The MOU is in the USSF's original filing (linked on first page of thread) and in the players' response (linked in post #93; Exhibit B).
I really should have read some of those links before posting. They are excellent. Thanks for all the info.
It's not an easy thing to think on. I do think that the NT players are being "pushed" to play in the NWSL by the federation so if they're sacrificing a higher salary because of it then they should be compensated for that (e.g. Press could be playing for a top team right now undoubtedly). The other issue here is who determines the salary cap for the NWSL? That's a huge part of it as well because if the cap rises then should the NT compensation rise as well? In short, they should have a base pay (I won't give an amount because I'm not familiar with sports wages in the US especially for women), compensation for their NWSL play (if they play in the NWSL), bonuses for major tournaments and bonuses for clean sheets, goals etc in major tournaments. Basically, the Tier 1 players salaries should be the same as their counterparts in Europe who are paid quite a bit by their clubs. When the NWSL becomes stable enough to stop relying on USSF (fingers-crossed) then this NT salary structure can be re-addressed. TL;DR I'm conflicted about it
My opinion is that USSOCCER should pay WNT player's per performance and not annually. The reason USSOCCER pays annual salaries is a remnant from the years when there were no professional leagues. However, so long as professional leagues exist both here and abroad, USSOCCER shouldn't need to pay annual national team salaries. Removing annual WNT salaries would remove many of the disincentives which work against calling up new players and naming diverse rosters. It would also encourage players to play better in order to get more call-ups. Although most current national team players probably don't need this incentive it could encourage mid-career players who have thus far been locked out of the national team. Eventually I would like USSOCCER to stop paying NWSL salaries as well. However, it is probably far too early for that. Assuming the NWSL continues to grow, eventually the club teams themselves will be able to fully pay for all of their marquee players, allowing USSOCCER to save the money it currently puts towards NWSL salaries and in stead apply it to WNT player appearance fees. A good interim arrangement could be USSOCCER providing a flat subsidy (say $200,000-300,000) to each NWSL team to distribute towards player salaries as the club teams see fit.
Well, here's the USWNT counter filing. http://media.philly.com/documents/20160208_uswnt_response.pdf And and article that explains their position, including that the USSF admists in its own releases that there is no CBA. http://screamer.deadspin.com/uswnt-players-association-files-withering-response-to-u-1757963962
Yes and no. I know this has been the story woso people have said the last decade or so, but now that we have the CBAs, its not entirely accurate. Yes, there were annual "salaries" prior to the first CBA, yet, if you go back and read the first CBA (2000), starting in 2001 with the WUSA, WNT players were paid based on appearances and without a guaranteed WNT salary. That's actually exactly what you're asking for, right? Most of the WNT players chose to still play in the WUSA (of course, at that point in woso development, the salaries in WUSA were more than almost anywhere else in the world; the same would not be true of NWSL). Additionally, most of the same WNT players kept getting called into camp although some new faces showed up, too. (Boxx and Wambach owe a debt of gratitude to the WUSA.) That all changed after the WUSA folded, and there was no women's league when the 2005 CBA was signed. So I suggest it would be more accurate to say the reason for the guaranteed annual WNT salaries under the 2005 CBA and 2013 MOU is that we found out that the system of paying the WNT by appearance and relying on the WUSA club for a salary was just not sustainable, at least at that point. I'd also venture to guess its not sustainable now because if USSF did what you're asking with a flat subsidy many (but not all) WNT players would find that they could demand a higher salary overseas. So say, many of the marquee WNT players venture overseas, will USSF keep investing in NWSL? I'd guess not. And NWSL is not at the point yet where it would be sustainable without any marquee WNT players and the USSF financial investment. Of course, maybe not all the WNT players would chase the money in Europe since many would be content making less playing near family, husbands, and friends. But I would hate to see the implementation of such a system be the downfall of yet another woso league unless we were SURE that it would be sustainable. Hopefully what you're asking for will be in the future, but woso club salaries worldwide (not just in the US league) are just not there yet, imo. Moreover, that's not the only current reason the WNT get salaries. With paying salaries (both WNT salary and NWSL salary), USSF is also maintaining control over its players. They get to dictate that the players play in the NWSL. (And yes, if you read the MOU, USSF is demanding that WNT players under contract play in the NWSL. Players had the chance to opt out a year or two and play in Europe, but they do have to play at least some time in the NWSL.) With annual salaries and the investment into NWSL, USSF also can pull players into camp or for a game at any time, even outside of FIFA dates.
The only real downside/upside (depending on what side you are on) to the annual salary is that players have a security that makes it harder for them to be dropped from the national team and harder for some players to make the national team. The USWNT is more talented than any other nation 1-23, so this may not be a problem, but the Shannon Boxx and Chalupny Lifetime Achievement Roster Spots were somewhat due to the current CBA.
I would sum it up less "he said, she said" and more "what you want, we don't want." The next thing we're waiting for is the March 1 deadline given for the WNTPA's response to USSF's original filing. (The response we just saw was just a rebuttal against USSF's request for an expedited briefing schedule.) It will be interesting to see if anything new turns up in that. Oh, for sure. The contracts make it harder to break into the team. To be clear, I would love for this current CBA/annual salary structure to go away. I'm just not sure we're there yet. I would be willing to be proven wrong though if USSF were to decide to do the lump payment to NWSL/NWSL clubs instead of allocation.
Here is a bit of analysis on the downsides of this system tucked into a story about the lawsuit. http://americansoccernow.com/articles/divided-loyalties-lawsuits-u-s-soccer-and-the-nwsl
Sheesh...this is all part of negotiating, the players want to negotiate now, while they have leverage (that they earned on the field) with the Olys coming up. The Fed wants the women to go away and stop winning (or at least do it while saying thanks for whatever the fed wants to pay). The NWSL isn't in the balance, the players want the league, and for USSF, it's probably cheaper to subsidize the league than run a full time WNT without it. The way the lawsuit was filed was just another tone deaf move by a federation that pretty much has made tone deaf its modus operandi (small sided leagues anyone? age group changes? DA vs. HS?).
It's getting close to the time when NWSL players need to form their own Union or PA. As it stands now, the non USWNT players have no leverage whatever.
Gotta feel for the players now. However, if they press too hard for more $$ the league may end up folding like the other two. In time I'm sure it'll all work out.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but the leverage the players have right now is the threat to strike and have it continue through the Olympics.
I would argue the leverage is threatening to strike DURING the Olympics. And the federation is trying to maintain that they don't have that option. I don't see anything that makes me worried a strike is likely, but to have it off the table? Negotiating with the Fed is awful in the best of circumstances...without the possibility of a strike the WNT is basically just standing there hat in hand.
The fed won't take players to the Olympics that haven't agreed to not strike. They will take a replacement team first.
If the replacement team does well, it could, the Uswnt has no leverage. The Uswnt have star power aka name recognition and face recognition
You can make the argument that the US could take 3 different teams to the Olympics & still be favorites to win.
Which has kind of been my point of this team. The NWSL is really a losing proposition for any non National Team player who has to work other jobs or has no interest in coaching at some level. As much as a league is important for the success of the national team, very few players are playing in the league and getting a real chance in the national team if not for long term injury and/or pregnancy. It has nothing to do with form. There are players who have been able to walk into this team and be starters.
Labor disputes are unfortunately part of the modus operandi of the USSF. There was a strike by the team in '95, another labor dispute after the '99 title and a history of squabbles. Their latest suit initially strikes me as man bites dog (obviously, that is not meant to equate the USWNT with canines, so anyone inclined to say otherwise can shut up now).
The PA doesn't help their case by not representing the interests of the majority of the players in the nwsl, who currently have no voice whatever in their status as employees as a group.
Update: Last Tuesday, the PA filed their response to the USSF. Then last Thursday, both sides met to set up the deadlines for the rest of the case. Most importantly, there will be oral arguments at the end of May. The timetable: Thursday, March 31: Deadline for both sides to establish their sets of facts Tuesday, April 12: Deadline for both sides to counter those facts Tuesday, May 3: Deadline for responses to the April 12 filings Thursday, May 12: Deadline for responses to the May 3 filings Thursday, May 26: Oral arguments You can read more here, including a summary of the PA response to the USSF.
Bumping this thread because a little over week ago, more filings dropped (according to twitter) in which both parties have now filed for a summary judgment. Tannenwald didn't post them on his philly.com blog this time yet (or at least not that I've seen), and so I am wondering if anyone else has seen the actual documents that were filed on April 12 anywhere?
Here is an article on the motions from a legal blog http://www.law360.com/articles/783963/us-soccer-women-s-national-team-seek-end-to-cba-row if that does not give full story, google sharon coleman judge soccer
Here is a link to the PA's Motion for Summary Judgment. Although the USSF likewise has filed a motion for summary judgment, I haven't been able to find it. The court will grant a motion for summary judgment only if there is no issue of material fact. On reading the PA's motion I'm a little doubtful the court will grant either side's motion. If that's the outcome of these motions, then the case will proceed to trial unless settled. Proceeding to trial most likely would carry the case until after the Olympics, which looks to me like it would be an effective win for the USSF. On the other hand, it also looks possible to me that the court would grant the PA's motion, which would mean there is not a "no strike, no lockout" limitation on either the PA or the USSF. But, I haven't read the USSF's motion, so there's no way to have a full picture of the legal issues until I've seen that. If anyone has a link, please post it. I suggest reading the first part of the PA motion that precedes the legal arguments. It provides good background. To me, it makes the USSF look pretty incompetent -- trying to handle something in house that they should have farmed out to professionals.