USSF has issued a statement: Basically, they seem to be asking the court to say either there is or isn't a CBA in place today (through the executed Memorandum of Understanding).
And, of more immediate import as a sub-question, whether the USWNT members have the right to strike. In the CBA, they agreed to a no-strike clause. The strike question is of import to both the NWSL season and the Olympics. This mostly seems to me to be the USSF wanting to get that question resolved so that, if the USSF is right, it won't have to continue bargaining under threat of a strike.
Well, to state the obvious, the union loses a lot of leverage after the Olympics so I can see them wanting the matter settled before.
#USWNT salaries for playing in the #NWSL:-Tier 1 (World Cup players): $72k-Tier 2 (World Cup/Olympic alternates): $51k-Tier 3: $36k— Caitlin Murray (@caitlinmurr) February 4, 2016
So from that it looks like all WC players got pushed to tier 1 which has been past practice for winning big tournaments
Rich Nichols and I talked a little about #USWNT budget stuff too, but no room in my story. This sums up the tone: pic.twitter.com/Nm6RDSmozv— Caitlin Murray (@caitlinmurr) February 4, 2016
For those who haven't found them yet, @thegoalkeeper put all 217 pages of US SOCCER-USWNT court filings here: https://t.co/4mDAwR92xc— Steve Fenn //\\ Mast: StatHunting@skrimmage.com (@StatHunting) February 4, 2016
Good summary: http://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2016/2/3/10911558/understanding-ussf-uswnt-cba-dispute-lawsuit And in finding the silver lining: I don't like how its come about, but I am excited about the CBA terms becoming public.
This would be very difficult for the players to do. If they refuse to play on turf, what happens to the NWSL?
I think it's only for the Nats. The players can decide where they play club - sort of. But it does raise the issue that temporary Sod fields aren't any solution either. For the Men, The Gold cup in Seattle in 2013 and the Alamo dome vs Mexico were horrible. Mexico threatened to cancel. The men often can't find the right natural grass pitches and often make do with quickly installed sod, and the results are never good. I don't have confidence that the women could do better. http://fusion.net/story/119993/usa-vs-mexico-surface-temporary-grass-usa-san-antonio/ Hawai'i was a cluster because nobody checked the field. With grass, there is no standard to check. There needs to be some standard for grass pitches as well.
From reading through the docs, I don't see that the MOU itself contains any of the language that would indicate the former CBA was still active except one or two phrases referring to the prior CBA but only seeming to affect that item (e.g. "Tickets: WNT tickets will be treated the same as under the prior CBA...".) The only line about its expiration is "Term of WNT contract: 4 years." The MOU itself also does not contain a "no strike/no lockout" clause. For those who don't want to read through the docs, USSF's position seems to me (someone without any law background) to rely heavily on the following: 1) An e-mail dated March 19, 2013, from Ballard Spahr law firm to Sunil Gulati with this line: "As we have previously agreed, the general principle we are working under is that terms we have not specifically covered in the Memorandum of Understanding would remain the same as under the prior CBA, but with appropriate increases/adjustments/changes. We will address the specifics when we get to drafting the new CBA." 2) John Langel's statement under oath on April 29, 2014, agreeing that "the memorandum of understanding...made certain financial changes, but other than matters specifically identified in the memorandum of understanding, the terms of the expired CBA the parties have agreed will continue to control."
Additionally, the MOU stipulates that players receive: 1. a portion of ticket revenue: $1.20/ticket of home friendlies (same terms as the agreement with the MNT) 2. Friendly win bonus of $1350 3. Placement bonuses: WC/Olympic gold bonus of $75,000/player, silver bonus of $32,500/player, bronze of $20,000/player, and 4th place bonus of $10,000/player 4. WC/Olympic tournament roster bonus of $15,000 5. WC/Olympic qualifying bonus of $15,000 6. Gold place victory tour (10 games) bonus of 1.8 million to the player pool 7. Per diem 8. Sponsor appearance fee of $3000 (up to 5 appearances/yr) 9. Also the MOU stipulates NWSL league salary (with an annual increase) Extras: 1. 3 months' severance 2. Provide childcare if needed at $25/child/day 3. Relocation expenses of up to $625 4. Agreement on terms for injury and pregnancy (basically the same as what we already knew from previous CBA)
Of course, one can argue that the MOU exists only because of the existence of the CBA. Otherwise, it would be a separate CBA.
There is that argument plus the fact that some items are not defined in the MOU and require the prior CBA for clarification.
I'm just going to keep pulling out the interesting pieces, because this is fascinating stuff: From an e-mail on Nov. 24, 2014 when John Langel notified USSF that Rich Nichols was taking over as the Players' Association's counsel: 1. Kling was made the 18th Tier 1 player after Loyden's severance ended. 2. The players wanted to get Dunn her WC qualifying roster bonus despite her injury but USSF disagreed. At the time, they were still discussing it, but no outcome is mentioned. Dunn was moved to Tier 2 on Nov. 1, 2014. 3. Fox wanted to make a WC documentary like ESPN did for the MNT. The players did not give consent (Caitlyn Murray reported on twitter that the reason the players refused was because they wanted money. Did the MNT receive any money for the ESPN documentary?) 4. Barnie was seemingly terminated Dec. 31, 2014 (no reason stated in e-mail, but she would not be terminated prior to the end of 2014), but still received her NWSL salary in 2015. 5. Shannon Boxx, like Barnhart, could not be terminated prior to Dec. 31, 2014, but obviously in her case, Boxx was given a 2015 contract. 6. Based on Julie Johnston's case, Langel recommended adjusting the number of "floater" days. And then in that e-mail, there's this: "The parties need to edit, where applicable, the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Uniform Player Agreement consistent with the March, 2013 Memorandum of Understanding." Well, yeah, it seems like that would have been a good idea.
The court presentation of the the USSF contains a number of e-mails to the player's union, with addressees including Sauerbrunn, Lloyd, Solo, Rapinoe, and Morgan -- but no other players. Why were those 5 chosen? Lloyd and Sauerbrunn I can see because they are team captains. Why Rapinoe, Solo, and Morgan? Are they the union shop stewards? Do they represent the national team players?
I'd guess that the reason is that all or most of them hold some position in the WNT Players' Association and thus represent the rest of the team in negotiations. If you look at the Players' Association's constitution and by-laws, it calls for three "Players Representatives." Also in the Labor Organization Annual Report (2013; Exhibit F), Rampone is listed as President, Wambach as Vice-President, and Boxx as Treasurer.
Seems like pretty basic lawyering to me. Whenever I have written MOUs, MOIs or amendments in the past, I always refer the original document(s). IANAL and do not play one on TV, BTW.
Guardian article on the suit with some quotations from Nichols: http://www.theguardian.com/football...ng-its-own-world-cup-winners?CMP=share_btn_tw Video with Foudy on ESPN: http://www.espnfc.com/team/united-states/2765/video/2800698 Foudy's opinion is that USSF has a strong case, and she says it could take about 8 weeks for a ruling.