Women’s v. Men’s pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the actual complaint by USWNT players is very instructive:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5763925-C-D-Cal-2-19-Cv-01717-1-0.html

Interesting that the women get paid more vs the men because US soccer does not pay the men. It seems the men would only get more money if they won the World Cup(or advanced the QF). I guess this is just a negotiating tactic because the NWSL would fold without those payments to the big name women players.

What are you talking about? US Soccer does pay the men to play on the national team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The national team on both sides (men and women) have a players union and plenty of resources to hire the best negotiators. If their negotiators are doing a bad job, blame the negotiators.

In short, WNT opted for a fixed base salary regardless of winning is losing. MNT opted to be paid for performance.

Soccer players aren't the "little guy" like some factory worker making minimum wage. They have plenty of resources to hire negotiators and ensure they get the best deal.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The national team on both sides (men and women) have a players union and plenty of resources to hire the best negotiators. If their negotiators are doing a bad job, blame the negotiators.

In short, WNT opted for a fixed base salary regardless of winning is losing. MNT opted to be paid for performance.

Soccer players aren't the "little guy" like some factory worker making minimum wage. They have plenty of resources to hire negotiators and ensure they get the best deal.

+1

Part of this is based on the fact that the men have sustainable leagues to play in. The women do not. Thus then opt for a fixed salary with lesser benefits. Plus, NWSL is supported by USSF so it isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. Equal pay is a simplistic slogan to a complex solution. The market isn't there for women's soccer in the same way the WNBA isn't getting the same as the NBA even though the WNBA players are the best in the world by a wide margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the actual complaint by USWNT players is very instructive:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5763925-C-D-Cal-2-19-Cv-01717-1-0.html

Interesting that the women get paid more vs the men because US soccer does not pay the men. It seems the men would only get more money if they won the World Cup(or advanced the QF). I guess this is just a negotiating tactic because the NWSL would fold without those payments to the big name women players.

What are you talking about? US Soccer does pay the men to play on the national team.

So it is a little more complicated. US soccer pays the women national team members to play in the NWSL- ie stay in form. The men are not paid to play soccer during the year by US soccer. This is outside of international games.

The U.S. Soccer Federation’s relationship with the National Women’s Soccer League has long been complicated. On the one hand, the federation is the reason the league came to exist in the first place in late 2012, and its financial and operational support is undoubtedly one of the main reasons the NWSL is in the middle of its sixth season — twice as many campaigns as each of its two predecessors.

Inversely, the league provides a key development ground for new national team talent, as well as helping keep veteran national team stars in top playing form during the long breaks between international matches.

However, U.S. Soccer’s heavy involvement has also long meant that the league has collectively been at the mercy of the federation, which pays the salaries of the core — and most in-demand — U.S. national team players, as well as the league’s small front office. U.S. Soccer public records list NWSL expenses at $2,390,703 for fiscal year 2017.[/quote]

https://equalizersoccer.com/2018/07/13/non-allocated-players-at-center-of-growing-nwsl-uswnt-tension/


So the US men get paid more for the international friendlies, qualifying games and the World Cup vs the US women. The last men’s World Cup’s winner France received 38m and the US Women received 4m. The women walked away with 200k for the World Cup plus 60k for a six game after tour. If US men had won(lol) they would have gotten 1.1m. It seems the women get a larger percentage of the prize vs the men but the men’s purse is close to 10 times the women’s. The men had problems qualifying- ie got nothing for the World Cup.

I bet the US men would like US soccer to pay them outside of international games like the women. The question is can US soccer could afford to pay the women the same as the men and continue to pay the women yearly? What would that mean the for NWSL? Also watch how the players start to take a nicer tone with the federation. The federation could and will move on from the older (maybe the more out spoken) women- ie you are off the team and will not receive the yearly pay.

[Anonymous]

Rapinoe rocks
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/sports/soccer/soccer-parade.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The national team on both sides (men and women) have a players union and plenty of resources to hire the best negotiators. If their negotiators are doing a bad job, blame the negotiators.

In short, WNT opted for a fixed base salary regardless of winning is losing. MNT opted to be paid for performance.

Soccer players aren't the "little guy" like some factory worker making minimum wage. They have plenty of resources to hire negotiators and ensure they get the best deal.

+1

Someone cited that US Soccer's expenses for the USWNT were $2.4M in the 2017 year. If that is true, then the players don't have "plenty of resources to hire negotiators and get the best deal." Hiring a good, not great, law firm to heavily negotiate a collective bargaining agreement could result in legal expenses of around $1M or more.

Same goes for suing US Soccer. If US Soccer fought the litigation to the mat, then the 28 players who sued US Soccer would easily be looking at a couple million in legal fees and expenses.

US Soccer is sitting on over $170M in cash and liquid investments. It made over $75M in profit during the 2017 fiscal year. They have significantly more resources at their disposal than the players, and I can guaranty that their deep pockets impacted the negotiating history of the collective bargaining agreement and are currently impacting the litigation strategy of the 28 USWNT players who brought suit.

I heard on a podcast that it would cost US Soccer, on average, an additional $3-5M per year to pay the USWNT the same as the men, depending on the number of international games played by the USWNT in any given year. If this is true and if US Soccer is still making tens of millions in profits each year and still holds over $170M in cash and investments, then I don't understand why US Soccer continues to fight this. Just pay the women the same game bonuses, appearance fees, etc. as the men. This is an easy decision, both financially and from a PR perspective. It also happens to be the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The national team on both sides (men and women) have a players union and plenty of resources to hire the best negotiators. If their negotiators are doing a bad job, blame the negotiators.

In short, WNT opted for a fixed base salary regardless of winning is losing. MNT opted to be paid for performance.

Soccer players aren't the "little guy" like some factory worker making minimum wage. They have plenty of resources to hire negotiators and ensure they get the best deal.

+1

Someone cited that US Soccer's expenses for the USWNT were $2.4M in the 2017 year. If that is true, then the players don't have "plenty of resources to hire negotiators and get the best deal." Hiring a good, not great, law firm to heavily negotiate a collective bargaining agreement could result in legal expenses of around $1M or more.

Same goes for suing US Soccer. If US Soccer fought the litigation to the mat, then the 28 players who sued US Soccer would easily be looking at a couple million in legal fees and expenses.

US Soccer is sitting on over $170M in cash and liquid investments. It made over $75M in profit during the 2017 fiscal year. They have significantly more resources at their disposal than the players, and I can guaranty that their deep pockets impacted the negotiating history of the collective bargaining agreement and are currently impacting the litigation strategy of the 28 USWNT players who brought suit.

I heard on a podcast that it would cost US Soccer, on average, an additional $3-5M per year to pay the USWNT the same as the men, depending on the number of international games played by the USWNT in any given year. If this is true and if US Soccer is still making tens of millions in profits each year and still holds over $170M in cash and investments, then I don't understand why US Soccer continues to fight this. Just pay the women the same game bonuses, appearance fees, etc. as the men. This is an easy decision, both financially and from a PR perspective. It also happens to be the right thing to do.

So if they pay them the same as the men, the women will not get the yearly salaries. Many players like the yearly salary. They can take time off, have a baby, recover from an injury, etc. The men have to be on the game day roster(or something like that) to get paid. It’s much more a hit or miss thing. Also NWSL is an important developmental league for the national team. If they stop paying the salaries of the national team players, the league will fail.

[Anonymous]

It’s tough to make a straightforward comparison of the earnings for men and women players, because the two teams have different collective-bargaining agreements that outline different pay structures.

A contract player on the women’s team makes a base salary and can earn performance-based bonuses. (Players without a contract have a different pay schedule.)

On the men’s team, players earn only bonuses.

The teams play different numbers of games each year and earn different bonuses depending on the game type, their opponents’ FIFA rank and the game’s outcome. On top of that, both teams can earn additional bonuses for winning specific tournaments. And certain events, such as the World Cup, have a separate bonus structure entirely.

“The male players are paid when they play, but not when they sit,” McCann said. “USMNT players must thus be on the roster to be pay eligible. USWNT players, in contrast, are guaranteed pay.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/?utm_term=.9f8fafa62ddc

This article shows the complexity of the issues. The men and women are paid differently.

[Anonymous]

I understand that the USWNT players have a subsidized salary for playing in the NWSL, and without US Soccer support, the NWSL would have failed. Still, the annual support from US soccer to the NWSL is less than 2.5M, which is peanuts for an organization making 75million in annual profits, at least in 2017. If they continued to pay that amount, plus the additional 3-5 million annually needed to pay the same “per game” money and bonuses as the men’s team, this is all very doable for such a profitable business. Most importantly, it is also the right thing to do.

Not sure the opposition to this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the USWNT players have a subsidized salary for playing in the NWSL, and without US Soccer support, the NWSL would have failed. Still, the annual support from US soccer to the NWSL is less than 2.5M, which is peanuts for an organization making 75million in annual profits, at least in 2017. If they continued to pay that amount, plus the additional 3-5 million annually needed to pay the same “per game” money and bonuses as the men’s team, this is all very doable for such a profitable business. Most importantly, it is also the right thing to do.

Not sure the opposition to this

USSF is controlled by MLS. They have zero interest in doing the right thing for women players, who play in a league owned by someone else.

[Anonymous]

And that somehow makes it right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The national team on both sides (men and women) have a players union and plenty of resources to hire the best negotiators. If their negotiators are doing a bad job, blame the negotiators.

In short, WNT opted for a fixed base salary regardless of winning is losing. MNT opted to be paid for performance.

Soccer players aren't the "little guy" like some factory worker making minimum wage. They have plenty of resources to hire negotiators and ensure they get the best deal.

+1

Someone cited that US Soccer's expenses for the USWNT were $2.4M in the 2017 year. If that is true, then the players don't have "plenty of resources to hire negotiators and get the best deal." Hiring a good, not great, law firm to heavily negotiate a collective bargaining agreement could result in legal expenses of around $1M or more.

Same goes for suing US Soccer. If US Soccer fought the litigation to the mat, then the 28 players who sued US Soccer would easily be looking at a couple million in legal fees and expenses.

US Soccer is sitting on over $170M in cash and liquid investments. It made over $75M in profit during the 2017 fiscal year. They have significantly more resources at their disposal than the players, and I can guaranty that their deep pockets impacted the negotiating history of the collective bargaining agreement and are currently impacting the litigation strategy of the 28 USWNT players who brought suit.

I heard on a podcast that it would cost US Soccer, on average, an additional $3-5M per year to pay the USWNT the same as the men, depending on the number of international games played by the USWNT in any given year. If this is true and if US Soccer is still making tens of millions in profits each year and still holds over $170M in cash and investments, then I don't understand why US Soccer continues to fight this. Just pay the women the same game bonuses, appearance fees, etc. as the men. This is an easy decision, both financially and from a PR perspective. It also happens to be the right thing to do.

Very funny, the women were and still are represented in their CBA negotiations by Jeff Kessler, the biggest and most expensive you can get. Who also represents them in their equal pay lawsuit . . . you see how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the USWNT players have a subsidized salary for playing in the NWSL, and without US Soccer support, the NWSL would have failed. Still, the annual support from US soccer to the NWSL is less than 2.5M, which is peanuts for an organization making 75million in annual profits, at least in 2017. If they continued to pay that amount, plus the additional 3-5 million annually needed to pay the same “per game” money and bonuses as the men’s team, this is all very doable for such a profitable business. Most importantly, it is also the right thing to do.

Not sure the opposition to this

I think what they will do is pay them the same. Any difference in structure or pay between the men or women will generate lawsuits. The women and the men need to be under the same collective bargaining agreement. The men’s pay will come down, the women will get paid the same as the men and the yearly salaries to the women will stop. This will be good for the star players, not good for the developing players and still make US Soccer money.

It is a pretty common setup/result in all the US major sport leagues. The people doing the negotiations are current players vs the owners/league/federation. The current players want as much money as they can get now because they have only a few years to make money. The owner/federation has a longer term view and speaks with one voice. The stars have a bigger voice vs the everyday player. So those top stars will make more money at the expense of other players. The current players really do not care about developing players(more competition) or what will happen in 5 years. It’s just the way the system works.

[Anonymous]

It is -- as you probably already suspect -- very complex.

Yes there is a collectively bargained agreement in place that as executed in 2017. But, it excluded the right to sue, and that action was started in 2016 in the EEOC. The EEOC issued its letter allowing the women to proceed with a suit and that was filed early this year I believe.

The suit raises claims that the women's side was legally allowed to raise to bring a suit -- basically about unfair pay structures. The real issue is the USSF's tieing the women's compensation to the men's and assigning all of the USSF's revenue/media/promotion rights over to Sports United Marketing (SUM) which is a MLS controlled entity.

It is not that the MLS is necessarily anti-women. They are anti-anything that lowers their revenues/profits. So, if SUM can make a deal that ties MLS with the national teams -- men and women -- then that's great for eveyone right? Not if the women's side could make their own deal and get more. As a hypothetical -- assume Coke pays SUM $100 to sponsor MLS and both national teams. Now, assume Pepsi wants to sponsor just the women's team and is willing to pay $65. SUM says "no" to the Pepsi deal, because MLS does better with Coke even though the women's side would do better with Pepsi.

It's a tough argument for the USSF. And, to be fair, the USSF has a history of discrimination against girls/women that makes it difficult to believe that the SUM/USSF deal was not made to benefit MLS.

Probably what needs to happen is that the USSF needs to put the marketing deals out to bid on an individual team basis. SUM has experience, but it is too conflicted to be a good representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is -- as you probably already suspect -- very complex.

Yes there is a collectively bargained agreement in place that as executed in 2017. But, it excluded the right to sue, and that action was started in 2016 in the EEOC. The EEOC issued its letter allowing the women to proceed with a suit and that was filed early this year I believe.

The suit raises claims that the women's side was legally allowed to raise to bring a suit -- basically about unfair pay structures. The real issue is the USSF's tieing the women's compensation to the men's and assigning all of the USSF's revenue/media/promotion rights over to Sports United Marketing (SUM) which is a MLS controlled entity.

It is not that the MLS is necessarily anti-women. They are anti-anything that lowers their revenues/profits. So, if SUM can make a deal that ties MLS with the national teams -- men and women -- then that's great for eveyone right? Not if the women's side could make their own deal and get more. As a hypothetical -- assume Coke pays SUM $100 to sponsor MLS and both national teams. Now, assume Pepsi wants to sponsor just the women's team and is willing to pay $65. SUM says "no" to the Pepsi deal, because MLS does better with Coke even though the women's side would do better with Pepsi.

It's a tough argument for the USSF. And, to be fair, the USSF has a history of discrimination against girls/women that makes it difficult to believe that the SUM/USSF deal was not made to benefit MLS.

Probably what needs to happen is that the USSF needs to put the marketing deals out to bid on an individual team basis. SUM has experience, but it is too conflicted to be a good representative.

Nice post