US Women lose court case

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/05/01/judge-rules-against-us-womens-national-soccer-team-equal-pay-lawsuit/

In a ruling delivered late Friday, Judge Klausner sided with the players’ employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation, which argued that the claim of unequal pay based on gender discrimination should be dismissed

Haven’t found the full ruling yet.

[Anonymous]

The women got exactly what they bargained for in the CBA. Lesson: get better legal counsel when entering a CBA, because you're stuck with the contract you sign.

Moving forward, though, US Soccer should do the right thing and enter a new agreement that is on parity with the men. Fighting equality makes US Soccer look like jerks, at best. Legally, US Soccer was partially right. Morally, they're still in the wrong. Time to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. I had no idea they were offered the same terms as the men but rejected it.

"[The] history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the [women's national team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the [men's national team], and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," he wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their [collective bargaining agreement] worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I had no idea they were offered the same terms as the men but rejected it.

"[The] history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the [women's national team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the [men's national team], and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," he wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their [collective bargaining agreement] worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

Interesting. I wonder why they filed the law suit based on the above. This case has always been painted as if the women were not offered the same terms as the men. But now we find out they were and they turned down those terms in favor of something else. Couldn’t the women just have waited for the contract to be renegotiated to get the same base + the other terms they wanted? They would have had several years of wins to point to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I had no idea they were offered the same terms as the men but rejected it.

"[The] history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the [women's national team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the [men's national team], and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," he wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their [collective bargaining agreement] worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

Interesting. I wonder why they filed the law suit based on the above. This case has always been painted as if the women were not offered the same terms as the men. But now we find out they were and they turned down those terms in favor of something else. Couldn’t the women just have waited for the contract to be renegotiated to get the same base + the other terms they wanted? They would have had several years of wins to point to.

Exactly. They are trying to renegotiate terms on a contract they already agreed to. Let them do that when renewal comes up instead.

I generally don't have much sympathy in cases like this -- both sides have the means to hire great legal counsel to represent and negotiate their side. They have a union. They voted in favor of the deal, so they should not complain about a deal they explicitly agreed to.

Different story if it was low-wage garment factory workers, with little ability to unionize or afford fair representation, but that's not the case here.

[Anonymous]

Ussf is still on everyone's #$_& list even with this hollow win.

[Anonymous]

I would remove the patch from my son's and daughter's jerseys myself if I had the time or energy. Probably would have been better for the sport of soccer here if they had lost.

[Anonymous]

The legal defense fees will continue to climb through the appeal process.

[Anonymous]

The USWNT are selfish and dumb. It is that simple. Yes they are great at soccer, but maybe they should have spent more time in class ... or with friends and family to learn humility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I had no idea they were offered the same terms as the men but rejected it.

"[The] history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the [women's national team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the [men's national team], and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," he wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their [collective bargaining agreement] worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

Interesting. I wonder why they filed the law suit based on the above. This case has always been painted as if the women were not offered the same terms as the men. But now we find out they were and they turned down those terms in favor of something else. Couldn’t the women just have waited for the contract to be renegotiated to get the same base + the other terms they wanted? They would have had several years of wins to point to.

Exactly. They are trying to renegotiate terms on a contract they already agreed to. Let them do that when renewal comes up instead.

I generally don't have much sympathy in cases like this -- both sides have the means to hire great legal counsel to represent and negotiate their side. They have a union. They voted in favor of the deal, so they should not complain about a deal they explicitly agreed to.

Wow, interesting that this detail had never been pointed out previously. I was strongly in their court based on what I knew, but in jobs, business, life you can't just say I don't like the deal/contract/salary that I contractually negotiated, so now I want to sue to change it. I still hate USSF but the outcome was fair.

Different story if it was low-wage garment factory workers, with little ability to unionize or afford fair representation, but that's not the case here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The USWNT are selfish and dumb. It is that simple. Yes they are great at soccer, but maybe they should have spent more time in class ... or with friends and family to learn humility.

The ussf are selfish and dumb. Hands down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/05/01/judge-rules-against-us-womens-national-soccer-team-equal-pay-lawsuit/

In a ruling delivered late Friday, Judge Klausner sided with the players’ employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation, which argued that the claim of unequal pay based on gender discrimination should be dismissed

Haven’t found the full ruling yet.

Yes.

We’d like to know whether these were real judges, or Trump judges, who were involved in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/05/01/judge-rules-against-us-womens-national-soccer-team-equal-pay-lawsuit/

In a ruling delivered late Friday, Judge Klausner sided with the players’ employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation, which argued that the claim of unequal pay based on gender discrimination should be dismissed

Haven’t found the full ruling yet.

Yes.

We’d like to know whether these were real judges, or Trump judges, who were involved in this case.

Klausner is a Bush judge, so he benefited from conservative-attorney affirmative action
But he doesn’t seem to be affiliated with the Federalist Society or have other links to the worst of the pro-wealthy conservative machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would remove the patch from my son's and daughter's jerseys myself if I had the time or energy. Probably would have been better for the sport of soccer here if they had lost.

No it’s best for the sport to have the women national players paid yearly by US Soccer. The men only get money if they are on the game day roster. Injured or not selected too bad, you do not get paid. US soccer pays each women national team member $100,000 plus healthcare and a retirement plan per year. If they play in the WNSL they get an additional $67-87,000. Other WNSL players get paid between $25,000-$85,000 with an average of $40,000 a year. Try living on that for the 3 year between World Cups. How many WNT players would stop playing if they were not paid yearly? You need a pro league to keep players playing between world cups.

They negotiated the collective bargaining agreement and took a less risky, money upfront approach. Now they want to change it retroactively for their benefit. Its time to separate the men’s and women’s national teams into different organizations.

[Anonymous]

Agree with that one hundred percent.