The new contract

If so--and I have no reason to doubt you--it certainly puts a much different spin on the "boycott" than others would have us believe.

 

Steve, any thoughts on the Title VII implications? If USSF qualifies as the employer of both the USMNT and THE USWNT under the Act, can they pay the women less for the same job(US soccer player)and not violate Title VII??

I first raised this issue a few years ago, discussing the widely disparate bonuses the Men got for making the WC 2002 quarters, with the ones the Women got for winning WWC 1999. There is a prima facie case here, IMO, wonder what the USSF's non discriminatory reasons would be,bet we would see some interesting water treading......

 

Can you imagine what the response would be if Rudy Galindo, Elvis Stoichko and other male figure skaters said they deserved the same compensation as Sasha Cohen and Michelle Kwan? They would be laughed out of court. The Daily Show would do a skit about it. That is how ridiculous the demand would be.
The males practice just as hard as the females, but there is a lot less money in their area than in the women's. Female figure skaking is big business. Male figure skating is not.
I have something even more ridiculous. The USWNT going on strike a second time for the same money the national team gets, even though the revenue the USWNT generates is negligible compared to what the national team generates.
Steve, thanks for giving us more detail on this, but I think people should know that this is only one side of the story. If you only read the plaintiff's complaint in a lawsuit, you would almost always think the defendant was wrong. We don't know what the USSF's response will be, but it does not take a genius to figure it out. They can't subsidize women's soccer anymore, at least at the rather high level under the old contract.
The USSF has never made money on women's soccer and probably never will. Even if you believe the happy happy press releases after the 1999 WWC, and I do not, the 2.5 million in profit did not all go to the USSF, and what did go to the USSF was surely eaten up by legal fees and the high salaries the Founders ended up with.
The USSF did get a lot of publicity from the 1999 WWC, but that was a two-edged sword. Much of the publicity denigrated the national team, hurting the money-making potential. How many times did USA Today point out with glee that the US men had come in last at the 1998 World Cup (more difficult than anything the USWNT has ever accomplished)? The articles were never just about the Supernaturals. They always tried to humiliate the American men.
Now, women's soccer is yesterday's fad and there is no real money coming in. The USSF cannot subsidize the USWNT at current levels. Where is the money supposed to come from?
Just my opinions.

 

An interesting thought; on the face of it, it would appear to be a classic example of disparate treatment based on gender.

On the other hand, this is where Mr. Flannigan's oft-stated points about revenue generation and such might provide the USSF with a viable defense. In other words, if the USSF were able to show that the women were not being paid less because they were women but, rather, because women's soccer generates far fewer revenues, then perhaps they have an excuse.

I do note that there is a law called the Equal Pay Act. As one might expect, it provides that men and women receive equal pay for equal work. The only exceptions are where different wages are paid pursuant to 1) a seniority system; 2) a merit system; or 3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production. There is also a "catch all" exception--where the wage differential is based "on any factor other than sex." Among the more popular of these "other" factors realtes to employment costs and economic benefit. A more controversial--and less successful--"other" defense is market value. While usually viewed skeptically by courts, it is possible that, in the sporting arena, the reality that women's professional sports do not draw as well as men's sports provides a market value exception.

It is likely these same defenses would apply to a Title VII action. While I have done quite a bit of Title VII defense work, none of my cases have involved wage disparities, so I don't know for sure.

Of course, I don't necessarily subscribe to the assumption that the women generate less revenue. And I suspect the women don't, either; I'd lay good money that one of the pieces of information requested by the players association (and, to date, not provided by the USSF) is financial information which would answer the question. If the USSF is hiding the ball (as they currently are), one would suspect it is because the information does not support its position.

 

A fair point, but you're getting ahead of yourself.

First, having invesitgated hundreds of such ULP charges during my time with the NLRB, I can tell you that bargaining charges are among the few where the averments in the charge are the facts, and there are no excuses. Under the law, you must bargain upon request, and you must provide relevant requested information. Seeing how the USSF has made itself available for only one bargaining session, and has not provided any information, I do not see what defenses can be provided. The USSF could offer some bona fide excuses for its lack of availability, and the players' information requests can be overly broad and involving confidential information. In most cases, however, the employer has broken the law. And this is typical--after all, the penalty (a notice posting) is rather slight. So why not put pressure on the union by ignoring it? (There are some real dangers to this strategy in the "normal" workplace, but they probably don't come into play here.)

This would be much different if the charges alleged that, while there have been several bargaining sessions, and information has been provided, the USSF has been bargaining in "bad faith." This is a much harder case to prove and, in most circumstances, the investigation reveals that, while the employer may have been engaging in hard bargaining, it was not bad faith bargaining.

If the charge alleged the latter, your points would carry a lot more weight. Ultimately, once the USSF does begin to bargain, it may take those very positions, and the players' association will have its work cut out for it at the bargaining table.

As it stands right now, however, the USSF is refusing to meet with the players. The fact that they have until December 31 to reach a new deal does not excuse this refusal. We'll just have to see how the Board proceeds with its investigation.

Your other points are quite valid. In fact, I've just posted about the likely "market value" exception in wage cases involving male and female athletes.

 

Steve, did you see those empty stadiums over in Greece? They could not even give the tickets away. Did you see the stadiums at the 2003 WWC? There were a couple of good crowds but most of them were disastrous. A few games I watched seemed to have about 80 people in the stands (probably free tickets given away).

When the SARS crisis hit the 2003 WWC was up for the highest bidder. Nobody wanted it. The USSF took a big gamble to stage it and got some federal government subsidies to cover the costs. But for the USSF the Women's World Cup might well have been shut down for good. If you are a USWNT fan you should be praising the USSF. Remember when Dan Flynn and Berhalter flew to Zurich and said the US could stage it but it required a subsidy? Blatter told them they would not get a cent from FIFA. Still, the USSF bit the bullet and saved the Women's World Cup. Economies were made with some of the teams, cramming their preliminary round games into a shorter period to save expenses. How about the USWNT? They flew around in a chartered plane, including the short trip from Philadelphia to Columbus

Just my opinions.

 

I would think market value definitely is an issue or the WNBA players would be demanding equal pay to the men.

 

Apples and oranges, Tom--Greece's empty stadiums had absolutely nothing to do with the difference in support between men's and women's sports. It was simply a doomed affair from jump.

A slightly hyperbolic comment from you...from what I saw and read, the crowds were not only very good (particularly given the short lead time for publicity and such), but the USSF also turned a nice profit from the affair.

Let's face it--only in the U.S. will you get big crowds for women's soccer. Especially on such short notice. As a result, it is not at all surprising that only the USSF stepped up to host the event.

Once again, your breathless hyperbole undercuts some otherwise valid points. "[T]he Women's World Cup might well have been shut down for good." Cite one credible source for this statement. Just one. If the U.S. did not host, the WWC would have simply been rescheduled for 2004, or even 2005. As it is, the USSF generously stepped in and staged the tournament.

Yeah...next time make them drive the full 7.5 hours.

 

You can't believe every press release, especially from this crowd. Remember the WUSA press releases which said Pax was paying 1.5 million dollars for TV rights when in reality the WUSA paid Pax to carry the games? How about Lynn Morgan saying the WUSA was about to expand 2 weeks before it shut down for good? Three weeks ago, NPR said the WUSA would be back in 2005. You don't believe that do you?

I would take any press release concerning women's soccer with lots of salt. I think the USSF was able to cover costs, but it had help with a federal subsidy. With federal subsidies you could claim an armadillo racing league turned a profit. But that is not a profit in a capitalist system. If the 2003 WWC had been put off for lack of any country willing to take the financial risk, you cannot be sure it woulkd be back in 2005 or 2007. It might have gone the way of the WUSA. Fans like us should be grateful the USSF took the risk to stage it a second time, especially after the way the Founders have treated the USSF.
You don't seee the national team going on strike, saying they "deserve" the same salasy Anelka or Zidane gets, do you? They don't point to LeBron james and say they "deserve" 88 million too. They know soccer is a marginal sport in the country and they are lucky men's soccer is doing as well as it is doing.

 

To an outsider, a plausible one is that negotiations only began earlier this month. If the players requested large quantities of information, what kind of turnaround time can they demand? The USSF is confronted with the task of assembling everything requested, and then evaluating -- piece-by-piece -- what information is actually relevant to the negotiations.

I have no idea to what extent the players' complaint is really a response to an illegal ploy, and to what extent it's a calculated attempt to bury the fed in paperwork. Probably, the truth is somewhere in between.

In any case, I don't think the ongoing antagonism between the women's players and the fed does anyone much good. We already have the best-funded women's team in the world, but it would be nice to see the two parties jointly develop a strategy for expanding our pool of top-level women's players.

 

It's worth mentioning that the ONLY reason we have a well funded women's program is that the WNT fought SocFed EVERY step of the way (and won on the field!).

SocFed ended up paying quite a bit more than they needed to after '99 because SocFed refused to bargain prior to the WWC in the hopes that the women would lose, no one would come to the games, and the WNT would have to take whatever SocFed wanted. They're simply replaying the same bad hand - which isn't surprising considering it's the same Dr. Boob.

I don't see how the women could work jointly with SocFed when SocFed's only consistent goal is to screw them over and kill the team off.

 

Are the guy and gal figure skaters employed/paid by the same organization as are the Nat teamers? If so, paying them based on sex is a prima facie Title VII violation. Your arguement could be the basis of a non discriminatory reason defense, but it doesn't have a bunch of jury appeal, IMO.

Equivalent to the "Well, our customers prefer to deal with male executives, and we wuld make less profit if you put a female in that GM position"

 

Possibly as the non discriminatory reason.

And here is the proof of pretext!

Along with years of quotes I'm pretty sure we could dig up from some of the USSF highups

 

Jo,actually your opinions are most instructive, you nonlawyers are what we lawyers get on juries...........

 

Jo, you don't have to be intimidated by lawyers. You know what a lawyer is? Someone who is good with numbers but doesnt quite have the personality to be an accountant!
Morris20, if the USSF really wanted to end women's soccer, why did it blow a golden opportunity in 2003? When FIFA pulled the WWC from China, the USSF delegation was on the plane to Zurich within 48 hours. No other nation made anything resembling a bid. Had the USSF done nothing, we would be posting here about when the 2003 WWC would finally be held, if ever. It might have been the end of the event. Look at the WUSA. When is that coming back?
Instead, the USSF pulled out all the stops, and didn't even schedule any national team games during the preparation period.
The USSF funded women's soccer for years when no other federation did. The USSF would love to see women's soccer be a money-spinner. It isn't. It has to be subsidized. I'll ask the question again: Where is the money supposed to come from?

 

Wha?? I became a lawyer because I couldn't run away from numbers fast enough...

I'll grant you the personality bit, though.

We may get the chance to find out as negotiations progress.

And that's the point. For all his bluster, Tom has no idea of knowing whether women's soccer makes or loses money for the USSF. Conversely, press reports and the like notwithstanding, the rest of us have no idea of knowing for sure whether the Federation profits from women's soccer. The only people who know for sure are the USSF and their accountants.

But the players may soon get access to this information through the bargaining process. And then we'll have a better understanding of what the money situation is like.

 

The same fed that stepped forward and bailed out the 2003 WWC? I don't buy it.

 

The way I read this, you seem to be offering validation of Tom's "entitlement" concerns, albeit from a different standpoint.

 

Since this is the ONLY time SocFed did anything beyond the absolute minimum for the WNT I suppose you've got to bring it up - but do you think Dr. Boob got no "reach around" from FIFA who had a homeless tournament that was going to be a loser anywhere but here or Australia?

Of course "bailing out WWC '03" saved SocFed a BUNCH of $$ (and they got a financial guarantee from FIFA before they left Zurich) and was a great way to suck up to Blatter, etc. I mean rather than the expense of sending a junket to China for a month, they made $$ hosting.

Of course you could believe that SocFed altruistically went to bat for the WNT and agreed to host - but then you're left with a lot of inexplicable behavior before and after that action.

 

Obviously, people within the fed are looking after their own interests, but it's plain as day that those interests include promoting women's soccer. The USSF may not prioritize the women's national team as much as you'd like, but it's a disparate organization, and a lot of other factions inside it feel the same way about themselves. Let's not forget that the men's national team went on strike a few years ago, too.

 

proof about the guarantees?

proof it made money?

I don't know. But on this thread right now I'm not accepting anyones statements!

 

I agree that the USSF does not give up its secrets easily, but I think a little bit of common sense goes a long way here. Earlier in this thread I posted a link where Hank Steinbrecher said FIFA never gives the US any money for participation in women's soccer tournaments. You surely recall Blatter's outburst after the disappointing 2003 WWC where he said the only way women's soccer would be succssful was if the athletes began wearing revealing uniforms to get males interested. No statistics were cited by him, but look at the stadiums. Do you think empty stadiums can support the contract that is not in place?
Someone posted hearler (was it Steve) that the US had to host the 2003 WWC because it is the only country in the wolrd that could draw big crowd for a women's soccer game. If that is true (and it is pretty much true) how can the sport surive as a big time enterprise? It needs subsidies. Where will this money come from?

 

I can't recall a post this short with more tidbits taken out of context and misapplied than this one.

Well done, Tom. Rep given.