The new contract

Do the players really have any leverage here? Couldn't the USSF just say we're going to have a WNT, and you'll play by our rules if you want to be on it? Clearly, the newer players don't have Mia, Foudy, Chastain, etc. type pull.

 

*smack*

A crisp spanking, smartly administered to our troll's now pink little bottom.

 

"Title IX was something that was enacted by the federal legislature...it was not something Julie Foudy invented just to spite you. "

that's awesome

i won't belabor the point, but will chime in nonetheless on the fact that title ix is indeed a civil rights law, rooted in the need to redress and prevent discrimination. it is not and was never intended to be a vehicle for a quota system. and in practice, it hasn't created one.

speaking as a lawyer here, i love it when people who have never taken a course in statutory construction (or even read a statute!) rip title ix. it kind of makes me shake my head and laugh.

 

I'm pretty sure that you're mistaken on these points. As I recall, it wasn't until several years after the passage of Title IX that people even realized that it would apply to athletics. What's more, the text of the law itself indicates that its enforcement should not rely upon a quota. The current "three planks" interpretation (which often does amount to a quota) was not put into effect until the 1990's, and when it happened, it was an offshoot of the Brown University decision.

I'm not sure how relevant that information is to this particular conversation, but the current Title IX policy is certainly not the voice of the people.

 

Thank you to all our resident Lawyers for coming in and layin' the old wood to T.F.'s backside. I am not a lawyer. but I think I even argue a case better then Mr. "Flamed again" does.
thank you in particular Beefalo for pointing out (which I would have done if you had not) the fact that Title IX is actually a civil rights law. Many folks do not realize that.
it is clear that when title IX was first passed into law it had a general perpose. and that perpose was quite simply that there was to be no discrimination based on gender ETC. This also could apply equally to a male player. it is not in place strictly as a female oriented statute, though many think it is. Males denied the right to participate in what one might concider a female sport could "theoretically" use Title IX in launching a suit against any School that does not allow Little Tommy to play with the girls simply because he is a boy.
Title IX has since it's inception grown into some hideous monster. not because there is anything wrong with the law itself. but; simply it is not for the most part fully understood by those who are suposed to impliment it.
When title IX first came into being it was largly ignored and concidered nothing more then a neusience law. Colleges, universities and school systems did not "in general" even make an attempt to comply. It was not until the law was finally used as a tool in court that the above mentioned began to take it seriously. But; they did not go into that dark night willingly...they were draged there by their pocket books and they resented it.
To argue that women's programs do not have a right to be there when it is the men's programs that bring revenue into the school is not only sexist, it is also a lie. Men's programs routinely lose money. fact is collegiant sports does not make money for the school's except in very rare cases. and the same could be said for women's sports as well. Schools make their money through tuitions, Federal grants, and generous benifactors. Some of those Benifactors are the same people you are Vilifying Thomas. They do not discriminate either. a new building lets say that both male and female students use. or a new soccer feild that both male and female players use.
or a simple donation that helps to repair a feild for the following year may be a way in which these "greedy people" give back.
In the end in 99' it came down to one thing. The ladies who had been successful and had brought their share of money into the federation simply wanted equal pay to that of the U.S. men. Not more, Just equal.
To be fair, it could easily be argued that promotion brought people out to the games in 99 and in 2000. But; then the promotion stoped. and I do not care what sport you play or where you play it. or even how high up the lader it's status. if it is not promoted it will eventually decline. In 2000 the women's gold cup was heavily promoted and they had great numbers. But; the casual fan is not going to know the WNT is in town if there is no advertising.
One could argue the women do not get their due from sponsors. Case in point. the WWC 2003. Prior to that event and as a precursor to the Men's World cup. Philips had a commercial. I am sure you remember the one. it featured two large appartment buildings sitting accross the street from one another. and in one was a giant Philips Big screen T.v. and the people from the building opposite were drawn out onto their terraces and got involved in a game being played on this big T.V. and featured was none other then "the Men's national soccer team".....Well leading up to the WWC we were still seeing that same commercial where was something along the same line for the women? It was the WWC coming up. not the Men's. to a degree it was insulting. maybe if there had actually been some WWC advertising on T.V. we may have seen bigger numbers. As it was...the numbers were not that bad concidering we had only 4 months as apposed to 3 years to prepare.
But; despite it the WWC was still concidered a success. and money was made.
Sorry so long winded.
And I appologize for any spelling or punctuation errors before anyone says anything. I am Dyslexic and I do my best.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

May I make a suggestion.

Jo started this thread to discuss the new contract wityh the USWNT. It is kind of an important issue, no matter how you feel about the old one. Now, people are just posting about Title IX. I can start another thread on Title IX or someone else can. If I have time, I will give you my thoughts. Some legalese is necessary but I will keep it to a minimum.

Meanwhile, Fearm9 fanatic intimated that the money issue was driving the USWNT's decision not to practice before games. I rather doubt that 3 days of hotel costs instead of 1 day would break the USSF, but I could be wrong. This could be a kind of blue flu, or semi-strike that will preceed the big strike. I think we can agree that the USSF is not flush with cash like it was between 1994 and 2000.

 

"Pretty sure"? You don't want to wander into a court of law with that kind of grasp on the facts.

Really? Then it was a pretty myopic view, or perhaps wishful thinking, given the plain language of the statute: Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681(a).

If you're suggesting that people really thought that intercollegiate sports, which is funded by a university, takes place on university property, and features the participation of students, was not an "educational activity," then shame on them.

Furthermore, it appears from the Cohen court's recounting of the history of Title IX that the Office of Civil Rights announced the application of the law to athletic programs as early as 1974. Lest there was any doubt, the OCR made it plain in 1978 that the obligations of the law applied to athletics programs.

Seeing how the Cohen case cites the "three planks," it obviously was in place well before the decision. In fact, the three-part test was enunciated in 1979.

All of this is in the Cohen case, by the way.

Really? Then why hasn't it been changed? When courts have engaged in judicial activism in the past, and the public was outraged (such as the Reagan court's gutting of the Civil Rights Act in the 1980s), Congress, spurred by the people, moved to amend the Act in 1991 to plug the holes the Supreme Court had created.

No such movement has been prompted by the alleged "judicial activism" driving Title IX. Presumably, the majority of the American people are all in favor of equal access and opportunity.

"Persistent invocation of...inflammatory terms." Often the last refuge of advocates who have neither the facts nor the law on their side.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

You know, you always do this..."[n]ow, people are just posting about Title IX." Almost as if you were not the one who injected it into the proceedings in the first place.

But I'll play the hand you're dealing now, and stick with the contract.

As I've said before, the parties are bargaining. You can opine that the women are being unrealistic in their demands, given how the USSF is not awash in post-WC '94 or WWC '99 cash. Others may argue that the WNT remains about the only profitable component in the USSF, and that the women should be paid accordingly.

But it's really kind of early to worry about it...if there is a strike or lockout, then we can debate over who is ruining the game. In the meantime, it is pointless to argue over the posturing of both sides this early in the game.

When I find out more about the NLRB charge, I'll let you know.

 

This isn't a court of law, and before you assail my grasp of the facts, I'd be very interested to see proof of your claim that Title IX was passed "to redress discrimination ... particularly in the field of athletics." If that were the case, why did the OCR even need to make these announcements, years after its passage?

Without going into pedantic distinctions, The Village Voice refers to "The Clinton administration's 1996 'Clarification' of Title IX, which put the proportionality test on the books."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0215/rondeaux.php

I find this rhetoric highly disingenuous. Just because you can cite one example of judicial activism being reversed, that does not imply that all such activism will be. What's more, if the American people support equal access and opportunity, then by necessity, they oppose the current quota-driven Title IX policy, which skews opportunity by considering only outcomes.

 

No, it isn't. But we are discussing legal issues--well reported issues, both in statutes and in case law. I am rarely a stickler for detail in BS discussions but, as with history, "kinda sorta" isn't going to cut it.

As far as proof of my claim...well, 30 years of enforcement speaks for itself.

Please read the Cohen case. I provided the link just for that purpose. It would save me the trouble of having to post quotes like this:

Well?

Speaking of rhetoric, your statement that there is a "quota-driven Title IX policy" is simply a conclusion. Just more "persistent invocation of inflammatory terms."

But let's assume my example provides the only such instance. The point is, our system of government is designed to allow the people to correct flawed decisions by the judiciary branch by petitioning their legislature to pass laws overturning the decision. It's what the Founders intended--read The Federalist Papers. And it has worked fine for over two centuries.

Let me anticipate some arguments you may try to make. "Well, America is pro-life, and Roe v. Wade has not been overturned." True enough. But Roe involved Constitutional interpretation; thus, only amendment of the Constitution (a deliberately difficult process) can overturn it.

Title IX, like Title VII, is statutory. Thus, if a court interprets it wrong, Congress can easily correct the misinterpretation. There has been no movement to do so.

By the way, there is an easy way around Title IX if universities find themselves too burdened by its requirements: stop taking federal money. Rely on all the profit generated by your high-and-mighty men's sports programs. Once they stop accepting federal funds, then the government no longer has jurisdiction over them, and they can cut all the women's programs they want.

As it is, these are my last words on Title IX, unless and until Mr. Flanigan wants to inject it into the discussion again. I'll stick to collective bargaining issues, consistent with the spirit of Jo's initial post and Mr. Flanigan's request.

 

It sounds like your a lawyer. At least I'd hope so given the length of your posts. Just thought I'd let you know it's "Roe" not "Row". That could be embarrasing.

Anyone want to discuss women's contracts? Or at least pretend to?

 

It's proof that the law has been applied in athletics, but not that discrimination in athletics was a motivation for the law. You haven't justified your initial claim.

Nice legalese in that quote ... it "does not change the existing standards," but it "does provide further information and guidelines." As I recall, those guidelines include an explanation that the quota is the only "safe harbor," thus elevating its status.

When you use the word "demonize," I can see that as an inflammatory term. When I use the word "quota," it has a precise definition. You may not like the sound of it, but it is perfectly accurate and appropriate.

You close by suggesting that if universities don't like the quota -- sorry, "proportionality" -- they can refuse federal funding entirely. This only underscores the heavy-handed approach taken by policy-makers; the only recourse they allow is absurdly extreme.

 

I don't get it. I'm looking at my last post, and I see it referred to as Roe twice.

An attempt at humor, perhaps?

Whatever. Let's talk about kontracts instead...

 

I quoted the "Row" part. Maybe need to check your vision?

Yes, quite successful I thought.

since when has this been about contracts?

 

A. YOU started in on Title IX.
You effing hypocrite!!! You start in on something then when someone busts you on it (like Jo did) you try to run. This thread turned into title IX because of you.

B..... do try and get the names right. FearM9 and M9fanatic are two different people.

 

Jo is right. John Langel has been involved in Foudy-related legal matters, including the strike, for a long time.
I started another thread about Title IX. Numerista made some excellent points. See you there!

Fearm9 is a Mexican-American woman who knows tons of stuff about soccer and is normally very polite. She is also a rock-climber. Fearm9 Fanatic is a Chicagoan, also very cluey about many things, and is way more hostile. I know they are two different people.

 

If they are considered the employers of both the Men and Women,Title IX is not their worry, but they damn well better get concerned with Title VII!

 

FWIW...Langel is an attorney based in Philly, the same city where the player's association filed their claim against US Soccer. Gonna be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

FearM9 is a guy in Idaho who is on the Fatkins and Jenny Craig diets. He really doesn't know much about anything including soccer. If you ask the kids and parents that come into his climbing wall on Tuesday nights, they will tell you he is quite rude to 'em. And FearM9 is also somewhat, well mostly, retired from rockclimbing (other than being a belay bitch) thanks to an A4 or A2 pulley injury to his left ring finger that occurred way back in March.


I don't know what NLRB/Philly law is like with regards to the publishing of decisions rendered by the NLRB, but it will be interesting to read the final decision of this case. From what I can tell on the NLRB website, there is a way to pull up old cases filed with the NLRB.

Here in Idaho, I deal with way too many tax law cases and Idaho law states that once a decision is issued by say the Tax Commission or Idaho Supreme Court or district courts, that they cannot be published until 120 days after the decision is made. What do the NLRB/Philly laws say about this?

 

Philadelphia law is not a factor. Nor is Pennsylvania law. The National Labor Relations Board is a federal agency, enforcing a federal law.

As of now, only a charge of unfair practices has been filed. These are not posted on the NLRB website. They are public records, however, and are available through FOIA.

We are a long ways off from any reportable decision. First, the Region will conduct an investigation. This should take anywhere from 7 to 11 weeks. If the Region finds merit to the charge, the USSF will be given the opportunity to settle the case; if this is, as I suspect, a refusal to bargain charge, the remedy will be a notice posting saying "we will sin no more." If it is a refusal to provide info charge, the USSF would provide the information and also post a notice saying they will not break the law again. This settlement would not be something that the NLRB will make available on the internet.

If the USSF does not settle, the Region would issue a complaint. A trial would then be held before an Administrative Law Judge, usually about 35 days after the issuance of the complaint. After the trial ends briefs are filed by both parties, and the ALJ basically issues the decision when he feels like it. It could be months or years. Once he or she does, however, it results in a reported decision, available through the NLRB site or Westlaw or Lexis.

Of course, the losing side can appeal to the full Board in Washington. It has been taking years for the NLRB to get around to ruling on ALJ decisions.

If the players prevail before the ALJ and/or the Board, they get...well, nothing, really. The law does not provide for punitive damages. The players would basically get the same thing they would have gotten at settlement--a notice posting with a promise not to break the law again.

Bear in mind, the Region's investigation can conclude that no violation of the law took place. At that point, the Regional Director would issue a dismissal letter. In many cases, charging parties (e.g., the players) opt for a "short form" letter, which means no one will get to see the reasons for the Region's dismissal.

The short answer: don't look for anything on the internet for awhile. With any luck, one of my friends at Region 4 will tell me what the charge alleges tomorrow, and I'll post the details.

 

Aren't we missing the point here . . .

I mean, isn't it disgusting that our soccer SocFed is trying to shortchange marquee players and destroy and/or neglect a marquee program? Why should we need a federal law to force these people to support their most successful team?

The truth is SocFed is pretty flush with cash - they get a cut of everything soccer in this country (every youth player, every coach, every tournament, every travel permission, every . . . pays a fee). They've mismanaged, mismarketed, and mishandled the WNT at every turn - in fact their neglect was the only thing that allowed Anson to get a hold on the thing and build a champion (that he passed on to Tony D over SocFed's objections).

Why shouldn't they have to pay for a full fledged WNT program? If they're going to send 4 dozen little boys down to FL every year to try to undermine college soccer . . . they can't afford to lean on Nike or Phillips to pony up and support a WUSA II or whatever? Or play a full NT schedule? Pretty sad - and this is a "democratically" appointed organization - there's a way to get a hold of this!

 

How are they being shortchanged? Women's soccer generates very little money, yet the players want big time compensation packages. The numbers don't add up. I think the USSF has been very generous with USWNT. What marque players are you talking about? Mia Hamm is retiring. There is no next generation that the casual fan can identify. The Founders hung on and used the system for all they could, and now the cupboard is bare.
The academy down in Florida is funded by sponsors, not the operating budget of the USSF. What a great deal for the sponsors. Freddy Adu's value over the next 10 years alone probably will pay for the cost of Bradenton. If Ms. Hamm and Ms. Foudy can persuade Nike to pony up 30 million a year to subsisdize the WUSA, they should do so. Nike is not interested. It is not a viable business proposition.
Just my opinions.

 

As promised, here are the specifics of the charge in Case 4-CA-33527.

Under the terms of the current contract, set to expire on 12/31/04, the parties are to begin negotiations for a successor agreement at least 60 days prior to the expiration.

As early as September 3, 2004, the players have been requesting negotiation sessions for a new contract. The USSF refused to meet with the players' association until November 2, 2004.

At the meeting, the USSF refused to respond to a single proposal set forth by the players, and did not make any proposals of its own. The USSF has also refused to meet with the players' association since then.

Meanwhile, the players requested information from the USSF. Under the law, the employer has an obligation to produce requested information which is relevant to collective bargaining. To date, the USSF has refused to produce anything.

So, far from "greedy" women trying to overstate their value, it appears the reality is the USSF is ignoring its clear obligation under federal law by simply ignoring the players in their efforts to get a new contract.