US women soccer players want equal pay to US men's team.

Having some of very little is at lest something. The women doesn't even have that, hence the lawsuit.

 

They unwittingly and ironically made a damning argument against the women's demands of equal pay. The men's World Cup, and other men's tourneys like it, such as we're going to experience in a couple months in Copa Centanario, are DRAMATICALLY bigger generators of revenue than women's tourneys, on account that women are operating at a far lower level of ability (should be obvious, but to the deluded/white knights, it bears again bringing up the U.S. u-17 boys' result of an 8-2 win against the USWNT).

Friendlies for the men's team are somewhat about generating revenue independently, but more so about preparing themselves to qualify for and make runs in tournaments that are going to make them big money and build their brand for more of that purpose in the future. Winning, drawing crowds, and ratings are of secondary interest, whether they'd admit it publicly or not.

 

True of tennis too but they get equal pay

 

Really? Then how would the negotiation work out? Would one party knowingly accept less or pay more than they know they should? No, of course not, as that is illogical.

Example: The USSF can tell the USWNT they are getting $X because, let's say, they bring X% of revenue. The USWNT in turn, could negotiate, claiming that they're worth more than that for reasons not factored into the the USSF's original cost-benefit analysis. One could be that they should be paid more based, perhaps, on an increasing upward trend of woman's soccer popularity and that the current money being offered by the USSF does not reflect that reality.

In any voluntary transaction, you are either getting what you are worth or one party is the idiot in the equation, paying more or receiving less than they should. At the end of the day, it's voluntary.

 

That's because people are not able to know fully what they are worth to the employer. The employment market is an imperfect one and both sides are trying to maximize their economic gain. An employee doesn't fully know what their worth is to that employer and the employer will not disclose it.

Two employees could sit side by side, paid exactly the same, but one is much more productive to that employer. The worth of one employee is higher than the other, but the employer will likely not act to compensate that difference until forced to.

So you say that Alex Morgan is worth exactly what Amy Rodriguez is under an agreement that she didn't negotiate? She has a greater worth in most cases, but has accepted a lesser amount to achieve other goals.

While all agreements are voluntary, power in the negotiating process (especially prospective employee to employer) is not equal.

 

Then what exactly is the USWNT going to try and argue against, if they're unaware of their own worth?

 

I would say in this situation that their worth has changed since the original agreement was struck. I think that is a pretty strong argument for an increase or change in structure to how they are paid.

I would also add that the players here are in a more transparent employment market than we are. They can see the books of their employers and know what other "similarly situated" employees are receiving. Most of us have no access to that. They can also know their individual values in the marketplace.

Most employees can't do that.

 

You think that's a strong argument? You realize the type of chaos the legal system would be if everyone else tried breaking contracts in such a manner? This is why you sign them. It says you understood the terms and agree to it. They agreed to whatever the signed. They agreed to the length of whatever they signed.

If I have an agreed salary with my employer, I don't get to sue them a year later, once I have more experience and, as result, market value, and claim that they need to pay me more now. The argument is terrible.

As to your third paragraph, it would probably have validity a few decades ago. In 2016, with the internet, if you can't find information like that, then it doesn't exist.

 

Based on the revenue numbers, they have a solid case. It is pretty shocking though the discrimination against the women's team when they are probably more popular than the men's team. Put all of their games on grass and/or professional turf fields and no more of this second rate field carpet garbage. The pay for winning the World Cup was pretty cheap in my opinion. Performance wise, the women's team is carrying US soccer by themselves. They honestly should knock down the men's pay; talk about overpaying for that garbage. The women's pro league however, doesn't really stand a chance.

 

I think women had a big revenue year with the post WC friendlies. Probably most useful to look at over more years. But, hey, maybe women's soccer is now popular enough to generate big enough revenues every year.
Maybe the men won't be able to afford a fancy-schmantzy $3M/yr coach anymore. Could turn out great for all involved.

 

The 4 year cycle of where the men did 9 million more. Last year the women I believe pulled in 20 million more rightfully so based off the World Cup. I honestly believe performance should play more of a factor. Although the men bring in more money you can argue it is the competition/opponents that are the cause.

 

You do realize that same, frankly flimsy argument could be made in reverse.

 

That's an interesting question. I guess there wasn't a list like this published anywhere last summer:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ricardo...id-coaches-at-the-the-world-cup/#4f1f92c3296b

 

True.

False. Not just false, but laughable - differences in level of play don't determine differences in popularity. It's true that the level of play in women's soccer is much lower than that of men's, but that gap provides essentially zero causal explanation for their relative marketability. According to your "logic," the u-17 boys competitions should be much more marketable than the women's national team.

I mean, do you really think that all of the male MMA fighters who make less money than Rhonda Rousey would also lose to her in a fight?

 

It is all perspective. The men's team benefits from playing better teams and higher profile friendlies. When the women's team plays they are the attraction people go see. The men's team benefits from a cash cow, while the women's team is paving new roads for women's soccer/sports in general. Should the women get paid as much as the men? No, but the current wage scale/difference is unfair and just reflects a deeper issue in society.

 

Wow. That's a strong reaction.

The two sides are in the middle of a renegotiation. I'm not talking about what the courts will say; just the two parties in a renegotiation (as the contract has or will expire soon).

And you can certainly renegotiate a contract with your employer if the circumstances change. Almost every contract has some kind of out clause. Pro athletes renegotiate all the time when their only leverage is to stop working.

As to your 3rd paragraph, I'd love to see the access on Google you have to the exact salaries and profits that companies make on each and every position within each and every company. You are talking about *market value*. That's very different than "worth." I can find all kinds of market values, but I'm not going to know how much my company makes when I sell a certain item and I certainly won't know that before I start. The CEO has access to much of that data, which may explain why they are paid multiples of what the average employee makes. Even pro athletes, who have access to massive amounts of information, aren't able to accurately gauge their true worth to a team, especially because it's hard to determine what the future holds.

 

As far as this goes I think we agree, should probably be addressed, and most likely will, if not sooner, than at very least later (when their next contract comes up).

This is where I think people like to oversimplify and distort in the name of sanctimony. Personally, I feel for people who are oppressed, people who don't have real control over their lives, or for whom options are limited, and this does indeed happen somewhat disproportionately to women, most particularly at the lower ends of the socio-economic spectrum. Alex Morgan getting paid less by the fed per game than Clint Dempsey isn't exactly something that registers very strongly on that scale, I think, nor do I think it reflective of the injustice of society in any way, shape or form (and think for a moment how the stars of the WNT make more than most of those on the MNT do before getting too bent out of shape on that soapbox). Players like Morgan and Solo are by all measures privileged young women with a disproportionate chunk of the world at their feet, as are most celebrities who get paid a lot to be in the public eye and entertain. They have little-to-nothing in common with "a deeper issue in society."

 

Not arguing it is a different realm where there is more money. I'm arguing that performance should play a role when discussing some aspects of pay scale. When your women's team is winning World Cups and getting pretty large TV audiences that should factor in. The pay scale now is a disgrace to the past 4 year cycle, and I applaud the women's team for trying to get their due.

 

The job of a US national is to bring in revenue. Pay should be relative to revenue generated. Simple as that.

 

Would the federation allow the men's team to play on the fields the women's team plays on? Why do you think it has taken so long for women's soccer to be even relevant? Yeah, I suppose I could pretend there is no male bias in society.

 

The "men" DO play week-in-week-out on those very same pitches in MLS. This issue isn't as gendered as you choose to think. For one thing, USSF operates the USWNT practically as a club with as many friendlies as they schedule. This is primarily for the benefit of the players on the team (the non-stars), thus allowing them full-time professional status.