Men's union: U.S. Soccer 'corrosive' toward USWNT
In a brief filed on behalf of USWNT, union for men's side accuses U.S. Soccer of sending "a corrosive public message to women and girls."
US Men get involved in equal pay litigation
- Thread starter Fk_Pitt
- Start date
I have been a fan of the USWNT over the years. Though I hope to see some new young talent..but that's another discussion.
What is next, the WNBA suing because they are paid less than NBA players? It comes down to revenue. Would the USWNT sell out the Vegas stadium like the Men's team? But more than that, and I guess the USMNT wasn't involved so there is a point, but look at the revenue for the World Cup for men vs women? It is like the Dodgers vs the Pirates payroll.
It's not about "equality" it is about revenue and income and potential.
What is next, the WNBA suing because they are paid less than NBA players? It comes down to revenue. Would the USWNT sell out the Vegas stadium like the Men's team? But more than that, and I guess the USMNT wasn't involved so there is a point, but look at the revenue for the World Cup for men vs women? It is like the Dodgers vs the Pirates payroll.
It's not about "equality" it is about revenue and income and potential.
Lawyers not involved in cases who view it with brains and not feelings have gone over the contracts line by line. The women are getting very well compensated beyond what they want you to believe. They have contractual benefits that the men don’t get, and would be seen as not equal for the men.
I would think Rapinoe, Alex Morgan, maybe Abby Wambach and Hope Solo from back in the day did better in endorsements than most of the men's team also.
Actually, the case last year found that in the last cycle, the women made more money than the men. The women made $24.5 million, averaging $221k per game. The men made $18.5 million, for #213k per game.
www.espn.com
USWNT's unequal pay claim rejected by judge
A federal judge said members of the U.S. women's national soccer team did not demonstrate a "triable issue" that they were paid less than players on the men's team.
I think the main argument is that the women were tops in the world and maxed out their bonuses. This was in a cycle where then men didn’t qualify for the World Cup.Actually, the case last year found that in the last cycle, the women made more money than the men. The women made $24.5 million, averaging $221k per game. The men made $18.5 million, for #213k per game.
USWNT's unequal pay claim rejected by judge
A federal judge said members of the U.S. women's national soccer team did not demonstrate a "triable issue" that they were paid less than players on the men's team.
so it would be like a sales rep blowing out their quota vs a rep who finished 50% to quota, and barely making more money than them.
still, didn’t they negotiate their own deal??
They women negotiated and turned down an identical deal to the men. They have many more benefits in their deal than they want you to believe.
Exactly. Furthermore, they keep trying to turn a pay dispute into a civil rights issue. Instead of whining and suing, they should have gone on strike right before the olympics. Now, they will need to wait until the next WC. If they are smart, they will get all the teams to strike so FIFA kicks up more money.
That's still not a valid argument. The reason is most people don't understand the different contracts, and what the women actually wanted in the lawsuit.
The U.S. soccer federation pays the women a base salary plus benefits, and they also get performance-based bonuses. The men, however, ONLY get paid through bonuses. They do not get a base salary or benefits. This is why the men's bonus structure is larger than the women's.
In the lawsuit, the women wanted to get the same bonus structure as the men, AND retain their base salary and benefits. What the women actually wanted was to be paid more than the men.
To answer your question, the women did negotiate their own deal. The were offered the same contract as the men, and turned it down for the one they have now.
It would be just like that, if the sales rep that did great was selling a product that was essentially a commodity item where was little profit margin to each sale and the other rep selling a product where the profit margins were through the roof.
What the women want (in addition to having their cake and eating it too) is for US Soccer to make up the difference in revenues that the men's World Cup brings in versus what the women's World Cup brings in. Add to that the fact that the men bring in money from playing in Confederation tournaments like the Gold Cup and now the Nations League and there aren't any women's events like that. The only other event like that for the women is the Olympics, and the IOC doesn't pay anyone anything.
Arguing that US Soccer should have to make up for the fact that globally women's football doesn't make much money doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Which brings us right back to groups who could make the same argument. Male models, WNBA, and NWSL. If equal pay is expected, male models should make same pay as women models because you know, equal pay.
You are viewing it as a capitalist.
Do you not know that we are now all about "equity" (i.e. equal outcomes) like what began with the French Revolution and has been the unrealistic and unattainable goal of socialist thinkers ever since. 😉😉😉😀😀
Similar threads
