The new contract

i am not sure how the team can interact with the federation. in other words, is the team unionized? or can the team negotiate individually with the fed?

that all makes a difference.

 

Good point Jo. I am not at all optimistic about the contract negotiations. The money is not there to pay the salaries that the USWNT has gotten over the last couple of years.
The USSF was run with something of a hand to mouth budget throughout most of this century. Things got better in the 80s, and it struck gold in 1994, hauling in tons of money from the World Cup. That money is now gone, and sponsorship money is maxed out. I read that FIFA was furious that the 2003 WWC did not sell more tickets and bring in more money. I don't see the USWNT generating much in the way of revenue between now and 2007. The men's team should rake in a lot of money next year but we will have to qualify and make it as far as the quarterfinals again to raise a lot of cash, and that is perhaps the most difficult challenge in all of sports. Even if that happens, the cash won't come in until fall of 2006, a long time from now.

I would not be surprised to see another media vortex and strike. I found this article about the last go around, which gives us some details as to amounts paid.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/soccer/longterm/worldcup99/articles/soccer14.htm

While the players believe they have long been underpaid and underpromoted, USSF officials believe the federation has been at the vanguard of elite-level women's soccer. Indeed, many nations with powerful men's national soccer teams do little or nothing to support elite-level women's soccer in their countries. The relatively small salaries the women receive would be considered generous to female soccer players in most countries.

The USSF is not subject to Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, so it is not compelled to pay the men's and women's national teams equally. The USSF receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from FIFA, soccer's world governing body, for certain men's tournaments and virtually nothing for women's tournaments, according to Steinbrecher.

For that reason, Steinbrecher has said, there is a discrepancy in bonuses. The discrepancy is considerable. The USSF would have paid members of the U.S. men's national team $380,000 apiece in bonuses had they won the 1998 World Cup. By comparison, the USSF paid the women $12,500 each in bonuses for their title victory Saturday.

The U.S. women's team members each received surprise bonuses from other sources: $37,500 from the Women's World Cup organizers and $6,000 from the U.S. Olympic Committee.

 

Funny I read just the opposite...care to share where you got YOUR info...?


"For what it was, the time we had to put it together and the time of year, this World Cup has to be considered an unqualified success," Robert Contiguglia, president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, said in a telephone interview Monday. "As I told the FIFA (international soccer federation) banquet, all but one of my hopes and expectations were realized."

The lone failure was that of the defending champion U.S. team to reach the final in a tournament moved to the United States in May because of the SARS virus epidemic in China.

According to Contiguglia, the tournament will break even or turn a small profit on ticket sales of about 360,000. That is an average of some 22,000 for the 17 dates, despite high ticket prices ($175 top for U.S. matches in the early rounds). Even if those sales were slightly inflated by requiring fans who wanted to see the United States to buy non-United States matches at the same site, a 20,000 average would have pleased more than one major-league baseball team this year.

"Our concern was to have the non-U.S. games relatively well attended," Contiguglia said.

Attendance for the 1999 tournament in the United States, played in summer, was 660,000. But comparisons are meaningless because of the fall dates chosen when the 2003 tourney was to be in China. This time, during the school year, U.S. youth soccer teams could not plan vacation trips to matches. Media interest was diminished by competition with football and the baseball playoffs, none of which overlapped the 1999 World Cup."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/7010071.htm?1c


"Some of the other powerful earmarks of U.S. Soccer's growth can be seen in the many successful international tournaments that have taken place in the United States, including the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup. That successful tournament was organized in the United States on behalf of FIFA in just four months (after it was moved out of China because of the SARS epidemic) and would eventually attract more than 350,000 fans and achieve a financial surplus for FIFA of more than $6 million."
http://www.ussoccer.com/about/content.sps?iType=3998&icustompageid=8246


Now I just find it really hard to believe your memory is so bad, since it was discussed already in a thread you were very involved in....that thread has an awesome tee-shirt in it too!


https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/printthread.php?t=84368&page=1&pp=15

 

You'd have to think part of reducing the national team schedule is an effort to force players to accept a serious cut in pay and "perks." Fortunately, I think SocFed is once again completely mis-reading public opinion, etc. and will have to pony up even more money. The problem this time is they are having a significant impact on the ability of the team to compete. Poor coaching, little training, and no pro league - sounds like a recipe for problems.

It's too bad Dr. Boob can't understand the importance of strong national team programs at the senior level (he'd have killed off the men too, but BA won't let him). Of course, having a SocFed run by the parents of U-11 ODP hopefuls couldn't be the real problem.

PS - ignored trolls go away

 

Thanks to Jo for posting the updated contract information. Her article also stated that FIFA gives no money to the USSF for women's soccer tournaments, but gave the USSF $800,000 per game for the 3 games in the 1998 World Cup. I think the USSF got way more for the 5 games in the 2002 World Cup.
Where is Dr. Bob supposed to get the money-at least one million dollars-to send the USWNT to the Algarve Cup? There will no revenue to speak of to offset the expense. Where does that money come from?
The irony is, for all the prattling about how brilliant Ms. Foudy and Ms. Hamm were with the strike, we now have a contract that is unsustainable in a capitalist system. Worse still, the younger players have been starved for development opportunities because the Founders would not retire and kept piling up cap aftr cap. The new generation needs something like the Algarve Cup way more than the Founders did 2 years ago. In college, you just hike tuition another $650 per year or eliminate another men's team so the women's basketball coach can get paid $340,000 to coach a team that plays in an empty, new stadium week after week. You can't do that in a capitalist economy.
The radical feminists insist on $6000 per game and other perks but they play in front of a lot of empty stadiums along the way. Economizing with new contract terms could make Algarve Cups more feasible. I rather doubt this crowd will give an inch, which is another reason the USWNT will continue to decline.
Just my opinions.

 

For what it's worth, the players' union has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board's Philadelphia office:



| CHARGED PARTY |CHARGING PARTY |Docket #


| United States Soccer |Women's National Team Players |4-CA-33527
|
| Federation |Association |

I don't have details yet, though. Failure to bargain in good faith over a successor agreement is the likely cause.

 

Thanks for finding that Steve. It looks like we may be facing another strike. This time, I don't think the USSF has the money to shut them up. Last time they did. Last time, there, was still the aura of the publicity from the 1999 WWC. Now, it is different. Hardly anyone cares about this.
It is an example of the Title IX entitlemnt victim mentaility run amok. Profits don't matter. The USSF is supposed to pay big salaries even if it can't make money on women's soccer. Where is the money supposed to come from?
Just my opinions.

 

well the next tourney of significance is wcq in 2006 for 2007 in china...

so, ussf could adopt a hard line for quite awhile, and drop any unhappy players.....

there's enough hungry college kids to take their places, despite the 3-1 loss to germany.....

 

Tom--

As someone who represents labor organizations, I can safely say that whatever sense of "entitlement" workers feel comes from a general sense of what their labor is worth. They try to maximize the return on their skills. Employers, on the other hand, try to maximize profit by keeping payments to workers down.

I know you, and most readers, know this. But I wanted to restate this basic concept to refute your assertion that it is, somehow, a "Title IX entitlement victim mentality" driving the demands. We can debate whether the women are overstating their value to the USSF. I might even agree, for the sake of argument. But this happens every day in labor relations. Workers overstate their value, employers understate it. Usually, they meet somewhere in the middle. If one side or the other feels strongly about it, there is a strike or lockout. Basic stuff, really.

To imply that the women's bargaining positions is driven by a Title IX sense of entitlement is simply part of your continuing attempts to demonize these women--and, with them, Title IX--as the root of all evil in American sports. And that is not fair.

I have not been advised as to the exact allegations in the charge. However, it is possible the charge alleges that the USSF has refused to open their books to the union. Said information has to be provided, upon request, in certain circumstances. Perhaps the USSF has turned more of a profit on women's matches than they care to admit, and are trying to hide the ball.

In any event, the women are not striking...they are going to the NLRB, because they feel they are not being dealt with fairly. We'll know, after a full and complete investigation, whether they are correct.

 

Good Points. Mr Flannigan, any comments?

 

Again, thanks to Jo and Steve for informing us about this development. Steve, I think the Title IX mentality has a lot to do with this. How many times have you read a federal court opinion on the Quota which says money does not matter? Colleges have to meet the Quota whether women's sports bring in dime one. You can't run a business that way. MONEY DOES MATTER. Pro soccer is a business. The USSF isn't making much-if anything-off women's soccer. Look at the salaries that are guaranteed. They don't even practice anymore. Why should they get this kind of money if they refuse to practice? Get players who will practice and I will be more sympathetic. This is pretty basic stuff. All pay and no work makes Jill a dull player.
By the way, I am just an angry at the NHL players, who show a similar lack of reality in rejecting a salary cap. IT is the fans, the true believers who suffer.
Just my opinions

 

I have read federal court opinions many times, as have you. What you conveniently omit is that a decision which concludes a college must meet a quota and that money does not matter is usually preceeded by about a dozen paragraphs of facts which state that said college willfully ignored its clear obligations under Title IX in the first place. It's not like this is a new law, after all.

And let's remind everyone about this "quota." Title IX was something that was enacted by the federal legislature--which, you no doubt recall from your Con law days, is the voice of the people--to redress historical discrimination against women in colleges, particularly in the field of athletics. It is not something created by a court decision "interpreting" the law, as in Row v. Wade, or by any other form of "judicial activism." It was not something Julie Foudy invented just to spite you. It is federal law. If one doesn't like the law, one should complain to his congressman to get it changed. One should not insist on personalizing the issue by consistently demonizing any woman who has dared to benefit from it.

But is college sports a business? That's a rhetorical question--of course it is. That's how it has evolved over the years. However, the primary function of colleges is supposed to be providing an education, and related "educational experiences" (such as sports) to everyone, regardless of sex, creed or color. It's too bad if this obligation interferes with the profit margin. This is not me saying so--it is the American people, by way of the legislative branch which passed the law in the first place.

As far as professional soccer...of course it is a business. As you've already noted, Title IX doesn't come into play here. So why are the salaries guaranteed? Why are they "overpaid," as you say? Because that's what they were able to get through collective bargaining! They demanded it, they had leverage in 1999, and the other side blinked. It happens every day in the world of labor. So why, other than your own agenda, try to cite this as an evil brought about by Title IX?

As I said, we'll see how successful the players are this time out. But it will be collective bargaining that dictates the result--not quotas, Title IX or anything else.

Maybe so...but your outrage was not directed towards any sense of "entitlement" brought about by a law you disagree with. If all you said was "the women players show a lack of reality with their demands," then I would not have needed to respond. But you didn't. You blamed their bargaining stance on "the Title IX entitlement victim mentaility run amok." And that's just wrong.

 

As a wise moderator once said:

“Everyone knows you're obsessed with Title IX, Mr. Flannigan, but please don't pollute every forum on BigSoccer with your political views, which belong in the Politics forum. What you do is nothing but trolling and BigSoccer is far too tolerant of it. Some of us would like to read and talk about soccer.”


https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3343485&postcount=3

 

What she said.

 

If soccer is a business, then profit matters nothing if you have the right people bankrolling you. Have things changed that much in the last two years?
“The investment company -- Soccer United Marketing -- is a "spin-off" from the core MLS ownership. Owned primarily by investor-operator Philip Anschutz (along with Japanese advertising giant Dentsu), the link remains strong with the existing MLS ownership structure. The core MLS investment group has pledged to continue funding through 2006, even though estimates of league losses approach $300 million over the past six seasons."

My god what irreposible men's player was responsible for that....or did Julie Foudy infiltrate the MLS as well?


http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,5294036,00.html

 

Jo, You are correct. I am not sure why they are not practicing. I guess my point is dedicated athletes would practice whether they are paid or not. They would never put on the national uniform and go on national tv without a single practice session, valid beef with the USSF or not. It is called pride.
Jo, I don't think the luge team and other smaller sports expect $6000 a day for performing. They know there is no money in it to speak of, sort of like US men's soccer back at the 1950 World Cup. They paid some of their own expenses too.
Steve, The Quota was shoved down our throat during the Amy Cohen v. Brown University case. Congress never enacted a quota for sports or anything else. The legislative history said a quota should never be part of it. The mess caused by Title IX is a bit beyond this discussion. I am talking about the mentality it creates, that money does not matter. I also cited the NHL players, who really have nothing at all to do with Title IX, but are prima donnas like some of the USWNT. They think their salaries should triple while audiences shrink. Capitalism does not work that way. Money does matter.
The German women are paid a pittance and you don't see them going on strike. Their women are paid a tiny fraction of what the German men make. They must realize there is a big difference in the revenue they generate too. That is why they are paid less than the men.
Just my opinions.

 

could the lack of practice for this tour be that the Fed didn't want to pony up the extra money needed to have practice? meals, hotels, transport, trainers etc etc.

 

Hell those ungrateful *****should play for nothing!

 

Since 1999, women's basketball, NHL Hockey, womens soccer and classical orchestras have seen a decline in gross revenues. Yet all of the artists are ready to strike for more money. The pie is shrinking, How can you get more?
I am way more interested in classical music than soccer, but some of the argument I have heard from the Founders sounds a bit like what "unnamed sources" in the Chicago Symphony said to the press during a recent strike threat. They said it was not their problem that ticket sales and interest were down. It was management's responsibility to bring in enough cash to pay the raises. The hockey players are saying the same thing in different words.
Title IX's mentality is part of it but some of this is just common sense. An enterprise that is losing revenue cannot increase employee costs nor necessarily maintain current levels.

 

Unfortunately, your reputation for simply stating things as fact, regardless of whether they are true or not, precludes me from accepting this at face value.

Case in point: let's actually read Cohen v. Brown University, shall we?

Some highlights:

A point that your talismanic incantation of "quota" has apparently missed.

Whoopsie...the court which you said shoved quotas down our throats is actually saying nothing in the statute mandates quotas.

Hmmm...still no mention of quotas.

How about that...which leads to my following point (and mercifully spares BS readers from having to endure any more legalese):

Congress said that it hoped quotas would not be necessary. Presumably, such a thing was said because our lawmakers rather foolishly presumed that, once the law was passed, Big State University would comply. When it became clear that such voluntary compliance was not forthcoming, the lawsuits followed, and it was up to the judiciary to construct a remedy.

Title IX, in essence, requires a "one-for-one" ratio between boys and girls sports. If you want to call it a quota, fine. But it is in fact equal access mandated by law.

This is what the law requires. This is what cases like Cohen have held.

I've yet to see a single piece of evidence to support this statement. Rather, your logic is as follows: the women want more money, soccer can't afford it, ergo, the women are demanding more money because they are women, and Title IX has given them the belief that they deserve more money. Everyone follow that?

Yet, in fact, capitalism does work that way, once the employees organize themselves to have a say in things. Every worker thinks his salary go up, even while the employer says it is going broke. Every contract negotiation starts from this perspective. It's called negotiation.

The NHL players are dealing from a position of weakness, sure. Although, I must admit, I am not aware of a single player proposal calling for the tripling of salaries. As you should know, the primary issue is resisting a salary cap which will likely have the effect of reducing salaries, and, like in the NFL, will result in veteran players being cut loose for salary cap purposes.

Notably, your vitriol is directed at the players...forgetting that it is the owners who have killed the game by locking the players out. Presumably, players would have continued playing under the terms of the expired contract--it's happened before. But the owners decided to bleed them. Perhaps you feel players owe it to fans to completely capitulate. Others may feel owners--the ones who created this mess by overpaying for players in the first place--owe it to fans to eat their losses and play hockey. Either way, it's bargaining--not quotas or entitlements--which will lead to a result.