Not arguing really with the rest, as I tend to agree, but aren't employers still, by law, obliged to be fair and not discriminatory though? Isn't that why we have laws like the Equal Pay Act? (Of course, I say this with a lot of caveats, like having to prove equal work, etc. I just am making the point that the women still might have a case.)
Alex Morgan also appeared on GMA and the Today Show a few days ago to talk about the lawsuit. There's also a statement from US Soccer in the segments: "US Soccer and the US Women's National Team reached a collective bargaining agreement two years ago. US Soccer has faithfully and consistently worked with the US Women's National Team players and staff to provide everything it needs to perform at the highest levels possible and compete to win world championships. The substantial and unwavering commitment by US Soccer to these very ideals is evident in our proactive approach to drive the women's game forward, which includes the creation of two elite women's international tournaments to increase competition opportunities, adding additional technical and high-performance staff focused only on the USWNT, and enhancing our marketing campaigns. Our continued support and efforts toward enriching the women's game is every bit as certain today as it will be in the future."
They totally dodged the questions on revenue and contracts. I'm actually not sure what their argument would be in a court of law after listening to them. This is a PR campaign to try to guilt the USSF into concessions. Good luck.
OT but I’ve nowhere else to post this. VAR approved for WWC https://apnews.com/8b359b65dc26477dac6e78bef9b294dd
Open letter from Codeiro: U.S. Soccer believes that all female professional athletes deserve fair and equitable pay. We will continue to work with and listen to the USWNT players to achieve our shared goals as partners. pic.twitter.com/p81qhlYVdR— Carlos Cordeiro (@CACSoccer) March 15, 2019 In it, he says the players specially requested the contract structure in the 2017 CBA negotiations, and he says US Soccer leadership was surprised by the filing of the lawsuit. On Wednesday, Cordeiro spoke to veteran players to understand their concerns. There will be additional meetings soon.
It really is a great statement. Cordeiro comes across as less combative than Sunil, while laying out his defense in a way that doesn't come across as attacking the WNT and puts the ball in their court.
This is it in a nutshell. The job of being on the MNT is not the same as the job of being on the WNT; The jobs exist in two wildly different competition environments. So there is no basis for concluding the difference in compensation between the MNT and WNT is due to gender discrimination. Does the WNT deserve better compensation than they have now? YES. ...here is another analogy, it is like comparing the compensation of a male cop in New York City to a female cop in Lake Placid - gender discrimination is no factor at all. ...
Thanks, lil_one, for posting these videos. I will continue to say that I support the U.S. women's team both on the field and in the courtroom. It's sad that with the thousands of words written here by many fans of the women's team there are so few who support their fight against the same-old-sexism of the sports world.
I you are talking about national teams, you should talk about the results and glory that each of them, women and men's teams, brought to the country. Clearly the national women team has done so much better and shouldn't they be rewarded in bringing glory to the country?
I agree with your opening statement, but not necessarily with your conclusion. If the women bring in more net revenue than the men, or equal net revenue, then I think the USSF might have a problem, even though the jobs are not the same. That may be a big "if" over the long term. The issue you point out, however, is a critical one, and may be a novel question for the judicial system to resolve -- If the jobs are different, but the women bring in more net revenue, is USSF discriminating on the basis of sex? That's a separate issue from "equal pay for equal work."
Because the difference in prize money is gigantic between best women's teams and "run of the mill" mens teams. Over the last 5 years (since 2014), The WWC winner in 2015 got $2 mil. The olympics do not give prize money and are an U-23 tournament for the men.' The men got $9 million as a round of 16 team in 2014. The men got $2.5 mil for Copa America. The men got $1.25 mil for the Gold Cup 2017 and 2015. Had the men qualified for the WC, they would have gotten an additional $9 million minimum. So in the last 5 years, the mens prize money is $12.75 mil (could have been $21.75 mil at the minimum). The women have brought in $2 mil. This doesn't include the money USSF gets due to hosting Gold Cup and Copa America, the latter bringing in $46 million. Then, you can look at the tv rights. The WWC basically has rights deals with the US, Canada, UK, Brazil, Australia, and the EU. In pretty much all of these cases, the rights are packaged with the mens world cup. For the Mens World Cup, Vatican City pays for the rights to watch the World Cup. If this case was actually after equal pay (based on currently available information), the women should be going after FIFA, Sponsors, and TV right holders.
I don't know much about this issue, but -- the allocation system seems weird to me. You have allocated players -- drawing big salaries -- such as Morgan Brian, Allie Long, and Casey Short -- who haven't appeared in a match for a long time -- and may not be on the World Cup squad. Why are they allocated when other players appearing in more matches are not allocated? It seems to me that the allocation system is a strait-jacket and unfair, giving some players more than they deserve when compared to a dozen or more outstanding players in the NWSL (Menges, Huerta, etc.) who are playing for peanuts. So, cut back on the guarantees for the allocated players -- and increase the benefits or players called into camp who are not allocated. Spread the wealth around a bit more, and get rid of a rigid system that fosters an old-girls club that rewards the past and doesn't do much for the future. . I'm willing to be corrected.
Do you mean that pay of the players in the national teams, whether it is the men's or the women's, depends on and varies with the amount of prize money they earn and is not pre-determined or consistent? This is new to me.
you didn’t know that payouts in a market system as a general rule are determined by available or projected revenue?
specially requested the contract in their cba. then they are only disputing ancillary (still a big deal maybe) treatment - which is why some think that this is a pitch to the public at wc time. it’s not really an appeal to the court.
That doesn't absolve USSF of the discrimination claim, tho.. Now, if USSF offered to give the USWNT per game pay equal to the per game pay the USMNT had, then that is something. But just requesting that contracts be used is not, in itself, enough to shield USSF.
So do other poorer countries which are getting identical revenue from the tournaments, pay as much to their national men's team as USA do? I thought national teams are above economics and are about what a country can afford to pay, not only from what they receive from tournaments, for glory.
Where is the 60 million (was it 46? I can't see the article behind a paywall) dollars that the MNT gained through participation in the Copa America Centenario? That should've been included in the FY 2016 chart.
No. They are claiming that USSF treats the USWNT differently than the USMNT. The examples they gave are that the men fly on chartered flights, while the women fly commercial. The men get paid a certain amount for losses, a larger amount for draws, and an even larger amount for winning, while women are only paid if they win. There is also the issue with the men not playing on turf, while USSF has the women play on turf (although they haven't since 2017).
maybe, maybe not. revenue from tournaments is not the only revenue federations get. sponsorships and shirt and other sales bring in a lot. the original greek olympics, way back in antiquity, were for glory. unfortunately, society has progressed since then. still some glory. but, you know, more important things....
The WNT obviously is treated differently. The USSF pays for the salaries of every USWNT player, at the club level (in NWSL) and the international level. It doesn't pay the MLS salaries of the MNT players. Part of the reason for that disparity results from the CBA that the WNT signed in January 2017. Prior to that, from the previous CBA.
While true, the women are arguing that the current pay structure results in the women being paid less than the men and that they should be getting paid the same. Now, of course, as you pointed out, the women are paid differently, so the question becomes, what is the value of having a guaranteed contract vs. the pay per play model. Not to mention the benefits that the women get that the men do not get (Maternity leave, injury pay, health insurance, etc). There's also the question of whether or not the pay structure for the men makes them contractors, rather than employees and whether that means it is okay that they are treated differently. Basically, it's a good day to be a lawyer 'cause they are going to get paid.
which is what i was trying to say - that they are only disputing things outside of what they have signed. (like i said, those things are still important). these i’m assuming are things the ussf can use some market forces to argue for. even not for profits have to operate on some influence from the market. how much is the perpetual question.