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

You’ve heard about assumptions? They make you look like an ass.

I asked a straightforward question that deserves a literal answer.

If you cannot stomach the reality that women take lots of money from competitions in which only the men participate, then that’s your problem. I can talk about it openly because I am not afraid of the truth. You are afraid.

 

In the Women's Forum, Lil_One uploaded the USWNT CBA in multiple posts. Skimming through it, the CBA seems very extensive when detailing issues that go back to 2014 and addressed in the lawsuit while being very light on matters that may overlap with FIFA. In the post for Scheduling, the USSF plans to operate outside of FIFA windows, which may cause conflicts with the players' clubs. Moreover, as this deal was being negotiated, FIFA added more women's tournaments, which may lead to scheduling conflicts with some of the non FIFA events listed in the CBA.

As for the men, not much is known about how their CBA, but it seem to happened to achieve a big PR announcement objective. Previous comments by USSF and the men's PA indicated that for years there's been no contact with current players even as they played on an expired CBA. Under these circumstances, should it be assumed that a men's CBA is not applicable for the current team? With a high number of countries played in, could it be likely that the Europe-based members have a compensation structure that includes robust tax advising support to avoid any compliance issues, generating income in tax unfriendly locations (such as US states with jock tax), and effective tax credit methods. Therefore, perhaps the men's CBA is intended to only kick in if a national team player is without a sufficient club contract. And equality is achieved for those that utilize USSF for direct employee compensation. Players loaned by their clubs may be categorized as similar to how Kessler's law firm attorneys can be compensated differently than USSF in-house corporate attorneys.

In this article, such an arrangement may be evident as the WC2022 payments to clubs are larger than prize money and also have a higher growth rate from 2018. As for prize money, it seems FIFA has been working at increase women's revenues, which should lead to higher prize amounts. If they fall short and have federation that require equalization, could FIFA achieve this by deducting charitable donations before settling with a federation?

https://www.fifaworldcupnews.com/fifa-world-cup-2022-prize-money/

 

I haven't read through it but does anyone know how prize $ from Qatar WC is distributed to USWNT players? Is there a certain roster that gets it or is spread out to more players, or, ? And, vice versa?

 

Juxtaposing 2 parts of the same post.

 

Good lord. What's with all the demonizing of the women's team? If you don't think the success of the women's team the last 25 years has not had a direct positive impact on the men's game, then you are naive.
And, they negotiated a contract with the Federation. The federation agreed to the current contract because they believed it was in their financial best interests to do so. Which of you goes into a negotiation initially asking for less then you want? It's assinine to ask the women to ask for less just because you don't think they "deserve" it. You get what you negotiate, not what you deserve.
Our women are ballers and I have no problem with whatever money they get from the Federation.
They didn't "take" anything.

 

With the PR and news articles, I think most inferred everything has become equal, but is that really the case?

The Women's new CBA raises that compensation significantly while the settlement likely indicates that their compensation from the revenue they produced was below a normal sports rev share. At this point, the USWNT needs to perform to earn the compensation detailed in their new CBA. Their obstacle may be that European women soccer has grown since 2014 and will they be able to still schedule events in 2024 to generate revenues as in the past.

For the men, has FIFA already made adjustments, whereas NT players are compensated through their clubs. This method may have the clubs driving up salaries in advanced of the WC for national team players as there salaries are offset by the loan value for NT time. This also benefits women as Sam Kerr is rumored to be paid $600K by Chelsea; likely exponentially more than what the NWSL paid her.

Apologies for formatting issues from this link https://www.fifaworldcupnews.com/fifa-world-cup-2022-prize-money.

In the article, it indicates Federation payments as $440M + $70M = $510 million versus Club Payments of $310M + $220M = $530 million. Comparing it to WC2018, Prize Money growth was $40 million while Club Benefit payments increased by $140 million.


FIFA also revealed the breakdown how this $1 billion will be distributed.

• World Cup 2022 Prize Money: ($440 million)
• Preparation Payments: ($70 million)
• Club Benefit Program: ($310 million)
• Club Protection and Insurance Fee: (220 million)

S No. Stage FIFA World Cup 2022 FIFA World Cup 2018
1 Guaranteed Payments (all 32 teams) $2.5 million each $1.5 million each
2 Group Stage (16 eliminated teams) $8 million each $8 million each
3 Round of 16 (8 eliminated teams) $12 million each $9 million each
4 Quarterfinal (4 eliminated teams) $38 million $14 million each
5 Fourth Place $22 million $18 million
6 Third Place $26 million $20 million
7 Runners-up $32 million $25 million
8 Final Winner $45 million $38 million
9 Player Insurance Fee $70 million $100million
10 Club Benefit (payments) $310 million $170 million

 

Oh Hell yeah!

We stay at the 7 star Kempinsky Resort hotel in Doha, bringing along the players own private barber. Argentina stayed in the dorms at Qatar University. Other great national teams play for pride and rather modest compensation.

I don't think we are actually progressive on this. I understand why -- but it is time to transition to national team duty being about national pride and reputation.

 

I have no intent of demonizing the women's team. But I guess I am naive. Could you please explain how the success of the women's team positively impacts the men's game? I'm open to the premise, but I honestly don't see it as obvious.

 

Didn't Argentina fly in all their own beef? 2000 pounds-worth?

 

I think it brings more eyes and awareness to the game. Millions who aren't familiar with the game tune in and learn more about it. Parents "get" their kid's excitement for the game, brothers pick up their sister's sport, etc. I would be interested to see how MLS attendance is affected after a Women's World Cup.

 

OK. They flew in beef. Every team ate food. I don’t see beef as a particularly extravagant and opulent luxury thing.

According to the Global Product Prices website beef in Argentina is 1/2 the cost of beef in Qatar. Flying in beef was probably a cost saver.

I think my point stands. Treating your players like princes and princesses is not required to make a World Champion.

- In no way am I saying the US would have done better had they replicated Argentina’s lack of luxory.

 

Of course not. You just strongly suggest it.

 

You get what you negotiate? That was the crux of the women's team complaint. They did not like what they negotiated! They said naughty things about the men's team and used peoples lack of knowledge about international soccer to PR the federation to their will. Deserve is a USWNT slogan so yes, it can be used against them. When it came time to even mention the men's team role in the negotiations they did not. If the roles were reversed you would have seen some real demonization. People have the right to think not nice thoughts about them, it doesn't matter if they are "ballers"

 

You said more clubs drawing five figures now. I pointed out 2 is not more than 2.

Yes, you did not say "attendance took off" you said "more clubs drawing 5 figures", which was wrong. If that's your Gotcha!!!! argument ok. You didnt say attendance took off, you simply erroneously stated more clubs were drawing 5 figures and that was what my response was regarding. Good on ya!

 

The numbers are the numbers, and it doesn't favor the women. Some people objected when I sad "nobody watches women's soccer" and that was an exaggeration. Let's just say its a niche market.
Internationally, the women draw about 20% at the WWC that the men do, the women's league is lightly attended when compared to MLS. And forget TV: women's soccer on TV is not a big draw. Outside the US, women's soccer is a complete afterthought.... They got some kind of deal from US Soccer. Good for them. Women's soccer is very poorly followed. The numbers don't lie. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.
I don't see how they deserve equal pay, but whatevs... at The National team level they seem to have gotten it.

 

That is absurd. I don't suggest it in the least. There are far more important factors.

 

I would agree that you don't suggest it if the words you typed were different. Alas, I have to make do with the words that are there.

 

My gut reaction is that no, they can't really be 100% equal. For that to happen, wouldn't you realistically be forced to have one combined player's union for negotiating vs a separate one for the men and women? Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before they negotiate/want different things and US Soccer is put in an untenable position.

I haven't nearly done the reading of all the fine print others seem to have done - so maybe it's possible, I'm just guessing that they are now "more equal"; but, not "exactly equal".

 

I actually think the success of the women's team has been detrimental to the growth of the men's game. First off, the WNT's success furthers the narrative among the American populace that soccer is a "feminine" sport, akin to how we view volleyball, gymnastics, and field hockey. Additionally, the American sports fan will always prefer to watch a championship caliber team over a team that considers escaping the first round a success. Now this is not a knock on the women's team at all, they've been kicking ass for the past 30+ years and it's awesome to watch. But I don't think their success has any positive impact on the men's game.

 

Nonsense. Study logic. Evidence that A is unnecessary for B, does not mean that lack of A results in B.

 

This is funny stuff.

 

For reference.

 

I think that the overall effect of WNT success for the men's side has definitely been positive (for reasons I might talk about in a separate post) - but I agree that it hasn't necessarily been positive in every way. As to your specific points about that:

I think that there may be some truth to this - but I'm honestly pretty OK with that, as a USMNT fan. That's because a person who would dismiss the whole sport because girls and women play it is probably not a person that I'd ever want to interact with much - on a message board, at a sports bar, in a stadium, anywhere. Addition by subtraction.

The idea that the MNT is somehow less worthy than the women's team (because of their differing competitive records in dramatically different competitive environments) is annoying and unfair. It's especially irritating to hear it from sportswriters and others that should know better. And that misleading perception may have harmed the broader public image of the USMNT.

At the same time, if someone looks down on the MNT because they're "not as good as the women's team" or whatever, that person was probably a marginal potential fan, at best. I'd also say that both of these perception issues - "women's sport" and "US men are so much worse that the women" - will become less prevalent as overall awareness of international soccer grows. I think they're probably already much less prevalent than in the past.

 

I don't know. Seems to just be saying that the funds could be better used (see @Beau Dure quoted post).

 

Bringing up a couple of aspects (accommodations and barbering - for some reason) of the US's stay in Doha contrasted with Argentina's - and only those aspects - seems to imply that a different result might be in the offing if the latter's method had been used. Particularly given the commentary of "pride and reputation" in proximity to it.

Of course no one knows what renting out a petrostate's main university housing area will set one back.