Being "logical" is often quite different from being "rational." See Spock's paper on Vulcan logical thinking as contrasted with rational thought.
That has become a fashionable counterargument. I'm not sure if it's all that true, but it certainly is simplistic - which is an accusation leveled at the fact that MLS&E is fantastically wealthy, which I find...odd. The deal with SUM is complicated enough that I suppose it could be partially construed as such (especially in the early years), but I think it's going to take more than just the bare assertion to convince. What I'd like to see addressed, though, is how televising women's soccer would have been without SUM bundling the rights to all the World Cups when selling to broadcasters.
I think we definitely see that it requires marketing to get people to show up for the WNT. The attendance in Houston for actual meaningful qualifiers (and not endless friendlies) was atrocious. SUM isn't just "cashing checks", they're actually providing a major service to USSF and basically working on commission. They also brokered the Budweiser/NWSL pro bono. Also, SUM is not MLS.
Just a note that we're talking about English language rights in the United States here. The Spanish Language rights in the United States have been the single most valuable/expensive package FIFA sells. And the 2002-2006 English language rights were basically given away as nobody was bidding on them. SUM basically scooped them up for a song, then bundled them with MLS and got ESPN to bite on the package. Everyone looks at the SUM/ESPN/USSF stuff as some big conspiracy/payoff/backroom deal, but they're looking at it from the perspective of 2020 where the various products actually have value, and not what the scene was like when the deals went into effect.
Yes, I looked into it a bit more, and SUM also brokered the deal for the 2006 Men's World Cup, but it wasn't bundled with a Women's World Cup. SUM was the driving force on both the TV and operations sides of the short-notice relocated 2003 Women's World Cup, but that was its own deal. Since then the networks have dealt directly with FIFA and bought full-cycle packages that include all of the FIFA tournments for men, women, and youth. ESPN got two cycles for 2007-2014, and then Fox got two cycles for 2015-2022, and then that was extended one more cycle to appease Fox about the rescheduling of the Qatar World Cup.
Perhaps the issue isn't that the women aren't paid enough, but that the men are paid too much? https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/202...alary-lawsuit-collective-bargaining-agreement It would seem that USSF's current argument is that paying the players more would take away from other programs that aren't revenue generating.
I've been in this thread thinking the women have an important case. That there is a disparity in the amount of money given, by USSF, to MLS as compared to NWSL. That that money allows MLS teams to pay male, including many USMNT, soccer players over market. But if the suit is just that FIFA gives a men's team a $25 MM bonus for winning the WC and the women $2.5 MM, I don't know what the point is. Even if we all agree that is unfair, and many wouldn't, that is not something USSF controls. How do you sue someone for something someone else is doing? Disappointing. Keeping an open mind that the first media analysis of the case after last night's filings were possibly USSF water carriers. But it does seem to come down to the FIFA prize structure. I love the USWNT and wish the NWSL was given an equal subsidy as MLS. But I can't imagine what paying $67MM to the women based on the evidence in this case would do to soccer in America.
U.S. women's soccer players seek more than $66 million in damages https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/u-s-women-s-soccer-players-seek-more-66-million-n1140211
Is it though? Sunil basically said even if the women got the same pay structure (ie no contracts) they still wouldn't get paid equally because of "biological differences" which won't exactly look good assuming the judge is even remotely liberal. The men haven't exactly brought in money from FIFA, and likely won't bring in money from FIFA any time soon. USSF knows this. The numbers show the women are the ones making the money since 2015. Yet the men still had contracts that were worth a lot more than the women's. I see USSF having to write very large checks soon, whether they lose in court or are just forced to settle beforehand.
From what I saw, total compensation to the women was higher than to the men. Biological difference plays a part as women get pregnancy coverage among other things due to biological differences. The women are saying: if we had the men's deal we would have made this. But that is almost entirely based on the fact the FIFA bonuses for men are much higher. Sunil says in his deposition, that part of the men's deal is based on the idea they won't probably go far at a WC and if they did, the bonus to USSF from FIFA would be much much higher. PR and looks bad shouldn't apply. But like I said, hard to know if the media has all the facts or isn't spinning them for the Fed.
If my understanding is right, World Cup prize money from FIFA goes to the federations, not to the teams. The federations can distribute the money however they want. So if the men were bringing in prize money, it still would be "in play." Of course, however, it would change the net income evidence. What the actual net income evidence does is debunk claims that the men are bringing in more income than the women and therefore it makes sense that the men have the potential to get paid more. Looking only at national team income, those arguments now appear to be turned on their heads. To me, the difficult argument still is on the issue of whether women's soccer and men's soccer are, as a matter of law, occupations that are "equal work" from an equal pay perspective. I think the answer to that question, if it gets answered in this case, is what will make the case really important from a long term sports perspective. I'm for the women, but I'm also an attorney trained to be able to distinguish what I want the law to be from what the law is. I have no expertise in this field, but to me from a legal perspective the answer is not obvious.
The prize money from FIFA is in the CBA though. It isn't as if the USMNT or USWNT players do their CBA with the idea, "will just let you decide when the time comes". The Men have $218k per point earned at the WC. The women have nothing like that. The women are saying, we would have earned this much more with that deal. But USSF signed that deal with the Men knowing if they got 9 points they would have probably received $25MM from FIFA. On the other hand, for winning the whole thing USSF got $5 MM or so. So, if they had negotiated that deal, they would have never agreed to $200k per point for the women. It is just kind of lame that the USWNT is suing USSF about FIFA disparity in prize money.
If the evidence is that one table, that's the bottom-line number only. It says nothing at all as to "how much they bring in". It says "how much they bring in less how much they spend". Is that significant enough to change the calculus? I don't know without more information. And, of course, the date range is conveniently chosen, which has been mentioned repeatedly. Good points, especially the last.
One of the arguments that USSF has used is that the men's team was being paid more because the men were bringing in more money. That hasn't been the case in recent years thanks to the men failing to make the Olympics and World Cup in recent years.
World Cup, yes. Olympics, not so much as it is a U23 tournament for the men. No real money there for USSF on the men's side, at least not nearly as much as for the women.
"Bringing in more money" means "more income". Do we have those numbers for certain? I have a reasonably decent reckoning of home attendance for the past decade, which could be kinda-sorta used as a proxy for one income stream, if we know average ticket prices on a per-match basis. However, as for all income streams besides the gate (and even the gate itself), I don't think we have enough information.
Yes. USSF has their income broken down by source in their annual reports, so it's pretty easy to determine how much is coming from each of the national teams. The only exception is the $30 million from SUM. That's recorded as a lump sum, so it isn't clear how much from there is from the men and what's from the women. The big difference is that the men have failed to make the Olympics the last few cycle and failed to make the World Cup. As a result, USSF has failed to collect the massive jump in sponsorships associated with that while they've collected those sponsorships from the women. There's also been the subsequent victory tours that the women have gotten and not the men. There's also been massive attendance drops for the men outside their friendlies against big nations, which has allowed the women to catch up to the men on attendance. Add to that the pretty large difference in number of games the women play in comparison to the men and you've got a gap in the per game basis that didn't exist previously.