U.S. Soccer Is Offering The Same Contracts For Its Men's And Women's Teams

[Anonymous]

The U.S. Soccer Federation took a major step regarding equal pay concerns for its men's and women's national teams.

The federation announced Tuesday that it's offering the respective players' unions for the men's and women's national teams the same contract proposals. The decision reflects an effort to align the two senior national teams under a single collective bargaining agreement structure — and pay structure.

In a statement Tuesday, U.S. Soccer said it "firmly believes that the best path forward for all involved, and for the future of the sport in the United States, is a single pay structure for both senior national teams."

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037237343/u-s-soccer-offers-mens-womens-teams-identical-contracts


But

The US Soccer Federation offered the women's and men's national teams identical contracts, a proposal that the United States Women's National Team Players Association (USWNTPA) called "PR stunts."

The sport's national governing body made the offer to both teams in an attempt to resolve an ongoing dispute with the US Women's national soccer team over equal pay.
"USSF's PR stunts and bargaining through the media will not bring us any closer to a fair agreement," the USWNTPA, which acts as a union for the players, said in a tweet on Wednesday.
"In contrast, we are committed to bargaining in good faith to achieve equal pay and the safest working conditions possible. The proposal that USSF made recently to us does neither," it added.
The federation responded to the USWNTPA's social media post soon after, tweeting, "An offer on paper of identical contracts to the USWNT and USMNT, and to discuss equalizing prize money, is real, authentic and in good faith. A publicity stunt is a 90-minute one-sided movie."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/16/football/uswnt-equal-pay-pr-stunts-spt-intl/index.html

I wonder if they will be able to come to an agreement?

[Anonymous]

So UWNT gets offered an identically contact to USMNT and htey say it's a PR stunt? What's the issue?

When I looked at this a few years ago, I believe each team's union negotiated the terms, and USWNT chose one with lower risk but more steady income (like less of the payouts tied to prize winnings) while USMNT chose a higher-risk package tied to actually winning.

I dont' really have sympathy here -- both teams have skilled negotiators for their players unions. If the players aren't negotiating a deal they like, they need to get new negoatiators. They have plenty of money to afford the best talent.

[Anonymous]

The USWNT said they want equal to men but no reduction.
now:
Men don’t get paid unless play
Women get fixed salary

From a neutral perspective I’d like to see equalization.
I also believe the fixed $ is a good benefit to women who have fewer and lower paying pro league options than men. For player selection I prefer the men system which is pay to play and if that were in place Rapinoe would have been cut a while ago. Morgan would
Not have been paid during her pregnancy and time off.

This is more complicated than it seems and. It served well by USWNT antagonism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The USWNT said they want equal to men but no reduction.
now:
Men don’t get paid unless play
Women get fixed salary

From a neutral perspective I’d like to see equalization.
I also believe the fixed $ is a good benefit to women who have fewer and lower paying pro league options than men. For player selection I prefer the men system which is pay to play and if that were in place Rapinoe would have been cut a while ago. Morgan would
Not have been paid during her pregnancy and time off.

This is more complicated than it seems and. It served well by USWNT antagonism.

It seems that the women took the guaranteed annual contract money(and other benefits-401k, health insurance, etc). After they won it all, they want to be paid like the men. The men’s contract is high risky. No one really wants that contact unless you think you will win in all and be on the every game day roster.

[Anonymous]

The issue is that the prize money for the World Cup is like 8x that of the Women’s World Cup. There’s no way to give the women $1 million bonuses for winning without getting the money from somewhere else. Maybe ask Coca Cola etc why the pay more for the men’s cup.

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ

Interesting breakdown on the pay gap.

[Anonymous]

It’s stupid. The worry is that it says the new management at the USSF is not up to the task.

It really should not be hard. The USSF is small beans. It does about $150M a year in revenue from all sources. By way of comparison your average Costco store does $200M.

USSF management frankly appears to be unable to handle its tasks and it is getting worse - not better - for the USSF.

What issues are out there?

1. The obvious. The women’s team needs a new contract. Their’s expires at the end of this year.
2. The men’s team’s contract expired at the end of 2018. USSF got right on that huh?
3. Every youth club in the country that is not directly tied to MLS wants the USSF dissolved.
4. The referee associations basically ignore the USSF as being worthless for their issues.

The only proponent for the existing system is MLS/SUM which has benefitted from the existing system, but at the expense of all the other USSF constituents.

I thought that the new management team would create a decent chance for things to get corrected - or at least start down that path. This announcement is not a good sign.

The men’s national team and the women’s national team are very different. They also best serve very different markets. It is absolutely nuts to pretend they are alike. And, most importantly the financial handling of both teams should have nothing to do with MLS.

As it stands today - all media and sponsorship deals for both national teams, with the exception of Nike, are handled by MLS/SUM. Naturally, this means that the most important aspect of every and any media or sponsorship deals is what benefit it brings to MLS. That is simply stupid and a complete abdication of USSF’s role and duty to both teams. If the people at USSF are not up to the task then they need to go.

My suggestions:

1. USSF hire an actual marketing team that is capable of putting together deals for games, media and sponsorships.
2. Form an advisory board for both teams that can be kept up to date and assist with proposals and deals. These should be current and former players. The marketing folks may will not be soccer experts and these boards can help give continuous input.
3. Open all things up. The deal with SUM is done at the end of the year. SUM can still be a major player, but everything is open to the best bud. It will not just be a “give us a cut” deal.
4. Do a deal with both teams that is more like what you see with the other US professional leagues. The players get an agreed percentage of what money is brought in.
5. Commit to support the NWSL at the same levels that the USSF did for MLS starting in 1996. No - there is no $50M in start up funding from FIFA but you are also further along with MLS than MLS was in 96. Probably that will be an ongoing $5M or so a year, so better be really working those media and sponsorship dollars.
6. Rebuild the youth soccer relationships. Start with ensuring that all youth clubs will be eligible for a cut of development dollars on a signing. Include dollars for a women making the national team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s stupid. The worry is that it says the new management at the USSF is not up to the task.

It really should not be hard. The USSF is small beans. It does about $150M a year in revenue from all sources. By way of comparison your average Costco store does $200M.

USSF management frankly appears to be unable to handle its tasks and it is getting worse - not better - for the USSF.

What issues are out there?

1. The obvious. The women’s team needs a new contract. Their’s expires at the end of this year.
2. The men’s team’s contract expired at the end of 2018. USSF got right on that huh?
3. Every youth club in the country that is not directly tied to MLS wants the USSF dissolved.
4. The referee associations basically ignore the USSF as being worthless for their issues.

The only proponent for the existing system is MLS/SUM which has benefitted from the existing system, but at the expense of all the other USSF constituents.

I thought that the new management team would create a decent chance for things to get corrected - or at least start down that path. This announcement is not a good sign.

The men’s national team and the women’s national team are very different. They also best serve very different markets. It is absolutely nuts to pretend they are alike. And, most importantly the financial handling of both teams should have nothing to do with MLS.

As it stands today - all media and sponsorship deals for both national teams, with the exception of Nike, are handled by MLS/SUM. Naturally, this means that the most important aspect of every and any media or sponsorship deals is what benefit it brings to MLS. That is simply stupid and a complete abdication of USSF’s role and duty to both teams. If the people at USSF are not up to the task then they need to go.

My suggestions:

1. USSF hire an actual marketing team that is capable of putting together deals for games, media and sponsorships.
2. Form an advisory board for both teams that can be kept up to date and assist with proposals and deals. These should be current and former players. The marketing folks may will not be soccer experts and these boards can help give continuous input.
3. Open all things up. The deal with SUM is done at the end of the year. SUM can still be a major player, but everything is open to the best bud. It will not just be a “give us a cut” deal.
4. Do a deal with both teams that is more like what you see with the other US professional leagues. The players get an agreed percentage of what money is brought in.
5. Commit to support the NWSL at the same levels that the USSF did for MLS starting in 1996. No - there is no $50M in start up funding from FIFA but you are also further along with MLS than MLS was in 96. Probably that will be an ongoing $5M or so a year, so better be really working those media and sponsorship dollars.
6. Rebuild the youth soccer relationships. Start with ensuring that all youth clubs will be eligible for a cut of development dollars on a signing. Include dollars for a women making the national team.

Funny how people never mention the MLS tie up. It is the root of the problems. Even the national team TV deals were tied to MLS which resulted in a much lower number than they could have gotten independently (essentially the national teams are subsidizing the MLS's TV deal)

[Anonymous]

The link to MLS/SUM is why the MLS is where it is today. No it is not EPL or anywhere near that level. But it is a league that can do reasonably well financially going forward. For Americans it is sort of a AAA level league.

But, the ties to MLS/SUM meant that the women’s team was largely ignored except as a cash cow. This non-interest in women’s soccer pervaded USSF. All efforts were on trying to get more money to MLS. The problem with this approach is that the US is not South America, Asia or Europe with respect to how we treat women and girls. By the mid 90s, Title IX had been in place for 25 years.

I was following pretty closely the debacle that was the start up of the Development Academy league - helping with the application of my kids’ club. Club directors were surprised and disappointed when the USSF belatedly announced that for the first year the DA would be “boys only”. Then 1 year became 2; and then 3 which is when several big clubs got together and formed the ECNL.

The USSF leadership was so removed from youth soccer in the US that they had no idea every youth club not directly tied to a MLS team had both a boys side and a girls side. The Boys had the DA which was essentially free to play in as a top national league. The girls had nothing. When pressed on the issue the official position of the USSF was that the women were doing okay as is. Really. In 2017 - 12 years later, as part of the women’s team contract the USSF said it would start a girls DA. Everyone knows the USSF spends as little time and effort as possible on girls and women and happily discriminated against them because they did so; openly and blatantly. Not 50 years ago. 5 years ago and only when pressed to get the women’s team to sign a deal.

So - literally everyone involved in US Soccer knows what the USSF has done in the past. The question is whether that changes right now or not. Could it change? Sure. Will it change? I am not optimistic now. This “offer” was stupid in my view and signals the likelihood that everything will continue to be swayed towards helping MLS/SUM.

The only alternative that I see that allows the current team structure to remain the same is to add another $20 million into the salary pot and expand the recipients. Basically it would be saying; “we are too stupid and/or lazy to actually work at this, but here’s lots more money so please sign.” I would not say that approach is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The link to MLS/SUM is why the MLS is where it is today. No it is not EPL or anywhere near that level. But it is a league that can do reasonably well financially going forward. For Americans it is sort of a AAA level league.

But, the ties to MLS/SUM meant that the women’s team was largely ignored except as a cash cow. This non-interest in women’s soccer pervaded USSF. All efforts were on trying to get more money to MLS. The problem with this approach is that the US is not South America, Asia or Europe with respect to how we treat women and girls. By the mid 90s, Title IX had been in place for 25 years.

I was following pretty closely the debacle that was the start up of the Development Academy league - helping with the application of my kids’ club. Club directors were surprised and disappointed when the USSF belatedly announced that for the first year the DA would be “boys only”. Then 1 year became 2; and then 3 which is when several big clubs got together and formed the ECNL.

The USSF leadership was so removed from youth soccer in the US that they had no idea every youth club not directly tied to a MLS team had both a boys side and a girls side. The Boys had the DA which was essentially free to play in as a top national league. The girls had nothing. When pressed on the issue the official position of the USSF was that the women were doing okay as is. Really. In 2017 - 12 years later, as part of the women’s team contract the USSF said it would start a girls DA. Everyone knows the USSF spends as little time and effort as possible on girls and women and happily discriminated against them because they did so; openly and blatantly. Not 50 years ago. 5 years ago and only when pressed to get the women’s team to sign a deal.

So - literally everyone involved in US Soccer knows what the USSF has done in the past. The question is whether that changes right now or not. Could it change? Sure. Will it change? I am not optimistic now. This “offer” was stupid in my view and signals the likelihood that everything will continue to be swayed towards helping MLS/SUM.

The only alternative that I see that allows the current team structure to remain the same is to add another $20 million into the salary pot and expand the recipients. Basically it would be saying; “we are too stupid and/or lazy to actually work at this, but here’s lots more money so please sign.” I would not say that approach is impossible.

What?? A cash cow? LOL

When the Wall Street Journal audited the federation’s financial reports, it found that the U.S. women’s soccer games earned more than the men’s games, in total, during three years after the women’s team won the World Cup in 2015.

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.

Looking year by year, 2016 was actually the only year in which the women’s team generated more revenue from games — $24.11 million, compared to $22.24 million for the men. In 2017, both teams brought in about the same revenue at $14.61 million, and in 2018, the men’s team brought in $13 million compared to the women’s $12.03 million.

This pattern marked a reversal from prior years: In 2014 and 2015, the men’s team earned $8.31 million and $11.71 million more than the women’s team, respectively.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/

[Anonymous]

Do you think Nike pays $22M-$25M a year to the USSF because the men’s team does okay in the Gold Cup? The best known player on the men’s team plays in Europe and has a deal with Puma. Nike pays in order to sell stuff. The women get on TV in the Olympics and World Cup. The men struggle to qualify for the World Cup and cannot even play in the Olympics. (Olympics men’s soccer is u23s plus 2). The women sell stuff. Always have.

The amount the women bring in is limited by the USSF’s deal with MLS/SUM which is not interested in maximizing revenue for the women’s side. They are interested in maximizing revenue for MLS/SUM.

[Anonymous]

My understanding:

Women who win the World Cup want to get paid like men who win the World Cup. But FIFA won't do it because the WWC is not as lucrative as the MWC. So they want USSF to make up the difference, even though USSF is not responsible for prize money in international competitions.

That about sum it up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding:

Women who win the World Cup want to get paid like men who win the World Cup. But FIFA won't do it because the WWC is not as lucrative as the MWC. So they want USSF to make up the difference, even though USSF is not responsible for prize money in international competitions.

That about sum it up?

No. That’s stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding:

Women who win the World Cup want to get paid like men who win the World Cup. But FIFA won't do it because the WWC is not as lucrative as the MWC. So they want USSF to make up the difference, even though USSF is not responsible for prize money in international competitions.

That about sum it up?

No. That’s stupid.

You got me, bud. My take was uninformed. I watched the video linked above and neither FIFA nor WC prize money were mentioned at all. You win the internet today. Pick up your medal on the way to lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Nike pays $22M-$25M a year to the USSF because the men’s team does okay in the Gold Cup? The best known player on the men’s team plays in Europe and has a deal with Puma. Nike pays in order to sell stuff. The women get on TV in the Olympics and World Cup. The men struggle to qualify for the World Cup and cannot even play in the Olympics. (Olympics men’s soccer is u23s plus 2). The women sell stuff. Always have.

The amount the women bring in is limited by the USSF’s deal with MLS/SUM which is not interested in maximizing revenue for the women’s side. They are interested in maximizing revenue for MLS/SUM.

Don’t forget the TV deal- do you think any network wants to air regular season MLS? They have to because it’s tied together with the national teams