, back to the equal pay for equal work question, suppose that for a country a lot of the best athletes of one sex play the sport and are very successful, but for the other sex very few of the best athletes play the sport and are not so successful. Which sex's athletes should get the greater compensation?
it's complicated. we need to see sum's books. otoh, it's simple. why are the women forced to play on turf when the men aren't? why are the women's accommodations and per diem lower than that of the men? that's crazy foolish. still, these women and kessler are not stupid and dumb. they know that their 4-year revenue cycle/attendance/ratings does not equal that of the men. they know that they themselves have insisted on the low risk approach, and are enjoying, their comfortable union bargained regular salaries and benefits. therefore this is most likely, as i've said from the beginning (& others seem to indicate), not about equal pay (that's not gonna happen), but a ruse to get a federal heavy boot on their side of the balance in (i) their disagreement with ussoccer re the current/noncurrent cba (ii) the amount fifa pays out to women's teams, and (iii) the opening of sum's books again, kessler and his clients are not silly. this is all about more $$ and the next cba.
i find this such a compelling discussion due to the fact that the wnt players -- kudos to them for it -- have forced us to compare and debate two unlike things, what sports enthusiasts love doing. they know fully well mens and womens national teams and players will never earn the same, because thats purely nonsense and just ignores basic economics. each side plays in different tournaments and locations, plays a different number of games and type of games, sells a different number of tickets and advertisements, etc. tim ream will never earn what clint dempsey does; samantha mewis will never earn what carli lloyd does; michael orozco will never earn what alex morgan does; alyssa naeher will never earn what tim howard does. as mentioned ad nauseam, they want what is fair from ussf since it governs and pays both sides and has to comply with title ix ... and they want to demand things that can and should be equal, which apparently havent been like field conditions and hotel accommodations, are executed appropriately. so i want to hear two things: 1) from the wnt players, what their specific objectives are in this suit, and 2) from the ussf, how it pays its players on each side including all sources like bonuses. all of these subjective, cherry-picking, misleading articles can go circle jerk each other at wally world. as airox mentioned, bigsoccer is an infinitely better forum for this discussion than you'll find under any article or on any other site. the level of thought within those discussions is: 'they're both US soccer national teams so they should be paid equally,' or 'the wnt is more successful so they should be paid at least as much, probably more than the mnt,' or 'the mnt sucks so why do they even earn as much as the women who are world cup champions.' vast majority of people love speaking out of passion and are incapable of removing bias to think with their brain, not their heart. it's sad and pathetic how objectivity is so elusive or stubbornly untouched to some. those people dont understand or dont want to understand the differences between 1) success and value, and 2) same pay and equal pay. success often feeds value, but a team could handily win every game it plays but still hold relatively low value, just like a team less successful could hold a higher value if it is more coveted and in demand. there are trafillions of examples...
I can report that players on at least one #NWSL team have been explicitly instructed not to publicly discuss the #USWNT legal issues— Dan Lauletta (@TheDanLauletta) April 2, 2016
It is interesting to see how everything has been framed by both sides. It is more a CBA fight than a Gender Equal pay fight, even though it is being discussed in the media as the latter. The WNT is trying to cash in on the two most lucrative years of their four year cycle. The old CBA is not reflective on the success they had.