The new contract

Jo, there was a thread here 4 months ago with a link where it said that "several" of the USWNT players had full-time contracts. When I criticized this two-tiered system someone countered that the national team had had contracts around the time of the 1994 World Cup. That was not a two-tier system. You now have a system where some of the Founders get paid whether they can play or not. Heck, they don't even have to practice to get paid. How are you ever going to rebuild the program with them hogging the resources and the playing time? Look at the example they are setting for the next generation. Just show up and not even practice????
The irony is they think they can bite the hand that feeds them and still be treated like Supernaturals. They mocked and ridiculed men's soccer and the MLS for years but they sure came in handy when the 1999 and 2003 WWC were staged. Without the MLS helping the WWC would not even have been staged last year.
Same thing with the USSF. They supported women's soccer for years when no other federation did much of anything. Then you have the hype of the century and 98,000 people in the Rose Bowl, most of whom had free tickets or deeply discounted tickets. The whole thing went to their heads and they told the USSF to go to hell, refusing to go on the tour to South Africa and Egypt. They stage their own tour and cut the USSF out of the deal. When things get testy they call up Tom Daschle or Hillary Rodham Clinton. How can they expect the USSF to go into more of a financial hole after the way they have treated the USSF?
Just my opinions.

 

Thomas,

Has some member of the WNT wronged you in another life? The tenor of your posts are so negative. It makes me wonder why the vedetta. Because they are often filled with unsubstantiated (and sometimes outrageous) claims it makes me think that you are either just goofing off and trying to get fans worked up or its something more personal.

 

Nothing personal at all. What I see is a bad situation getting worse. In men's sports, fans and sports writers act as a check and balance. When a player is throught to be too old, or hurting a program, the chorus grows. It seems to be a taboo of sorts with the USWNT. I think criticism is a good thing. The alternative, endless praise or neglect, is worse.
By the way, I think Mia Hamm is still one of the top players in the world and is not the object of this criticism. Ironically, she is the one retiring when she can still play at a very high level.

 

Have another drink Thomas.

 

T.F. it has been put out there before. And at the risk of beating my head against the wall which is what happens when talking to you. if you really feel the need to villify these women and women's soccer. why don't you start your own personal thread so those of a like mind can join you and you can admire one anothers ability to twist the truth or create your own as the case may be.
Much like Jo I am tired of constantly having to battle your lies and un -substantiated bull. it is tedious work because none of what you say is ever any differnet. You come in here and prattle the same nonsense at nausium.
That is why I said my peice and then just sat back and read. But; when I read lie after lie after lie when people have maticulously pointed them out and with links to articles from reputable sources refuting your redicluous claims. and not just one source but often times more then one.....well at some point i just arrive at the conclusion that you are either completely incapable of admiting when you have err'd.....or you are right and the entire soccer planet is wrong. I gotta tell ya. I have strong leanings toward the former.
Even the guys in the men's forums don't want to listen to you. For crying out loud that should tell you something. You are out of your league T.F. You are talking about a group of women and contractual information you know nothing about. and you are talking about a Law that you all too clearly do not understand. When you know any of these women personally or have sat in on the contract negotiations, Then MAYBE you would have some real information to trade here. At present you have nothing. yet you assume everyone should just take your word for it. The World says Nay but Thomas says yea so it must be true.
if you really want to peddle a lie T.F. I suggest you pick something a little more obscure that the press has not responded to and the ladies have not talked about at length. You might actually get away with it then.

To the rest of you folks I cincerely appologize. I just get really sick of T.F. and his incessent need to tear these women appart. It gets very old.

 

Please don't turn a good thread into a flame war. I do not respond to insults.

When a business makes money I am all in favor of the workers seeing some of the profits. When a business is losing customers and money, the workers have to cut back. That is what is going on at symphony orchestras all over the US.
Women's soccer has nowhere near the buzz, financial support from sponsors, or paying audiences it had 5 years ago when the current contract was negotiated. If the next contract does not take that into account I would like to know where the USSF is going to get the money to subsidize this. I have asked this question what, seven times, and people keep igrnoring it. Where is the money suposed to come from?
One of the problems is the entitlement mentality some of the Founders have. Men have a pro league, we are "entitled" to one too. Mzle soccer players make six figures, we deserve that too. Money does not matter.

Money does matter.

 

I've been ignoring it because the question is premature. What basis do you have for believing that the USWNT is demanding more money? We have no idea what the players have demanded. And, given the fact that the USSF is apparently ignoring the women (thus, the NLRB charge), the Federation probably doesn't know, either.

 

I don't think it matters whether they are demanding more money or just demanding the same terms they got in 1999. The money is not there like it was in 1999. Didn't they meet with the USSF once? I read that somewhere here in the thread. I think the NLRB action is pretty clearly a step that brings us closer to yet another strike.

When a strike is looming that is time to talk about the money issues, not after the strike starts.

 

The big difference now is the failure of the WUSA. The players are not getting paid by WUSA, there is a smaller player pool, and that player pool can be kept in residency longer.

I think the contract will in the end depend on what the Federation wants. If they want to keep players in residency longer, and set up more games in order to keep the players sharp, they will have to pay them more. If the goal is to bring players in occasionally, bu figure WUSA Mark II will be ready to keep the players fit, then they will not pay them as much.

What I think the federation should do is tell the players they that they will not be kept in residency, but that they must play in the W-League. The contract should contain a stipend for the national team poolers. If you do not want to play in the W-League (or in a league like the GErman women's league), they will not be eligible for the national team pool.

 

How would your proposal affect college players? I *think* they can play in the W-League right, it's just that they can't get paid? I'm assuming college players that are in the USWNT pool and go to training camps get a stipend?

 

Good point. I was referring to the professionals in the pool. The collegians can still play in college of course.

I just believe that until WUSA MII gets started, we ned to (1) make sure that the players are playing regularly and (2) keep some sort of semi-professional league alive.

 

What an interesting thread!

Sorry, but I feel compelled!

TF, you state:

When a business makes money I am all in favor of the workers seeing some of the profits. When a business is losing customers and money, the workers have to cut back. That is what is going on at symphony orchestras all over the US.
Women's soccer has nowhere near the buzz, financial support from sponsors, or paying audiences it had 5 years ago when the current contract was negotiated. If the next contract does not take that into account I would like to know where the USSF is going to get the money to subsidize this. I have asked this question what, seven times, and people keep igrnoring it. Where is the money suposed to come from?
One of the problems is the entitlement mentality some of the Founders have. Men have a pro league, we are "entitled" to one too. Mzle soccer players make six figures, we deserve that too. Money does not matter.



Is it an issue that team owners of men's sports team's constantly get the public to foot the bill for building new stadiums, yet put the truly, excessive profits of this capitalist enterprise in their own pockets while they tell stories of how they are self-made entrepreneurs dedicated to hard work and are defiantly against government handouts? Isn't this a form of entitlement metality on the part of owners (usually white wealthy men) that we should be alarmed about?

Is it an issue that the American press and public celebrated the 99 team as symbolic testaments of the success of Title IX and American society writ large for remedying gender inequities? Yet, when these same women actually ask for more equitable economic support, they are ignored? It seems we value these women symbolically (when they allow us to sleep comfortably at night knowing that we, Americans, do not discriminate based on gender anymore), but when it actually comes down to materially supporting the ideas which underlie such symbolism we blame them for not knowing their place and for being incredulous enough for asking for such compensation.

TF, please at least recognize that this is a place where the inequities inherent in American capitalism and patriarchy intersect. If (and I say if) there's no direct money from women's nat team matches and performances, then this effect is a product of a historical refusal to value women as athletes as professionals (at least in team sports like soccer and b-ball). It's easy to blame indivduals of subordinate social groups when they challenge an uequal system. It's much tougher to attempt to reform the system.

As to where the money should come from, it should come from the money generated by the federation regardless of whether it comes from men's or women's games. If we truly want to celebrate the US Women Nats as symbols of our more highly evolved gender ideas and relations as a nation, then our national soccer federation should be a world leader, take the moral high ground (because it is simply the right thing to do), and willfully choose to allocate our resources in this way. It is that simple. There are no set rules as to how the USSF allocates its resources.

When members of the capitalist class say there isn't enough money, it usually means that they just aren't willing to cut into the excessive compensation they can somehow justify paying themselves (let's talk about the entitlement mentality of the Victorians or the contemporary American CEO who can delude himself (yes, himself) into believing he is worth 475 times the salary of an average American blue collar worker--figure comes from Thomas Frank's book, One Market Under God).

Let us not forget that the founders of our nation were perhaps the first to espouse an 'entitlement mentality' when they constructed a nation and social system which ensured the dominance of their own class interests? Perhaps a sense of entitlement is as quintessentially American as Apple pie!

Of course, considering these might lead you to your bathroom mirror TF when you start to think about the 'entitlement mentality'.

 

Anthony, I think the W-League idea is a good one but the players' union will never go for it. The W-Leaugue does pay WUSA salaries. The Chicago Cobras team in the W League averages 156 spectators per game. They want something like a WUSA, which will take about 30 million dollars a year to cover salaries and all other costs. That's what they want, but the money is not there to subsidize WUSA II.

 

I think you have been listening to Radio Pyongyang or NPR too much. If you want to discuss how evil white American males are and the “patrimony” of this horrible country, start another thread. This one is about the contract negotiations between the USSF and USWNT.
There are many problems in sports, including female and male athletes taking steroids, cities building stadiums for sports teams, and more. As it relates to stadiums, keep in mind that the USWNT has greatly befitted from the evil white American males who got these stadiums built. They just played in a couple of them, including Lincoln Financial Field, the one in Kansas City and the new Soldier Field. But for those stadiums, they would have been out in Naperville on that horrible turf. Would that have been better for the USWNT? I guess the capitalist patriarchy comes in handy some times. They also could have practiced on those fields prior to their games, but they no longer have practice sessions. I guess they are so oppressed they can’t practice and it really is not their fault. The men are to blame.
I am not aware of any taxpayer subsidy for the salary of men’s pro sports teams. What you are calling for is revenue for the national team to subsidize an equal compensation scheme for the USWNT, which generates much less revenue. Would you also favor Michelle Kwan and Sasha Cohen sharing some of their largesse with Rudy Galindo and other male figure skaters? The male figure skaters are paid a fraction of what the women make, but that is due to the different revenue streams they generate. Women’s figure skating is big business. Men’s figure skating is not. The female figure skaters and gymnasts seem to do pretty well in spite of being part of the “subordinate social group.” And you don’t here Rudy Galindo saying he is entitled to equal pay. He would get laughed out of court. The Daily Show would do a skit on it. Nobody in their right mind would get on television and say male gymnasts deserve the same pay as female gymnasts. You would get sent to the NPR reeducation camp!
Most members of the USWNT come from affluent backgrounds. They grew up in swanky places like Huntington Beach, Mission Viejo and so on. Ms. Hamm’s father was a Brigadier General in the Army, certainly a privileged position. There is nothing wrong with this and it does not make them bad people. But I really have to laugh when they talk about being oppressed and “entitled” to more because they are women. Do rich women deserve breaks a poor man can’t get? I know that is the way it is in college athletic departments but we are talking about the USSF and private enterprise, not the Socialist Sports Paradise in the sky.
The Founders had nothing good to say about the national team, making derogatory statements all the time, thumbing their nose at the USSF and dissing Nike for not coughing up the 30 million per year to keep the WUSA going. Now they want the national team, the USSF and or Nike to subsidize them. Irony, thy name is Julie Foudy.
Just my opinions

 

The point is that there are two things at work here:

1. You want to make sure the players are playing when not in camp and

2. You want to preserve some interest in women's soccer.

If I were head of the USSF, I would make my proposal. You do both things.

I would look back at what the players were earning in the pre-1999 residency days, and basically tell them they will make that, adjusted upward for increases in revenue, inflation etc. But to get it, they need to play, week in, week out, in the W-League or in a foreign league until (and if) WUSA MII begins. In return, they do not have to stay in residency as long and so can have a more normal home life. By playing in the W-League, the players will increase the visibility of women's soccer on a local level, and hopefully pave the way for WUSA MII.

And if they refuse, well, there are other good players coming out of college and playing in the W-League. Frame it as trying to expand women's soccer.

 

I've already called you on your assumption that the USWNT are demanding more money. Of course, you don't know whether they are demanding a status quo contract either, do you? You just make this stuff up in order to cast the women's players in as poor a light as possible.

News flash: if the players wanted the 1999 contract, guess what? They wouldn't have to do anything! The terms and conditions of an expired contract remain in full force and effect unless and until a successor agreement is reached. Technically, an employer can implement a "last, best and final" offer with changed terms once there is a valid impasse. However, and employer that meets once and then goes into hiding is not going to get the NLRB to declare a valid impasse. Thus, if the ladies wanted to party like it was 1999, all they would have to do is sit on their hands.

So obviously the players want to negotiate something. But you don't know what it is. Neither do I. But, then, I'm not the one assuming the women are simply looking to break the bank.

For all you know, the players might be proposing a profit sharing plan in lieu of guaranteed salaries. Or they might be foregoing wages in return for increased percentages of licensing fees. There are lots of creative ways to address compensation issues in a contract, including ways in which the workers assume some risk. So, again--it is too early to start claiming the USWNT is trying to bankrupt U.S. soccer.

You also have no idea whether they are going to strike. Notwithstanding the fact that the filing of an NLRB charge by the players would tend to indicate they are trying to avoid it, you've already condemned them as strikers out to wreck the game. I'll be waiting for you to spew the same venom towards the USSF if they decide to lock the players out.

But I won't hold my breath...

 

TF - Julie is raising funds for Go Girl Go in honor of her retirement. Since you are such a fan I thought you might like to contribute and help get girls active. Here's the link in case you are interested.


Link

 

This is off topic. But when has that ever stopped anyone on Bigsoccer?

But here's how bobsledders pick up a little extra money.

http://www.utaholympicpark.com/visitorinfo/bobsledrides.html

Not to open up a Title IX can of worms, but male pro road cyclists can make big money in Europe. But women don't make as much.

Mountain biking salaries are a little more egalitarian. Top-level men & women can make enough racing in mountain bike races and from sponsors to make a living.

Here's the website for the FIFA of cycling, if you are really curious:

http://www.uci.ch/

 

Alright, I've read through most of thest posts (about 2/3 of the way through I couldn't stomach anymore TF posts though, sorry) and I've just got some general observations/questions that I'd appreciate input on.

First, I'm not familiar with the 1999 feud at all, but the legend of it (and thats all I've really heard, no substantiated anything) is that there was/is some significant bad blood between the "founders" (as this forum seems to title them) and the USSF.

Is there any reason why a ploy like this on the new contract (namely not cooperating, lowballing) would not be expected on what appears to be the last meaningful action the "founders" will partake for women's soccer? (I am assuming Foudy is involved as has been mentioned)

I'm no expert, but it seems pretty clear to me. The USSF feels aggrieved over the way the last contract negotiations occured (whether rightfully or not is beyond me) and appears in no rush to sit down for the next version.

The fact of the matter is (and I'm going to speculate now, again, please shoot me down if need be, I mean not to be a TF) that after the '99 WWC the WNT had all of the leverage at the negotiating table. Revenues were on the rise, popularity appeared to be coming mainstream through that WWC, and growth appeared to be coming rapidly.

My assumption is the USSF was a bit guarded about the longterm economics of the women's game and wanted a more modest contract, one with economic progress for the women, no doubt, but also one not befitting the indicators which had been present in that time period. In the end, the women would not accept that (and why would they, we are a capitalist society) and the contract ended up being based on a growth in the sport like that which the WWC had seemed to indicate was occuring.

As fate may have it the next four years, while economically strong, were by no means what the '99 WWC had seemed to fortell. Rather, the WUSA came and went and the interest of the nation which seemed so captivated by that '99 squad was lost.

In sumation, my hypothesis is that the USSF expected that the revenue streams would not stay where they were and wanted an act of good faith in a deal to make sure the popularity would sustain, the WMNT would not accept a contract for less than current market value (which was undoubtedly higher in '99 than it is now). When push came to shove the USSF had to give the women their market value, but they didn't like it. In the end the USSF was right, while the women's sport has show signs of growth, the indications of the '99 WWC were largely mirrages, thus the failure of WUSA (I know I am simplifying).

So 5 years later the USSF remembers those negotiations where the women squeezed them for all that their popularity was worth at that time. There is no big rush for them to sit down, and when they do expect tough negotiations.

The WNT didn't get a bad contract. They got a capitalist contract. The problem is soccer isn't a capitalist sport. Soccer survives largely on the altruisim of a few very rich people right now in this country. It absolutley has long term growth benefit, but as the MLS has shown you need to swallow some big losses to get there (Thank you Mr. Hunt, St. Phil, and Mr. Kraft). You can't always operate capitalistically in the soccer enviornment because its a different world.

The WNT squeezed for all it was worth in 1999, now the USSF will squeeze right back.

Well, either that, or the USSF is a bunch of sexist pricks, but I find that hard to believe.

 

Ya know. I find it hard to beleive that I am the only one who has noticed that the women's success and the decline of numbers over recent years falls right in step with the amount of promotion or lack there of.

96' Atlanta Olympic Games- heavily promoted=heavily attended

99' WWC-heavily promoted=Heavily attended

2000 Women's Gold cup- Heavily promoted=Heavily attended

2000 Sydney Olympic games-heavily promoted=heavily attended.

Then vertually no promotion what so ever. and steadily the numbers declined and have now for the most part leveled off on the average to 15,000. That is with vertually no promotion at all. When I say no promotion I mean no T.V. spots. No newspaper Ads. No Magazine Ads.
The U.S.S.F has been heavily promoting the men's team. Likewise U.S. soccer sponsors have also such as philips electronics. The last significant visual promotion was in 2000 for the Oly's. Since then Nada.

The women are not angry at Nike T.F. Mia just helped Nike open a new field in chicago. there is no bad blood there. So once again you are twisting negligent information to try to make it into fact.

As for the contract in 99' The U.S.S.F wanted the ladies to play under their old contract for another year when they had already been doing so for months. The U.S.S.F did not want to give them anything. They would not even consider the proposals put forth by the player reps, but instead (without counciltation or time to review) catagorically denied the proposals. with a one word response... no. no explaination given and no counter offers given. All day this went on until the players were left with no alternatives and nothing to concider from the other side of the table. Only then did negotiations break down.
I think the U.S.S.F got rather used to having a team that played for vertually nothing when compared to their counterparts. and when things looked as if that might change they resented it. And things have not been good ever since.
As for cut backs.....well unless the cuts are volentary I doubt it is going to happen. As with any company or business. when you are making a certain amount per hour...ETC. the company or business can not of it's own volition cut your pay. it is illegal. they can cut your hours...but; not your hourly wages or Salery. However as with the airlines. Pilots and attendants can volenteer to take cuts. We see this though not very often. The U.S.S.F's position I feel is made more tenuous in this regard by the fact that they have not done everything they could to promote the women's game. If they could show in good faith that they had spent the same amount in promotions for the women as for the men in Ad campaigns and the like then maybe they would have a leg to stand on. But; the evidance is very much to the contrary.
In conclusion most of this mess was created by stuborn good Ol' boys who while wanting to beleive they are on the cutting edge, likewise do not want the women's game to outshine in any way the men's. They want them to be successful but never that successful. This last paragraph being only my opinion and nothing more then that. But; the U.S.S.F has not given me anything to disproove this. They have battled the women at every turn. If they had their way I am sure they would be thrilled to keep the women at $50.00 a week. and maintain that they are to pay for their own meals.
While I feel that we have come a long way, I contend that we still have just as far to go before we can hope to be heald in the same regard as Male Atheletes.
When something is unjust, You must fight it. that is what they have done. Doesn't matter in the end if you T.F. or anyone else for that matter likes it or not.

GenXer...........Bravo!

 

I broke out laughing at this on! When did you ever hear about this crowd economizing? Concerning licensing fees, have you hear about the Poytail Posse? Eight days before the WWC, the national team's website sent an email about this new "fan clu." The USWNT had already seen to it that Sam's Army could not get a tciket allocation to all the US games. In Columbus, North Korea had a wonderful allocation, while the Sam's Army found no room at the inn. The Pnytail Psse told the new fans club members to wear blue to games. I believe tthey also started selling their own gear without involving the USSF in the royalty scheme. I remember reading that they leave the USSF logo off it and have fewer than 7 players on the gear. That doesn't sound like a group that wants to share licensing fees does it?

Steve, in 95 per cent of labor manageent disputes, money is the issue, and it seems like it is here, don't you think?

 

I'd say money, in one form or another, is the issue in 99% of labor management disputes. You are much more likely to see it in the form of health care these days, rather than wages, but money is still the crux of the issue.

But there are many cases where the money issues are resolved relatively quickly, and other issues cause a dispute. The recent Atlantic City casinos strike is a prime example--the workers were striking over the expiration date of the CBA.

Your Ponytale Posse stories are amusing. "Start wearing blue to games." And just how much of that blue do you suppose was in Nike shirts? Do you think the women get any money out of that? I am not aware of any "ponytale posse" or "USWNT-owned" line of sportswear. Nor am I aware of any conspiracy to "lock out" Sam's Army. Of course, I am sure you will be happy to educate me with a link or two.

Look, when this all shakes out you may be absolutely right--it will turn out the women are holding out for an exorbidant wage, with ridiculous guarantees. But we don't know what the issues are yet. And, until we do, blaming the players for "selfishness" or anything else is a bit premature.

Furthermore, even if their current list of proposals does say that the players want a 100% wage increase and 75% of the gate and a green cookie on St. Patrick's Day, it is still too early to say they are being greedy--every opening proposal is essentially a wish list.

We would be much further along in this debate had the USSF bothered to schedule a followup meeting with the players. But they haven't--whether illegal or just a shrewd strategy, the USSF is waiting the players out.

We'll just have to wait and see.