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."
www.espn.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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 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.www.espn.com
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.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.
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??
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.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.
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.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.
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??
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.
You are viewing it as a capitalist.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.