5 top wnt players accuse ussf of wage discrimination

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by luvdagame, Mar 31, 2016.

  1. 8MiLLeNiuM

    8MiLLeNiuM Member

    Jan 14, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To be fair, both SUM and USSF tried getting the SB Cup televised, but they had too short of notice. TV broadcasters usually have their programming completed months in advance. All parties expect it to be on TV next year.
     
    sitruc repped this.
  2. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because when SUM bought the rights to the 2002-2006 WCs, the state of soccer in the US was much different. You do know why the 2002 and 2006 WC were available right? Because no US English language broadcaster had bid on them.

    That simply isn't the case anymore.. Seriously.. SUM paid $40 million for the 2002 MWC, 2003 WWC, and 2006 MWC. Fox just dropped $400 million for the 2015 WWC, 2018 MWC, 2019 WWC, and 2022 MWC.
     
    Namdynamo and taosjohn repped this.
  3. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    All it says in any rehash of the contract I was able to find was ESPN and FOX split the US matches. There was no mention of any specific channels. It would be interesting if there was specific language about where the MNT can be placed or whether it's totally up to the broadcaster. As for me Im more upset with them tying streaming rights to having a cable contract.
     
  4. brjohnson

    brjohnson Member

    May 30, 2015
    indiana
    #79 brjohnson, Mar 31, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2016
    there's a thread on this in the usa men forum as well, and it's mostly a good discussion.

    i want to hear specifics from the wnt players and/or objective journalists knowledgeable and connected to this situation on why they believe their pay is unfair relative to the mnt players. numbers, evidence...not cries of sexism and dissimilar performance, not cherry-picking and purposely misleading rationale which is what so many publications related to this are doing. i thought the rationale in the nytimes piece was weak. everyone knows the success of the wnt vs the mnt. this isnt as much about success as it is about value, so stop goddamn using it so heavily to argue your point. solo has lost all credibility to speak on this issue if she ever had any.

    i'm curious as to how accurate these numbers are:

    you have to think that the wnt players have some serious substance to ride on here though, because, assumingly, they know how, not just how much, ussf pays its players. i honestly still dont quite understand that, which is furthermore why i want to hear specifics from them. uswnt players are also aware, just as well as the hilariously low percentage of fans who actually have a rational mind toward this, that broad economic factors play such a powerful role in the entertainment industry, so this isnt equivalent to the typical case of a female marketing manager paid less than a male marketing manager despite possessing very similar-to-equal backgrounds and performing very similar-to-equal job demands.

    perhaps they're primarily aiming for fair treatment, such as field and hotel conditions, which seems to almost routinely makes ussf look like a shitface. there really isnt an excuse for that. it's impossible for ussf to win this battle in terms of pr, even if they 'win' the legal battle. actually, especially if they win the legal battle, then they likely lose even more in the pr battle. sucks it's developed into that.

    gotta say, even though it's not fair since this is about uswnt players vs ussf, it's hard for me to sympathize with them when some wnt's in the world cant even afford transportation and their players literally cant afford and dont have the opportunity to be professional soccer players. there are so many futile games where the uswnt are playing amateurs. but again, thats not the uswnt players' fault and it's irrelevant in this particular case. just sayin though.

    also want to mention how interesting the timing is. this is either really good or really bad timing. i am not sure- what do you guys think?

    this i know for certain: if i hear one more ignorant person comparing fifa's 2014 and 2015 world cup championship payouts, especially using it to support the uswnt players' side here, i will have to consider putting my neck in a paper slicer. amazingly enough though, some of the uswnt players, including morgan, are guilty of that. i remember her bringing it up in a recent espn his & hers interview to support her argument for this very issue. a comparison holds no water if it's not comparing like things. i struggle to find the words to capture the galactic difference between the mens and womens world cups. world cup payouts arent even ussf's money so it's irrevelant to this particular case. this case exists because ussf pays both its senior national teams, which allows this mnt vs wnt pay comparison and debate. you would think thats common sense.
     
    pearcemd18, sitruc and Namdynamo repped this.
  5. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    It depends on whether we r talking live event or something in a can. Obviously if FS1 had a live college basketball game scheduled for that time they werent dropping it to pick up SBC but if it was something recorded previously they certainly had the time to move stuff around. This wasnt like CONCACAF where NBCSN found out the week before. SBC was planned months in advance. The problem here was March is a dense month for sports.
     
  6. BostonRed

    BostonRed Member+

    Oct 9, 2011
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Some interesting analysis from 538.com:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-earn-the-glory-while-men-earn-the-money-in-u-s-soccer/

    The bottom line is top US men get paid more in their WC year than do top US women in their WC year.

    That's mitigated a bit by two factors:
    * Men don't have nearly the same opportunity for bonuses at the Olympics (I don't think it's part of their CBA, though it's possible the overage players get paid as if it's a MNT match)

    * The $9 million vs. $2 million dollar FIFA payout for the World Cups is substantial.

    I would like to see an analysis that looks at total spending on the players by team over 4 years -- salaries, benefits, bonuses. That would give a better sense of the pay disparity (if any) over a longer run.

    Of course, this claim may take longer than the CBA is even going to be around, so it's mostly about negotiating the next CBA.
     
    Gamecock14 and cpthomas repped this.
  7. BrooklynSoccer

    BrooklynSoccer Member+

    Jan 22, 2008
    Being a journalist, Grant should be clearer. The numbers listed are projections for 2014-2017.

    I'm also guessing, since these are projections, the USA wins a medal and there's a nice, rewarding tour after.
     
    sitruc and Gamecock14 repped this.
  8. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Good for the ladies. It's not only the pay. The women are made to play on turf while the men are forbidden from playing on it. I hope they win their case and/or get a favorable settlement.
     
  9. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    Neither is true.
     
    Timon19 and Gamecock14 repped this.
  10. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Member+

    Feb 11, 2002
    Jupiter, Fl.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I actually mentioned this here at BS in 2002 after seeing the differences in bonuses from Mens' Qfinals vs Women winning in '99.
     
  11. thegamesthatrate

    Jan 9, 2007
    I don't claim to know the actual revenues, and without having seen detailed books and records neither should any of you.

    That being said, the premise on which the players are basing their suit is that economic performance justifies them getting paid more than the men; they are willing to accept equal pay. The playing conditions, travel allowances etc. are part of the second prong of their request, namely, respect.

    However, the most fascinating thing about this suit is the possibility that revenue figures support the players' claim.

    That would mean they base their arguments on the factual support of, we produce, we earn, therefore we should get paid to reflect it.

    That is a fair basis on which to seek equal pay if the revenue production argument would otherwise perhaps justify higher pay.

    This team generated the highest TV audience ever for a soccer game. And, they are a special team in this country. Not only do they win; they command wide respect. An overall emotional case can be made that, if any women's sports team deserves this, this team does.

    But, to their credit, they seem poised to be willing to prove that, on the basis of economics, they deserve it.

    And, if you think about it, that is the only justifiable basis for pay scales being set.

    Keep in mind that on some basic level the USWNT does not have to do the same task that the men do. They get to play women's teams; they do not have to take on men's teams.

    The basic issue as I see it is, if they play well enough that more people want to watch them win women's games than want to see the USMNT strive for mediocrity relative to the world stage, they are entitled to make more money - just like baseball players make more money than rowers even though rowers might work harder.

    I let their attorney know that I was willing on a volunteer basis to put my considerable knowledge of the history of the game and this team behind the attorney's efforts to achieve justice for the USWNT players here, since I have some ability to put this team in a proper context and perspective so that the widest audience can appreciate what this team means. I'll let you know if I wind up contributing meaningfully.
     
  12. lil_one

    lil_one Member+

    Nov 26, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Since this seems to be coming up again and again, I thought I'd post the link to a blog article about some of the revenue numbers and where they are coming from: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...S-Soccers-budget-for-national-teams-NWSL.html (it includes a link to the actual USSF budget doc)

    As for me, count me as one who doesn't think this is just about money. In fact, I think its mostly another power play in the whole USSF v USWNTPA kerfuffle to get more transparency (SUM books opened) and pay/benefits increased (but not equal), especially with CBA negotiations starting soon (or kind of already started I guess with all of the lawsuits). If you haven't been following the USSF v PA lawsuit, go here: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/ussf-sues-the-uswnt.2028808/
     
    Bob Morocco repped this.
  13. Gamecock14

    Gamecock14 Member+

    May 27, 2010
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    The one change I hope happens in a new CBA is that there is a player representative from the USWNT who flies out to each venue to determine if the field is good enough to play.

    I know everyone blames USSF for the Hawaii fiasco. IMO (and I know it won't be popular) some blame has to go to the players for not even bothering to google the field. That field has been notoriously awful. It is like the wind at Candlestick Park. Everyone knows about it, but they carry on because it is a game in San Fran. The team saw a Hawaiian vacation in December and jumped on board (I am not blaming them). It got real after an injury during practice on grass.

    One other thing to add. It seems that the rumored 15 mil plus the US will get from Copa America this summer is not included into the old projections. The mens team will have a significant increase in revenue.
     
    sitruc repped this.
  14. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    But the players have no way of knowing that the field will be as awful when they get there as it was in the past. USSF said them selves that they dropped the ball-- that it should have been inspected before the players got there, and (presumably) the inadequacies addressed or some other arrangement made...
     
    Gamecock14 and Dundalk24 repped this.
  15. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    BrooklynSoccer repped this.
  16. BrooklynSoccer

    BrooklynSoccer Member+

    Jan 22, 2008
    • A U.S. Soccer spokesperson disputed the revenue figures presented in the U.S. players’ complaint. “During the last four years, the men’s revenues have been significantly higher than the women’s national team,” the spokesperson said. “The numbers provided in the complaint at times are inaccurate, misleading or both. And looking at a single year doesn’t provide the entire picture. If you look at four or eight years cumulatively, the men’s national team revenues are almost twice that of the women’s national team.”

    • Gulati finished by saying he was confident of getting a new CBA done with the players for the start of 2017. “I have no doubt that we will get a deal done and we’ll get back to focusing on the game,” he said. “We’ll get a deal done that’s fair to the players that will involve a process of give and take. We’ve got a team that we’re very proud of. We’re committed to many of the issues they’ve raised, and we’ll figure out a way to get to those points with them.”
     
  17. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Then the issue is the incompetence of the PA than issues with the USSF. When you have a PA that's more interested in publicity than tangible results, its hard to have any sympathy for them.
     
  18. lil_one

    lil_one Member+

    Nov 26, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not sure what you're saying. USSF itself admits that it was their responsibility to inspect the field and that they dropped the ball. I don't think we should fault the WNT (or the WNTPA) for believing, in good faith, that USSF would properly do their job and that they field would be playable.
     
    Gamecock14 repped this.
  19. Smallchief

    Smallchief Member+

    Oct 27, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    #94 Smallchief, Apr 1, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2016
    The US Soccer Foundation is a non-profit charity -- 501 (c) (3) -- under U.S. laws. Good charities are forthright about their finances, and all charities should be forced to be forthright. Then we would avoid scandals like the "Wounded Warriors" and others.

    The solution seems to me to be obvious. Keep separate accounts for women's and men's soccer. Revenue, expenses, etc. Pay the players accordingly. Put the fannies in the seats and you get paid more.

    Looking at the financial report of USSF for April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, the USSF spent $31 million on the men's National Team and $10 million on the women's team. I don't find a breakdown of revenue for each team.
     
  20. Gamecock14

    Gamecock14 Member+

    May 27, 2010
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    #95 Gamecock14, Apr 1, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2016
    I just hope the new CBA addresses this in some way.

    I just think questions had to be raised before hand in Hawaii. There is no other venue in the state or venue within 2,500 miles that could hold the game. NFL players said that the Astroturf of the 80s was better than when they played the pro bowl there.

    And to be clear, I think the USSF deserves 99.999% of the blame. It's just that field has been notoriously bad and there should have been some questions asked before hand.
     
  21. BostonRed

    BostonRed Member+

    Oct 9, 2011
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One of the problems is that much of the issue in Hawaii around seams and loose turf was in part of the field that wasn't even in place until the last minute. The field was fine for football, but expanding the pitch for soccer meant they had a field that wasn't ready for play. And that expanded pitch wasn't set up until the last minute because it was being used for football. An early inspection wouldn't have helped much, though it might have identified an area that needed to be watched closely in the final preparations for the game.
     
  22. Caversham

    Caversham Member

    Oct 25, 2015
    #97 Caversham, Apr 1, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2016
    You have to keep in mind that the USWNT had a wildly successful year in 2015 and the USMNT are probably at their worst in well over a decade. I'm not sure how this impacted things for 2015, but revenues, expenses, etc should be looked at over a 4 year period.

    For me the solution is simple...

    Fix the easy stuff (there is absolutely no reason for these issues to exist and USSF should be ashamed that they do):
    * Agree to the women's turf requirements. (Grass fields only, send field inspectors before the game).
    * Agree to the women's travel requirements. (Better flights, hotels, etc)

    The harder stuff:
    * SUM should be dissolved. National team, MLS, and NWSL TV broadcast rights should be negotiated separately. I don't have an issue with USMNT and USWNT TV rights being negotiated together.
    * Separate the books for USMNT and USWNT and distribute the same percentage of net income (revenue - expenses), match income, TV income, etc to both USMNT and USWNT. If the USWNT elects to keep their guaranteed salaries, the guaranteed salaries get subtracted as expenses before the distribution. Players get paid based on the revenue they generate.
    * The USSF can't control the amount FIFA awards to World Cup participants, winners, etc, and the USWNT and USMNT have vastly different World Cup expectations, so I don't have an issue with how this is currently broken down.
     
    kernel_thai and Blaze20 repped this.
  23. sitruc

    sitruc Member+

    Jul 25, 2006
    Virginia
    The sport's largest International tournament wouldn't be significantly more popular to US audiences when it was in a location that was easily accessible and shared the same time zones. The viewership was just as huge in 2007 and 2011, right?
     
    Gamecock14 repped this.
  24. Airox

    Airox Member

    Mar 14, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While I'm new to this forum, I'm not as new to women's soccer. With that perspective I think it's interesting that a lot of people more familiar with the men's side have come to this post due to the significance of the news.

    These same people are asking good relevant questions and making interesting comments. It's so much better than the comments I've been finding on other sites....
     
    brjohnson repped this.
  25. Salacious Bum

    Salacious Bum Member

    Jun 5, 2010
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Bwahaha! Yeah, be sure to let us all know when that slimebag Kessler give you a ring.
    Oh wait, it is April Fools' Day, isn't it...
     

Share This Page