USWNT lawsuit against USSF for getting paid less than USMNT

Did you read the entire post?

 

Ya, really. For one, a violation if FIFA regs does not make anything "illegal." Ya, you clearly are not a lawyer.

For two, why don't you post why it would be "illegal" instead of providing a link to FIFA.

For three, I've said, if FIFA has a problem with it, just make two different administrative bodies under a single USSF umbrella. Done.

 

I did.

 

And you still want to work for me?

 

Like calling anyone who disagrees with you an incel "further's the conversation."

But, that's who you are. I got the notice "superdave responded to your comment" I thought "oh, great, here comes a pissing match." Then I thought "no, seems like dave has settled down. Maybe his reply will be interesting?"

Nope, same old dave. Name calling w/o any substantive reply.

Keep "furthering the conversation" bruh

 

Well, probably not - I can't imagine that job would last long, with a head that says "it doesn't matter who brings in the money."

But, dang, there are a lot of people who would feel like "it doesn't matter who drives revenue, we're all paid the same! But, y'all over there, you keep working hard!"

 

National team soccer is different from damn near any job and I have no problem paying these professionals the same. I also gave a list of what the women would give up if they wanted equal pay. My guess is they don't want anything at all like the men have.

When are you starting? I could use some help.

 

Yes, and when the National Team is also paying your salaries and keeping your professional league afloat, it's "different" than what we traditionally consider "professional soccer".

I mean, it's just such a murky area. There are people that have a job playing soccer only because the USSF exists. Women's soccer, without being funded by the USSF, would not exist as a professional sport in this country (and many times, has failed and ceased to be a professional sport).

But, as far as I can tell, the USSF sets the rules. And so long as they abide by the CBA with each union, there's just no standing here. Once the CBA period is over, the USSF could just set up whatever rules they wished.

For example, if the USSF decided to pay all of its players 1 dollar each, would any USSF players have the standing to complain about discrimination? They would complain, or not come, but there's no rule that you have to give players "x" amount of dollars to play. The rules governing compensation are created every time there is a collective bargaining agreement, not from a natural pre-ordained standard set by FIFA or US law.

And what if USSF wanted to "entice" someone to play for the USA, and gave a bigger game check to that player? Say, give Efrain Alvarez double the appearance bonus. Or Mallory Pugh (and only her) $10,000 per goal scored. Is that not allowed? It's not necessarily "fair", but there are bonuses for the team, so what's the problem with bonuses for individual performance?

 

Allow me to reiterate...I’m saying that to people who think women should get paid less because the men could beat them 30-0. I’m sorry, I’m just incapable of hiding my disdain for that level of stupidity and hysteria.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m doubtful that would fool a judge or arbitrator. The pretext seems pretty clear to me. But, again, IANAL.

 

No one is saying that. And, even if they were, Incel is a pretty inarticulate response.

Fool? on what basis? What's wrong with running the programs separately.

And, like I said, if the women really believe what they're saying, they should be clamoring for a separately run fed, or division of the fed. Just like when Foudy said she didn't want MLS riding on he women's league's coattails LOL! But, ya, if they women bring in more bucks, they should be calling for them to be able to keep their own bucks.

 

For international team play, when paid by the same employer?

Hell yes!

For club play, when paid by different employers?

Of course not.

This distinction is missed by many criticizing the women's national team's position.

 

I don't think this is the proper test. The argument is equal pay for equal work. The stronger argument against the women's team's position is that it's not equal work.

However:

Equal pay for similar work is a concept that does not depend on generation of income, it's dependent on the work, not the results, or should be...

If a man works for General Motors on the Cadillac assembly line and a woman works for General Motors on the Chevy assembly line, and they are doing the same work, they should get paid the same without regard to which General Motors line generates more income.

 

Suing gives them leverage in the CBA, more than saying "well we deserve better because we deserve better". The other leverage move is to go on strike, but they have a World Cup coming up...

 

Funny, I said as long ago as 2002, here on Big Soccer, when I saw the bonus structure the men got for making the quarterfinals of that World Cup, compared to how the women were paid for winning in 1999, that there was a possible discrimination case there...

 

I wish people would at least try to get educated before spouting off.

Age discrimination, at least under federal law, is limited to a protected class of those over 40.

Unless the law has quite surprisingly changed in the last few years since I had such cases.

 

How come USSoccer doesn't pay Christian Pulisic when he's at Dortmund, but they pay the "club" salaries of every USWNT player playing in the NWSL, and also subsidize the league as a whole?

And how come the Men don't get healthcare and paternity leave?

It's almost as if there are two separate collective bargaining agreements, and that it would be really silly if the WNT Player's Union were to sign an agreement less than 2 years ago, then file another suit based on the same premise as the previous grievance.

Weird how that works.

As an aside, I was looking into the NWSL to see if any of the teams make money (it looks like the Thorns do, possibly the Reign and perhaps the Royals will soon, but otherwise the rest are losing), and I found an interesting article from 2016 on the USSF budget.

https://www.philly.com/philly/blogs...S-Soccers-budget-for-national-teams-NWSL.html

So, the USWNT, by winning the 2015 WC, with the best attendance and most publicity and everything... cost the USSF 2.2 million dollars.

Suddenly I'm not shocked that the USSF isn't in a hurry to keep doling out more money to the USWNT's salaries when they're unable to get their money back from a 2015 WC in Canada...

 

Lloyd,

Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful counter-argument.

I think that there's a significant difference between a material good (e.g., car) and a service. In soccer, the players are the product while not so for the GM built car.

Separately, what would the argument be that the USMNT and WNT are not equal work? Thanks.

 

There are literally people saying that, and other people saying "they can't beat a U-17 select team," and another person threw in a post about what if an average male college player has sex reassignment surgery and tries out for the USWNT. (Some of these might be in other threads.)

If it's done as a pretext to dodge this lawsuit, such tactics often get slammed by judges. I see that all the time in news stories. Since IANAL I don't know if that would happen in this case, just pointing out it might.

I'll say it again...this is a Title IX mentality. That works, legally, at the collegiate level. Nobody has cited anything on the legal front showing that argument works for the Nats. Now, if you're making a moral/ethical argument, that's a different thing.

 

I understand how they would like to make headlines and litigate this in the press, but ultimately they have to negotiate with resolve. If they truly believe they should merit the same in pay, the union should suggest a strike until they get what they believe they are worth. Contracts are legally binding, but players are human beings. USSF cannot make a player play if she refuses to play. If they all refuse to play, US Soccer will buckle. If they don't, they will start losing money, and in time will come to negotiate. It will be tough on the current crop of players, but if they are united in their beliefs, they should stand behind them.

 

The legal questions around this are perfectly suited to earn a group of lawyers an awful lot of money and ultimately not solve a damn thing.

 

Do you think that if the USSF makes roughly the same economics from attendance and TV (i.e., the ratings for games that they get paid for a season are comparable) that players on the two teams should make the same? Or is it irrelevant?

 

People get too worried about this sort of thing. It's not going to affect the team on the field. The men will still get plenty of resources. So, not sure why people care so much if the women get some cash too. If there's little to no effect on the men's team, why does it even matter if the women start to get treated better? Just enjoy the team you want to watch and as long as their needs are met, maybe just ignore the teams you don't care about. I have no idea why anyone would get so offended to think the women who also dedicate their lives to this game may actually be able to make a decent living at it. It's not like the women are going to suddenly get all the money and the men will be playing in a sand lot.

 

1. If more money goes to the women, less goes everywhere else.
2. I've been advised not to suggest why people get so upset about this. I do find the highly emotional reactions to be...troubling.
3. You are asserting, I think, that they aren't make a "decent living" now. That is not true.

 

Leaving aside the legal issues, this seems to bear precisely on the moral question. The USSF has a responsibility to promote soccer in all its aspects and part of promotion is spending money. We are OK with subsidizing beach soccer but not to the point that they get equal pay with the MNT. My guess is that this is a mix of ideas. The support of all aspects of soccer will result in the more marketable parts subsidizing the less marketable parts. But also that the "value" created differs across different activities. Very few people play or watch beach soccer compared with regular soccer and the MNT and so we don't pay them the same.

I think that it's arguable that women's soccer, considered broadly, is as least as important as men's soccer and so deserving of equal support. Of course, once we quit treating the national team as a for-profit activity, an argument could be made that money should be taken from the men and used to promote other parts of the sport besides the WNT (youth, beach, whatever)