The unequal working conditions claim can continue to trial, but the big claim for unequal pay is distinguished. I have not yet read the opinion, but I am not surprised. The women's claim rested on flawed factual and legal premises. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/...ml?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
Here's the statement on the limited claims that survive. Not much there: Plaintiffs' Title VII claim for discriminatory working conditions survives only insofar as it is based on (1) travel conditions (specifically charter flights and hotel accommodations), and (2) personnel and support services (specifically, medical and training support).
That's a relief. The ramifications of a ruling in the women's favor could've been far-reaching. This country is in decline as it is.
Certain US Women National Team players earning extra benefits definitely seems to have damaged their case. 2. "Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they would have received under the MNT CBA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteedbenefits they receive under their agreement, which they opted for..." pic.twitter.com/biDydbxI9o— Jonathan Tannenwald (@thegoalkeeper) May 1, 2020 I continue to be fine with letting the US Women get a "split", as best as possible, of the USSF's revenue.* But the US Women will probably need to re-negotiate its CBA to mirror the US Men to eliminate things like the guaranteed benefits. *Of course, the judgment indicates that the US Women are already earning more per match than the US Men.
I'm still reading the opinion, but it looks like the Court determined that the women were actually paid more than the men on a per game basis, once all of the women's benefits were absorbed. Thus, they failed to provide evidence that the women were paid less than the men, fatal to the equal pay claim. Women would get paid even if they never played a match, standing in "stark contrast" to the MNT CBA, "under which players are only compensated if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match."
The Court also noted how the women explicitly bargained for their detail and how it entailed less risk than the men's deal. Guaranteed salaries versus pay-to-play. Women rejected pay-to-play when offered.
Exactly. There's room for a compromise here, IMO. I'm not sure that you (or many others) may necessarily agree, but I think the USSF's objective should be as equal of a revenue split as possible. Where the US Women will have to give is in re-negotiating their CBA to mirror the US Men on pay/benefits. Obviously, the USSF needs to surrender entirely to the US Women on the travel/conditions issue, and the US Women can also claim victory in the public fight, with USSF leadership totally wiped out.
This really shouldn't come as a shock. The fact that the 1990's-early 2000's WNT members weren't front and center supporting this generation in their "fight for equal pay" was a deafening silence. Those who looked beyond the headlines, and hot takes could see that the facts showed that the women's national teams members were paid more than the men's national team players. IMO the members of the WNT would better serve the women's game by helping to build the NWSL into a viable, thriving and sustainable professional league. Just like the member's of the 1994 MNT helped to do with getting MLS off of the ground. Their sacrifices helped pave the way for today's players. Now the way the USSF has handled things is inexcusable. It's also not surprising, given the federations history of self inflicted wounds.
It doesn't help when the USWNT members miss a decent chunk of NSWL games to go to USWNT camps and play in friendlies.
I for one am shocked that an argument predicated on “ we are more successful as a team so therefore the deal we negotiated and agreed to willingly is not fair and we’d like to keep our deal and also get more money without negotiating” didn’t pan out in federal court.
Count me as one who is shocked. Normally these verdicts always go in favor of the loudest mob mentality. I’m glad to know logic won.
Never fear. I am sure they will put their collective heads together and come up with another scheme to garner our attention...
To me, they kind of represent that brand of feminism that says, "Men have gotten away with being obnoxious, entitled jerks with no consequences forever, so women should also get away with being obnoxious, entitled jerks with no consequences."
Anyone know when their current CBA expires? NYT didn't say. Thinking that's their best bet for higher compensation at this point. Summary judgment is a high bar to appeal against.
According to Wahl: USWNT always knew they were taking a risk with a court of law not being the court of public opinion. And US Soccer knows "winning" in court means losing with much of the public—unless there's a settlement on remaining issues that somewhat placates the players. CBA ends next year.— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) May 2, 2020 And of course he's still blinded by the PR of the USWNT: Big loss for USWNT players in their gender-discrimination lawsuit against US Soccer. Very much unexpected. https://t.co/oOWgph7Qb3— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) May 1, 2020
Gran-ite Wahl and his hawt takes, what a dufus. I'm a huge Pats fan, and followed the embarrassing deflategate fiasco more than I should have. But it essentially made me into a labor law expert, and it seemed pretty obvious that a judge wasn't going to overrule a CBA. Goodell literally suspended Brady for something 30 of the country's top scientists wrote the court confirming didn't happen, and he was able to do it anyways because of the CBA. Just cuz a bunch of whiny liberals demand "equality for all" without reading about said equality agreed to in 2016, there was no chance this was going to work. If nothing else, the ladies got a few extra sponsorships and appearance fees on late night, so good for them I suppose.
So is your position that you'd have no problem with the women negotiating hard in 2021 for a new CBA that may end up paying them more than the US men -- assuming they are still generating more revenue than the men at that point?
Of course. Who wouldn't think that. I don't think anyone would begrudge the women if they bargained as hard as possible. That's what they should be doing.
Ummm...the judge clearly states that the women are already being paid more than the men..... The federation would love for the USWNT to have the same CBA terms as the men. It would open up the team for competition for places. It would help alleviate a lot of the unnecessary drama as well. Anyone believe that Hope Solo would have lasted as long as she did were she not under contract guaranteeing her roster spot?
I don’t think you’d find many people having a problem with that. People had an issue with them 1) misrepresenting the value of the ancillary benefits they receive to the press and 2) feeling the need to throw the men’s program under the bus publicly in order to boost their own profile, and 3) pissing and moaning in public that a deal they negotiated was somehow fundamentally unfair. As someone that’s pro-labor and pro-equality, I found their public arguments relating to pay incredibly cynical and facile and insulting to people dealing with anti-labor practices and criminal inequality every day.
Moot point unless Biden wins this election and the next. Nothing Trump says on the subject matters much either. The WC is going to be in 2026, and AFAIK isn't going to take a ton of infrastructure. It's not like we're building a city in the desert, a la Qatar, for example. So we're going to be revisiting this funding after the next Presidential term at least once.
If the women negotiate a new CBA that pays them 20 times the men, I'll give them a golf clap and say congrats. I am all for anybody getting what they are worth/able to negotiate. Frankly, I don't even begrudge the women in this case, as they are just trying to use a bit of celebrity and liberal wokeness to earn a few extra bucks. Good for them, and good luck in the future.