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

CPC said she was going to do that.

But does this mean the women are going to lose their USSF funded NPSL salaries, medical insurance and pregnancy leave etc?

 

NWSL would prefer that, actually. They want USSF to give them money instead of contracts for the USWNT. That way they can spend it as they see fit.

It would also mean the USWNT would drop to a contract very similar to USMNT, so no guaranteed contracts, insurance, pregnancy leave, child care, etc, etc.

The question I have is what is their definition of identical? Literally dollar for dollar identical, or is there percentages for competition awards. So are the men taking a massive potential paycut on their Gold Cup/World Cup bonuses, or is it something like "Both teams get 20% of the award money from FIFA/CONCACAF".

 

The Gold Cup prize money for first place was $1 million I believe. I don't know what the women's prize was but the women's GC tends to play second fiddle to the She Believes Cup which features the best teams in the world. So to balance things up we need a He Believes Cup.

 

I’m really interested in reading the USSF’s offer. I can think of no scenario where the men would not be giving up significant money in the unlikely event they were to win the WC.

 

We'll never see their offer unless someone from one of the PA's leaks it.

 

No doubt. I just think the men are gonna regret sitting on the sideline….then joining in on the side that uses your CBA to allege non-existent inequities. The only place the money to pay the women was ever going to come was from the men’s WC money.

 

Assuming it is a dollar for dollar identical. The federation for other countries got the equal pay "win" by matching per game pay and didn't match actual rewards. That's what's making me thing the actual identical for WC bonus is more like a percentage, rather than actual dollars.

 

Of course this doesn't help the current squad with their money grab as several of the big names will be past their best by the summer of 2023. They want to backdate the offer so they get the $38 million the French WC winners got even though they turned down the same deal as the men a year earlier.

Maybe they should start a gofundme to cover it.

In terms of the women's CONCACAF Gold Cup, if it were staged in the winter with guest teams from Europe and Asia, it might get the attention that the men's GC gets.

 

The offer the women got was not the same with regards to WC bonuses. USSF matched the men's pay to play model.

 

In order for them to get a chance at the men’s World Cup pot they’d have to.

 

You may be right….though that would imply a pretty massive pay cut for the women….as I imagine their current WC bonus, as a % of the FIFA money, is way way way larger then the men’s %. Perhaps that’s a bad assumption on my part?

 

I'd put decent money on the negative there.

 

U.S. Soccer offers #usmnt, #uswnt identical contract proposals. (Also some detail on where things stand with the #usmnt CBA talks.) https://t.co/WXCA0EBFcJ

— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) September 15, 2021

 

As I suspected…..the men’s union really should have kept their mouths shut. And if they really felt compelled to,say something….they probably should have defended themselves from the misrepresentations of their CBA. They’ve set themselves up to be the bad guy.

 

Yes, and the women laid out the foundation for it by juxtapositioning their grievance with the men’s CBA, which then painted the men into a PR corner. The men duly pledged their support. Now the women are blaming the USSF for setting the men and women against each other. That’s rich.

 

The men have a WC bonus? To answer my own question:

Under their labor contract, U.S. men got $55,000 each [$1,265,000 total] for making the 2014 World Cup roster, then split $4.3 million for earning four points in the group stage and reaching the knockout stage [I assume that was FIFA prize money]. That calculated to just under $187,000 per player.

The U.S. women split $862,500 for making the roster and $2.53 million for winning the 2019 World Cup, which came to $147,500 per player.

 

So in 2022, FIFA prize money is:

Qualifying bonus $2 million
Group stage $10 million
Round of 16 $12 million
Quarter finalists $18 million
4th place $25 million
3rd place $30 million
Runners-up $40 million
Champions $50 million

FIFA is budgeting revenue of $4.67 billion.

FIFA has never worked out total revenue from the women's tourney because a lot it, such as that from TV companies, is bundled with the men's.

 

LMAOL! How about a 'I believe that we will win Cup'?

 

Any deal that takes men’s revenue and redistributes it to the womens team is a disgrace that any honorable woman would be embarrassed of.

 

Is now a bad time to mention that for the last decade or so, it would have been the women’s revenue being redistributed to the men…

 

Only if there were equal prize money, which probably isn't going to happen.

FIFA could always split out men's vs. women's revenue to prove that the women are being fairly (or over-) paid. Then it's down to sponsors and TV companies to even things up.

 

No. Thanks to the Men missing the last few olympics and WC, the women have legitimately brought in more revenue than the men the last decade or so.

 

Yep.

 

i think some of people’s confusion is conflating fifa -> USSF with USSF->NT. if you delink the bonus from the source payment then long as you have the money in the bank you can make bonuses equal. some want to frame it as like profit sharing forgetting it’s a non profit. so they are instead neutralizing it like the olympic medal bonuses.

like i told the knuckle draggers a year ago the trap door out is offer them the same thing and you had to know with a WNT prez that’s what it would be.

 

amusingly, the pot stirrers seem to be trying to theorize some sort of way this remains unequal reflecting their belief it should be so. the bonuses would be different, or something. have to maintain dominance. yes, let's buy a new lawsuit.

i figure the women want literal equality and the then-interesting question is which version of equality do we pick. the men's per-game version or the women's salaried version? i say this because if you equalized on the basis of per game payments or bonuses based on most metrics, the leading women might then outearn the men. they likely get more caps a season and their team does better at the same events. so the "hourly wage" would be "equal" but they would work "more hours" and also earn "more bonus." but this should appeal to capitalists as rewarding the most busy players achieving the most.

leaving the bonuses favoring the men is a misogynistic fallback. it's not happening. they aren't cooking inequality of "opportunity" back into the cake where they are valued lower. the more interesting question is do they cap payments at some point as salary, and perhaps give benefits at that point. like, after 8 caps we pay a standard lump sum plus benefits. that gets you truer equality because it doesn't skew for cap numbers. everyone literally makes the same check until bonus time.