USWNT Invisible Crest Protest Becomes Hit T-Shirt–and Example of Players' Revenue Potential

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by FanOfFutbol, Mar 16, 2020.

  1. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    canammj, Semblance17 and Bob Lamm repped this.
  2. Bob Lamm

    Bob Lamm Member

    Mar 7, 2016
    New York City
    Thanks for posting this great article. It has lots of information that I didn't know. And I especially loved seeing (for the first time) the team's deliberately unsmiling pregame group photo.

    In solidarity with these terrific women when they're on the field, in the courtroom, or elsewhere.
     
  3. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Will this count legally as another revenue stream the women receive that the men do not?
     
  4. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    Why would anyone that matters care?
     
    McSkillz and Bob Lamm repped this.
  5. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    First of all, there is a court case approaching. Secondly, are Nike and FIFA okay with the crest being used?
     
  6. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    The court case is in no way impacted by the T-Shirt and Nike and FIFA have no say as there is no logo being used.

    It is particularly meaningless given where the USWNT players are talking about sending their money from this. I mean it does not sound like they are even considering keeping any of the extra money the T-Shirt sales generate and helping workers impacted by the virus shutdowns is a VERY good idea.
     
    appwrangler, Bob Lamm and jnielsen repped this.
  7. Bob Lamm

    Bob Lamm Member

    Mar 7, 2016
    New York City
    Is it possible to imagine U.S. Soccer, fresh off the staggering misogynistic blunder of their legal papers, attacking the USWNT players for using profits from T-shirt sales to assist the workers who've lost pay due to the two canceled friendlies? :)
     
  8. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    Under the old leadership, yes. But under the new leadership, no. Right now the new leadership would not even try to paint the players in any kind of negative light. In the first place Cindy Cone is quite attached to the USWNT and in the second she is too intelligent to even try to go against the players right now.

    Cone may, in the future. be forced, because of her new position, to mount an aggressive defense to the suit. But, if she does mount such a defense, it will not be anything like the insulting misogynistic insulting slop that the previous administration allowed into the argument.

    BTW: I do not buy the excuses the previous president has used. He does seem a little stupid at times but I just cannot buy that he did not at least read a synopsis of the brief before it was sent to the court.
     
    Semblance17 and Bob Lamm repped this.
  9. McSkillz

    McSkillz Member+

    UCLA Bruins
    United States
    Nov 22, 2014
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I just ordered mine! I'm excited for this and it's been a while since I've looked forward to anything the past few weeks.
     
    Semblance17, jnielsen and Bob Lamm repped this.
  10. Bob Lamm

    Bob Lamm Member

    Mar 7, 2016
    New York City
    I was joking. That's why I used a :)

    Of course you're right about the previous president. And the issue isn't simply what he did or didn't read. He surely had conversations with those attorneys and was aware of their approach to the depositions of the players and the legal papers.
     
    Semblance17 repped this.
  11. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    I knew you were joking but because I have coached primarily girls for many many many years I seem to have more emotional feelings about this issue than many others. That makes in somewhat hard for me to actively joke about any aspect of the current problems. I even felt myself feeling anger when they went ahead and played the last match before a full stadium.. I think that endangered the players and the fans and the press and the stadium staff and many others and I blame the previous administration for making that God awful decision.

    The money that was made does not justify the huge chance they took. Just one infected person that was contagious could have infected 100s directly and that hundred could infect 1000s all over the country. The risk was too great and playing the match before fans was simply placing money ahead of health.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  12. jackdoggy

    jackdoggy Member+

    May 16, 2014
    Big D
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #12 jackdoggy, Mar 17, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
    I agree with the skepticism that you both have. From the 35,000 ft. view that I'm trying to maintain, the former USSF presidents' position has spiked my BS meter. Add In from the litigation thread - - that Moderator Dude(seems smart) stating the "current legal precedent" in the Circuit Court where the trial is being held is on the USSF's side.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah no one (except attorneys) read 10's of thousands of pages of Legal documents but no one can convince me that the follow conversation didn't take place:

    USSF: What are our chances?
    Attorneys: You can never predict legal outcomes.
    USSF: What is the main point(s) that we have in our favor?
    Attorneys: The current legal precedent established by a previous case in the Circuit Court hearing our case supports our position.
    USSF: Are our facts exactly the same as the previous Court Case?
    Attorneys: The facts are never exactly the same.
    USSF: What arguments/tactics did the other attorneys use to convince the judge that established this "precedent".

    BWTHDIK
     
  13. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm wondering if those of you who think the USSF would have known, in any level of detail, the positions their attorneys were taking, or would have seen synopses of their arguments, or would have asked for a briefing on their attorneys' arguments or tactics, ever have been involved in big time litigation where you were at the top of the client leadership. I'm wondering because after a long career as an attorney, mostly not as a litigator but nevertheless with significant experience in important and complex litigation, I've never seen attorneys prepare for their clients synopses of the positions they were taking and I've never seen them give their clients briefings on their arguments or tactics at any significant level of detail.

    What a lot of attorneys do, including good ones, is give their clients copies of the court documents they file, and sometimes or often depending on the circumstances, copies of the filings of other parties and of the court.

    Arguments, positions, and tactics may come up when attorneys are discussing settlement with their clients, in terms of assessing what to settle for in light light of the case's likely outcome if pursued to conclusion. That would be of the nature of, "On this particular issue, our chances of prevailing may (or may not) be good, so that's consideration in relation to settlement," but would not involve detailed discussions of the issue since, if the client were interested in the details of the issue, the client would have been able to read the actual court documents already provided by the attorneys.

    Do clients read the court documents the attorneys have given them? Some do and some don't.
     
    CoachJon and jnielsen repped this.
  14. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    Those that don't, and I agree there are such, are acting stupidly and are responsible for whatever stupidity their lawyers spew at the courts. But I also agree that trials like this are not about right and wrong or about even what the law says rather they are about what the upholstered parasites of the legal profession can convince other upholstered parasites or juries, which are worse, what is correct. Like Issac Asimov said, "Nothing has to be true but everything has to sound true" and that is what the law is really based on. Laws were written by lawyers to make sure lawyers will always have a steady income. The rest of the common folk are just there to make sure that the lawyers have something to do.

    Or to say it another way, "In any lawsuit the plaintiff's lawyers get rich and the respondent's lawyers get rich and the rest go broke."
     
  15. Bob Lamm

    Bob Lamm Member

    Mar 7, 2016
    New York City
    In my view, what most attorneys do or don't do, what most clients do or don't do, is absolutely irrelevant here. This lawsuit is central to a huge public controversy over sex discrimination. There's a lot at stake for the U.S. women's national team; for U.S. Soccer; for sponsors of women's soccer; and for lots of others who care about women's soccer, about women's sports in general, about sports in general, and about sex discrimination in general. Most lawsuits aren't within 30 miles of the explosive and very public political issues involved in this case. So if "most attorneys" do X and "most clients" do Y, that doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
     
  16. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess you don't care about what most likely happened in this case. So be it.

    To his credit (possibly the only credit he gets on this), Cordeiro said he didn't read the materials provided to him about the case, said that was his bad, and said he ultimately was responsible -- as in, "The buck stops here." So, he stepped down.

    At least that's better than "The buck stops over there," which is a lot of what we hear these days.
     
  17. canammj

    canammj Member

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    -----------------------------
    Personally, Cordeiro was in a no-win spot, so could/would he be thinking lets kick this can down the road to the next person? I don't know how long Cindy Parlow/Cone will be in this new position, but what a hot spot to be dropped into.
    They need to get this mess fixed fast before turning off sponsors- fans/supporters etc.
    Can you imagine the position the federation will be in if the Women win Olympic Gold? The media is going to be all over them and unless there is a big change quick, the media is not going to be good.
     
  18. McSkillz

    McSkillz Member+

    UCLA Bruins
    United States
    Nov 22, 2014
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    9 times out of 10 the Olympics are going to be canceled this year...
     
    sitruc and cpthomas repped this.
  19. zdravstvuyte

    zdravstvuyte Member

    Aston Villa
    United States
    Jul 26, 2018
    Oooh
    I want one of these tee shirts.
    Do they ship internationally?

    I can’t find any info on that.
    Thanks.
     
  20. canammj

    canammj Member

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    -------------
    Or does it get pushed back later in the year?
    MLS seems to think they can push back and do their final in December
    Obviously, almost impossible to figure a "safe" restart to all things in life right now, not just sports
     
  21. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    May 4, 2002
    #21 FanOfFutbol, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
    I read an article recently (I can't find it right now) that went into great detail about why the Olympics cannot be moved. It was explained that leagues and events for many sports would either have to be moved or canceled and soccer is just a small part of that. For soccer on the men's side teams will be in season and will be very reluctant to release important players at almost any time other than the summer. The Olympics are not a FIFA sanctioned tournament and does not include FIFA dates so there is no requirement there.

    Other sports like Basketball would be in season for most moves that are reasonable. Even track and field. swimming, diving and most others have other events that would conflict.

    The article showed, pretty convincingly, that a move of the Olympics would be harder and more disruptive to the sports world than would simple cancellation.

    As I said I cannot find that article right now but if I find itr later I will add it to this thread.

    I would personally like the Olympics to be moved rather than canceled but it appears to be almost beyond possibility to move such an all encompassing event. If there were only single sports in isolation then it might be possible but with all the sports involved it is nearly impossible to do so.

    I Found a similar article:
    Tokyo Olympics more likely to be canceled than moved or postponed because of coronavirus
    https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/2/25/21152948/ioc-tokyo-olympics-coronavirus

     

Share This Page