Yes, the women's Gold Cup doubles as qualifying, at least in pre-World Cup years. That's why they play the final even though both semifinal winners qualify for the World Cup.
The bold portion is a completely meaningless non sequitur. This makes no sense. There is no way of reading this, however, that leads to a conclusion that is factually correct, which is actually pretty rare as garbled statements go. That's a hell of an accomplishment. EDIT: does the Women's Gold Cup 1. actually exist, and 2. actually become a qualification tournament for the WWC? In either case, it is treated by pretty much everyone as a sideshow, and viewing interest is at that level. You continue to botch basic knowledge of international soccer.
Reminder that the summary judgment was a partial summary judgment. The judge granted summary judgment on pay, the judge did allow for all other portions of the complaint related to facilities, coaches, staff, and more to move forward because they did find there was a basis for argument. What the judge did in the economics portion related to compensation, pay, revenue, and the nature of the CBA negotiations was to strip the relative competitiveness out of the argument because the two cannot be adequately compared. This is why the other commenters are beating the drum on the fact the women don't have the same competitive path as the men. If the path to qualification and depth of competition is not the same, they cannot adequately be compared as equal work. A judge isn't there to sit in judgment of sports competitiveness, that's like asking if Michael Jordan is better than Lebron James. Another example, "If the Auburn football team beat Alabama, but Michigan beat Auburn in week 2, therefore Michigan is better than Alabama. Right?" Transitive properties in sports is a losing proposition too. Therefore saying the "work" is the same is asking a judge to make clear, qualified comparisons that cannot be made. The competitions are different, the teams are different, the structures are different, the sponsorships are different, the venues are different, the rules on the field are the same, but somehow, like the EEOC amicus brief, the women worked the same lawn.
If the rate of pay is all that matters, why does there need to be so many mentions that the women win more. The rate of pay between two different competitions can only be analyzed by their rate per game, not what type of game they each play.
If you believe a non-existent Women's team funded itself into existence, I won't mention anything related to Christmas or Easter.
Today, the women are net revenue earners and have been easily during the time period covered. If you are talking about the Mundalito days, a lot of that was covered by the players themselves paying their own way to Italy, and since the Men's team hadn't been at a world cup since the 1950s, it sure wasn't covered by the men, it was covered by the membership. The same is true of the men, in reality.
First, it is refreshing to have a reply that's grounded in reasoning, so thanks for that. Second, actually, that's exactly the question here. Can they be compared? There are all kinds of ways to make those comparisons and make adjustments (For example, the FIFA world rankings do precisely this, so it clearly isn't impossible.), and it would be up to the parties to present evidence on these questions. Simply because it may be difficult does not mean it is impossible, and it is on this question where throwing up the hands and not allowing the parties to present their evidence is where the judge went wrong I think. Third, to delve into those questions a little: looking strictly at *economic* factors (so ignoring prestige and the like), one can certainly look at different categories of matches and evaluate the revenues from each. Strangely, this might actually mean that friendlies are more important than world cup finals (and I'm an idiot for not having recognized this previously), because if I understand correctly, USSF gets the TV revenues from friendlies, but FIFA gets the revenues from the World Cup. Unless the prize money exceeds the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc, then those friendlies might be more lucrative. And of course the triable facts come in because until one looks at the numbers there, the record wouldn't include that information. Anyway, we will see what the appellate court says.
April 12, 2021 6:40 PM EDT The Athletic (snipped) USWNT, U.S. Soccer settlement concerning unequal working conditions approved The settlement between the U.S. women's national team and the U.S. Soccer Federation regarding unequal working conditions was approved by a judge on Monday. The two sides previously reached an agreement on the settlement in December. U.S. Soccer issued a statement on Monday following the settlement approval, stating once again that it would prefer to keep a final resolution between the governing body and the players directly rather than finding it in court. The federation also stated the players have not accepted its request to discuss a standing offer that would offer equal pay for all U.S. Soccer-controlled matches. "Unfortunately, the USWNT has not accepted our offer or our long-standing invitation to meet to try to find a resolution unless U.S. Soccer first agrees to make up the difference between the Men’s and Women’s World Cup prize money, which is determined, controlled and paid for by FIFA," the federation statement reads. Last May, a judge dismissed most parts of the lawsuit, including arguments made under the EPA. The only one that was not dismissed were claims of unequal treatment regarding travel conditions, personnel and support services. What this means for the USWNT players Meg Linehan, women’s soccer writer: The players now have the green light they've been pushing for since last May to appeal the ruling denying their claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The expectation is this will not be a very long wait for them to start the process. Once again, they find themselves in the midst of preparations for a major tournament while also trying to build their case against U.S. Soccer that they have been undervalued.
Those "numbers" are known to the USSF and the USWNT lawyers. The USMNT bring more value to their TV contract than the USWNT. The only matches that garner good TV ratings for the women are World Cup and Olympic matches. And those matches are not part of the USSF TV contract. This makes the economic argument hard.
498k watched the 2021 She Believes Cup final on FS1. Looking back at 2019, the MNT was getting around 600k for friendlies. The Gold Cup is a money spinner for CONCACAF and SUM. I don't know what USSF makes from them. Of course the all- time most watched match was a women's game.
With all of the fallout over this it's hard to say if it will damage the earnings of just the Women, or both the Women and Men's teams. We know it isnt good for US Soccer, but it will be interesting to see what the impacts may be in a few years.
TV is a part of the total, of course and needs to be presented at trial. Doesn't matter of the lawyers know, what matters is what is in the trial record.
Probably none. As corrupt and nasty as USSF is, it probably wont stop anyone from watching games. A bigger problem is hiring an inept coach because of nepotism
Hmmm, I can't tell if you are that far removed or being facetious. USWNT apparently are 'boycotting' men's games and USMNT players are 'boycotting' women's games. Lots of issues being blamed on Covid right now, however what people are saying are the exact opposite.
I would like to see documentation of this, because the men’s team has been publicly supportive of the women’s lawsuit and filed an amicus brief in support at the appellate court. I have seen zero about any boycotts. If anything they have been supportive of each other from what I have seen
I can’t decide if the best part of this was the idea that the WNT generates more revenue than the MNT based on a particular sample size that wasn’t remotely representative or the part where 5 qualifiers is the same as 14 qualifiers. Or the part where it’s somehow incumbent on the USSF, a domestic organization, to be responsible for bridging a prize money gap at FIFA, an international organization.
I'm sure you, being an ace lawyer, will appreciate the difference between "the players" and "the players union". Certain!
The US Soccer Development Academy, which involved 200 clubs across both genders. The boys clubs have joined MLS NEXT, the girls teams ???
To be fair, why pay for a development academy when you make it next to impossible to turn over your roster as part of your CBA?
The US Women got beaten by Canada overnight and will play for a Bronze Medal. That weird streak where the US has been able to win only 1 of the World Cup or Olympics in a cycle will continue.