USWNT sues USSF 2019 version

Many thanks, lil_one, for taking the time to post all this valuable information--and your valuable comments. It's wonderful that the women's team is getting this support and already having an impact through their lawsuit and their activism.

 

whatever defines the team's personnel, there will be accusations that some players are past their best and should no longer be on the team. coaches all over the world do this all the time. many feel that's why the usmnt crashed out of the wc.

nothing to do with contracts.

and yet teams all over the planet get criticised for keeping players who have no business on the team because they are way past their sell-by date.

again, nothing to do with contracts.

how many good players only stayed in and became great because of the contracts. it's one of the reasons the uswnt has been at the top for so long. why do you think other wnts are following suit?

contracts became a necessary crutch if the feds wanted to be at the top of the women's game, because there was no club football that provided a good career for the players. improvements in weekly woso haven't YET changed those less than optimum conditions.

 

Players Attorney:
https://buffalonews.com/2015/09/19/jeffrey-kessler-the-last-line-of-defense-for-player-rights/
https://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/professionals/kessler-jeffrey-l.html
There are heavy hitters and then there is Jeffrey Kessler.

 

I appreciate the write-up and cliff notes. The question that still remains is what would happen if USSF said OK fine equal pay, in fact exactly the same package with no contracts?

The contract part is the sticking point to me. Generally if you have a choice of a contract or
commission, the guaranteed money is lesser for commissions. . Gender doesn't enter into that conversation.

So it becomes a question of do you want "X" or "Y." When considering some of the convenient omissions, it appears the women want "Y'" plus "X," or even "X" - "Y." That is not usually how guaranteed money works, you give up something on the top end for the guarantee. It has value as well, even if that value is intrinsic, it still counts in the biz world.

I am not saying this is how this all works, but from the nosebleed seats this is how it appears to one not very informed observer.After the Mal Pugh excoriation, previous lawsuits, and the recent rainbow politics, it appears very much like this group of people are trying to bully everybody else into believing they are being mistreated, when in fact they are bunch of entitled divas who get all pissy when anybody dares to question them.

They are indeed the best in the world, but it has more to do with Title IX and the US taxpayer than it has to do with their superior abilities. We spend exponentially more taxpayer money on sports in general than any other country. They live a country where the public school systems and universities serve the purpose of farm clubs for professional sports and guarantees women an equal share of that farm club development $$$ pie. That is why they are the best, not because they are such special players.

The above paragraph doesn't change the lawsuit or them deserving of equity, but it certainly changes the narrative.

 

I see your point but a coach's decision and a binding contract are not comparable. I'm sure you see the difference.

The reason USWNT has been at the top for so long is we have invested in the game longer. No one in the world has anything close to our college system. Other countries have started taking the game more seriously in the last decade and are closing the gap quickly. As far as following suit, I don't know a single NT that is offering contracts but the pay gap between men and women has shrunk.

I understand why contracts were needed but think it has gone too far. We are now seeing the effects of not letting other GKs get experience.

 

We can muck it up better than anybody. Good for the rest of the world and shame on us. As a taxpayer, I do not like subsidizing million/billionaires play toys.

 

I do not like the “Equal Pay” approach. I find it dishonest and/or disingenuous. In the context of the reality of the overall compensation and revenue environment of the men’s game vs. the women’s game,I believe a more honest approach by the WNT players would be to seek equal treatment (I.e. w.r.t. turf, travel, facilities, staff, medical, per diem, marketing/endorsements, etc.) and Better Compensation. As several posters have observed, getting equal pay while also having a contract salary is not equal to what the men have.

I support revenue sharing between the men's side and women's side of USSF. If my company makes more profit from making and selling Blenders than it does making and selling Toasters, that doesn't mean I should pay the assembly line workers who make Blenders more than the workers who make toasters - assuming the skill level is the same. - Not the best analogy, but my point is that all the company revenue goes into a pot as opposed to separating and spending Blender revenue differently from Toaster revenue.

 

An article on Slate.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/u...eam-lawsuit-sex-based-pay-discrimination.html

 

Then you have to pay the Paralympic, Futsal, Beach, and all youth national team players at the same rate also.

 

It's not a good analogy imo. The men and women are not putting out the same product or competing in the same field. They don't have the same basic compensation model period (contracts vs. per diem essentially). A blender assembler and a toaster assembler are doing the same basic job and can easily interchange between those roles. The account executives for the bestselling products might make more, though, due to commission.

 

The first sentence tells me this author has no clue what they are talking about.

 

Just for info the FA has central contracts and it creates the same selection problem as some players are past it and still called up...

 

Sarcastic, are we?

 

I agree; I even said it was not a good analogy. In the previous paragraph I acknowledged the existing major difference in the overall revenue and compensation between the men’s game and women’s game. I never meant to suggest that the men and women on the NT were doing interchangeable work and should therefore be paid the same wages.
Given the overall revenue stream, US Soccer could pay the men less than they do now and the women more. They probably could pay the women more and not change the men’s compensation.
.......argh: civil lawsuits - you sue for the moon in hopes of ending up with a ranchette in Tucson.

 

it just seems awfully convenient to blame the (uswnt style) contract when the same thing happens absent that contract - and was happening way back in history long before there was even a uswnt.

france? australia?

??

they’ve actually been reducing the number of contracted players each year.

again. not sure you can blame that on contracts. coaches have been railed against for that same problem where there were no uswnt style contracts involved.

 

Here's the sentence: "The U.S. women’s national soccer team is at the top of its game, poised to dominate the 2019 Women’s World Cup in just three months."

The last few outings makes me hope we are not yet at the top of our game. We are in no position to dominate the Cup. That's just silly talk.

 

I didn't know France and Australia's contracts were as strict as USWNT.

We're just repeating at this point. We simply view the call up process differently.

 

lesson for the Fed. Always play hardball with the women in negotiations. No matter what you agree to, the women are going to sue. Carli has said she should be paid as much as Messi, ffs.

It's time for two Federations. Let the women get their own tv contract, and the men get their own. Just completely divide the revenue from the two programs.

 

Equal pay for equal pay: pay them the same as the FC Dallas 16 years olds. Well, less actually. Significantly less.

 

Even I couldn't have said it better

 

You guys call yourself fans of the women's game. You can't have the women's game grow if they get paid peanuts.