Women’s v. Men’s pay

[Anonymous]

So more stuff.

https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/board-of-directors/us-soccer-president-carlos-cordeiro/open-letter-july-29-2019-finding-common-ground

Over the past decade, U.S. Soccer has paid our Women’s National Team more than our Men’s National Team. From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million—not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not. There are several reasons for this:

Different pay structures—Our men and women national team players do indeed have different pay structures, but this has nothing to do with gender.Rather, each of the teams have negotiated for different compensation models under their respective collective bargaining agreements. For example…

Guaranteed salary for women—Under their CBA, the women have chosen to have a guaranteed salary; U.S. Soccer therefore pays each WNT contracted player a base salary of $100,000 per year.(In contrast, the men’s national team players have no guaranteed salary and are only paid for the training camps they attend and the games they play, plus game bonuses.)In addition, U.S. Soccer also pays WNT contracted players a $67,500-$72,500 salary for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League.(In contrast, we do not pay salaries for men who play in Major League Soccer or any other men’s professional league).In other words, U.S. Soccer guarantees WNT contracted players who also play in the NWSL a base salary of $167,500-$172,500 per year, atop which they can earn game and tournament bonuses.Again, although players on our Men’s National Team can earn larger bonuses, they are guaranteed nothing; they have a different contract structure.

Guaranteed benefits for women—Above and beyond the guaranteed salaries mentioned above, U.S. Soccer provides our women players with a robust package of benefits that are not provided to the men.These benefits include fully-paid health, dental and vision insurance; severance; a 401(k) retirement plan; paid maternity leave; guaranteed injury protection; and assistance with childcare.Again, under their contract, our men’s players receive none of these benefits.

Hypothetical per game comparison—The widely-reported claim that our women players currently earn only 38 cents for every dollar earned by our men is false.This claim is based on out-of-date numbers that do not reflect what our women’s players actually earn today.In particular, it overlooks the guaranteed salaries described above.The claim is also based on a hypothetical scenario—our men and women each playing 20 friendly matches in a year, which has never happened, and receiving the average bonus amount per game.That said, if the men and women ever did play in and win 20 friendlies in a year and were paid the average bonus amount, a women’s player would earn more­ from U.S. Soccer than the men’s player—the women’s player would earn at least $307,500 (WNT and NWSL salaries, plus game bonuses) and the men’s player would earn $263,333 (game bonuses only).

FIFA prize money—Separate and apart from any funds controlled by U.S. Soccer, one of the biggest issues that women’s soccer faces is the difference in FIFA prize money with men’s soccer.The men’s and women’s World Cups generate vastly different revenue for FIFA, resulting in different prize money—prize money determined solely by FIFA.Indeed, when World Cup payments from FIFA are included, our U.S. Men’s National Team players were paid $41.0 million from 2010 through 2018 and our U.S. Women’s National Team players were paid $39.7 million.

U.S. Soccer supports narrowing the gap with an increase in FIFA prize money for women—Most recently, last year’s FIFA Men’s World Cup awarded $38 million to the winning federation, and this year’s FIFA Women’s World Cup is awarding $4 million to the winning federation.U.S. Soccer has and will continue to encourage FIFA to narrow this gap with an increase in the prize money that it awards to its Women’s World Cup champions as well as the total prize money it offers all women’s teams that compete

[Anonymous]

Looks like they will have to stop the salaries paid to women.

[Anonymous]

Odd that the USSF came up with an analysis which completely "forgot" that in order for the women to get paid the salaries they had to play in over 600 NSWL league games (through 2018). Why, do you suppose, that number got left off?

In the same statement the USSF noted that girls and boys are almost the same in training dollars. Again, leaving out that the USSF only started a girls DA in 2017 versus 2007 for the boys. Andy why was that? Well -- discrimination to be blunt.

Interestingly, the USSF again demonstrated its pro-MLS and the heck with anyone else stance with the realignment of the DA league just this past week.

It's time to get MLS and SUM out of the national teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Odd that the USSF came up with an analysis which completely "forgot" that in order for the women to get paid the salaries they had to play in over 600 NSWL league games (through 2018). Why, do you suppose, that number got left off?

In the same statement the USSF noted that girls and boys are almost the same in training dollars. Again, leaving out that the USSF only started a girls DA in 2017 versus 2007 for the boys. Andy why was that? Well -- discrimination to be blunt.

Interestingly, the USSF again demonstrated its pro-MLS and the heck with anyone else stance with the realignment of the DA league just this past week.

It's time to get MLS and SUM out of the national teams.

That will end the NSWL. I do not think the women would be happy to change to the pay model the men get. Many depend on the salary during the non World Cup years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Odd that the USSF came up with an analysis which completely "forgot" that in order for the women to get paid the salaries they had to play in over 600 NSWL league games (through 2018). Why, do you suppose, that number got left off?

In the same statement the USSF noted that girls and boys are almost the same in training dollars. Again, leaving out that the USSF only started a girls DA in 2017 versus 2007 for the boys. Andy why was that? Well -- discrimination to be blunt.

Interestingly, the USSF again demonstrated its pro-MLS and the heck with anyone else stance with the realignment of the DA league just this past week.

It's time to get MLS and SUM out of the national teams.

That will end the NSWL. I do not think the women would be happy to change to the pay model the men get. Many depend on the salary during the non World Cup years.

Nah -- what the women want is to stop subsidizimg MSL. That's the real issue here. The women could make way way more than the men if they did not have to subsidize the MSL (and so could the USSF).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Odd that the USSF came up with an analysis which completely "forgot" that in order for the women to get paid the salaries they had to play in over 600 NSWL league games (through 2018). Why, do you suppose, that number got left off?

In the same statement the USSF noted that girls and boys are almost the same in training dollars. Again, leaving out that the USSF only started a girls DA in 2017 versus 2007 for the boys. Andy why was that? Well -- discrimination to be blunt.

Interestingly, the USSF again demonstrated its pro-MLS and the heck with anyone else stance with the realignment of the DA league just this past week.

It's time to get MLS and SUM out of the national teams.

That will end the NSWL. I do not think the women would be happy to change to the pay model the men get. Many depend on the salary during the non World Cup years.

Nah -- what the women want is to stop subsidizimg MSL. That's the real issue here. The women could make way way more than the men if they did not have to subsidize the MSL (and so could the USSF).

What is MSL?

[Anonymous]

You are paid to play a sport. STFU, the rest of us have to do real jobs and get paid much less. There are plenty of well paid women in different industries and if you feel you need to pay more, then move onto another employer. You end up splitting hairs with this argument because we can open it up to certain races getting paid less.

[Anonymous]

3) So that leaves us with USNT compensation. I believe that for participating on the USNT all players, men or women should be paid equal compensation per game and training session with expenses covered. The base pay should be nominal and should not depend upon results. All bonus money paid to USSF and all other revenues generated by USSF for USNT team games above and beyond that to cover their base pay and expenses should go into a youth development fund to help promote and pay for soccer for under privileged kids and areas. This will help reduce the pay-to-play barriers in the US for poor youths and will drive a more altruistic motive for playing on and succeeding as a USNT. The better the teams perform the more money there is for our nation’s youth. If some pro players don’t won’t to play for the NT because the comp is not high enough, that is fine, we don’t want your self-interested attitude anyhow. USSF would also pressure clubs to not restrict their best pros to play for USNT due to fear of injury or schedule conflicts. Most wouldn’t anyhow as they enjoy the free marketing. Why do I believe in this approach? Because playing for your country is not about you or about making a cushy salary, it is about representing and sacrificing for your country and providing something back to the younger generation.

I’ve noticed that it’s much easier to give away other people’s money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are paid to play a sport. STFU, the rest of us have to do real jobs and get paid much less. There are plenty of well paid women in different industries and if you feel you need to pay more, then move onto another employer. You end up splitting hairs with this argument because we can open it up to certain races getting paid less.

Agreed that women are paid less than men in virtually all jobs, and it is worse for women of color. But if USWNT is able to shine a big spotlight on the inequities of women being paid less than men for the same job, and if they are able to bring about any incremental change because of that spotlight, then that is a great thing for all women. So I strongly disagree that they should STFU. Instead, they should use the few minutes left they have in the spotlight to raise as much attention to this issue as possible, at least until the next major tournament roles around and they get the national spotlight again. I also applaud all of the work the members of this team have done over the decades, when the spotlight has not always been shining on them, of trying to grow the women's game and fighting for better pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are paid to play a sport. STFU, the rest of us have to do real jobs and get paid much less. There are plenty of well paid women in different industries and if you feel you need to pay more, then move onto another employer. You end up splitting hairs with this argument because we can open it up to certain races getting paid less.

Agreed that women are paid less than men in virtually all jobs, and it is worse for women of color. But if USWNT is able to shine a big spotlight on the inequities of women being paid less than men for the same job, and if they are able to bring about any incremental change because of that spotlight, then that is a great thing for all women. So I strongly disagree that they should STFU. Instead, they should use the few minutes left they have in the spotlight to raise as much attention to this issue as possible, at least until the next major tournament roles around and they get the national spotlight again. I also applaud all of the work the members of this team have done over the decades, when the spotlight has not always been shining on them, of trying to grow the women's game and fighting for better pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are paid to play a sport. STFU, the rest of us have to do real jobs and get paid much less. There are plenty of well paid women in different industries and if you feel you need to pay more, then move onto another employer. You end up splitting hairs with this argument because we can open it up to certain races getting paid less.

Agreed that women are paid less than men in virtually all jobs, and it is worse for women of color. But if USWNT is able to shine a big spotlight on the inequities of women being paid less than men for the same job, and if they are able to bring about any incremental change because of that spotlight, then that is a great thing for all women. So I strongly disagree that they should STFU. Instead, they should use the few minutes left they have in the spotlight to raise as much attention to this issue as possible, at least until the next major tournament roles around and they get the national spotlight again. I also applaud all of the work the members of this team have done over the decades, when the spotlight has not always been shining on them, of trying to grow the women's game and fighting for better pay.

What are you talking about??? Seems they are paid more? It’s also not the same job. The men only get paid if they are on a game day roster. The women get paid a no matter what.

From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million—not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.

[Anonymous]

Don't be ridiculous. The women's side is not paid more than the men's side. Never has been.

Look, the reality is that everyone who plays under the USSF umbrella, and that currently is about 2.0 million kids, men and women, are subsidizing MLS. If you wanted to argue back in 95 that we needed a U.S. based pro soccer league and that it was okay for the USSF to support it with time and money to get it started -- I think you had an audience and a decent argument. FIFA put $50 million in to the till and held the World Cup here to build an audience so that MLS could get started.

Now though; time's up. MLS pocketing USSF funds makes no sense any more when it hurts kids and the national teams - men and women. So, good for MLS -- it can stand on its own without national team and little kids subsidizing it.

Here's a simple question: Who makes money when someone like Coke wants to sponsor the Women's World Cup Team? Who does Coke negotiate with? Who do they pay? It's not the women's team. It's not even the USSF. It's a company called Sports United Marketing or SUM. SUM is 80% owned by MLS. Want to make a deal to sponsor the women's sided? Sure, but it has to include MLS or at leasts not be competitive to MLS, or a sponsor of MLS or a media broadcaster of MLS. That's a conflict of interest.

And, that's why the women's side says -- let us get our own deals and we will pay what SUM pays the USSF. They can do much, much, better because they will not be looking, first and foremost, to pay MLS. If Pepsi wants to do a deal, and will pay more than Coke, great. They could do it without having to worry about product sales in MLS stadiums. The same with media deals. The same with other product sponsors.

Oh no! SUM has unique knowledge about soccer in the U.S. Only SUM can make a TV deal. Only SUM can line up product sponsors. Really? There's about 100 other major advertiser companies in the U.S. that deal in the professional sports industries, address promotions and media, AND would not have the major conflict of interest that SUM has.

It's time to separate the national teams and the USSF from SUM. Let MLS stand on its own. If it cannot -- then, maybe, the USSF can help out some. But, it should be doing so directly and above board so everyone can see what is going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be ridiculous. The women's side is not paid more than the men's side. Never has been.

Look, the reality is that everyone who plays under the USSF umbrella, and that currently is about 2.0 million kids, men and women, are subsidizing MLS. If you wanted to argue back in 95 that we needed a U.S. based pro soccer league and that it was okay for the USSF to support it with time and money to get it started -- I think you had an audience and a decent argument. FIFA put $50 million in to the till and held the World Cup here to build an audience so that MLS could get started.

Now though; time's up. MLS pocketing USSF funds makes no sense any more when it hurts kids and the national teams - men and women. So, good for MLS -- it can stand on its own without national team and little kids subsidizing it.

Here's a simple question: Who makes money when someone like Coke wants to sponsor the Women's World Cup Team? Who does Coke negotiate with? Who do they pay? It's not the women's team. It's not even the USSF. It's a company called Sports United Marketing or SUM. SUM is 80% owned by MLS. Want to make a deal to sponsor the women's sided? Sure, but it has to include MLS or at leasts not be competitive to MLS, or a sponsor of MLS or a media broadcaster of MLS. That's a conflict of interest.

And, that's why the women's side says -- let us get our own deals and we will pay what SUM pays the USSF. They can do much, much, better because they will not be looking, first and foremost, to pay MLS. If Pepsi wants to do a deal, and will pay more than Coke, great. They could do it without having to worry about product sales in MLS stadiums. The same with media deals. The same with other product sponsors.

Oh no! SUM has unique knowledge about soccer in the U.S. Only SUM can make a TV deal. Only SUM can line up product sponsors. Really? There's about 100 other major advertiser companies in the U.S. that deal in the professional sports industries, address promotions and media, AND would not have the major conflict of interest that SUM has.

It's time to separate the national teams and the USSF from SUM. Let MLS stand on its own. If it cannot -- then, maybe, the USSF can help out some. But, it should be doing so directly and above board so everyone can see what is going on.

MLS stands on its own and is not part of US Soccer. They are separate entities. The NWSL is funded by US Soccer paying the salaries of the national team players. The NWSL would fold in under a year without that support.

The money on the national team side is commingled. On the none World Cup years, the US women’s team really struggle to bring money in both advertising and tickets sales. The men’s team gets a lot of money from friendlies. It’s like Troy playing Alabama in football. Alabama Guarantees Troy(or whoever they play) $1-2 million for the game. When the men’s team plays a bigger soccer country, they get paid. It’s not because there is a market for the USNT. It’s because the other country’s team generate money and they have to have someone to play. That does not happen on the women’s side.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this is because this is a soccer thread and therefore I could care less if Alex Morgan isn't getting paid as much as Bradley. I'm all about equal pay across all jobs, but for some reasons with idiots like Solo talk about it, not the same impact.

You could also make an "equality" argument for players in a typical MLS team where some are making millions and others are make 70k. Why? Because if you create opportunities to make more, you will earn more. Just soccer, pay me 1/2 my current salary and I'd be happy to play soccer. Spoiled idiots have no idea how lucky they are.

[Anonymous]

Since when is US Soccer subsidizing MLS? They NWSL. Not MLS. What am I missing?