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

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by McSkillz, Aug 1, 2019.

  1. BostonRed

    BostonRed Member+

    Oct 9, 2011
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Add in that the MNT sometimes goes to smaller venues to deliberately restrict the size of the crowd. Going to Columbus for US-Mexico is done to minimize the number of Mexican fans who might come in to root for their team if it were held at a much bigger venue (complicated by the inability of US venues to stop fans from the other team from buying tickets).

    The women have the odd situation of drawing much better for friendlies than they do for Concacaf qualifying matches. That's why that meme that circulated a couple of years ago about the women drawing more for their friendlies than men was misleading. It left out the WNT's lowest drawing matches and included the men's lowest drawing matches. This was for 2016 when the MNT competitive matches drew very well during Copa America.
     
    Namdynamo, Auriaprottu and Timon19 repped this.
  2. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    The exercise of compiling the attendances lays this observation bare. You can add SBC in there, too, as a huge attendance suck. It's almost comical how different the USWNT attendances are for friendlies vs. competitive matches.
     
  3. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Member+

    Feb 11, 2002
    Jupiter, Fl.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sure, the crowd is there to see both teams, otherwise you don't have a game. But the question presented was which team "draws" more. This calculation is forever skewed by the large amount of opposing fans at most men's games. They are drawn by the opposition not by the US men
     
  4. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Member+

    Feb 11, 2002
    Jupiter, Fl.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I personally disagree with the revenue rabbit hole, because I'm not convinced as to the extent that the Court will consider that when determining if a nonprofit is discriminatory in paying their employees.

    But since everyone else discusses it, I usually end up entering the conversation anyway.

    But if the revenue rabbit hole is considered by the Court, I suspect it will be an affirmative defense where US soccer would have to prove it, and not the women.
     
    BrooklynSoccer repped this.
  5. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Chicago76, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and tone of your posts.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  6. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    Increasingly, they are drawn by both. These are communities in transition, and often the first generation to be born in the US has adopted the US as a second team.
     
  7. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    I don't think so. US Soccer's affirmative case is built on three basic factors related to economics:
    -differences in the WC pool by FIFA
    -top line gate differences per match (for friendly comp)
    -the structures of the two deals fixed + lower variable comp vs. all variable comp

    That should be enough. If the WNT wants to poke holes in the affirmative case, they'll be the party like profit split US vs. opponent and the like. All the rabbit hole arguments.

    The problem with undercutting the affirmative case and going down the rabbit hole is that it introduces all types of arguments for US Soccer to distinguish between the men and women's side of the game, ie, they are fundamentally two separate and distinct markets that do not do the same work or operate in the same realities. In light of these differences, they should not be compensated the same...in terms of overall compensation or in how that compensation is structured.

    -venue selection to maximize gates
    -scheduling differences
    -competitive differences. For example the UEFA top 13 vs. non top 13 squads in continental finals, qual, WC, WC quals, Oly and Oly quals. The top 13 roll over everyone else, so the field isn't as deep, qualifying/advancing from group/advancing to quarters is much easier, etc.

    It won't go this far anyway. US Soccer will throw them a bone somewhere and get them to go away before it escalates to this point.
     
  8. BrooklynSoccer

    BrooklynSoccer Member+

    Jan 22, 2008
    Where are you hearing USsoccer's case is based on Fifa's WC pool money? Wouldn't that would be strange... that has nothing to do with with USsoccer.

    There's been a lot of interesting discussions here, but isn't the case about USsoccer, the Federation, treating and paying females differently?
    The isn't about a league or private companies or FIFA.
     
  9. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    #209 Chicago76, Aug 9, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
    Compensation is related to revenue sources used to pay employees. If the allegations are (in part) based upon World Cup bonuses, then the source of those bonuses is relevant. No matter if we're talking about a for profit or not for profit entity. And their attorneys mention World Cup bonus structure, so....

    https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...laint/f9367608e2eaf10873f4/optimized/full.pdf

    That's the USWNT's take on it. That the FIFA bonus pool is irrelevant. It shouldn't matter who is paying what to US Soccer and what they're paying for. The work is equal and therefore the compensation is equal. Except the quanity/quality of production affirmative is low hanging fruit.

    The women are marking more for appearing on the WC roster, advancing and winning (4.225 million, regardless of how they compile wins/losses/draws to win the WC) than the earnings pool available to them ($4 million). Not the case for men. Applying the WNT argument here to other applications leads to some very perverse outcomes. Broker activities on a 400,000 vs. 40,000,000 house could very well require the same work. But should they be paid the same commission/bonus?

    The bulk of the allegations can be successfully refuted through similar simple analysis. There are some stronger points the WNT can make in certain areas, but those are much smaller comp levers to pull.

    If there's one thing that does come out of this, it's that future CBAs for both the men and women will probably be crafted in such a way that quantity/quality proportional commission/bonus rates are stated in much more explicit terms. $X per friendly, based Y% of gate from prior cycle, subject to true-up at the end of the year in the case actual gate exceeds estimates used to derive the initial appearance fee. Like a gate bonus. Z% of the team pool based upon FIFA comp schedules, etc.
     
  10. BrooklynSoccer

    BrooklynSoccer Member+

    Jan 22, 2008
    Right, got it. Below is a section from the lawsuit, which doesn't mention FIFA, just payments received by players during the WC. So, FIFA must pay the Federation during the WC and not each team separately, or each player as an individual.

    FIFA is mentioned 5 times in the lawsuit, basically all regarding payment differences for opponents ranked by FIFA.

    61. The pay for advancement through the rounds of the World Cup was so skewed that, in 2014, the USSF provided the MNT with performance bonuses totaling $5,375,000 for losing in the Round of 16, while, in 2015, the USSF provided the WNT with only $1,725,000 for winning the entire tournament. The WNT earned more than three times less than the MNT while performing demonstrably better.
     
  11. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    #211 Chicago76, Aug 9, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
    Fifa pays each fed. Each fed can distribute that pool of cash as they see fit. Same for each player, by appearance, minutes played, their height, whatever. Or not pay them at all.

    Based upon funds available by FIFA, the women got more than the men. The men received just under 60% of the 9 million awarded by FIFA to every team that went out at R16 in the 2014 men’s WC.

    And the women received just over 86% of FIFA’s 2 million payout to the winner of WWC 2015.
     

Share This Page