US women soccer players want equal pay to US men's team.

exactly. most of the intellectual basis of these arguments dates back to the 70s or 80s. the amount of money in sports multiplied. interest in women's sports increased. the organizers aren't going broke on prize money, and nor would they feel like the women are riding coattails the same.

one thing they seem not to consider is PR or sheer profit. that if i am making hand over fist money, and can afford to pay equal, i only open myself to bad PR by trying to parse some sort of differential prizes. a lot of sports like skiing and others pay women and men equal.

in cross country skiing, for example, most events do 40k prizes with a precision breakdown written up from 1st to 30th. it is the same for men and women. if the sponsors want to pay men more that's their problem. interestingly, some women have run times that would place them top 30 in men's races. you could point that out to be sexist, or be even dumber and skew payment accordingly, begging for a lawsuit, or you could acknowledge they are high level athletes in their own gender, pretend they are equal, encourage women to participate and improve, and wisely avoid the stupid land mine.

 

You're alleging tax fraud?

 

USMNT players are not paid a salary.

 

The WNBA creation was approved by the NBA Board of Governors in 1996. The league and the teams were owned by the NBA for many years. Now many teams are owned by their NBA Mens team, or a 3rd party.

 

And thy don't have a major professional league like MLS whos leaders hinder its National Team with its own corporate conflict of interest agenda.

 

It checks out. Having recently visited the semi-nomadic Tagaeri and Taromenane peoples living in Ecuador's Amazon region, I can in fact say that not only were they closely following the situation, but they understood the sexism involved in this case. They were irate, to say the least.

 

Right because the best NBA, NHL and MLB players do such a good job at turning out to represent their country.

 

Hmmmm...... That's not how the real world works.

 

"this is sports. athletes are paid a salary, not revenue sharing percentage"

Yeah, and sometimes salary allotted to workers is pegged to the revenue earned. You just gotta want to try it.
So, dude, your 'argument' boils down to nothing more than this: "USSF gets its ideas from one box. That box defines what is an allowed idea, and don't go saying something different could be thought of. No one is allowed to think outside that box. Capisce?"

Capisce, dude, capsice. There is no one more respectful of the respectful USSF Capos of Chicago House, and their highly respected ideas, than me, respectfully.

 

Hard to believe. CBAs are generally held up in court.
There was an article last summer in The Athletic that said all the major US sports are closely watching this case. If US Soccer loses, in the midst of an agreed to CBA, then that can basically invalidate all of their CBAs.
These deals supersede wage, sex, age discrimination.
NFL and NBA limit who can be drafted, per their CBAs.
Some players claim they are "slaves" (see Antonio Brown), but they can take it to the union if they feel they are underpaid.
Even if the CBA weren't to hold up in a court of law, US Soccer could build off that argument saying the women have played PR in bad faith, immediately after agreeing to these deals.
This should be US Soccer's argument in court.
Not to mention that all of the backpay the women want is more than nonprofit US Soccers entire budget. So they can argue the monetary claims are extreme.
How did they end up electing a neanderthal such as Cordeiro to ruin this case anyway? At this point, US Soccer is now in damage control mode.

 

https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors

and you're just being a one-sided rhetorical jerk. there is a massive spectrum from accidentally mislabeled with good heart to knew better and committed fraud. it doesn't have to be fraud to undercut the argument that the label wins.

for our purposes here it suffices that you look at all the facts and the conversation doesn't end with the label. any more than if you put in the contract someone is independent and then file tax forms like they are just the same. someone besides the IRS can look at the whole relationship and say (a) you filed wrong with the IRS or (b) the rest of the facts show something else. and the IRS doesn't have to jail you for tax fraud for that to happen. i am sure businesses are told to paper up the deal just like they believe it. doesn't mean it's a true reflection of the relationship.

the idea it can only be seen one way is taking only one side. don't even pretend it's objective.

after all, the employees here have sued and presumably would dispute the neat little "name bow" put on their facts. "yes, i know you call that a salary, but when you pay the men after a game for the same work you call it bonus. and their bonus is more than my salary." you don't seem to grasp that even if we accepted the labels that looks like hell.

 

Took you all weekend to find a document that doesn't say anything about how what is within applies to US Soccer? Good work.

Are you alleging anything on that spectrum?

You definitely didn't look at the 990s.

 

the general structure of the major sports unions can hold -- single entity, no 2 sex problem, can't basically make economic beefs when you made an economic deal -- with USSF being an outlier. USSF has separate deals with unions for opposite sexes. NFL, NBA, NHL, etc., there are no separate black or female trade unions. you can't say they pay me different for the same work or they use this CBA to pay me different for the same work.

as i have said before, this is more akin to how during segregation blacks couldn't join white unions, and you'd have a white deal and a black deal, and if they talked to each other they'd figure out they were paid different for the same work, or did not have equal promotion rights/prospects.

at that time they had vaguely "objective" sounding excuses just the same. this is what they signed up for. except relative power. except you kept them in the dark what the others get. and at times, as with the more brazen things that got cordeiro fired, you'd hear inferiority arguments, not capable, couldn't handle the promotion jobs, live in a cheaper part of town and don't need the money.

there are often excuses neighboring discrimination that one can briefly hang their hat on. the question is do they disappear under scrutiny. in the women's case, USSF did not set the wages based on revenue inferiority or lower play quality. they simply thought they could make a separate deal that kept their salaries down. and even if they thought the level of play didn't justify, the revenues are now equal, and it would be sexist to say, you make me as much money but for aesthetic reasons i should still have the right to pay you less.

 

since i am bored of dealing with "Mr. Allegations" here -- my memory is they would give the black union job doing the same thing a different name. the different name would result in a dead end for promotion because you had to have some other job label to promote up. the different name would be used to justify your distinct pay. they might claim you did one or two items different on paper, that you never really had to do. nope, they are an "A" not a "B." i can pay them less. i can cut off promotion. this is not racial discrimination. we made CBAs. they agreed to them. this is the job he signed up to do. this is the pay in the CBA.

people rarely just brazenly discriminate. they usually hide behind some sort of smokescreen. it's kind of amusing though to watch someone act like everything should be taken face value.

it's kind of like people don't usually admit they are doing fraud or a crime.

and to be clear since the rhetorical game here is to try and frame me as "alleging fraud" or "alleging a crime," you are dramatically over-stating. there can be ambiguities. or you can agree to something with the hope that if anything ever happens, your labels rule the day. the IRS may not sniff at it at all. various regulators may not care. but a lawsuit raising that specific issue might dispute whether the label is accurate or fair.

are you this dense? i know you think they covered themselves with the paper. but it also makes basic sense that they are trying to label the same payments as two different things to two different sexes, and then oddly paying more in bonus to men than salary to women. that alone raises label accuracy questions. you're trying to say a deal has to be a deal and the CBAs taken literally. that is one side of a two sided question.

 

When you're willing to stop monologuing and going off on wild Jim Crow tangents, and maybe you actually write posts in a readable way, you can avoid feeling put upon and join an actual two-way conversation.

 

dude i spent my weekend relaxing.

and the independent contractor bit is off the first page of a google search to point out a separate but somewhat pertinent situation where labels don't rule the day.

the implications for your argument are straightforward unless you are dense or a troll.

are you seriously suggesting that in areas where the raw facts win the day we should instead just trust the labels slapped on things by employers? unless the offended can prove fraud?

to put this in the most basic terms possible, when you're trying to sort out a relationship or contract you don't just listen to one side and trust their labels.

 

And you evidently spend your work week defrauding your employer.

Great. Maybe I'll post the FBI's annual crime report. Because people do illegal things.

 

Jim Crow is not a tangent. That is the same game. I don't remember the labels of the day but it's like saying I can pay a "maintenance worker" (black union) $3/hr. and a "janitor" (white union) $6/hr. Same work. They may sneak in the CBA someplace where the "janitor" has a slightly different job description, but the black workers have to do that too, or nobody every does. And then maybe "maintenance worker" has no where to go, but "janitor" can get a promotion to "head janitor" and a raise, after x years.

It all sounds superficially legit, there are labels, the CBA sets the rules, they agreed to the rules. But looking past the superficial labels anyone paying half a second attention could see this is a game to limit black promotions, salaries, opportunities.

The problem is the labels here don't track the facts. It is weird that you pay less per game in salary than bonus. It is weird that you cap salary but not bonus. etc. The labels will not be the shield you wish. They bring in equal revenues. It doesn't make sense one is compensated different.

Plenty of people have liked my posts, they are readable and pointed, and it's lame to suggest for political reasons otherwise. I think it's the grossest thing on here when people start trying to censor with rhetorical games.

 

I never said they committed fraud. That is your political rhetoric. My point is in business there is a spectrum from innocent perspective to criminal distortion. You are oddly picking one end. Do you not understand "spectrum?"

 

I have no idea why you are going all argumentum ad populum, but in the last 3 pages, you have exactly 1 like despite accounting for nearly half of posts.

And even if I thought I had the power to censor, I wouldn't - you're making a wonderful case for why discussion forums almost universally suck.

 

Do you know what words mean?

I suspect you are well-acquainted with the word.

Congrats on finding the SHIFT key, BTW.

 

no, my argument would start with, this is a non-profit, and there is probably a reason compensation isn't defined in terms of...............profit? people keep talking about this like a business. this is not the yankees. it's a sports non-profit that fields teams. it is also supposed to be supporting the game in general, running youth sports and YNT development. it's gross to call this profit and siphon it off to paid professionals. they should be salaried like normal people because this is charity work. they should not be making more money based on charity revenue.

i don't deny they could do it your way. i think it is no solution to current concerns because it just links compensation tighter to the current revenue excuse that itself may or may not fly if someone cries discrimination. i would be fleeing the "revenue" or "level of play" arguments at the moment, as they are hellacious PR.

 

be honest, be real dude, you're saying my arguments imply "tax fraud" because the idea is "you can't say that, that's libel, shut up." i have explained the 100 yard jump in there, but it's gross to try and shut up a discussion by accusing one side of alleging a crime and then either implicitly, legally, or on some moral level act like "you can't say that." you're saying i can't make an argument because someone signed a tax form. really? you know what you're doing and you should be ashamed.

the game here is you though mentioning accounting ended the conversation. you thought you would flex your one muscle you think you have and that would end that. that no one ever uses the wrong form. like filers never get denied, audited, overridden, accountants are pure as driven snow. or, like i said, that IRS could care less but a court might. if you bothered to read the independent contractor bit you'd see courts don't usually stop with labels, even IRS ones. and no one has to go to jail for that to happen.

 

this bears some amusing similarities to the snobs and their league based arguments. "but the label!!" ok dude.

 

1. Stop attributing to me arguments not made, including ones you imagine I'm making about you.
2. ...actually, there is no 2...you are being a single-minded child who clearly has not understood the reasons for the different deals, nor the realities of the last 5 fiscal years.