US women soccer players want equal pay to US men's team.

So there is no other possible reason in your eyes that there is a pay discrepancy between the two teams? One in which the women made more money than the men recently? One in which the women turned down the same contract as the men? One in which the women's team doesn't bring in more income? The only possible option is they are women?

Oddly enough the women mislead the court and the public on the facts of the case and don't exactly have clean hands in the issue. But anyone that doesn't fully support them is sexist?

Yeah, your stance is totally reasonable. lol

 

Those are good players, but if, like you say, they are "Brazil's best players," then I guess it must be Brazil's B team that's playing in the Copa America and World Cup qualifying.

 

Yes I meant Brazilian Serie A obviously, Brenner going to Cincinnati instead of Shakhtar Donetsk is significant. Not just Brazilians, Piti Martinez to Atlanta, etc. I’m not going to explain the global soccer economy of player movement. Soteldo to Toronto.

 

From a University in the United States?

I also have biology-based degrees and I am constantly dumbfounded with how so many brainwashed idiots have degrees.

 

It may not be in your gated community but it's $3k more than the average salary for a 21 year-old.

 

If he'd said best young players it would have been more accurate.

If this isn't Messi like it's certainly Bale like

 

Sorry I didn't pick up on that. Too subtle for me.

 

Sorry to drag you back in, but I think your case might benefit from some of the research I've done over the past couple of years, mostly summarized here: https://duresport.com/womens-soccer-pay-resource-page/

A few key points:

1. I'm not sure which law professors you're talking about when it comes to the appeal. Steven Bank, the authority on sports law, rarely flat-out offers opinions but is certainly skeptical. You'll also be interested in this law review article by a former college player who is sympathetic to the women's past issues but sees several fatal flaws with the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3443799

2. Among those fatal flaws: the "scope of work" and "rate of pay." These are related. The women's game is different from the men. In the documentary and elsewhere, the women and their legal/PR team condescendingly argue that the field, ball and goals are the same size. Of course. What's different is the competitive structure. Men's World Cup qualifying entails trips to Central America and the Caribbean, where the conditions would make the WNT cringe, while Women's World Cup qualifying is a brief event in which they just have to beat a couple of underfunded CONCACAF rivals. (Except in 2010, when they lost to Mexico and to defeat Italy in a playoff to reach the World Cup.) The women also can earn money at the Olympics; the men cannot. (No, not because they didn't qualify.)

3. The women also complain that USSF is saying, "oh, you signed a deal, so you have to live with it," and they're still entitled to file suit. But it's not that they signed a deal with less money. USSF is pointing out that they opted to take a different *structure* (read: salaries, which the men do not have). That clearly persuaded the judge:

This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure.

4. If you're going to claim the men have failed to qualify for "multiple" competitions, then you'll also have to note that the women have failed to qualify for two U-17 World Cups.

And that leads to another point: What's the purpose of a sports federation?

As far as I can tell, USA Basketball does not pay its players. Certainly not a significant amount, or else it would pop up on the 990s, just as the U.S. players' compensation appears when they get six-figure paydays.

So why does U.S. Soccer pay? More to the point, why do they pay more than any federation I've been able to find?

Therefore, it relates to the failure to qualify because U.S. Soccer's job is to make development happen, and it has failed to do so. Other federations plow their money back into programs to grow the game. U.S. Soccer is trying to do that with the $50m windfall it got from hosting the Copa America Centenario and an increase in sponsorship. Legal fees from this and a couple of other lawsuits (interestingly, featuring the same lawyer -- Jeff Kessler, whose advice and arguments were devastating to his own clients in the MLS players lawsuit of 1997-2002 and appears to be treating U.S. Soccer as the great white whale) are cutting into that. So is player pay.

(Yes, I'm arguing that the men are overpaid. The men's and women's contracts are both vestiges of a time in which neither team's players had many options for professional play. That's changing on the women's side. It has most definitely changed for the men.)

5. This isn't about disrespect. This is about money. They've settled the parts of the lawsuit relating to working conditions, though some of that was trumped up. (The women took fewer charter flights because they weren't flying to Central America and the Caribbean for qualifiers.)

The WNT's economist calculated their back pay at $67m. USSF would gladly settle for something in the low eight figures. But no. They want the money. Period.

If they were doing it for all the little girls out there, they'd leave some money in USSF coffers to help those little girls (and boys) win (or at least qualify for) future World Cups.

Perhaps the ultimate statement is this -- when Carlos Cordeiro resigned, he was replaced by Cindy Cone, one of the best forwards the WNT has ever had. You'll note that Cone didn't immediately cave in to the WNT's demands -- in fact, she has pushed back by noting that the idea of paying the World Cup bonuses they're seeking (1,050% of the prize money FIFA awarded in 2015, for example) is untenable. That's because she's seen the numbers and done the math. Most journalists, some lawyers and perhaps a lot of players have not.

A couple of stray, relatively minor corrections to comments other people have made about the CBA, which you can see here: https://www.scribd.com/document/448...-team-collective-bargaining-agreement-2017-21

1. Andrea Canales has frequently made the point about the "most favored" status in which WNT players had to be paid more than others in the NWSL, but I don't see that clause in the current CBA. It was in the past CBA, which is what Andrea's referring to. (She and I have talked about it.)

2. The number of contracted players this year is 16. The CBA called for that number to start at 20 in 2017 and drop by one each year. I'm not sure if this is designed to eventually cut players free and go to more of a bonus structure or not. Under the prior CBA, far more players were under contract. (And the ability to call in a non-contracted player was limited.)

Reminder: The women's CBA expires Dec. 31. (The men have been playing under an expired CBA for a couple of years.) They could ask for all sorts of things in that CBA -- spending on player development, pooling bonus money with the MNT so that fans can root for both teams rather than sniping at each other, etc. Instead, barring a settlement between the Olympics and Dec. 31, they'll be ensuring that a lot of money that could be going to grow the game will go toward paying for lawyers' beach houses.

 

Oh -- and FIFA should pay equal prize money in the men's and women's World Cup regardless of revenue because their job is to grow the game, and paying the French federation $38m just makes the rich richer.

 

If Beyoncé and Lil’ Peep play at a venue, and Lil’ Peep takes Beyoncé to court and demands for an equal split of the proceeds, Lil’ Peep would get laughed out of the courtroom. Everyone is there to see Beyoncé.

The same principle holds true for the men’s and womens World Cup. The Men’s World Cup is the most popular sporting event on the planet, drawing huge numbers of “concertgoers” (or viewers) from all over the planet. Just because the women are “on the bill” in a way doesn’t mean that they deserve any of the money that the men earn.

Nothing in life is altruistic unless you go down to your local soup kitchen or benevolence ministry. Governments, NGO’s, etc….none of them are altruistic.

 

The women and their fans demanded equal pay. The USSF granted them equal (or better) pay. Their gripe is should be with FIFA. Good luck with that!

 

Let me just take the opportunity to point out the fact that while the WNT are complaining that they aren't getting the same bonus as Mbappe and Greizmann, I'll just point out that the FMF wants their women's national team to bear the two-match spectator ban that Mexican fans accrued for "the chant" during the men's U23 Olympic qualifiers...

Clearly, not all women's issues are equal.

 

We have the right to demand that an organization that claims to be altruistic follows through on it.

FIFA does grant programs and all, a lot of them given out as patronage rather than to the most deserving places, but they can absolutely afford to even out the prize money between men and women in the name of their mission -- growing the game. Jiffy Lube Live is under no such obligation and may pay Lil' Peep and Beyonce accordingly.

Personally, I think they should cut the prize money for the men's World Cup. Did the French federation really need $38 million, especially when you have players like Mbappe who are just going to hand their bonuses to charity anyway? They're planning on $440 million in prize money for the 2022 Cup. Why not cut that to around $300 million (savings: $140m) and boost the women's prize money from $30 million to $300 million? They're already talking about doubling the prize money to $60 million, so we're talking an additional outlay of $100 million.

This is from an organization that expects to net $1.5 billion next year.
https://publications.fifa.com/en/annual-report-2020/2020-financials-and-2022-budget/2022-budget/

 

Cutting the prize money seems sensible. Instead increase the participation money so that we don't see the sort of money disputes we saw in 2014, when Ghanaian and Nigerian players threatened to strike.

 

Did the USSF offer "equal pay" and what does that mean in this context? One of the complicated problems in the lawsuit and related issues is that equal here is a word requiring particular perspectives. For example, according to an article by Andrew Haile that Mr. Dure references the highest paid men in 2014-2015 were paid $400,000 and the following year (equivalent year of the cycle, I think) the women were paid around $200,000. This includes Fifa bonuses, but even Haile is unsure about other aspects of payment. (I think I'm reading this correctly.) In any case, it's not "equal" in the sense that it's the same amount. The point being that apples to apples comparisons are difficult here, and the fed might also putting their thumbs on the scales when making comparisons.

Andrew Haile also makes this point:
"Even so, it is understandable and even admirable that the WNT players have pressed the issue of equal pay. It is understandable because over the thirty-five-year history of the WNT the players have had to fight for every step of progress and respect that they have achieved. Sometimes that fight has been through threats to strike, and sometimes it has been through litigation."

I also having misgivings about aspects of the current lawsuit, especially related to Fifa bonuses, but:
1) What you call "equal pay" in these contexts?
2) Does what the USSF is offering the women currently constitute equal pay defined as above?
3) Would the wnt be getting something close to equal pay had they not been willing to use litigation to pressure us soccer?

 

Woah, woah, WOAH!!! I thought that getting higher payouts for finishing better was a part of the fabric of the game?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Least, that's what some people want to believe and preach. You know, the glory of Pro/Rel...well, the glory of promotion. There's just sadness in relegation, and in England glorious parachute payments!!!

 

If we take this logic all the way, none of the money should go to the US or Europe. These are incredibly rich places with extensive sports opportunities for women. If we were serious about this, all the money would go to youth soccer in the poorer nations, perhaps with a particular focus on girls.

 

EXHIBIT A
"[Judge] Klausner noted that representatives for the players rejected a pay-for-play model identical to the men early in those [CBA] negotiations in 2016."

 

There are still poor countries in Europe.

A FIFA presidential votes seem to depend on how much money a candidate is willing to hand out and to whom.

Cutting the prize money probably wouldn't lose him or her many votes.

The total 2022 prize money pot is $700 million, which would work out at almost $11 million per game to players, many of whom don't need it.

Who makes these decisions? Why not just give a straight win/draw bonus?

 

oh ok my bad

have to think that the federation violating that so openly will hurt them in court.

 

You’re advocating for redistributive economics where you steal from the market that exists to try to develop another market that is unlikely to ever exist and for what? Because a group of people complain that they want to steal it.

You’ve lost me on that one. That idea is both unjust and destructive. If you do that, you destroy the men’s World Cup. The men will stop showing up.

 

I'm not sure, but Klausner might be making a narrower legal point pertaining to the case law in these circumstances. And I understand in the legal proceedings the women are unlikely to win on appeal for a number of reasons. But putting that aside, the differences in the schedules and kinds of appearances between the two teams could lead to pretty different pay structures, even if the pay-for-play model looked otherwise "equal."

I'm not sure on the details of what the fed was offering. I'm pretty sure the wnt dispute the claim of equality, but my point/question still stands, what would constitute equal pay here? It's a weirdly peculiar set of circumstances that's hard to generalize into broader notions of fairness or equity.

There are reasons (some more legitimate than others) that the uswnt would think the pay per play structure would seem less than equitable to them.

 

I would think it would be contingent upon the complainant to define what they are suing for ("equality" in this case). There has been scant indication that there is an actual definition that they are working toward, as opposed to a series of shifting abstractions.