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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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."