U.S. Soccer: the Women's National Team have finally obtained equal pay | New CBAs for both Men and Women

[mazhar13]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The whole Twitter thread is a good summary of the NY Times article.

This has been a long, arduous battle for the women. Honestly, I was never expecting U.S. Soccer to agree to a deal like this given their prior position of maintaining the status quo. Impressively, the women are also being made up for the current disparity with the $24M settlement. The equal pay, however, will only begin after the next CBA, hence the $24M settlement for now.

The pay gap itself was huge, so I was expecting the women to get close to the men but still receiving less in their total compensation. This, however, may have future repercussions for other national FAs. The U.S. women's team is still probably the best one around, and with women's football growing, other women's national teams may start to look for more parity on their pay.

 

[Lynty]

Womens World Cup '19 had 1.1billion viewers - US team won
Mens World Cup '18 had 3.7 billion viewers - US team didn't qualify

Probably seems fair. Australia and Japan may also have fair shouts. I can't see why not in all honesty. It's national level.

There's still a rightly vast difference in wages for domestic leagues.

 

[L1nk]

Not to ruffle some feathers here, but a year or so ago didn't a federal judge dismiss most of the claims because the female players were actually getting paid more than the men? The argument was that they weren't on the same contract despite it being the same sport. But then the problem lay with how both sides negotiated their contract

"The female players argued that, even though they got paid more than the male players, they would have been paid even more if they were operating under the same contract as the men. The judge rejected that claim because the men’s and women’s representatives negotiated different contracts during collective bargaining. The women’s team was far more risk adverse and bargained for numerous guarantees including a guaranteed minimum salary, injury protections, a minimum number of games played and a guaranteed number of players on the roster. The men’s team accepted a great deal more risk and agreed to terms under which they are only paid for the games they play. (This is called “pay to play.”) Because the women’s team was so successful, it turns out they would have made more money under the men’s arrangement, but they would have taken the risk that things wouldn’t have turned out that way."

So they were basically annoyed because they negotiated a safer contract than the men? Excuse me if i'm being ignorant but isn't that their fault then?

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Equality is a great thing.

Unfortunately I do not believe this to be a good example of it.

I want the womens game to soar in popularity and I want them to eventually be paid equal, but it should be done the right way. This smells of greed and shortcuts.

 

[Carolina Red]

Very good.

 

[northernfan]

There is no equity in the U.S. soccer programs because the women get annual salaries while the men don't. The women are treated as full time employees while the men are contractors.

 

[calodo2003]

Good for them.

 

[yumtum]

Not to ruffle some feathers here, but a year or so ago didn't a federal judge dismiss most of the claims because the female players were actually getting paid more than the men? The argument was that they weren't on the same contract despite it being the same sport. But then the problem lay with how both sides negotiated their contract

"The female players argued that, even though they got paid more than the male players, they would have been paid even more if they were operating under the same contract as the men. The judge rejected that claim because the men’s and women’s representatives negotiated different contracts during collective bargaining. The women’s team was far more risk adverse and bargained for numerous guarantees including a guaranteed minimum salary, injury protections, a minimum number of games played and a guaranteed number of players on the roster. The men’s team accepted a great deal more risk and agreed to terms under which they are only paid for the games they play. (This is called “pay to play.”) Because the women’s team was so successful, it turns out they would have made more money under the men’s arrangement, but they would have taken the risk that things wouldn’t have turned out that way."

So they were basically annoyed because they negotiated a safer contract than the men? Excuse me if i'm being ignorant but isn't that their fault then?

You are correct - they chose the guaranteed money instead of performance based pay, turns out they're the best in the world in women's football then they got upset about being on a different contract.

I'm all for equal pay, but the standard of football and popularity doesn't warrant it, I'm sure one day in the future with better infrastructure and coaching women's football will become a sport that's watchable and thus deserving of better pay, but right now? Not so much.

 

[adexkola]

Imagine hating on this decision.

 

[horsechoker]

No idea what's actually right here, it seems the facts get obfuscated to suit agendas and I know certain people just want to dunk on women's football.

 

[WeePat]

You are correct - they chose the guaranteed money instead of performance based pay, turns out they're the best in the world in women's football then they got upset about being on a different contract.

I'm all for equal pay, but the standard of football and popularity doesn't warrant it, I'm sure one day in the future with better infrastructure and coaching women's football will become a sport that's watchable and thus deserving of better pay, but right now? Not so much.

You can't say it isn't watchable when 1.1B people watched the world cup, surely?

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Imagine hating on this decision.

The thing is, I want equality. Not preferential treatment

if men started a netball team, it got half the viewership of womens, but they demanded the same pay then people would have issues with it right?

That’s not equality

 

[Berbaclass]

They already had it essentially

 

[yumtum]

You can't say it isn't watchable when 1.1B people watched the world cup, surely?

It's getting more popular no doubt, and that's a good thing in general, and I should have said I find it unwatchable compared to men's football - saying that the real indicator old be people in the stadium, look at the empty seats etc.

Mens football is a religion for many, it cost a lot to follow a team around the country, into Europe, I just don't think standard in women's football will attract that level of support just yet, as I said on another thread though, if they keep on improving and get proper coaches etc, it will, and I'm definitely hoping it will - but throwing money at a product that currently isn't up to much won't help.

I'd have more respect if the women's US national team honoured the contract they signed (which was to get payed more then the male equivalent) and pledge a chunk of that $24m to grassroots women's football to make the sport a better one.

 

[Zlatattack]

Good for them. They're much better than their mens team.

 

[Pronewbie]

The thing is, I want equality. Not preferential treatment

if men started a netball team, it got half the viewership of womens, but they demanded the same pay then people would have issues with it right?

That’s not equality

I admire your bravery.

 

[Red_toad]

Good for them. They're much better than their mens team.

You mean perform better against their peers. I doubt 11 v 11 would go very well for them.

The thing is, I want equality. Not preferential treatment

if men started a netball team, it got half the viewership of womens, but they demanded the same pay then people would have issues with it right?

That’s not equality

US women's team can get bigger domestic audiences for certain games I believe? I'd say that's what they're basing it on.

 

[Carolina Red]

You mean perform better against their peers.

He clearly meant that they'd embarrass Pep's Barcelona.

 

[mazhar13]

Not to ruffle some feathers here, but a year or so ago didn't a federal judge dismiss most of the claims because the female players were actually getting paid more than the men? The argument was that they weren't on the same contract despite it being the same sport. But then the problem lay with how both sides negotiated their contract

"The female players argued that, even though they got paid more than the male players, they would have been paid even more if they were operating under the same contract as the men. The judge rejected that claim because the men’s and women’s representatives negotiated different contracts during collective bargaining. The women’s team was far more risk adverse and bargained for numerous guarantees including a guaranteed minimum salary, injury protections, a minimum number of games played and a guaranteed number of players on the roster. The men’s team accepted a great deal more risk and agreed to terms under which they are only paid for the games they play. (This is called “pay to play.”) Because the women’s team was so successful, it turns out they would have made more money under the men’s arrangement, but they would have taken the risk that things wouldn’t have turned out that way."

So they were basically annoyed because they negotiated a safer contract than the men? Excuse me if i'm being ignorant but isn't that their fault then?

If I remember correct, U.S. Soccer was also compensating the national-team players whilst they played in their domestic league (NWSL), so the federation was paying for both the players' club and national team performances rather than just their national team exploits.

The CBA details from the federal judge's ruling can be found in Page 13 of this document. As the document states, the players were not only being paid a fixed salary + bonuses + other compensations for the national team but also a salary + other compensations for their NWSL clubs.

 

[mazhar13]

Overall, the impact here may involve a separation between the NWSL club and national team compensations from the USSF. This may require a separate CBA between the WNTPA and the NWSL. I also wonder if the women will lose out on the other compensations (severance pay, health insurance, day care, etc.) from the USSF for their national team performances.

On the other hand, this may mean that the men's team can receive the sort of benefits that the women's team weren't. The future CBA negotiations will be worth keeping an eye on.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Womens World Cup '19 had 1.1billion viewers - US team won
Mens World Cup '18 had 3.7 billion viewers - US team didn't qualify

This may technically be correct in terms of unique viewers, but there is no way that the men’s World Cup is only three times as popular as the women’s.

I would bet that the difference is much larger in terms of total minutes watched, for example.

 

[Acrobat7]

This may technically be correct in terms of unique viewers, but there is no way that the men’s World Cup is only three times as popular as the women’s.

I would bet that the difference is much larger in terms of total minutes watched, for example.

Pretty sure the Women’s WC is more popular than the Men‘s version in the USA though.

 

[NewYorkRed]

The US is unique where the are actually a lot more people that watch the women’s team than the men’s. Primary reason being our women’s team is consistently the best in the world while the men are mostly hot garbage. Happy for them !

 

[WeePat]

It's getting more popular no doubt, and that's a good thing in general, and I should have said I find it unwatchable compared to men's football - saying that the real indicator old be people in the stadium, look at the empty seats etc.

Mens football is a religion for many, it cost a lot to follow a team around the country, into Europe, I just don't think standard in women's football will attract that level of support just yet, as I said on another thread though, if they keep on improving and get proper coaches etc, it will, and I'm definitely hoping it will - but throwing money at a product that currently isn't up to much won't help.

I'd have more respect if the women's US national team honoured the contract they signed (which was to get payed more then the male equivalent) and pledge a chunk of that $24m to grassroots women's football to make the sport a better one.

I don't know the specifics of this case. On the surface, it seems like the dynamics in US soccer is a little unique in the way they do things, but I have no idea how pay is structured there, but in general I would support a move that bridges the gap in gender pay.

It's also important to acknowledge that men's football, at least in Europe, if we bring the conversation a bit closer to home, has had a 100 year head start on the women's game. It's a bit difficult to argue that Person A deserves the higher pay because they have more fans, more interest in the game, more coverage etc when they built up that level of interest during a time when Person B wasn't allowed to do the same, and when they were allowed, was severely underfunded.

I don't think it can boiled down to a black and white scenario where we start counting viewing figures, attendance numbers etc to decide who deserves what when it hasn't been a level playing field for over 100 years. It has to be a more nuanced conversation that acknowledges the advantages the men's game has enjoyed to put them in this privileged and extraordinarily popular position.

 

[yumtum]

I don't know the specifics of this case. On the surface, it seems like the dynamics in US soccer is a little unique in the way they do things, but I have no idea how pay is structured there, but in general I would support a move that bridges the gap in gender pay.

It's also important to acknowledge that men's football, at least in Europe, if we bring the conversation a bit closer to home, has had a 100 year head start on the women's game. It's a bit difficult to argue that Person A deserves the higher pay because they have more fans, more interest in the game, more coverage etc when they Person A built up that level of interest during a time when Person B wasn't even allowed to do the same, and when they were allowed, was severely underfunded.

I don't think it can boiled down to a black and white scenario where we start counting viewing figures, attendance numbers etc to decide who deserves what when it hasn't been a level playing field for over 100 years. It has to be a more nuanced conversation that acknowledges the advantages the men's game has enjoyed to put them in this privileged and extraordinarily popular position.

Right, unfortunately we can't go back then and change peoples warped views, but that really doesn't justify killing the whole sport before its able to sustain crazy wages.

I'm not just talking about US women's football, I'm talking about women's football as a whole, they need to naturally get their game to a level where they can justify huge wages, and I genuinely hope they do, but it'll drown if they get paid more than they actually earn the sport.

Mens football generates a huge amount of money, like, an unthinkable amount really and that's why some of these top players command £15m a year.

 

[Stack]

Right, unfortunately we can't go back then and change peoples warped views, but that really doesn't justify killing the whole sport before its able to sustain crazy wages.

I'm not just talking about US women's football, I'm talking about women's football as a whole, they need to naturally get their game to a level where they can justify huge wages, and I genuinely hope they do, but it'll drown if they get paid more than they actually earn the sport.

Mens football generates a huge amount of money, like, an unthinkable amount really and that's why some of these top players command £15m a year.

Its always interesting when people use the word "they" in debates about social issues. It helps to cement the idea its "their" problem and not one that we are all part of. The sort of social issues where "they" gets used a lot is in issues of race or sexuality.

 

[royce987]

Since the Women are already paid more then the men, how big a paycut are the women taking for equality?

 

[Drainy]

Are they giving up their salary and benefits or are the men's team now getting them?

 

[Bondathon]

The United States have recently set up a blind football team, to compete in the Paralympics in 2028. I take it they will be getting paid equally too?

Or will it be like tennis (and every other sport), where all of the arguments for equality don’t go as far as paying disabled athletes equally?

 

[arnie_ni]

Its always interesting when people use the word "they" in debates about social issues. It helps to cement the idea its "their" problem and not one that we are all part of. The sort of social issues where "they" gets used a lot is in issues of race or sexuality.

He can hardly say we can he? He doesn't play woman's football

 

[sullydnl]

Since the Women are already paid more then the men, how big a paycut are the women taking for equality?

The brutal irony, of course, was that in going to court against U.S. Soccer while they were at the peak of their powers, the women’s team had also picked the absolute worst time to line up a few years of their salaries against a few years of the men’s pay.

Since February 2015, the agreed-upon start of the class-action period in the case, the women’s team had won two World Cup titles (and millions in bonus payments for those triumphs) and other major salary gains by negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. During the same period, the men’s team had plumbed new lows, with its failures serving to cripple the women’s case.

By failing to qualify for the only men’s World Cup played during the class window, the men became ineligible for millions of dollars in performance bonuses of their own. Those payments would have swelled their paydays from U.S. Soccer far beyond what the women could ever have earned.

 

[Stack]

He can hardly say we can he? He doesn't play woman's football

Just thinking about his general tone I can imagine that if he were around during the debates over women getting the vote he would have been advocating for women only being allowed to vote once they earned enough to be contributing to the economic output.

You kind of miss my point with your comment. Oh well.

 

[Sviken]

Good for them. They're much better than their mens team.

Are you for real? I'm pretty sure the men U-18 team can stomp them with zero difficulty. Maybe you meant "in regards to their competition"?

 

[arnie_ni]

Just thinking about his general tone I can imagine that if he were around during the debates over women getting the vote he would have been advocating for women only being allowed to vote once they earned enough to be contributing to the economic output.

You kind of miss my point with your comment. Oh well.

I'm not sure you've picked the right time to make the argument is all

 

[mazhar13]

Are they giving up their salary and benefits or are the men's team now getting them?

That will depend on the new CBA negotiations. I'm sure the USSF will make this point to both the women and men. The next set of CBAs will be major.

 

[Bobski]

This has been an interesting case to follow because it has been presented in the media, and that narrative has come through the players, as a case of inequality and sexism, but the facts of the case have never borne that out. Had led to fair amount of antipathy towards the women's team from some quarters seeing it as a cynical ploy to manipulate public opinion.

I have no issues with equal pay for national team football, should be a point of principle worldwide.

 

[slyadams]

Imagine hating on this decision.

Imagine knowing the details before making such statements.

 

[Stack]

I'm not sure you've picked the right time to make the argument is all

I think this is the perfect time, especially when veiled misogyny is visible

 

[yumtum]

Its always interesting when people use the word "they" in debates about social issues. It helps to cement the idea its "their" problem and not one that we are all part of. The sort of social issues where "they" gets used a lot is in issues of race or sexuality.

I've read the rest of your misguided posts in this thread and your attempts to paint me as misogynistic, and I must say I really don't appreciate it, so I suggest you take your white Knight agenda elsewhere, I've said multiple times that I hope they (women's football, saying "they" is obviously easier than constantly typing women's football, how misogynistic of me) one day grow their (women's footbal) sport to a level where they get paid handsomely.

If you want a debate on why they (female footballers) deserve to be paid as much as men, then carry on, but stop running around shouting at others and accusing them (oh look, I used them, or should i have used us?) for being something they're not, it's colours you in a bad light, and shows you're unable to debate without looking like an idiot.

In fact, you're welcome to spew your obvious agenda against rational debate in this thread without replying to this post.

 

[arnie_ni]

This has been an interesting case to follow because it has been presented in the media, and that narrative has come through the players, as a case of inequality and sexism, but the facts of the case have never borne that out. Had led to fair amount of antipathy towards the women's team from some quarters seeing it as a cynical ploy to manipulate public opinion.

I have no issues with equal pay for national team football, should be a point of principle worldwide.

Don't think you should be paid by your country at all but that's probably not for this thread.