US Women Soccer suing US Soccer Federation for equal pay to Men's team

[Tbonewannabe]

It basically says that the women do the exact same job but are paid a lot less. The article has a quote that the women's team made $20 Million more than the men in one year. It fails to state that it was a World Cup year where the income is greatly increased.

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/26189867/uswnt-suing-us-soccer-discrimination?addata=espn:frontpage

I am all for equality but Economics of Supply and Demand has to also be considered. It mentioned that the women were paid salaries for playing in the Women's National Soccer League. I didn't even know that was a thing. Compare that to what kind of crowds the MLS draws and you can see why there is a difference in pay.

Scarlett Johanson can demand more $ per movie than Mark Ruffalo and it has nothing to do with their gender or race.

[The Federalist Engineer]

I would be in favor of the men's team actually having Men on the team - these "boys" are Garbage

[Dawg61]

If the women bring in more money than they should get paid more money than the men. Women's team is consistently top 4 in the world. Men's team couldn't sniff top 4 with only 5 teams in the world.

[skadoosh14]

That’s like a sales rep suing another sales rep for getting more commission

[Political Hack]

If they're selling more tickets and more merchandise, they should be paid more. If not, they should sell more tickets and more merchandise.

[SailingDawg]

They're definitely the elite in the world. Whether the ticket and merchandise income is the same or better determines their pay.

[RocketDawg]

If they're selling more tickets and more merchandise, they should be paid more. If not, they should sell more tickets and more merchandise.

Can't argue with that. I don't think we'll ever see a woman player being paid several hundred million though (nor should the men be as far as I'm concerned).

[dawgs]

That’s like a sales rep suing another sales rep for getting more commission

Not at all actually. A sales rep knows going into the job that commission is a large part of their pay because it's literally in their contract. Also, USA soccer is a non-profit, so there's probably employment laws out there that prohibit a commission type argument from being applied to a employee working for an employer that is a non-profit. Especially when the contract makes no mention of revenue generation being used to determine pay.

Pretty positive USA soccer just has a flat payout for all the players, there's not a negotiation over pay for international teams either. They just decide they are gonna pay the men more than the women even though both have the same time commitments, same expectations, and paid by the same source for the same reasons under what I'd assume are pretty similar contracts based nothing on commission/sales/revenue generated.

[dawgs]

Can't argue with that. I don't think we'll ever see a woman player being paid several hundred million though (nor should the men be as far as I'm concerned).

We'll see you can't compare this to professional sports, because this isn't a professional sports league.

And if owners are making hundreds of millions or billions on their pro franchises (they are), then why shouldn't players who are the reason the owners are making money get what they are worth? Literally every economic analysis for major stars in every league has their value higher than what they get paid, even if they are pulling in $300M over a decade or $50M/year. IF owners lowered salaries but also made tickets cheaper, made concessions cheaper, made gear cheaper, then fine, they are trying to make the game accessible to the average fan and using their savings on salary to not gouge the fan. But go ahead and let me know how much your beer and hot dog costs at the next pro sporting event you attend. And go read up on the spike in revenues in all major sports over the last 15-20 years, then compare the slice of the pie players get today compared to then, and then come back and argue with a straight face that players are being overpaid and shouldn't make hundreds of millions. I know it's an obscene amount of money "for playing a game", but when was the last time you dropped $$$ to watch owners sit in a sky box? Why should the owners pocket even more of the pie because of some sense that the players are overpaid, when generally they are not by every economic analysis?

[Quaoarsking]

They should pay the men nothing and give all the money that would be their salary to the women. Not qualifying for the World Cup when you play in a continent full of banana republics with 2% of our population is inexcusable.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

They should pay the men nothing and give all the money that would be their salary to the women. Not qualifying for the World Cup when you play in a continent full of banana republics with 2% of our population is inexcusable.

Hear hear

[The Federalist Engineer]

They should pay the men nothing and give all the money that would be their salary to the women. Not qualifying for the World Cup when you play in a continent full of banana republics with 2% of our population is inexcusable.

When it comes to soccer, the US is a Banana republic. 50-million documented Latin USA-citizens live in the USA that actually love soccer, but the team is a bunch of suburban hipsters, almost no Latins. The team is completely unwatchable. I would not pay any of them anything, a decent coach like OGS could train Latin pickup stars from LA and Newark, NJ blast the current squad - in short order.

The US has more latins than the population of Argentina and almost the entire population of France (67M)

[Liverpooldawg]

It basically says that the women do the exact same job but are paid a lot less. The article has a quote that the women's team made $20 Million more than the men in one year. It fails to state that it was a World Cup year where the income is greatly increased.

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/26189867/uswnt-suing-us-soccer-discrimination?addata=espn:frontpage

I am all for equality but Economics of Supply and Demand has to also be considered. It mentioned that the women were paid salaries for playing in the Women's National Soccer League. I didn't even know that was a thing. Compare that to what kind of crowds the MLS draws and you can see why there is a difference in pay.

Scarlett Johanson can demand more $ per movie than Mark Ruffalo and it has nothing to do with their gender or race.

Do they bring in as much money? If they do then pay them equal. If they don't then if they insist on this, shut down the program.

[CrazyEyeKilla]

Whether they are entitled to equal pay is irrelevant because they have a collective bargaining agreement. This is a political stunt that shouldn?t be successful.

For the record, I believe they probably are entitled to equal pay. However, if you have a collective agreement it is hard to see this as more than a shitty deal that was previously agreed upon and they are now disappointed with those terms that they previously agreed to.

I am interested to see the attorney?s argument to try and get around the fact that the women are under a collective bargaining agreement.

[dalmuti]

the women win a hell of a lot more than the men do. pay em

[Liverpooldawg]

the women win a hell of a lot more than the men do. pay em

Do they make as much money for the US soccer federation? That's what matters.

[Liverpooldawg]

Regardless of whether they are entitled to equal pay is irrelevant because they had a collective bargaining agreement. This is a political stunt that shouldn?t be successful.

For the record, I believe they probably are entitled to equal pay. However, if you have a collective agreement it is hard to see this as more than a shitty deal that was previously agreed upon and they are now disappointed with those terms that they previously agreed to.

If what they do is as profitable for the US soccer federation as what the men do then by all means they deserve it. If it's not...they in no way do. Soccer is a professional sport. It's about money. My guess is we OVERPAY them based on a business model.

[Quaoarsking]

Do they make as much money for the US soccer federation? That's what matters.

Why does that matter? The market can determine how much they make for their clubs, but I don't see any reason why it should apply for national teams, which are more about pride and patriotic fervor anyway.

When our men's team can finish ahead of the likes of Honduras, Costa Rica, or Panama, which combined barely have 5% of the US's population, they don't deserve to be paid more than the women, who consistently finish at or near the top of the world. We're only talking about a few million dollars to get the badass women's salaries in line with the loser, disgraceful men.

[Irondawg]

This is pretty simple. Pay them the same base salary (maybe they already do) and then everything else is an equal % of other profits.

Let me preface my next point by saying I have no idea how the total compensation is set. I know for home friendlies the US women draw pretty well. But my guess is that attendance for away matches is much much less than men in those countries. Although I watched the concaf tourney some last year from Cary NC and it was about as well attended as a high school game it seemed.

The problem we have is people can’t seem to understand that being treated equally doesn’t mean the results are always equal.

All that said the women are a lot of fun to watch as they are really good

[PMDawg]

We'll see you can't compare this to professional sports, because this isn't a professional sports league.

And if owners are making hundreds of millions or billions on their pro franchises (they are), then why shouldn't players who are the reason the owners are making money get what they are worth? Literally every economic analysis for major stars in every league has their value higher than what they get paid, even if they are pulling in $300M over a decade or $50M/year. IF owners lowered salaries but also made tickets cheaper, made concessions cheaper, made gear cheaper, then fine, they are trying to make the game accessible to the average fan and using their savings on salary to not gouge the fan. But go ahead and let me know how much your beer and hot dog costs at the next pro sporting event you attend. And go read up on the spike in revenues in all major sports over the last 15-20 years, then compare the slice of the pie players get today compared to then, and then come back and argue with a straight face that players are being overpaid and shouldn't make hundreds of millions. I know it's an obscene amount of money "for playing a game", but when was the last time you dropped $$$ to watch owners sit in a sky box? Why should the owners pocket even more of the pie because of some sense that the players are overpaid, when generally they are not by every economic analysis?

Ugh. So tired of hearing people with zero understanding parrot this socialist line of thinking. There are always people willing to do the work for the amount of money the owner is willing to pay. The owner gets the most bc he/she is the owner and they took the financial risk to start the business/own the team. The owner isn't as easily replaced as the worker/player. If you dont like it, start your own business or buy your own team. What? You can't afford it? That's right, bc you're too scared to risk your own money and/or too lazy to do what it takes to get yourself in that position. The "evil" owner was once in your position but decided to do what it took to get to their position - hence we've come full circle. Yadda yadda yadda, on and on we go.

[Liverpooldawg]

Why does that matter? The market can determine how much they make for their clubs, but I don't see any reason why it should apply for national teams, which are more about pride and patriotic fervor anyway.

When our men's team can finish ahead of the likes of Honduras, Costa Rica, or Panama, which combined barely have 5% of the US's population, they don't deserve to be paid more than the women, who consistently finish at or near the top of the world. We're only talking about a few million dollars to get the badass women's salaries in line with the loser, disgraceful men.

When you put it like that, they should be paid expenses and that's it, both teams.

[Dawg61]

When it comes to soccer, the US is a Banana republic. 50-million documented Latin USA-citizens live in the USA that actually love soccer, but the team is a bunch of suburban hipsters, almost no Latins. The team is completely unwatchable. I would not pay any of them anything, a decent coach like OGS could train Latin pickup stars from LA and Newark, NJ blast the current squad - in short order.

The US has more latins than the population of Argentina and almost the entire population of France (67M)

Being Hispanic has zero bearing on your soccer skill. When a kid of any race is surrounded by a soccer culture from birth he has a better chance of growing up better at soccer than one that isn't. Soccer is way down the pecking line of importance in America. Kids here will grow up to be beasts at Fortnite though.

[Quaoarsking]

Ugh. So tired of hearing people with zero understanding parrot this socialist line of thinking. There are always people willing to do the work for the amount of money the owner is willing to pay. The owner gets the most bc he/she is the owner and they took the financial risk to start the business/own the team. The owner isn't as easily replaced as the worker/player. If you dont like it, start your own business or buy your own team. What? You can't afford it? That's right, bc you're too scared to risk your own money and/or too lazy to do what it takes to get yourself in that position. The "evil" owner was once in your position but decided to do what it took to get to their position - hence we've come full circle. Yadda yadda yadda, on and on we go.

National teams aren't business and don't have owners. No one is saying that NWSL salaries should match MLS salaries or WNBA salaries should match NBA salaries.

National teams are a side gig for all the players so that citizens can feel patriotic pride when they win. Every country has a national team and will continue to, regardless of the finances involved.

[PMDawg]

National teams aren't business and don't have owners. No one is saying that NWSL salaries should match MLS salaries or WNBA salaries should match NBA salaries.

National teams are a side gig for all the players so that citizens can feel patriotic pride when they win. Every country has a national team and will continue to, regardless of the finances involved.

The post I responded to was talking about teams with owners. Read it

[dawgs]

Ugh. So tired of hearing people with zero understanding parrot this socialist line of thinking. There are always people willing to do the work for the amount of money the owner is willing to pay. The owner gets the most bc he/she is the owner and they took the financial risk to start the business/own the team. The owner isn't as easily replaced as the worker/player. If you dont like it, start your own business or buy your own team. What? You can't afford it? That's right, bc you're too scared to risk your own money and/or too lazy to do what it takes to get yourself in that position. The "evil" owner was once in your position but decided to do what it took to get to their position - hence we've come full circle. Yadda yadda yadda, on and on we go.

High level pro athletes might be more rare than millionaires and billionaires looking to invest in a team. Especially when you consider anyone any age can be a rich millionaire/billionaire, but not only are a small % of people capable of playing sports at such a high level the rest of us are willing to pay to see, and the window they are capable of playing at a pro level is pretty small compared to their life.

Also, creating a society where we now down to the owners and grovel for a continuously shrinking slice of the economic pie isn't a healthy society. I don't get why balancing it out a bit is "socialist".

Also, lulz at owners taking "risk". These rich folks have so many layers of protection, they aren't in fact taking much risk. Nevermind that investing in the nfl/mlb/nba/nhl is pretty low risk since the league is gonna prevent any individual franchise from failing (speaking if socialism!), even mls is a pretty safe investment at this point. A risk is the new football leagues (sad, xfl redux) trying to catch on and establish a market, that is a risk.

[dawgs]

The post I responded to was talking about teams with owners. Read it

And my post also specified that USA soccer is not a for profit business, but a non-profit that can't base contracts on revenue generation too. When others started going off on how much players make, I chimed in because I don't get the anti-worker attitude so many on here have. Yes, athletes are highly paid workers, but they have a irreplaceable skill set. Unless you think you'd pay MLB prices for A ball talent or NBA prices for D-league talent, at which point I'd just question your personal spending decisions.

[dawgs]

You also act like players have no risk. Don't know about you but CTE in football is a risk. Even before brain injuries, you have just standard physical injuries that effect the body as players age. Jumping, sprinting, hitting, etc. the way pro athletes do results in physical ailments to the body as they age that the average person doesn't really experience, often times those physical ailments showing up relative early in life too. There's a reason athletes regularly have painkiller problems.

[PMDawg]

And my post also specified that USA soccer is not a for profit business, but a non-profit that can't base contracts on revenue generation too. When others started going off on how much players make, I chimed in because I don't get the anti-worker attitude so many on here have. Yes, athletes are highly paid workers, but they have a irreplaceable skill set. Unless you think you'd pay MLB prices for A ball talent or NBA prices for D-league talent, at which point I'd just question your personal spending decisions.

I question everything about a socialist nitwit and/or anyone who still says LULZ. Soooo....

[dawgs]

I question everything about a socialist nitwit and/or anyone who still says LULZ. Soooo....

It's really hilarious to call someone a nitwit when you still don't understand what socialism is.

[PMDawg]

It's really hilarious to call someone a nitwit when you still don't understand what socialism is.

I know exactly what it is. Most people who support it do so only because they dont truly understand.

[Forrest4Moore]

They are a side gig. But good luck getting the men to go on sabbatical from their club teams for their country if the money isn’t right. Pulisic isn’t leaving Dortmund for a week for a profit sharing amount from a USMNT game. However, Alex Morgan will. Bc, honestly, she makes more in exhibitions for USWNT than in NWSL.

When the A squad men are getting paid 10s of millions from their clubs, and equal amounts as the women for their country, we’ll see even worse performances from the MNT. The men’s team will be using a pool of C team players in World Cup qualifiers.

[Dawg61]

They are a side gig. But good luck getting the men to go on sabbatical from their club teams for their country if the money isn’t right. Pulisic isn’t leaving Dortmund for a week for a profit sharing amount from a USMNT game. However, Alex Morgan will. Bc, honestly, she makes more in exhibitions for USWNT than in NWSL.

When the A squad men are getting paid 10s of millions from their clubs, and equal amounts as the women for their country, we’ll see even worse performances from the MNT. The men’s team will be using a pool of C team players in World Cup qualifiers.

Nobody is saying the men should take a pay cut and if they can't handle getting paid equal amounts as the women just for the USA team than they don't deserve to be on the team anyways cause they are a sexist piece of shit.

[Forrest4Moore]

Nobody is saying the men should take a pay cut and if they can't handle getting paid equal amounts as the women just for the USA team than they don't deserve to be on the team anyways cause they are a sexist piece of shit.

So a man is a sexist piece of shit if his skill level, value, and profitability dictates his pay is higher than a female? Where does this stop? Does Nike have to pay Michelle Wie more than Tiger Woods bc she performed better on the world stage than he did recently? If it’s only bc of Country, Katie Ledecky is breaking more records lately than Michael Phelps, but who brings more value and visibility to USA Swimming?

If it’s strictly off performance bc USWNT is better than USMNT, shouldn’t we pay the starters more than the subs as well?

[Dawg61]

So a man is a sexist piece of shit if his skill level, value, and profitability dictates his pay is higher than a female? Where does this stop? Does Nike have to pay Michelle Wie more than Tiger Woods bc she performed better on the world stage than he did recently? If it’s only bc of Country, Katie Ledecky is breaking more records lately than Michael Phelps, but who brings more value and visibility to USA Swimming?

If it’s strictly off performance bc USWNT is better than USMNT, shouldn’t we pay the starters more than the subs as well?

The women bring in more value and visibility for USA soccer than the men do.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

the women win a hell of a lot more than the men do. pay em

They should pay them as soon as they can beat a group of 14 year olds from Dallas.

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

[The Federalist Engineer]

Being Hispanic has zero bearing on your soccer skill. When a kid of any race is surrounded by a soccer culture from birth he has a better chance of growing up better at soccer than one that isn't. Soccer is way down the pecking line of importance in America. Kids here will grow up to be beasts at Fortnite though.

The point is that soccer does have a culture in the USA, but only multilingual guys are typically exposed to it. In St Louis there are 1000s of Serbian kids that follow Red Star Belgrade and could not care less about the NFL or NBA. If you add the other non Hispanic soccer lovers, you have a bigger playing population than Germany or Italy

The US has a Mean Machine team waiting to play the guards and then go conquer the world. The size of the subculture is poorly estimated by MLS attendance because foreign dudes don't want to watch hipster soccer. The amazing number is that US based fans actually account for 1/3 of all world soccer revenues in World Cups. So the USA is actually the top soccer nation by fan support with dollars

[Dawg61]

The point is that soccer does have a culture in the USA, but only multilingual guys are typically exposed to it. In St Louis there are 1000s of Serbian kids that follow Red Star Belgrade and could not care less about the NFL or NBA. If you add the other non Hispanic soccer lovers, you have a bigger playing population than Germany or Italy

The US has a Mean Machine team waiting to play the guards and then go conquer the world. The size of the subculture is poorly estimated by MLS attendance because foreign dudes don't want to watch hipster soccer. The amazing number is that US based fans actually account for 1/3 of all world soccer revenues in World Cups. So the USA is actually the top soccer nation by fan support with dollars

It's an organization problem at the top levels. They need someone from Germany or France to make all the decisions on how to run it and who should play and anyone that's ever had a decision making in it before needs to go do something else. We have enough quality players in this country to be a annual top 10 nation. Maybe we need to cheat a little better too. Identify young talent and pay for them to be Americans. Like every other country does.

[Forrest4Moore]

The women bring in more value and visibility for USA soccer than the men do.

False. And even if that were true, that doesn’t make the men sexist for being capitalists.

[Dawg61]

False. And even if that were true, that doesn’t make the men sexist for being capitalists.

No they'd be being sexist if they quit cause the women got paid equally.

[TUSK]

Reparations for errrrrrbody!

out.

[dawgs]

So a man is a sexist piece of shit if his skill level, value, and profitability dictates his pay is higher than a female? Where does this stop? Does Nike have to pay Michelle Wie more than Tiger Woods bc she performed better on the world stage than he did recently? If it’s only bc of Country, Katie Ledecky is breaking more records lately than Michael Phelps, but who brings more value and visibility to USA Swimming?

If it’s strictly off performance bc USWNT is better than USMNT, shouldn’t we pay the starters more than the subs as well?

For the last mother****ing time, USA soccer is not a for profit business. They are different than a for profit company such as Nike, and no amount of repeating the same arguments about value, revenue generation, etc. is gonna change the fact that you simply can't legally compare non-profits to for profit corporations. There's also a major difference from individuals negotiating endorsement deals than teams collectively bargaining from a non-profit running our national soccer teams.

Also, consider that this isn't a free market situation either. The USWNT don't have another outlet for playing international level soccer, this is the only outlet. There is literally no competing USWNT for the players to use as leverage to improve their value. There is only 1 USMNT run by the non-profit USA soccer, and they are paid a flat rate per game. Socialism!

I know this is from a slate article, which is a libcuck snowflake #fakenews source, but this is an interesting paragraph simply relating facts from the negotiations in 2016.

In 2016, the women’s team attempted to redress these disparities while negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. It didn’t work. The team requested compensation equal to that given to male players—and were denied. It also proposed a revenue-sharing model under which female players’ pay would increase when the team brought in more money and decrease when it brought in less. This structure would test the federation’s theory that women earned less money than men because Americans are less interested in women’s soccer by tethering the team’s pay to its own economic success. The federation rejected the idea. Today, every player on the women’s team continues to earn less than their counterparts on the men’s team.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/culture/2019/03/us-womens-national-soccer-team-lawsuit-sex-based-pay-discrimination.amp

Article also goes on to cite sources that show the level of promotion for the USWNT fell far short of that for the USMNT, which leads to lower attendance and lower ticket prices for less revenue, which is then used to justify lower pay. Basically, USA soccer creates a situation where it's impossible for the women to earn as much or more than men by rigging the game itself against the chances for the women to earn as much or more than the men, then when they fail because they can't overcome the lack of marketing/lower prices/ etc., it justifies not investing in them. So the case isn't just going to be about who generates more revenue but about whether the USWNT is placed in an unfair situation where they have essentially no chance to earn the revenue of the USMNT because of decisions USA soccer makes all the way through the process leading up to the final step of revenue generation.

Keep in mind too that we aren't talking about 80 cents on the dollar or something here either. The USWNT makes 38% of the USMNT. That's a staggering difference and even if revenue fluctuates depending on WC and other international tourney cycles, we at least know that the USWNT does generate significantly more than the USMNT in years they play in the WC, so at least 25% of the time, the women generate more revenue, and yet they are paid 38% of what the men are paid. I think we can all agree that whatever your feelings are about revenue generation that the pay gap should be a little more narrow.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/701522635/u-s-womens-soccer-team-sues-u-s-soccer-for-gender-discrimination

[dawgs]

They are a side gig. But good luck getting the men to go on sabbatical from their club teams for their country if the money isn’t right. Pulisic isn’t leaving Dortmund for a week for a profit sharing amount from a USMNT game. However, Alex Morgan will. Bc, honestly, she makes more in exhibitions for USWNT than in NWSL.

When the A squad men are getting paid 10s of millions from their clubs, and equal amounts as the women for their country, we’ll see even worse performances from the MNT. The men’s team will be using a pool of C team players in World Cup qualifiers.


Pulisic already leaves Dortmund for socialist profit sharing amount from USMNT, it's just profit sharing amongst the guys (which is apparently not socialist :rolleyes:). Also, international players are given leave from their club teams for international competitions without their pay from the club team being docked.

[Forrest4Moore]

You’re right about Nike. But, tell me, do their tours pay the same? Their sports governing bodies are also non-profit. The USGA and the PGA won’t be paying equal shares. That was the larger point I was making. I should have added that sentence for the first “mother******* time”.

I’d be interested to see the whole balance sheet. The fact the men got $8mil from FIFA for 16th place in 2014 and the women got $2mil for being champions paints a picture of the discrepancy in dollars.

http://https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcsports.com/northwest/world-cup/equal-pay-womens-world-cup-players-seriously%3famp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcsports.com/northwest/world-cup/equal-pay-womens-world-cup-players-seriously%3famp)

Let me clarify where I stand on this. If they truly bring in the same revenue and profit for US Soccer, then they should be paid accordingly. They don’t, though. US Soccer is probably the most progressive of all sports governing bodies, yet they see the need to pay as is.

I’d wager they spend less marketing the women for an array of reasons. They know the men drive larger dollar figures from advertisers and sponsorships. Therefore, their promotion helps the bottom line more. US Soccer knows the investment pays off ten-fold in the men compared to the women. God forbid the fact that the men’s revenues subsidized the women’s for decades and will even more if the men become more competitive on the world stage.

[Forrest4Moore]

I don’t see where anything in this post contradicts mine. I’m well aware of all you just shared as evidenced by mine.

The point being, their clubs and the player himself won’t agree to playing for country for what the women currently make. The men have larger bargaining power bc of such. If US Soccer doesn’t pay a value the player is comfortable with, they’ll just hang in Germany living on his 30mil. Fair or not, the women need US Soccer more than US Soccer needs them. Not unlike most other employee/employer relationships across the globe.