The new contract

Tom is saying they feel "entitled" due to coming thru Title IX and don't recognize economic reality and that Title IX no longer applies to them.

I am saying that Title VII may give them current rights as employees that have nothing to do with any past history of Title IX and that economic reality may be no defense, it is a different federal law.

 

So in effect, what you're saying is stronger -- Tom thinks they just feel entitled, while you're suggesting that a court of law may actually find them to be entitled.

 

They didn't practice and were very upfront about that before the tour. In the telephone conference that Foudy and Mia did with the press to announce the tour they said they wouldn't be practicing. You can find this on U.S. Soccer I'm sure. I would dig it up myself but am traveling and am on a very slow wireless connection.

Would guess that not practicing has as much to do with schedules as anything else. 4 of the players are in college and they are all at the end of a very long year. And the games were meaningless.

I knew that going in and still bought plane tickets, match tickets and plenty of U.S. Soccer junk at the Houston game. Had a blast and if I could talk my husband into it, I'd do again at the HDC game practice or not.

 

If Y'all recall Canada showed an interest in hosting the WWC. it is reasonable to assume that Canada would have sported a strong showing. They cetainly did for the under 19 championships. if not for the late in the year scheduling they may have had a serious shot at it. But; Canada in september is alot colder.
As for Sepps comments concerning attire of women players. that was said long before the WWC 2003. And likely said toungue in cheek. Sepp Blatter has always been a strong supporter of the women's game. And has made no bones about the fact that he has a storng afinity for the U.S.WNT. He expects them to be in the final of any major event, and he expects them to draw the crowds which they routinely do when promoted properly.

 

I thought so, too. It certains seems like a long time ago.

But then I checked...January 2004 was when Blatter made his inane comments.

And, alas...he was quite serious.

 

GLBryan, I appreciate your loyalty. I think everyone posting here will probably follow the USWNT in 4 years no matter what. The battle is for new fans, casual fans, to build support. More fans also makes it a lot easier to hand out goodies come contract time. I try to imagine the midset of a channel flipper who come upon one of these games in TV. They may well be open to it, even a little bit curious, but they see awful passing, no coordination and players all out of synch. They change the channel thinking women's soccer is a joke.
My point is playing these games without practicing, against teams who are practicing, is not the way to build support. We look terrible in these games, like a team that has not practiced. I think it also makes it harder to demand more money, or the same deal as in the past 5 years, if you don't practice.

 

It's not a title IX mentality, it is an equal rights mentality, ergo Title VII.

“Section 2. The Federation shall provide an equal opportunity to athletes, coaches,
trainers, managers, administrators and officials to participate in amateur soccer competitions
without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, age, sex, or national origin.”
www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/0203BylawBook.PDF

Does equal opportunity to participate include equal salaries? The problem with TF is that no matter what facts you present, they are ignored. He backs up his assertions with no fact. Discussion with him is fruitless, as he is here only to flame his agenda. There are 262 posts by TF concerning Title IX, and clearly it is an unhealthy obsession which will not be cured by any presentation of fact. OTOH, Non-TF posts here have been enlightening. Keep it up. Here's excerpts from an article discussing the realities of the 2000 contract which I found interesting.


“The United States Soccer Federation is trumpeting its newly negotiated agreement with the women who have, and will, comprise the its national team. Adjectives like "landmark" and "historic" are being thrown about. But the key word in this agreement -- located in the fine print -- appears to be "against." When you take this word into consideration the agreement may actually be a whole lot less than originally thought.
In press reports based on leaked information, the women were said have negotiated a deal paying them $5,000 a month in-residence salary (up from $3,100 in their previous contract) plus appearance fees equal to what the U.S. men are paid ($2,000 per match). Add to this various bonuses for things like winning the gold medal in the Summer Olympics in Sydney in September, and you reach calculations such as the one made by the New York Times, that the women stand to make about $130,000 from U.S. Soccer in salary, fees and bonus in the coming year.
But as was made clear in the today’s news conference announcing the agreement, the $5,000 monthly salary is actually a guarantee against appearance fees. It means that each women in residence will make at least $5,000 a month, but probably not too much more.
For instance, in the month of March, the U.S. women are slated to play four matches in the Algarve Cup in Portugal. The assumption was that women who played in all four matches would make a total of $13,000. That's wrong. If a women plays in all four matches, she will make $8,000, plus a share of any bonus money the team earns. If she plays in only three, she will make $6,000. If less than three, then only the $5,000 guarantee. ……………… There is another potential problem here. There is a clause in the contract that says -- in the name of gender equity -- that if at any time during the life of the contract the men's national team "receives compensation equal to a higher percentage of its gross revenues than the women's national team receives of its gross revenues, the U.S. women will receive a lump sum bonus to equalize the compensation ratios." This absolutely does not say they will receive an equal amount of money. Only an equal percentage of the gross.
Let's assume that the next Women's World Cup is played in Australia. Let's assume crowds are anemic (the average attendance was less than 2,000 per doubleheader in the just completed Australian Cup). Let's assume television revenues are minimal because, with the time difference, all matches shown in the U.S. will be on a 12-16 hour delay. The chances are the next Women's World Cup will actually lose money for its organizers. Even if FIFA kicks in some prize money, the check U.S. Soccer might receive for a gold medal performance might be little or nothing.
Contrast this to the men's World Cup. If the Americans qualify for the 2002 World Cup in South Korea\Japan -- not a given -- U.S. Soccer will receive a seven-figure check. That check would grow to eight figures if the team advances out of the first round. The men and women might get the same percentages, but the gross amounts could be, and almost certainly will be, vastly different. ………… U.S. Soccer says this agreement will make the women "among the highest paid soccer players in America." Maybe, but probably not. The best-paid women under this agreement, and that is the women who are with the team match in and match out, will make about what the average player is starting to make in Major League Soccer. Their counterparts, that is the men who comprise the men's national team, are for the most part earning well above the average in MLS, or a lot more in Europe, and when you throw in their national team compensation (albeit without any guarantee), the women will continue to make substantially less.” http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2000/feb01.htm

 

Agreed Jo, and thanks for that.


Here's some more food for you lawyers to chew on. The USSF receives grant money from the US Soccer Foundation. According to the

"Foundation’s Grant Practices and Policies
A. The following types of applications WILL NOT be accepted either for or from:
.......
3. Organizations that discriminate by race, color, creed, sex, or national origin
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...n.org/downloads/LOIInstructions.pdf+sex&hl=en

What if anything could this mean if the USSF is found guilty of a TITLE VII violation?

 

One more point. The USSF is the national governing body for soccer.

In terms of the Olympics, what relevance might these statutory excerpts be?

"36 USC Sec. 220503. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation(OSOC) are--

..................

(12) to encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic
activities for women;

220522. Eligibility requirements

(a) General.--An amateur sports organization is eligible to be
recognized, or to continue to be recognized, as a national governing
body only if it--

(8) provides an equal opportunity to amateur athletes, coaches,
trainers, managers, administrators, and officials to participate in
amateur athletic competition, without discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin, and with fair
notice and opportunity for a hearing to any amateur athlete, coach,
trainer, manager, administrator, or official before declaring the
individual ineligible to participate;

Sec. 220524. General duties of national governing bodies

(6) provide equitable support and encouragement for
participation by women where separate programs for male and female
athletes are conducted on a national basis;"


????

 

Using the best information I could find, I ran the numbers, and it does appear that the NY Times' ballpark projections of $130K were accurate. (The Times articles were published on 1/30/00 and 2/2/00 ... not sure if anyone can link them.)

Between the time the agreement was signed and the start of the Olympics, the women's team played 30 games and won 20. That's ~$60K in appearance fees, plus ~$20K in win bonuses. So even if we disregard their $5K monthly minimum, a full-time player reached $80K before the Olympics got started.

Olympic training camp invitees received approx $8K per head, plus $13K per head for three wins in five games, plus over $22K for the silver medal. Despite falling short of expectations, they came away from the Olympics with over $40K a piece.

So that's upwards of $120K, even without complete information about all sources of revenue (e.g. was there a bonus for winning in Algarve?). Had the team won gold, they would each have received at least $50K more.

 

Please keep in mind a couple of things. Don't believe everything you read in press releases about women's soccer. What the newspapers print is always favorable to the women and puts males, including USSF males, in a bad light. Rothenburg's comments may be true. They may also be press agent talk to shut them up.
Another thing is we are talking about a contract negotiated in 1999. We are now near 2005. Different world. In 1999, we had just had the biggest media blitz for any international sports event I had ever seen. The Founders were on the cover of many magazines and on TV constantly. We also had people in positions of power: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Tom Daschle and others who would sign onto the women soccer players as victim canard. In 1999 the economy was booming and entertaiment of all kinds was doing a brisk buiness.

Those days are gone.

Since 1999, women's professional soccer has been a financial disaster. The World Cup was almost canned until the USSF stepped in. They really had to scrape to even get a 10th team to show up in Athens. I suspect US sources paid for some of that too. The WUSA was well funded and had a supplicant media, but they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. TV ratings have been microscopic, as have some of the crowds. At the State of the Union we don't see any women soccer players but we do see Tamika Catchings. Many professional sports in addition to women's soccer are in deep trouble. The National Hockey League is about to cancel a season for the first time because an arrogant players' union will not agree to a salary cap while the fans stay away in droves. The entertainment business is not doing nearly as well as in 1999 and women's soccer is yesterday's fad. Who ever talks about soccer moms anymore?
Just my opinions.

 

Will agree that the last game had some ugly moments. I would argue that there is no effort being made to "battle" for new or casual fans. The marketing for the FCT was pretty much non-existent. I traveled to Houston to see a game because I am a die hard and knew where to look to find out the low down on the games. The friends I stayed with and took to the game would not have known about it if I hadn't told them (and invited myself to stay at their house). Met many people in Houston that had no idea that Mia Hamm was playing one of her last games in their city. I did meet some other soccer die hards from Florida & Utah who had also traveled.

If memory serves, the WNT lost a string of games on the Victory Tour after the 99 World Cup. Guess they weren't practicing then either.

 

Well here is some info on the Dec game which will air LIVE on ESPN Classic:
http://www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=127918

 

Back to the legal issues, I cannot help but wonder how the Federation's discretion would come into play. If the Federation controls the sceduling of games and participation in tournaments, they could easily scale things back to such a degree that the women will need outside work. While some posters have contended they make plenty of money in years where they play some 30 games, what does that mean in a year like this where we have heard rumors that games will be very sparse. What is the Federation's good faith obligation, if any, to run a program that gives the women an opportunity to make a living playing soccer, and that keeps them in the public eye? Can lack of profit reasonably be used as a defense when the opportunity to make money is taken away?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are correct Sir. My appologies. But; man it sure felt like mid 2003.

it is quite clear also (if you pay attention to Mr. Blatter at all) that he has a certain liking for certain players in particular. Mere speculation on my part not fact at all, but; it seems pretty obvious to me that he is somewhat of a fan of the women's game. I think he genuinely wants the women's game to succeed, but; likewise he also comes from a distinctly different era and his mindset is in line with that era.
He has backed the women of the U.S. before in their attempts to raise their sport in the eyes of the american people and the world for that matter. he supported them when they battled the U.S.S.F. in 2000, all be it not in an intrusive way, but more as a spectator routes on their favorite team in a hostile enviornment during an away game. Always Mindful not to disturb too greatly those around him, and not too appear to obvious about his leanings. so it is clear that this old dog can learn new tricks as he does incoorperate respect for female atheletes even if at times it may seem a bit back handed.

I find it certainly better then those who have serious issues about women in sports and make no attempts to hide their obvious bias, but by their actions seem to work clearly to minimize the women's game and it's impact. who appears to fight them tooth and nail everytime negotiations arise. and undermind ever honest attempt the women make to improve their visability in the world of soccer. and completely downplay their worth.
if the numbers for the women matches have decreased since 2000, well so have the promotions. where are the commercials?...where are the ads? These things greatly affect how many people show up. Seems to me that the U.S.S.F. has worked hard at promoting the men's side of the game. but; have left the women to swing in the wind. Donna DeVeronna and Marla Messing knew how to sell the sport and these women. they did it very affectively. but; they are now gone and the promotion falls back to the feds again. It is quite clear they have no interest in carrying on those things that worked. They have made vertually no attempt what so ever to promote the womens game. Not even in an Olympic year. and that speaks vollumes to their mind set. In Particular the Mindset of Dr. Contigulia. I thuroughly beleive that there will be a shake up in the coming year. I am hoping that Dr. Contigulia is one of the casualties, because he has been one of the biggest thorns for the women's game. I Hope to see new leadership Emurge with fresh ideas and a healthy respect for the women's side and what they have done and acomplished.
In all honesty until Dr. Contigulia is gone I think we cna expect more of the same. and deal with this same problem every year contract renewal or negotiations come up.

 

Just to clarify, it was the team's nucleus of established players who collected big incomes. For inexperienced players, the payscale was lower, and there was no guarantee of any pay at all. That gives them very little incentive to continue.

Here's one thing that I think all fans should be hoping for in the new agreement: more pay for younger players straight out of college. Instead of vanishing, our top prospects should spend a couple of years getting the chance to break through and displace the established ones. With so many young women playing at a high level, our national team should never need to use overpaid veterans who have stagnated.

 

Good post, Numerista, about "overpaid veterans who have stagnated." This is part of the problem, as it was in the WUSA. The WUSA had 5 year, $90,000 guaranteed contracts for the Founders, some of whom were already ready for retirement This was a financial drag as well as a drag on incentives for younger players, but they would not budge, refusing to waive the contract guarantees at the 11th hour. Foudy was brilliant. She was so brilliant the league went out of business.
Now, we have the same problem with the USWNT contract. The Founders said they were retiring around the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Now, 4 years later, they still have not retired. The contract they got after the strike appears to favor the interests of the Founders and leaves very little for newcomers. On our national team, every player gets the same pay per game. Reyna gets the same pay as a benchwarmer. But the USWNT contract guarantees a good wage to the some of the Founders, apparently whether they are injured or not, and whether they can play or not. They have hogged the spotlight, making it very hard for the next generation to get playing time or box office appeal. I don't see how the USSF can keep paying the same level of compensation for the next 5 years. I fear another stike is in the future.
Just my opinions.

 

I have never seen the USWNT contract and, I suspect, neither have you. Are you sure you're not confusing the WUSA contract with the USWNT contract when you gripe about the Founders being overpaid?

Just a question.

 

Steve, Jo's post about the 1999 contract terms is the closest thing we have to the terms of the agreement which is expiring. I think there is some similarity to the Founders-favoring, WUSA breaking deal and the USWNT deal. Some of the most famous Founders seem to have a deal that the rest of the team does not have. I have repeatedly pointed out Ms. Chastain being on the bench for the Mexico friendly when she could not play due to a broken foot. This would have been the perfect time to try a promising 19 year old. We had just gotten pasted in the WWC, yet it seems the USSF was contractually obligated to pay Ms. Chastain whether she could play or not. That is not how you rebuild after a 3-0 debacle against Germany.
Just my opinions.

 

Just the facts TF.