I was going from memory and did not recall that the incomes were broken down in such a way. I think the influence of sponsorships for the Olympics are overstated, but fair enough. I also would argue (with no real backup) that "massive" sponsorship awards are a relatively recent phenomenon with the women, and I don't know how you'd factor the time-bound, "spiky" nature of same with the women (a two-year high period followed by a heavy lull) vs. a more consistent, likely lower-magnitude trend across a given 4 years for the men. The attendance differences and changes are very clear. However, I think 2019 might be the first year the total gate for the women at home (which is where the real money comes in) is well above the men. There was a previous inflection point where it was within a couple thousand as I recall, a few years back. This is all with the well-known condition where, on average, the women play many more home games, almost never traveling unless a major tournament is on (fewer expenses for travel). It's also highly likely that home friendlies cost the men more for opposition appearance fees, despite also likely bringing in significantly more. Also, is the accounting that is available omitting Copa America Centenario?
I think there was a pretty clear indication that the Court will rule in the women's favor on this issue when it denied the Motion to Dismiss and granted the class status. Of course, MSJ has not yet been resolved. I still think the women's biggest problem in this case is that they are arguing that the bargained for CBA was discriminatory...
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. But ... where is the money the men are getting paid with coming from, since they have a negative net income? Is part of the USSF's strategy to hold down the women's income so they'll be able to use some of the women's positive net income to pay the men? It seems like the whole think is a mess.
They've done the opposite in years past and is something that would change if the men make the World Cup and Olympics...
To me it bespeaks of rather blatant sexism. It almost is like most of the USSF leadership is made up of men and even women that are made in the misogynistic tradition. They have little to stand on to justify their blatant economic mistreatment of the female players. From the numbers I have seen the women make a lot more money for the USSF than the men and yet they are paid less. It does not matter if women's soccer is the same job as men's soccer, what matters is value and clearly, based on value returned, the women are more valuable than the men and the income they produce has been paying the men's program for many years. That is wrong and should be righted. I almost hope the Women win their 66+ million dollar lawsuit and that forces a bankruptcy and disbandment of the current USSF and we get a new and better USSF in its place. Of course that will not happen because the good ol' boys will somehow see to it the they mostly all retain their positions. It is too bad that our legal system does not have the ability to lay criminal charges for the kind of blatant sexism that the USSF has perpetrated. If it did much of the present and past USSF leadership would spend time behind bars and not the kind that serve adult beverages.
You make significant charges here that you come nowhere near substantiating. I have highlighted three in particular (in two bold sections) that you ought to be able to actually show your work on (or not). When doing so, CLEARLY DEFINE the parameters around said arguments. Let's not be as slippery and vague as the USWNTPA has been. Please show your work or modify your statements.
Bullcrap. The numbers are in a post a little earlier in this thread. You clearly lack the ability or desire to read before you attack. In fact I will show the post here to save you any effort.
That is a NET statement that says nothing of the value delivered (which is a different and subjective measure which has not been defined), and it intentionally shows a recency bias. And the "for several years" burden is not clearly shown even if the premises are assumed true. I get that you don't particularly WANT to substantiate claims, as it is much more useful to hurl accusations, but please humor me.
Was it blatant sexism when the men were subsidizing the women? You are also falling into the "trap" the women are laying down by focusing on the per game pay while ignoring the guaranteed contracts and benefits that the women get that the men don't get. If the allegations are true that USSF offered the women the men's contract and they turned it down, that does create a situation where the women did themselves in here. From a purely "other people's money" aspect, I would like USSF to put both men and women on the same CBA and just pay them appearance fees. But the women would never agree to that because they'd lose the guaranteed salary and benefits that they gained in the last CBA.
It's worth noting that those numbers are from the women's filing and they are inherently biased. It's also just an imagine, so it isn't clear what numbers have been included in those numbers and which have been left out.
A short twitter thread from Professor Bank on an argument that is common in this thread, that women's and men's soccer are different polls and that legally USSF is not required to pay them the same. While it may seem immoral to some, it is an effective argument that has precedent. Let me try to provide legal perspective on why USSF is arguing that the WNT and MNT players, in the words of the USSF brief in support of its motion, "Do Not Perform Equal Work on Jobs Requiring Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Under Similar Working Conditions." https://t.co/2T4xQGzTfN— Steven Bank (@ProfBank) February 21, 2020
I don't think you really mean to say everything anyone says is inherently biased, do you? They may be biased or they may not.
Perceived bias is often, almost usually, simply reflected in the bias of the people calling bias. They only way to refute asserted "facts" is with other "facts." It is somewhat like: "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." Niels Bohr Facts are much like truth but truth is found more in beliefs than it is in facts. One person's "truth" is often another person's "lie." In the case of "law" there are no "facts" just beliefs. That is facts are whatever slick lawyers can convince other people is true. It does not matter in law what is real but only what people can be convinced is real. This lawsuit will be settled not by what is true but by the bias of the judge(s) and by who has the most convincing lawyer making the arguments. In the current world I believe that the women will win but it could easily go the other way if they get a closet misogynist for the judge.
It's strange that you say this and yet maintain that the one document presented so far in this latest spasm of conversation says what you say it does, and continue to slather on salacious accusations without further support.
USWNT hopes to forego a trial and seek backpay totaling nearly $67 million, and possibly millions more. The women's legal team has determined they are owed $67 million, a number they arrived at by applying the United States men's national team collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to the success of the USWNT U.S. Soccer is expected to dispute any dollar amount that comes from FIFA bonuses, as they are not in control of that money. FIFA hands a smaller amount out for a Women's World Cup win than the men's World Cup. The USMNT can earn $25 million with a World Cup win, where the USWNT can only earn $2.5 million as a team. U.S. Soccer would take a major financial hit if they ended up having paying that total. It could cause a hit to the group's finances that would impact the men and women's teams, as well as youth development, coaching, referee education and grass-roots soccer programs.
Thank you for this, as it appears factual and gives further context. One thing to add, perhaps is that this doesn't fully explain the difference between the men's World Cup bonus amount and the women's. The USSF is not obligated to distribute the amount of the men's world cup bonus just to the men. And, the USSF could limit the bonus to the men to the amount of the bonus for the women. That would provide even more funds for the other programs. In other words, the USSF is not required to be a partner with FIFA in FIFA's decision to have higher prizes for the men than the women. Notwithstanding this, however, USSF has chosen to contract for a higher bonus for the men.
Exactly. USSoccer could, and likely will be forced to evenly divide up bonuses. The thing is, they probably never would have negotiated the men's contract knowing that they would have to apply the same bonus numbers to the women. They know the men probably won't win often, don't play that many games, and even if they did qualify and go on to actually win the world cup, the bonus money from FIFA would be there to support the payments. It's really USSoccer's own fault; if they had seen this coming they likely would have done things the proper way in the first place. It's crazy because now they are going to be held liable for a massive sum of money all at once.
Soooo... they didn’t subtract their guaranteed salary, the bonus they get for winning, and value of benefits that they got? That should put a fairly sizable dent in their award, assuming they win, of course.
International soccer, as you know, has a 4-year cycle. Men's and Women's WC happen two years apart. The evidence USWNT is using left-out the 2014 WC. The men's NT got 9 million US$ for their 2014 WC participation. That Cup alone financed the team to this date but still made much less than the USWNT recently. The issue, IMHO, is how you break the 30 million SUM revenue. USSF got a cool 1 million dollars from Conmebol for hosting the Copa América Centenario in 2016, USMNT participated in the Copa. Would you count this as revenue generated by the men's team?
I could be wrong, but equal pay only exists in work relations where men and women do the same job on the same floor. Women soccer and male soccer are played independent of each and a female player can't play in a male team and vice versa. So how can they claim equal pay? You play for the money you sign for and that money is determined by the revenues your efforts bring in. Their efforts donot bring in more money by the male team.
This is one of the issues in the lawsuit, and has actually been discussed ad nauseam here. The argument is essentially that the job is "US national team soccer player" and hence is substantially similar. Whether you believe that or not, it's a decent legal argument, especially considering if the Judge finds otherwise, it would be politically incorrect since it would have to be based on a purported inferiority of women soccer.