The only fair way to determine if the US women's soccer team is equal to the men's team is by having them compete on the soccer field. If the final score is close then the women have a reasonable basis to demand roughly equal pay to the men. If it's a blowout then they don't.
5
They are, indeed, among the most globally-successful athletic teams of all time - men or women. That said, the article does not address the reality that they are swimming in a pool with only a small fraction of the quality and numbers of national teams/players that characterizing many other sports, including men's soccer. If and when soccer federations in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe are producing the level of competition that the USMNT faces, arguments for equality will become more viable. In the meantime, the USWNT can continue to lead the world on and off the field, and should receive a level of reasonable compensation for it. Otherwise, the current grab for the brass ring risks backlash in the form of destroying funding for youth soccer and their own professional league.
4
A professional sport is worth what it can earn minus its expenses.
It has nothing to do with who works more or wins more ... it's how much revenue is produced.
If the women net more than the men, their share should be bigger.
If not, then they should get less--regardless of success.
It's a business voluntarily divided by gender.
PS
I wish the Olympics would go back to an all amateur program and its original intent ... It was thought that the AMATEUR youth of the world should, through sport, meet and get to know each other toward a new global understanding. It was thought that when rhetoric was building to war, some of these youngsters who had met at the games and were now older and "in charge," could reason as friends and avoid so much pain and suffering.
I see no value in awarding Olympic medals to professional football stars. I cringe when I see professional players make childish poses after scoring--such a wasted opportunity for some real progress in the world--especially in football, a global phenomenon.
2
U.S has a men’s soccer team? Go figure!
5
@my2cents --- yes we do, but from what I read (it's not easy to find much on them), they're not that good. Which is why they should be paid more than the women's team. Apparently.
4
FIFA is rivaled only by the NCAA. In its retrograde attitude and practice wrt players and even more so wrt women. A favorable verdict for women’s soccer can go a long way toward making things right.
3
I’m all for the women making as much money sad the can. But the don’t generate as much as the men. Are we honestly willing to say that the WNBA players should make the same as the NBA? That is basically what he women’s national team is arguing. It’s crazy. If you’re a plumber or lawyer or ceo then 100 percent agree pay should be equal. But it’s sports. Women’s sports just don’t generate the same dollars. It’s not the federations fault. It’s society’s for watching men’s sports more than women’s.
6
@Donald what about the lpga
1
If we are going to have the proverbial level playing field and reward people based on merit, not gender, then I do not see the legitimacy of separate men's and women's leagues requiring equal pay. Women tennis players and golfers were very smart. They created an excellent, highly rewarding product separate from men and, while not receiving equal pay (as far as I know), are still richly rewarded, far more so for most of the women than if there were not separate associations and tournaments.
Entertainment is not the same as plumbing, coding, or truck driving. Some people are bigger "stars" and produce much more revenue, whether they are self-employed or are employed by others. Professional sports are a form of entertainment, and those participating should, as with any other form of entertainment, be paid proportional to the revenue they produce.
If women's sports competitions earn more than those of the men, then the women should earn more. Much of the money boils down to personalities and marketing as much as pure athletic ability. For most folks, they simply want to be entertained. It is a minority of us who are primarily interested in the nuances of the intricacies of the game and how the very best perform differently from the rest of the pros who, themselves, are the cream of the crop in any sport.
Athletes, like others, go where the money is. Top baseball and basketball players from around the world come here. Top soccer players go to Europe. True for men and women.
5
Ultimately, if the women's team wins this much, they will lose in the long run. US Soccer will tie each gender's pay to their revenues even more closely. The Men had a historically bad stretch, while the Women had a historically terrific stretch and that led to their revenue numbers over 2016-2018 becoming similar. Even if the Women sustain their success, the Men will bounce back and so will their revenue numbers, and they will rightfully earn more. Men's revenues were used for years to grow the Women's game, and that no longer will be the case. It could be argued that such revenue sharing is no longer necessary because of the Women's success. But remember the Women's success has been driven by unprecedented funding by U.S. soccer. No other federation has spent nearly as much as the US has on their women's team. This gap will decrease because other federations are paying more, but also because U.S. soccer will only give the Women what they earn. Pyrrhic Victory hurah.
3
@JR
The U.S.WNT success has been driven, not so much by U.S.S.F., but by Title IX, culture, and our emphasis on youth sports. THE USA provides girls athletic opportunities that are simply not available to females in most of the world.
3
Let men and women play in the same league. There would be ZERO women.
They get paid less because they are significantly less qualified as athletes.
Time to move on to another victim story, I guess.
7
@Travelers- the USA, the women's team is way more known and recognized and famous then the mens worldwide. While FIFA pays more for the men in world cup appearances the men's team has trouble qualifying for the world cup while the women win the world champions trophy. Hmmmm. Since sport is about revenue dollars. The women's team may actually have the advantage here,
3
As someone not from the USA, the women's team is way more known and recognized and famous then the mens in my circles. They deserve to be paid.
5
This is all identity politics drivel driven by the "super woke" Megan Rapine.
They negotiated their contracts. Men's soccer is far more popular and lucrative globally. The US women's team opted for a different pay and bonus structure than the men's team.
The US women do a lot for women's soccer globally. They are big fish in a small pond. The US men, by comparison are relative "takers" benefiting from the largess and popularity of men's soccer globally.
If the women's team wants to make this "apples to apples" they should play the men's team and see who wins.
6
@ML
Soccer, as other sports people play to watch, is about entertainment....not physical prowess. For example, people would not pay much interest to watch the 200th. ranked men's tennis player, even though he would probably beat Serena in her prime; nevertheless, they'll shell out to watch the WTA. Simply put the WNT are winners, and we do love winners!
The men are faster, stronger and more skilful and , worldwide, generate far, far more revenue. Even in the doldrums the US men's team would still beat the women's team. Where's the equality? Unfortunately these women beat them on ego quite easily.
7
I know who Megan Rapinoe and Alex Morgan are. I can't name a single player from the men's squad.
6
If a woman can make the mens team, she can play and get paid on that contract. Similarly, if a man can make the women’s team, he could play and get paid on that contract.
I bet that many women support the idea that if a woman’s play is good enough for the men’s team, she should be able to play. What about a man on the woman’s team?
Soccer, like all professional sport, is entertainment, and entertainers get paid differently from regular workers.
I will go see a movie simply because Meryl Streep is in it, and not just because Woody Harrelson is in one. Entertainment.
2
When you can't compete...sue. This is why liberalism is failing the world over. Normal people - the silent majority - are sick and tired of this sort of nonsense. Men bring in literally billions more in revenue for sports. It's not rocket surgery.
5
When will the US Soccer Federation join the 20th Century and start paying the women players as much as they pay the male players? After all the women have been FAR more successful than the men and they are only demanding they receive the money they were cheated out of by flagrant discriminatory practices in the past. In addition it could hardly be more obvious that it is time to clean house and sweep out the bigots that run the federation.
5
The women deserve the $67 million!
4
US Soccer should play it out. Sound's like they have the women on the ropes.
@Ryan Bingham And that is OK with you? What is your opinion on equal pay?
1
OMG! Just when I thought Rapinoe's 15 minutes of fame was over..
3
@Aaron 15 minutes, huh? Two World cups, and a host of other titles. One of the top performers over the last DECADE.
4
Let's all agree that this sport is boring and unwatchable for the vast majority of Americans. To pretend that what they do, play a game, demands a high salary, is insane. Go play in England, where they care!
2
@Dave Hundreds of millions of people disagree completely. Here, the Women's team has been garnering higher ratings each year. Sure winning helps, but their popularity is growing.
4
sounds like extortion to me
1
Why do female models make more than male models? Because women's fashion is where the money is.
Why do NBA players make more than WNBA players? Because men's basketball is where the money is.
If the USWNT generates more revenue than the USMNT, they should be paid more, plain and simple.
13
You can really tell the reporter is a man.."would be a significant blow to U.S. Soccer’s finances, potentially affecting spending not only the men’s and women’s national teams but also youth development, coaching and referee education and dozens of grass-roots soccer programs." I never ever never ever see youth development etc. discussed when there are proposals floating around about how much a man/men should be paid.
5
@jo147
This judgment would be the death knell of US Soccer. It would file for bankruptcy the next day. Go ahead.
The calculation shouldn't include the Bonuses from FIFA - because the stream of revenue is entirely separate.
Men's world cup from 2018 generated about 6 Billion dollars and the teams had about a $400 million prize pool. The Women's world Cup from last year generated about 130 million dollars and the teams had about a $30 million pool prize.
The bonuses that the calculation included, I assume, was taken from the $400 million prize pool. That does not make any sense. The prize pool shouldn't be bigger than the entire revenue of a competition.
For them to include the bonuses from FIFA in this fashion is simple act of what I call "selective ignorance."
2
While these women are fantastic athletes and I love to watch them play, their industry is entertainment. Somehow, women tennis players and women golfers, who are also entertainers, seem to have established themselves. Frankly, I would rather watch the US play France, or Sweden, or England, or Brazil or Japan than watch any tennis tournament and forget golf. But that's just personal, the issue here is the industry.
But, there is a deeper issue, which is sports in general. Oh, $67 million for the whole team. OMG. That's so much money. Are you kidding? How many individual basketball, football or baseball players make that much money every year? The money paid to professional athletes and the money that the owners make is obscene. It is one of the worst aspects of American society. Teachers in the state of Oklahoma have to hold a second job just to get by. It is beyond the pale. Obesity is a growing health threat is America because people don't play sports, they watch sports. College football coaches salaries are absurd while they coach semi-pro teenagers who pretend to be students. Then the schools rake in millions.
If we are going to continue this madness, then Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe should be making somewhere between $12-$20 million/year. I guess their sport doesn't generate enough revenue to cover that, but based on their contributions to entertainment, they deserve it.
5
@Ralph the US Soccer market doesn't value any soccer player in the US at $12-$20 million a year. Soccer or should I say Real Footballers who make that money are based in Europe, China, maybe the Middle East but not any of the US domestic Prodessioal Soccer Leagues. Entertainment is where Anericans and for most of the people on the plant spend their discretionary income on. Their is not one women's Professional Football(Soccer) League in the World that supports it's self. Did they sign the contracts, then they should live with their decisions.
@Armin Oh come on Armin. Did they sign the contracts? You must be a right winger. Oh, did you sign the NDA? Oh, don't complain because you had no choice. Oh, were you forced to sign something and now you are complaining about it? Oh, you took this job for $5/hour and now you are complaining. Do you live in the nasty Universe? Get real.
2
So I guess the WNBA players should get the same pay as LeBron.
1
The revenue-generation-based commenters seem almost offended at the idea of the women being paid like the men. Or as if the league is planning to use their (the commenters') own money to pay them.
Interesting.
@Bruce getting paid the same as the men is impossible, since they both generate different revenue. You seem more offended because you can't accept that if for example women revenue is 100m and men is 500m, that would mean different pay.
1
I think it important to level the economic playing field, as it were. US Men's soccer is a joke. Women's the glowing inspiration of American girls. And, in a country sorely in need of the purity of certain accomplishment, essential. However, money is not the issue at the moment - it is microbes! Lady Justice is impartial. Death is indifferent.
Absolutely laughable. Go ahead, pay them their money, and then the USWNT (US Women's National Team for those unaware) wil, promptly go into receivership.
I don't know what people don't understand: it isn't about results, it's about revenue. The men's team generates massively more revenue than the women's team. It's just that simple.
At the last women's world cup in France, the stands were half-empty for the biggest games. In France. Where they're obsessed with soccer. The last women's world cup had 28% of the viewership compared to the last men's world cup. The men's generated $5 billion, the women's generated $131 million. It's all right from FIFA's numbers. Do the math.
And it's not just ticket revenue - it's advertising and marketing revenue. Do you think Nike and other major advertisers would pay the same amount to sponsor a women's game which sees 1/50th the viewership of a men's game? Give me a break. Outside of the women's world cup, NOBODY watches women's soccer. Nobody.
What they should really do is just split US Soccer in two: a women's federation and a men's federation. Let the women earn all they want. There will be no more excuses, either they generate revenue or they don't.
So go ahead, give them the judgment. Then watch women's soccer completely disappear.
4
@Mike Fact check here from someone who was actually at the quarters, semis and final Women’s World Cup matches. The stadiums were packed. I have photos to prove it.
1
Calling the USSF's arguments "clumsy" is not objective journalism. People who understand the sport realize how much the women are overreaching by asking for the same amount of money that FIFA would award to Men's world cup winners. That money is not only decided by FIFA--out of USSF's control--it also reflects the far greater popularity of the men's game over women's. That's a clumsy argument.
3
It is a question of how profitable women's soccer was. If very profitable, then of course the women should share in the spoils. Otherwise, the argument about equality with men is ludicrous. No woman could thrive in a gender free soccer league, unless they are there for the novelty value. If women get paid the same as men without producing the same results, that is clear discrimination against men.
3
Who pays soccer players to play for a team that represents the United States? Why are they paid? Something seems to be amiss there.
Give them the $67 million. But make them give $66 million to the Thai team they exploited for personal gain.
2
You cannot compare an athlete's salary to another athlete. They are not drill press operators where in a union shop they make the same money as they are interchangeable. Athletes are paid what the owner determines they are worth and the owners are not subjected to any equal pay requirement.
Equal pay is a slippery slope for anyone with specialized skills and/or experience. Do you really want to be a highly skilled professional getting paid the same as someone with the same experience, but who is significantly less productive.
Pay discrepancies will always exist. Should equal pay be enacted the workaround will be to create a tremendous number of job titles with different pay ranges. You can take any job title (eg Engineer 1) and create 100 levels (or any number) within that job title (eg Engineer 1-1 to Engineer 1-100) each with different salaries. Then put the employees where you want to within the Engineer 1 category. This makes it easy to put out a requisition for an Engineer 1 and pay the person whatever you want by classifying them as an Engineer 1-#. With this scheme you can pay by race or by sex or by any other measure and it is within the letter of the law.
Apples to apples comparisons are so easy here but somehow neglected - so how much does the Men's World Cup earn vs. the Women's?
The total prize money FIFA offered for the men’s World Cup was $400 million, with the top team earning around $38m. The Women’s World Cup, a total of $30m was available, including $4m for the winning team.
The total men’s pot is about 13 times larger than the women’s pot.
So what does this tell us about 'reasonable' pay rates?
Quality of play you say?
The Women's team was beaten by the FC Dallas U-15 boys academy team - yeah the 14 year-olds.
8
Some people think that the Women are the REAL national team and the men sort of minor leaguers. However, realistically, the Mens World Cup generates vastly more money than does the Womens. basically the women should be paid the same percentage as the Men-or maybe a higher percentage since they win and the men don't, However, they cannot plausibly expect the same number because their game is just not as big in real life.
Since both side have now staked out their extreme positions, real negotiations can go forward.
4
@Lefthalfbach
Might want to do some research here. While the men’s World Cup generates more revenue (us didn’t qualify in 2018) the us women create significantly more revenue for us soccer than the men. And they currently get less than 1/4 the money per friendly appearance than the men. These events are separate from the World Cup.
2
Women's team has been a world dominant force and has been ill treated by US Soccer for a very long time, both in terms of salary and playing conditions. They also have a loyal and money-spending fan base that continues to grow. Hope they get everything they deserve.
8
@john sheppard
"Hope they get everything they deserve"
Yes, the contract they had negotiated was honored.
5
If soccer is just another example of how women's sports is evaluated below those of men it would be typical. However, this is a different time and place were women have reached a position in their quest for equality where there cannot be any more arguements about their claims for equal and fair salary and other benefits.
I am tired of the"revenue" arguments which put women's sports into a commercial side issue. It is also amazing to see all of the macho comments about whether women sports are really equal-whatever that means. In the Trump America, women are fighting their own fights on many fronts. Equality in a sport should not be an issue-equal is equal. Time for America to realize that the world has changed and women's sport are front and centre.
4
@Pushkin
Just curious why the "revenue" argument doesn't resonate with you. Sports without an audience is just sports, played for the enjoyment and benefit of the competitors. But professional sports is a BUSINESS. Fans pay to see the games, pay for the jerseys, pay for the popcorn and the soda. The REVENUE generated from that creates and exchange - a product is produced, for a fee. That fee, that revenue should be shared with the players based on their agreed and negotiated contract. I am all for equitable sharing of the revenue generated. But if the Women's team generates less revenue, its players have a weak claim to pay equality.
18
@John Wimbledon women get the same prize money as the men, I believe.
1
Equal pay for equal work.
U.S. National Women soccer players must be paid the same as men. They are winning more tournaments and titles (World Cup, Olympics) than the men plus they draw larger attendances in stadiums.
The least the U.S. Soccer Federation could do is pay them the same, when actually women should be paid more since they're better on metrics of winning, fan following, earnings and promotion of the sport in the United States.
6
@Question Everything
Flawed. Sports is not working on an assembly line or building microchips or doing accounting work, where equal pay for equal work makes sense. Sports is a pay for product business. Fans pay based on the quality of the product. No one is saying that the Men's team is better than the Women's team. They clearly aren't. But until the Women's team can generate equal or more revenue than the men, their claim is weak. I don't know why people are willing to pay more to see the men's world cup than the women's world cup, but they do. And because of that the men have a larger prize.
4
@John
I think it is clearer to say the US Men's team does worse on their stage than the US Women's team does on theirs. The men would trounce the women, however. Obviously.
1
@John I mean the women’s team lost to 14 y/o so they clearly are worse than the men’s team
1
I love the WNT in soccer. That being said, I believe that the sport has not yet proven that it can generate enough revenue commensurate with men's teams. And that is the kink in the women's armor. They are simply not popular enough to produce the kind of revenue to justify the salaries of men. Worldwide, men's soccer is the most popular of all sports. The fact that the WNT is consistently better and more successful than the men's NT is beside the point.
In no major sport are women paid what the men receive. They, sadly, will have to prove repeatedly that there is enough money in the sport to justify pay anywhere near that of the men. I hope they can do so, but I don't think it'll happen very soon.
3
Women’s pro sports produce less revenue than men’s sports. As soon as they are more profitable, it will become more equal. Economics 101 stuff that emotions can’t contradict. I hope the ladies thrive. They enrich our lives.
16
@CRAIG
So, the women, not being able to “match” audience share, will always remain unequal? Just as they can’t quite dig a ditch as fast as a typical male, they should be paid unequally?
Yeah, it’s Econ 101, but you flunk Econ 201–and also your Ethics course. Feelings ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it.
As a soccer fan who has been to the WWC and attended NWSL games, I'd suggest caution to the US women with this lawsuit. The women agreed to a generous compensation package with the USSF, including full-time pay and bonuses totalling up to $170,000 each and perks such as maternity leave. The USSF pays the salaries of the US national team pool player for the NWSL, and that is what keeps the league afloat.
The World Cup winnings are based on a percentage of the revenues generated by the FIFA-sponsored event. The percentage negotiated for the women's winner is larger than the men's winner, but the hard truth is the women's world cup generates a small fraction of the revenue of men's event. Simply less revenue to share regardless of winner's take.
And the dates called out (2015-2019) as the women earning more than the men's team? Again, be cautious. 2014 was the first year the men didn't make the World Cup since 1990, and so they didn't receive a cut from the FIFA-sponsored men's event, and brought in less money. I am pretty confident the USSF lawyers have argued this point very well to date.
The women have a fair argument in other areas, such as travel perks and better marketing and sponsorship opportunities. But $67 million to drop the litigation? No wonder the men are on your side.
9
I find it surprising that the US Soccer Federation would be capable of generating the kind of income that would merit a 67 million dollar payout for anyone, male or female. Soccer may be popular in North America but in comparison to other professional sports it’s a minor, fringe enterprise. I don’t mean to disparage anyone’s ability; the American ( and Canadian, I must add) women’s teams are incredible, but I don’t think they generate huge revenues.
10
@Timothy The women are being super dishonest by including calculations awarded by FIFA for winning the Men's World Cup as somehow owed to the women by USSF for winning the Women's World Cup, even though USSF has no control over such funding.
2
@Timothy You'd be completely wrong about your central argument. US Women have out-earned US mens revenues in the last several years.
PS. Before you comment on a sport you obviously don't watch or, read enough about you might want to brush up on some basic facts....
1
The US Women’s National Team doesn’t back down on the field. They do everything it takes to win, and they have the record and reputation to prove it. One would think US Soccer should deem it unwise to go toe-to-toe with an adversary known for winning. Like all confident and ambitious women, the women of the USWNT know that one win on the field means so much more than enough goals scored to take home the trophy. Because pay equity is not a game, and their record just keeps upping the ante. Precedent from this case could establish the broadening of rights for all women. Clearly US Soccer cannot grasp that every time the USWNT steps onto the field, their intrinsic motivation to win is wrapped up with winning further rights for themselves and for all women. No matter how this case is decided, the USWNT should forever take pride in being trailblazers who played the long game with people who would rather forfeit than stand up for what’s right.
12
There's not much to back down from on the field. Women's world soccer hasn't been a very competitive product for decades, and the U.S. women have greatly benefited from support other countries generally don't give their women's teams. That's changed dramatically in Europe recently, as is reflected in the 2019 World Cup's final 8 -- seven of which were from Europe. The U.S. won by 1, 1 and 2 goals in the elimination rounds. Its run is over. Europe will take the next two cups, and maybe the two after that. It's now or never for this lawsuit, and if it succeeds, both the men's and women's programs will take a long, long time to recover.
5
The unfair contract was presumably signed by both sides. This should render "back pay" moot. The real question is what should happen going forward.
4
Good for the women, I hope. I love the film "Bend It Like Beckham" (2002), which starred a then fairly unknown teenage Keira Knightly plus Jonathon Rhys-Meyers, both brilliant actors, plus several other very good Indian actors. Some interesting trivia notes (from IMDB's wesite): After Kiera became a star, it was re-released and the film initially grossed $76.5 million, and continues to make much more (through Internet streaming services and DVD sales).They made it for about $6 million (at least half of which came from the Irish National Lottery). This was the first Western film allowed to be shown in North Korea. Many female English football players have said this film helped inspire them in their respected careers. Lastly, beating out established players like Luis Figo and Ronaldo, Parminder Nagra won the 2002 Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)'s International Football Personality of the Year Presidential award, and she was the first female to ever receive the honor. Quite a film.
1
While the USWNT players want to make this about gender, it seems to be a case largely grounded in their CBA and its interpretation. Gender inequality doesn’t enter into the picture if there separate established contractual agreements, one for women and the other for men.
11
@ThePragmatist
Part of the issue is that said contract expired some years ago, and instead of negotiating, USSF sought to enforce the terms after its expiration.
Nobody signed on to a bad deal in perpetuity.
USSF has resisted all calls to bargain in good faith.
3
@Paul
That's not true. They came to this agreement in 2017, and it runs through 2021.
3
@Hal
The prior agreement "expired" in 2013, and USSF was able to unilaterally enforce it through 2017.
1
I do not know all the legal nuances of this particular case.
That said, if we are going to have the proverbial level playing field and reward people based on merit, not gender, then I do not see the legitimacy of separate men's and women's leagues requiring equal pay. Women tennis players and golfers were very smart. They created an excellent, highly rewarding product separate from men and, while not receiving equal pay (as far as I know), are still richly rewarded, far more so for most of the women than if there were not separate associations and tournaments.
Entertainment is not the same as plumbing, coding, or truck driving. Some people are bigger "stars" and produce much more revenue, whether they are self-employed or are employed by others. Professional sports are a form of entertainment, and those participating should, as with any other form of entertainment, be paid proportional to the revenue they produce.
12
@Steve Fankuchen, Women's tennis pays the same (for less sets) as the men, in the big tournaments. I don't know about the smaller events.
2
@Ryan Bingham
Ryan, thanks for the info. The way I see it, if women's sports competitions earn more than those of the men, then the women should earn more than the men. Much of money boils down to personalities and marketing as much as pure athletic ability. As you note, women's tennis matches are comprised of fewer sets than those of men. And on many golf courses -- I have no idea if it's true for the pros -- women's tees are closer to the green than are men's tees. When watching a match, no one really cares about those differences. For most folks, they simply want to be entertained. It is a minority of us who are primarily interested in the nuances of the intricacies of the game and how the very best perform differently from the rest of the pros who, themselves, are the cream of the crop in any sport.
1
The US Women’s team is much more entertaining and has bigger stars. Plus, they win.
The men? Not so much. Really wish they could perform, but they don’t hold a candle to the women.
2
These women, our women, are the jewel in the crown of United States sports. However much they are paid is surely too little.
21
It's not complicated - pay the US women's team the same as the men get paid. Fact: Over the last 4 years the women's side generated more commercial-based TV revenue than the men's side during their live matches. Tennis finally got its act together - time for US Soccer to do the same.
28
@Glenn It is that complicated. You'll find out sooner than later this not about equal pay. Equal pay chants is the only thing that keeps this story in the headlines. Once trial is over, you'll see it was never about equal pay.
1
@Glenn
And pay the WNBAplayers the same as the NBA players! Even though the WNBA is subsidized by the NBA, snd would fold without that subsidy.
2
@Glenn
the women's side gets FAR less revenue globally - and that's the pot of money from which the teams are paid.
1
The alleged "significant blow to US Soccer's finances" is irrelevant. US Soccer does not get to profit off gender discrimination. The "different groups performing different work" argument doesn't hold up either. It is disgusting that this inequity is supported by US Soccer -- particularly given the global status of these world champions. Pay up and move on.
21
@Martha
Not only irrelevant, but risible without USSF opening its books, an idea that has made the federation blanch in fear.
1
@Martha I think what gets lost in too many of these conversations is how they structured their pay. If they want equal pay, make it the same contract with guaranteed salaries (the woman's current contract) or the same risk model the men use of only getting paid to play (the men's current contract). Balancing pay while using different systems of compensation will always be out of whack. On involves much more risk than the other.
That said, either way they should definitely have the same access to facilities, trainers, travel, etc as a the Men.
The Washington Post had a great article going into more detail on the actual revenues generated and the pay structures over the last few years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/
1
@Martha the math doesn't check out.
Where's the beef? They signed a contract and after the success in the World Cup, they then wanted to re-negotiate that contract.
34
Interesting article. It spends 342 words detailing the arguments of US Soccer and 174 words detailing the arguments of the players. Some of those words are also in-line rebuttals by US Soccer too!
Wonder who's side the Times is really on here?
11
Yet the article also calls U.S. Soccer's calculus "misleading" and discusses the "convenient" timing of the women's bonuses as if U.S. Soccer is the only one using the timing game in its case. It's not word counts that matter here; it's the quality and intent of the words, and those who have been paying attention to the Times' coverage of this issues over the past couple of years might have to admit that the coverage is far more sympathetic to the women's cause than neutrality and objectivity might warrant.
Good for you!
Doesn't seem like an outright dismissal is warranted. But $67 million based on an objectively different (although related) criteria seems like a reach.
To be fair, I don't know all the details. It does seem the women are owed more, but possibly not $67 million more....
$67M for a team that's won the Women's World Cup four times seems like a bargain. It would also send an important message to the next generation of female players contemplating if it's worth it.
37
It sounds to me as if there are two legal issues:
1. Has there been unequal pay and gender discrimination?
2. And if so, what damages should be awarded?
And from the facts and circumstances presented in this article, it seems to me that the Plaintiffs have likely proved their case --- Yes, there has been unequal pay and gender discrimination. If so, then the Court should grant the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the players on that issue and set a trial on the issue of appropriate damages.
@Richard You're leaving out one significant issue: are the differences in pay the result of a properly negotiated and approved collective bargaining agreement? If the answer to that question is yes, then your other two questions become moot.
The USWNT and its players had every right to bargain a higher salary, as indicated in the article. To receive that they would have given concessions to USSF, for example the amount of guaranteed money they would receive (also per the article). The players made their choices about their priorities. They have every right in the next negotiation to change those priorities and bargain differently, but not to change the terms mid-contract.
10
@Richard I have to agree with Vince.
If they want equal pay, make it the same contract with guaranteed salaries or the same risk model the men use of only getting paid to play.
The Women's team negotiated to have guaranteed pay, with smaller increases for Wins, etc., along with other benefits. The men have no guaranteed pay. If they do not play, and if they do not win, their payout is less.
One side chose to have a salary, the other chose a pay based on performance. You can't ask for guaranteed pay to be the same as the others who can receive little pay if they play poorly, but for your argument base it on if they play more and win.
Beyond that, FIFA money is then an entirely different conversation that can't be solved by US Soccer alone without US Gov. assistance; the revenue isn't there, both teams are very similar and only make 50-60m a year in revenue by themselves, excluding FIFA money; with the USW making more.
But that said, the facilities, trainers, etc. should most
definitely be as equal as they can be.
6
@Tim G.
That's all true, but the back story of why the women had those priorities is relevant. The men are all well paid by their teams, so they have a base cushion that the women do not have. The national team contract filled in some important gaps.
It sounds like there are rational arguments on both sides, and not easy to reconcile without hearing more detail and evidence. On the one hand, it would be counterproductive if a financial settlement resulted in significantly less funds to support youth soccer programs and the like in the US. On the other hand, it is clear that women soccer players have received short shrift financially while dramatically outperforming the men. The way the US women have conducted themselves on and off the pitch is one of the finer aspects of American culture, embodying values that we can all aspire to and superb role models, including sticking up for their rights. Restitution is in order, big time, and higher compensation for the future. If and when the men achieve similar success on the pitch and in our culture, let them come back and ask to be rewarded. Until then . . .
As for being apples and oranges, well, if the women are the oranges, they are firm, resilient and polished and deserve to be picked; if the men are the apples, they are soft and mushy and undeserving of the same recognition.
4
Athletes should be paid based on the revenue they generate. If they win a championship, they get the corresponding rewards: a title, a trophy, and if the competition so provides, prize money. Here is an unfair proposition: even though I generated less revenue than them, I am entitled to a portion of their revenue because I won a world championship, and they did not.
44
@A Thinker, Not a Chanter.
"According to financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, USWNT games generated more total revenue than the USMNT games from 2016 through 2018: $50.8 million in revenue vs. $49.9 million for the men."
24
From Money magazine 7/5/19 article: “The women’s World Cup 2015 in Canada reportedly brought in $73 million in revenues, including some $17 million in TV ads just in the U.S. Those are actually tiny numbers compared to the $6 billion in revenues FIFA raked in during the 2018 men’s World Cup in Russia.”
17
@A Thinker, Not a Chanter. It has been referenced and reported on many times that the USWNT is bringing in more in annual revenues than the USMNT.
5