I completely agree with you. However, the league growing and future generations getting paid more doesn't exactly help all of the 22 CURRENT members of the USWNT get paid more....especially those that are now in the twilight of the national team and professional playing careers. Which is really what their suit has been about since the beginning. They were offered the same deal that the men have, and they declined. One thing that is getting lost in all of this is the fact the USSF is so much more then just the senior national teams. If the women win their fight and are awarded the $66M in back pay they claim they are owed....that's $66M less that the federation will have to fund coaching, youth programs, coaching development, etc.* *yes, I am fully aware that the Federation has been very incompetent over the years, and there is no assurance that the Fed would spend that money wisely. That said, there are far more important areas for that money to be spent on than 22 individuals, quite a few that won't be members of the team in the near future.
A future thriving ecosystem of women's professional soccer would provide opportunities to the current generation, just as many of the early generation of male players are still employed in some fashion in soccer. It's understandable that some may want to reap the perceived rewards of their labor, and do so now, but the women's game doesn't yet have that kind of economic value.
Biden has jumped in in support of the women without knowing the facts. He's obviously trying to look Presidential.
I couldnt find any mention on ESPN about it. After seeing The Mountain set a weight lift record and an article about college softball I gave up scrolling though. But I agree they are playing for a targeted audience.
1. I'm glad they lost. 2. IANAL, but I think they should have lost. However. What? The women are obviously better, they have the trophies to prove it.
It's on ESPNFC. With a video of Foudy saying the pay structure is different (mentioning guaranteed money for security) and the women in the last 5 years made more per game. But yet she is disappointed ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, not in terms of soccer skills. They're more successful within the segregated sport of Women's soccer. I sell widget A, and sell 100 units. You sell widget B, and sell 1000 units. You could not sell widget A, while I could sell widget B. Who is the better salesperson? It's far from "obvious".
You missed the point. They were valued by USSF as at least the same as the men and were offered a deal on that basis. They turned it down. Then, when they how much more money they could have made they sued USSF for back pay and other frivolous stuff. The lawsuit isn't about status, it's about money.
To @USWNT: don’t give up this fight. This is not over yet.To @USSoccer: equal pay, now. Or else when I'm president, you can go elsewhere for World Cup funding. https://t.co/XK6t9oM94k— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 2, 2020
I'm a big Biden supporter, and I hate seeing him do this. "Without knowing the facts" hits the nail on the head. The USSF offered the USMNT and the USWNT their choice between cake and ice cream. The USMNT chose cake and ate it. The USWNT chose ice cream, ate it, and then said "Hey, those guys got cake and we didn't. We want some cake."
Easy to pile on this guy who articulates the lowest baseline crudely, but other than the USWNT two summers every four years, the American consumer hasn’t responded to women’s soccer. I’m glad they wanna make money, so make money. This is America. I’m just not sure that the Centenario windfall is the women’s to take, just as the USSF shouldn’t have kept more than their share from the COMNEBOL Federations. Now it’s a shame all around. What a waste of money and energy from the USSF and the USWNT. A period of silence, conservation and reduction from both parties at this time, please. But hey, make sure you charge up the A$$ for the next friendly in Carson vs Guatemala!
Biden is grandstanding for political points on a made up issue because he's recently got plenty of bad press when it comes to treatment of the ladies (like Trump) and his Wall Street donors (also ala Donald) want to make the least amount of promises (that he'd break anyway) that would hurt their bottom line. Rapinoe just rubbed shoulders with Biden (for once it happens in the other direction) because she's thirsty for enough money to be able to retire comfortably on when the time comes. It's not necessarily going to happen organically from the revenue she and her team generates. Needs to do a favor (hoping it's returned) for a powerful politician, even if she has to compromise principles in the process. The USWNT have done great in their category, but so many have shamed themselves in this process for a little bit of money that they'd throw the men's team under the bus in bad faith and do wide-reaching political damage to feed broader identity politics + divide/conquer in society so bankers can slip out the back w/ all the money they scammed from the public for the second time in just over a decade, in addition to what they typically do. And the USWNT say they'll fight on, even though their intellectually dishonest narratives were by and large thoroughly exposed. Ain't that admirable.
A lot of people think like that...big deal. Most of the soccer audience views women’s soccer as boring. They will get equal pay when more people tune in to watch women’s soccer leagues.
In the end it's all about WC money ... Yep, & I'll add a negotiated settlement WITH THE MEN AND WOMEN. Again, put all the Revenue (broadcast, sponsor, gate, FIFA) into one pot. Give the same % to men/women. Not the entire pot of course so US Soccer can fund other programming, but stop fighting these CBA battles 1/ https://t.co/rNaEVpswBy— Julie Foudy (@JulieFoudy) May 2, 2020
But they were offered equal pay, national team players that is, obviously league players get paid less than the men, although North Carolina's NWSL team get bigger attendances than their male counterparts.
I've tried to read as much as I can on this issue, but I haven't been able to find more about the deal the women rejected which was structured the same as the men. A lot of people are interpreting that to mean that they rejected the exact same deal as the men, but is that true? Was it the exact same deal, or was it just a strictly bonus and appearance deal instead of a guaranteed salary plus bonus deal, with different dollar values. If they were offered the exact same deal and rejected it, why on earth were they suing for equal pay?
You beat me to it. From my reading they rejected a similar bonus structure to games the USSF controls (ie friendlies), so it would have been very similar to the Australia deal. They did not reject a structure that would have offered them the same World Cup bonuses.
Similarly, the court rejected the CBA comparison. The WNT actually rejected a deal similar to the MNT because they wanted lower bonuses in exchange for more guaranteed compensation for more players. pic.twitter.com/Ai3yMB928H— Steven Bank (@ProfBank) May 2, 2020 Let's use a little common sense here as well, do you really think the USSF offered the WNT the same World Cup bonuses, and do you really think the WNT rejected that? If you do, I've got some beach front property in Arizona for you!