I'm not overly familiar with the stututes under which the women filed their suit. Two questions: 1. Now that the Federation's MSJ has been granted on the core of the dispute, do the statutes allow the Fed, as the prevailing party, to now file a motion seeking to have the USWNT reimburse it for its legal expenses?; and 2. If so, should the Fed file such a motion? Or would that just be another PR blunder?
Not the point. 1. Overall, to me, this is a subtle, complicated, ultra-subjective issue. That's why "they can't beat teenage boys" drives me nuts, because it's the opposite of all those things. 2. My response would be that U-17 G is comparable to U-17 B, U-20W is comparable to U-20 M, and no age limit W is comparable to no age limit M. I think Pulisic might have played for the full team in the same year he was eligible for the U17s, and I know he (and many others) have played for the no age limit team when they could have played U 20. So, age limit soccer is clearly inferior to no-age limit soccer.
The ladies getting pounded by little boys is relevant, if the claim is they are doing work equal to that of men. However, women's soccer is not the equivalent of the Negro Leagues. There is zero basis to claim they are comparable to men. Women play in women's leagues because that is the only way they can survive as professionals. They are realistically entitled to the revenue women's soccer generates. It is the point which is relevant to this case.
1) generally no, an employer does not get to recoup fees by statute. It’s possible that this was contracted by the parties in the CBA but I doubt it. 2) The case is not yet finished because the women still have outstanding claims that they can bring to trial so it is not timely for such a motion.
Actually part of the legal inquiry relates to the relative skill of the Men and Women’s jobs so arguably it is relevant.
The more I digest the ruling, the more I feel that the women were duped. That their union or lawyers or both played on their ultra-competitiveness to get them to pay large amounts of dues and fees to file this lawsuit. They were probably encouraged by all the great PR and fan support to push it to the limits. One wonders if the grifters that got them to do it, expected a settlement in the low 7 figures, which they would pocket 1/3-1/2 and laugh to the bank. But the marks (the USWNT) who fell for it because they are so competitive are also so used to winning. They saw the adoration in the media and social media and really thought they deserved $66 million. They deserved for USSF to pay them what FIFA gave France, plus what they would have received in 2015 and 2019 if they had signed different CBAs! I think there was a case somewhere to be made and I thought they would at least try and make it. That case involves the entangled relationship of USSF and SUM and MLS and the implicit subsidy given to men's soccer the women do not get. But they never even broached that subject. I think the women were used, but they are not blameless that many of their fans think the USMNT is the enemy. A large segment of the womens' fans openly root against the men now because they believe they are taking money from the women. Also, how dumb does USSF look. They had a great case on the fact they paid the women more and the women signed a CBA. They didn't need to discuss the physical limits of women vs men at all. They won summary judgement without any of that being considered! Such a PR nightmare, for nothing. Although, it was good pretext for Cordeiro to be ousted before he could untangle the SUM/MLS/USSF relationship, which is what he was going to do.
Discussing the physical limitations of women was important in making the argument that they weren't doing 'equal work'. Granted, the wording the was unnecessarily crass.
"They can't beat teenage boys" has no relevance in terms of what people consume. I can tell you, for example, that I'd rather watch my nephew's Little League game than a random Reds vs. Orioles game. The skill level in MLB is factually higher than that of the Little League game. That does not necessarily matter. What's relevant is whether or not the U17 MNT is the same as the U17 WNT, or whether the WC is the same as the WWC. They are not the same, therefore, you cannot argue that the participants deserve the same benefits for participation in each competition.
I am a bit curious if the equal pay act applies here since they aren't like most jobs where both sexes work together doing the exact same job. As many pointed out before there is nothing stopping women from playing for the men's team but there are rules from the opposite happening. I do agree about the revenue argument whereby if the women made more they'd should get compensated more but wonder if that happened would some men then sue to be able to play on their team? Very confusing. Does women's tennis make more than men's? Certainly during the Olympics women's gymnastics gets substantially more viewers than men's but since it's not a pro league I don't know if they actually get paid for it.
These are not players from the favala of Brazil. I can't say I believe they were purely duped. They come from affluent and educated backgrounds. All of them attended college and I'm sure nearly all of them came from college-educated backgrounds. They have lawyers and agents in their lives. I think they knew their case was a stretch but were intentionally using it for negotiating leverage. They knew it would bring a ton of media attention as it has a strong superficial appeal to the Zeitgeist of equal pay. But like the equal pay issues raised across society more generally it does not stand up to scrutiny--at least not the way framed by its advocates. I do feel for the team of women lawyers from Seyfarth Shaw who were kicked off the case after submitting winning summary judgment papers. Getting kicked off the case for Latham must have really hurt lol.
These are not players from the favala of Brazil. I can't say I believe they were purely duped. They come from affluent and educated backgrounds. All of them attended college and I'm sure nearly all of them came from college-educated backgrounds. They have lawyers and agents in their lives. I think they knew their case was a stretch but were intentionally using it for negotiating leverage. They knew it would bring a ton of media attention as it has a strong superficial appeal to the Zeitgeist of equal pay. But like the equal pay issues raised across society more generally it does not stand up to scrutiny--at least not the way framed by its advocates. I do feel for the team of women lawyers from Seyfarth Shaw who were kicked off the case after submitting winning summary judgment papers. Getting kicked off the case for Latham must have really hurt but they must feel vindicated.
The difference in skill is relevant to why the jobs are not the same. In fact, it is the original justification for having separate teams in the first place. "Skill" here is used in the legal sense of the ability required to do the job, of course, not the sense of "soccer skill."
My thoughts exactly. It stretches the boundaries of the act which mandates equal pay for equal work. Different tournaments, different competition. In the case of women's tennis at the very least the games are shown at the same time and cover the same period. With FIFA we don't even have that.
I believe Cone and USSF sent a memo to the judge to disregard that entire argument. And they won anyway. It was unneeded and a PR disaster. The Judge never discussed it. Only that the Men's WC and Women's WC are separate tournaments.
I'm just clarifying, because people equate "skill" with "value". @superdave brought up the 2001 Earthquakes because he seemed to equate "skill" with "value". I didn't watch the Earthquakes back in 2001, but if I had, I could have simultaneously enjoyed the Earthquakes and recognized that they are not "the best" team in the world. I enjoy the Earthquakes now, and they are far from the best team in the world. We went through this with the car part analogy in another thread. You make car engines for Ford or Ferrari. A Ford engineer cannot make a Ferrari engine. A Ferrari engineer could make a Ford engine, but is prohibited from doing so. You can like the Ford engine as much as you want, even if it's not the same quality of engine as a Ferrari. But you cannot argue that the Ford engineer is being treated unfairly because they aren't paid like a Ferrari engineer. The market is purposefully fixed, which makes that comparison nonsense. Just like all engineers, the Ford engineer should get a portion of the profits made from Ford vehicles. The Ferrari engineer should get a portion of the profits made from Ferrari vehicles. The WNT argument was literally "Someone else made more money than me, please give me that money". As if winning MLS meant that the EPL should give Atlanta money, simply because they're both champions and made money.
Yes, it is a separate argument from whether pay was unequal. USSF did ask to withdraw it for just the MSJ. This left only the pay differential argument.
Lawyers either charge by the hour, or work on contingency. Not both. If you mean "they aren't the same because male soccer has a 100 year head start," we agree. If you mean "they aren't the same because males can beat females" we do not. To me, testosterone vs. estrogen is important. It literally was not that.
Take your pick. Biological differences between males and females exist. You are welcome to deny biology, but biology does not care about your feelings. The Earth is not flat, despite flat-Earthers wishing it to be so. These biological differences maximize at the tail end of the distribution of the population with freak athletes. In 1,000 years, these biological differences will remain. Males and females are different, therefore, any artificial segregation of males and females will mean that they will be engaging in activities that are not 1-to1 the same. That is why the U17 WNT is not the same as the U17 MNT. They do play the same sport. The rules are the same. One team can beat the other. A person can have a preference for one team or the other. They are not entirely the same. The reason this matters, the WNT argued that their WWC victory is the same as the French WC victory. It is not, regardless of which team could beat which team. I can play chess against Judit Polgar. She will dominate me. She also plays (mostly) in the Women's chess bracket. Therefore, when she was ranked #1 in the Women's chess bracket, she was not considered the World #1, which was Garry Kasparov back then.* *As an aside, if you want cool, aggressive chess matches, Polgar is a go-to. Hikaru Nakamura, a top American, and 2nd best in the world, has some pretty chill chess streams. Soccer has been "the world's game" for 100 years. Money inside of the game has exploded over the last 30 years with the collapse of the Iron Curtain, but you're correct in that the infrastructure of the game had been shaped by exclusively male athletes for the last 100 years. The money in the game (for both sexes) is a newer phenomenon. It literally was that. The WNT asked for the FIFA WC bonus (the FIFA WWC bonus is much lower), as well as the compensation that the MNT negotiated for in their CBA had they participated and won the World Cup. In addition, they asked for damages relating to field conditions, accommodations, etc. Carli Lloyd is on record as saying she deserved to be paid like Messi, because she was the best female player in the world. This is how the WNT thinks.
I've actually worked on a case where we received an hourly rate plus a contingency bonus for a very good result, so once again @superdave is wrong about how the legal industry operates. That being said a firm like Winston & Strawn almost certainly is billing their hourly rate for this case. They are not the type of firm to take on the risk of a large contingency from what I understand.
If only a recent movie about the making of a 1966 Ford race car could be applied to a fictional metaphor that happens to use two alliterative car manufacturers. How about: someone stamps something onto a Tata Nano, an extremely affordable, bare-bones car. Another person helps put together a Ferrari Pininfarina Sergio, a 3 million dollar sportscar that's entirely hand-crafted. Both are helping to manufacture a car. One requires a much deeper skillset. One is paid significantly more than the other. Can you guess which is which?
This is factually incorrect. She plays mostly in the open chess competitions. She has only rarely competed in any women's divisions and has never competed for the Women's World Championship.
My bad, I overstepped my knowledge of her chess background. I extrapolated from her top Women's ranking and high-profile matches against (among others) guys like Garry Kasparov, that she'd be cleaning house in the Women's division, but it turns out if I'd simply read Wikipedia, I'd have discovered that she doesn't consider the Women's circuit to be enough of a challenge.