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

the funny part about this is that they all get a base salary..the women would never agree to this. the other issue I don't know how norway will get around is the men have to play a lot more matches.

 

The women have played 18 matches in 2017, the men 9.

 

Given how badly the MNT screwed up by not qualifying, the WNT is the only one of the programs that still at least has any credibility at this point. They ought to be paid more until the Men's program gets its shit together, which is looking unlikely for the next 10 - 15 years or so.

The men are the laughing stock of world soccer. San Marino is taken more seriously than them at this point.

 

Riiiiight.

 

I assume you are saying norway...thats because the men didn't qualify for euros.

 

love the over the top stuff; you must be great on twitter.

 

CONCACAF is the federation no-one cares about.

 

Yes I did. If Norway's men had qualified for the Euros it would have been 12.

 

wow

so I did this crazy thing

https://us.women.soccerway.com/teams/norway/norway/4120/matches/

says they played 16 matches which included a tourney, euro, wcq and friendlies.

men played in 9 all but three were world cup qualifiers.

the point being that the women played in euros men didnt and women have a made up tourney they played in thats the diff.

the real issue is though my point was talking about the us women's team never agreeing to just an equal salary and that being it and the us men play in more real matches. wc qualifying takes 2+ years and they play 16 matches across concacaf; the women qualify 5 matches over a few weeks.

 

Not what I mean. You get money for appearing in games. For the Men, I think they get more money per-appearance. The WNT has a weird structure where if you appear in "X" number of games, you get a salary, benefits, etc. Otherwise, if you're just there for a one-off, you get an appearance check, that's it.

Obviously, the top, marketable, WNT stars make lots of money in endorsements and stuff, plus many play overseas.

For the other 15-20 WNT players who play regularly, they're doing OK. They make good money playing for the NT and whatever USSF-sponsored NWSL team they're on.

For everyone else, it's begging for scraps. They aren't WNT stalwarts, so they get no extra benefits or salary from USSF. They have no steady diet of WNT callup appearance bonuses. So when they get a 4,000 dollar, instead of a 6,000 dollar (I believe that this discrepancy is accurate-enough for ballpark purposes, I don't remember the real numbers) bonus for their appearance, it hurts. Because they need that extra 2 grand when they depend on those appearances to remain pro or semi-pro soccer players.

 

I haven't seen the new contract, but the old WNT contract made the core group of players (~18 - 23 players) essentially salaried employees with benefits such as retirement, health insurance, maternity leave, etc. The salary was like 72k. They also only got bonuses for friendly wins. The rest of the bonuses were dependent on how much money they got from the tournament. They often got a large share of the the money vs the fed. The women's team only allowed a few players to join the team each year and it took a year for a set member to get dropped from the core.

The men are essentially contractors who get money for a call up and if they get called up and a bonus for winning or losing but getting on the field. The range of bonuses increased depending on the opponent. There other bonuses came from tournament prize money which often was much larger than the womens tournaments. Unlike the women, they never got benefits from USSF.

The two deals were very different. There were years when the WNT players got more than the MNT (Olympic Years).

An issue that was brought up by the WNT was that they would play 20 games a year and get a minimum of 72k, while men would play 20 games and get a min of 100k. However, the men don't play nearly as many games and a MNT has rarely played in every game or been a part of every game in the calendar year.

That entire discussion was really intellectually dishonest since it was comparing apples and oranges with the only similarity being they were picked from the same fruit farm.

 

this is literally all fact thank you for saying it all.

the best line was when you said 'the entire discussion was really intellectually dishonest'....which was and still is completely true.

I really think that people like wynalda are really making themselves out to look dumb if they become president and when they get inside us soccer and someone actually shows them the difference between the men's and women's team. I've heard that when it comes to like merch the men outsell the women like 6 to 1.

 

Now taking their case to federal court:

US women's national team take legal action over discrimination

 

What they have to realize is that it is not the same work.

The women play against other women teams that would probably lose to our U-17 team by 10 goals.

Now if they were playing against Men I would pay them the same wages but they are not, they are playing horrible womens teams (relative to the men).

It is as simple as that. Gotta call a spade a spade.

 

If the USSF offered the women the same deal that the men have...…………..they wouldn't take it.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Heck, though. More power to 'em. They're in a position of strength right now, and are fighting for what they can get.

 

It ultimately should come down to revenue generation, not so much quality of opponent or female vs male sporting prowess. The women's complaint seems to be that the men take a larger % of revenue than they do, but do they also recognize that the men generate a larger % of the total revenue?

I think they'll get a raise out of this, but I would be shocked if they managed a 50-50 split.

 

Physiologically it's the same work, in terms of time and travel its the same work.

I think the women are looking at it from a business perspective. They generate just as much revenue and interest and the men, which is not much.

 

Both premises are wrong.

 

Sure...………..but their current contract was collectively bargained. Their players union agreed to this 5-year deal in 2017. So now they're suing the USSF for the parameters of a deal that they JUST agreed to.

https://thinkprogress.org/womens-soccer-secures-new-deal-ffe06dc4b9e1/

As reported by the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, some of the most important parts of the deal they signed in 2017 include:

• A “sizable increase” in base pay for the USWNT players and bigger bonuses, which could lead to some players doubling their incomes and earning $200,000 to $300,000 per year — and even more during World Cup years.
• Improved travel accommodations and working conditions — a category that likely includes field quality.
• Union control over some of the USWNT licensing and marketing rights.
• Greater support the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), with a continued commitment to pay NWSL salaries for allocated USWNT players, additional field and stadium oversight, and greater bonuses for players who don’t have a USWNT contract.
• Per diems that are equal to the ones the men’s nation team receives.
• More support for pregnant players who are pregnant or adopting a child.

And pay careful attention to bullet point 4. The USSF PAYS FOR THE CLUB SALARIES OF USWNT players. Not only that, they prop up their whole league financially.

So comparing to the men is apples and oranges.

I have no problem with the women fighting for everything they can get. But to agree to their contract, advertise it as a win for Women's rights, and then sue the USSF for the parameters of that contract on the basis of discrimination less than two years later...…………...smacks of what?

 

Being ungrateful and/or naive when it comes to business.

 

I'm fine paying the women the same as the men as long as the contracts vanish. If Lloyd wants the same payday as Zardes she should agree to the same job security as Zardes.

 

It is not the same work because they do not compete against the men.

 

It's more than just revenue structure. There's the cost structure and global economic factors as well. Let's put it this way. I'm going to offer you a prestigious consulting gig that could potentially threaten your future employment prospects. If something goes wrong, you're no longer employable (injury).

Scenario A: you're making $2 million a year at your firm
Scenario B: you're making $200,000 a year in your firm

Let's say I offer you $50,000 under both scenarios for a month of work. Under which scenario are you more likely to refuse the offer, citing risk to your career? Is $50,000 when you're on $2 million a year seem as valuable to you as $50,000 when you're on $200,000 a year?

 

I mean, this lawsuit is a PR stunt designed to generate woke clicks, but at the same time, the Men are able to bargain from a stronger position just because unlike the WNT players, they're making most of their money from club ball, so the positions they negotiate from aren't really equal.

Though at the same time, the MNT has forced a work stoppage that introduced the world to Clyde Simms, whereas the women have declined to do such a thing.

 

I suppose that is true when it comes to the men bargaining for their share, but that doesn't really excuse the women not making an appropriate amount relative to their contributions to USSF revenue, assuming that they are not already adequately compensated in this way.