But to play Devils' Advocate a bit. Everyone's salary is essentially based on what they bring to their employer. If the male teams in the USA bring in much bigger revenue, then of course their players will earn a bigger salary. It goes without saying.
Any walk of life, your wage will equate to what your employer can afford to pay you. A male carpenter working for a small firm will often work harder than a male carpenter working for a massive firm. But the latter will earn more, probably, because his employer earns more money and thus can offer a bigger wage.
Responsibility? That's a somewhat flimsy concept to begin with. If you argue that male football (soccer, I suppose) players inherently carry more "responsibility" because the men's game is more high-profile on a global scale than the women's game, my initial reaction would be that the argument is hopelessly generic in this particular context: it seems obvious that a player on the US women's team is, in fact, much more likely to be a high-profile athlete - relatively speaking - than her male counterpart.
And thus far likelier to carry any actual "responsibility" in terms of being a role model for youngsters, say - or in terms of being expected to perform at the highest level (in the relevant competitions), thus pleasing sponsors and whatnot.
To use the example just mentioned above: if for some reason or other the youth team of a particular club was far more popular and successful than the senior team it would make perfect sense that youth team players earned as much as (or more than) senior players.
I've no interest in watching any variation of womens sport and not because i am sexist but because quite frankly its shit to watch, i don't care if men get paid more. Equal pay in every day jobs however should be a thing.
I am with you on this. I used to love watching the UFC but now I cherry-pick their events and watching numerous women's fights just doesn't interest me and they usually have 3-5 on every card now.
It's also tiresome seeing Sky shoving Women's sports down everyone's throats.
I watch sports to watch the elite against the elite and even the best female athletes would get destroyed by D level male athletes. Case in point the Australian Women's national team lost 7-0 to a team of 15-year-old boys and they're ranked 5th in the world.
I am obviously not a legal expert, especially not in US law. But I had dealt with enough legal cases in my life that I can at least get the basic gist out of it.
[... rather, Plaintiffs argue that their CBA is discriminatory only by comparing a few cherry-picked contract terms to provisions in a different CBA negotiated by a different union covering different covering different employees who perform a different job outside of Plaintiffs bargaining unit. ...]
Page 6
[... Plaintiff want the Court to grant them victories they could not achieve at the bargaining table by rewriting a few provisions in their cba to give them additional compensation, without any regard for the give-and-take at the bargaining table that delivered CBA (and it's many beneficial terms for Plaintiffs) in the first place. Plaintiffs ask the Court to do this notwithstanding the indisputable fact that Plaintiffs' CBA does not systematically pay them less than the MNT CBA pays MNT players. ...]
Page 8
[... The EPA is a formulaic statute. To prove a prima facie case under the EPA, Plaintiffs must establish (1) that U.S. Soccer pays them “wages . . . at a rate less than the rate at which [it] pays wages to employees of the opposite sex” (2) “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions” and (3) that Plaintiffs and their male comparators work within the same “establishment.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Even if Plaintiffs could prove all this, U.S. Soccer still would prevail by showing that “such payment is made pursuant to . . . a differential based on [a] factor other than sex.” Id. ...]
Page 9
[... Plaintiffs do not even attempt to prove that they have been paid at a “rate less” than comparable male employees. Instead, they obfuscate and try to glide past the issue. ...]
Page 9
[... (1) “WNT players currently only have the opportunity to receive lower per-game bonuses than MNT players have the opportunity to receive for ‘wins’ and ‘ties’ in most ‘friendlies’”; (2) “WNT players also only have the opportunity to receive lower bonuses than the MNT for winning World Cup qualifying games, for qualifying as a team for the World Cup, and for making the World Cup roster”; and (3) “WNT players further only have the opportunity to receive lower rates of compensation for other non-World Cup tournaments.” (Dkt. 170 at 7.) These three assertions are insufficient to show that Plaintiffs are paid a lesser wage rate than comparable male employees. First, Plaintiffs’ compensation arrangement is complex and multi-faceted, and these cherry-picked assertions ignore all kinds of other compensation paid to them, or on their behalf, for their work as WNT players. [...] Even if the foregoing isolated elements of compensation could fairly be compared between WNT and MNT players (they cannot), and even if Plaintiffs could proceed with a claim without identifying actual male comparators (they cannot), Plaintiffs still provide no legal authority suggesting that they may pick and choose among elements of their overall compensation package to claim that they are paid a lesser wage rate than male employees. ...]
Page 10-11
[... Plaintiffs’ selective complaints about the WNT CBA ignore the fact that the CBA requires U.S. Soccer to pay a $100,000 annual salary to a minimum number of “WNT Contracted Players” each year. (1st King Dec. ¶ 15, Ex. 5 § 8.A.1 and Ex. A.) This salary is paid even when the player does not play. For example, Plaintiff Mallory Pugh was not selected for the team’s Olympic qualifying roster earlier this year, yet she continued to receive her annual salary during the entire qualifying tournament. (2nd King Dec. ¶ 11, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff Alex Morgan is receiving 75% of her $100,000 annual salary even though she cannot play because she is pregnant, and Plaintiff Morgan Brian is receiving
her $100,000 annual salary in the form of severance through the end of March even though her contract was terminated in December and she has not played with the team since then. No MNT player receives a salary from U.S. Soccer, and they are paid only when they are called into camp to play. ...]
Page 11 (this one was my personal favourite)
[... Meanwhile, Dr. Justin McCrary, a labor economist at Columbia University Law School, has considered Plaintiffs’ own (flawed) methodology for calculating what WNT players supposedly would have earned if they had been covered by the MNT CBA (even though Plaintiffs have not submitted the calculation in support of their motion) and has performed a reverse analysis using that same methodology. (McCrary Dec. ¶ 2, Ex. 2 at ¶
49.) His analysis shows that MNT players would have been paid more under the WNT CBA than they received under their own. (McCrary Dec. ¶ 2, Ex. 2 ¶ 49-52.) Under Plaintiffs’ own theory of the case, U.S. Soccer is somehow engaged in sex-based pay discrimination against the WNT and the MNT at the very same time! This, of course, is a logical impossibility and further demonstrates that Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment. ...]
Page 13 (Shots fired)
[... Plaintiffs and the MNT players have very complex and very different compensation arrangements, and Plaintiffs cannot show that they receive a “lesser wage rate” merely by pointing to a few provisions in those overall agreements, especially without identifying any MNT players and providing the Court with a comparative analysis of their overall “wage rates.” For this reason alone, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied. ...]
Page 13
[... Even if Plaintiffs could show that they were paid lesser wages than appropriate male comparators (which they cannot), they still cannot win summary judgment on their EPA claim without also proving, based on undisputed facts, that they work in the same “establishment” as those male comparators. ...]
Page 14
[... Plaintiffs ignore the portions of that regulation stating that an “establishment” under the EPA ordinarily “refers to a distinct physical place of business rather than to an entire business or ‘enterprise’ which may include several separate places of business.” ...]
Page 14
[... The fact that each team’s separate budget is rolled up into the organization’s overall budget, the fact that the organization has a single marketing department or sells its overall intellectual property rights as a bundle, and the fact that certain aspects of the two teams’ employment terms are ultimately approved by the same person or group of people are insufficient facts to declare as a matter of law that the players all work in a single establishment ...]
Page 15
[... Even Plaintiffs acknowledge that the level of “skill” required for each job in question (WNT player and MNT player) must be “measured by the experience, ability, education, and training required to perform a job.” (Dkt. 170 at 15 (emphasis added), citing 29 C.F.R. § 1620.15.) The overall soccer-playing ability required to compete at the senior men’s national team level is materially influenced by the level of certain physical attributes, such as speed and strength, required for the job. (Morgan Dep. 212-13; Ellis Dep. 291-92.) As Plaintiff Carli Lloyd’s testimony admits, the WNT could not compete successfully against senior men’s national teams because competing against 16- or 17- year-old boys “is about as old as [the WNT] can go.” (Lloyd Dep. 103-04, 106-07; Lloyd Dep. Ex. 15.) Plaintiffs ask the Court to conclude that the ability required of an WNT player is equal to the ability required of an MNT player, as a relative matter, by ignoring the materially higher level of speed and strength required to perform the job of an MNT player. The EPA does not allow this. ...]
Page 16 (More shots fired)
[... Even assuming there are WNT players who could perform the job of MNT player (contrary to Plaintiffs’ own testimony), that is not the point. The point is that the job of MNT player (competing against senior men’s national teams) requires a higher level of skill based on speed and strength than does the job of WNT player (competing against senior women’s national teams). ...]
Page 17 (The shots keep coming)
[... All the foregoing facts about the speed and strength required for the two different jobs are undisputed (which means U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment), but there is also evidence that MNT players face tougher competition, even on a relative basis. (2nd Gulati Dec. ¶ 10.) There is a significantly deeper pool of competition in men’s international soccer than there is in women’s international soccer, even when assessing the issue in relative terms. ...]
Page 18
[... Plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate, as a matter of undisputed fact, that the job of WNT player and the job of MNT player carry equal “responsibility.” In this regard, Plaintiffs essentially just note that they and the MNT players are all soccer players. (Dkt. 170 at 10-11.) This is true, but it is not enough to meet the “equal responsibility” requirement under the EPA. MNT players have responsibility for competing in multiple soccer tournaments with the potential for generating a total of more than $40 million in prize money for U.S. Soccer every four years. (McCrary Dec. ¶ 2, Ex. 2 at ¶ 5.) WNT players compete in only one soccer tournament every four years that has the potential to generate any prize money at all, and most recently that amounted to one-tenth of the amount the MNT players could generate. (Id.) At the same time, the MNT plays in matches watched on television by many millions more people than the WNT. (Moses Dec. Ex. 1.) The average viewership for MNT matches over the first three years of the current WNT CBA was nearly five times as high as that for WNT matches, excluding matches in the Women’s World Cup. (Id.) As for the World Cup, when the MNT last qualified, the ratings for its four World Cup matches were watched by more viewers than all the WNT matches in 2019 combined, Women’s World Cup included. (Id.) In games for which U.S. Soccer holds the television broadcast rights (and therefore can monetize the ratings), the MNT has averaged more than three times as many viewers per game since 2017. (Id.) All these facts demonstrate that the job of MNT player carries more responsibility within U.S. Soccer than the job of WNT player, from an EPA standpoint. Stanley v. U.S.C., 13 F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that “the relative amount of revenue generated should be considered in determining whether responsibilities and working conditions are substantially equal”) ...]
Page 18-19 (I quoted the entire part including the case the attorney is reasoning it with, since this is the headline of the Buzzfeed news about "responsibilities. As many assumed already - responsibilities revolve around financial responsibilities aka there is more at stake.)
[... Turning then to other friendly matches, it is true that the MNT bonuses for beating a Top 25 opponent and for drawing any opponent in a friendly are higher than WNT bonuses for beating a Top 25 opponent or drawing a friendly, but the WNT bonus for beating an opponent ranked lower than 25th in a friendly is higher than the MNT bonus for beating an opponent ranked lower than 25th. ...]
Page 22
[... Finally, there is the Women’s World Cup. The MNT CBA included the possibility of higher compensation for winning the 2018 World Cup than WNT players received for winning the 2019 Women’s World Cup. Playing in these different tournaments, however, is not “equal work” under the law. The men’s tournament is substantially more popular, the prize money available to U.S. Soccer for winning it is $34 million higher, the process for qualifying is longer and more arduous, the number of teams who participate is larger, and Plaintiffs do not contend that they could win it. ...]
Page 22
[... To begin with, it is undisputed that the prize money FIFA pays the federation that wins the men’s World Cup is far larger than the prize money it pays the federation that wins the Women’s World Cup, and it is undisputed that the compensation for MNT players associated with the World Cup was negotiated with this substantial FIFA prize money in mind. (1st Gulati Dec. ¶ 50-61, 71-72, 75-76.) It is also undisputed that when the WNT’s union demanded equal bonuses for World Cup play during 2016 contract negotiations, U.S. Soccer declined, not because the WNT is comprised of women, but because paying such bonuses without receipt of concomitant prize money would “break” U.S. Soccer financially. ...]
Page 23
[... Further, when it comes to friendlies, U.S. Soccer actually has paid Plaintiffs more for friendlies than it has paid the MNT players [...] MNT friendlies have generated, on average, an additional $200,000 per game more than WNT friendlies ...]
Page 23-24 (So the women get paid more for friendlies despite generating less. I see a good chance this entire thing could be backfiring on them.)
[... Under the current WNT CBA, U.S. Soccer has paid the WNT players and their union almost 2.5 times as much as the MNT players and their union. (2nd Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 11.) Using Plaintiffs’ own methodology, multiple WNT players have been paid more under the current WNT CBA than they would have been paid under the MNT collective bargaining agreement. Again, using Plaintiffs’ own methodology, MNT players would have been paid more under the WNT CBA than under their own. WNT players are paid more for playing in the Olympics than MNT players are paid for participating in any tournament other than the World Cup. U.S. Soccer has rejected overtures by the MNT’s union to pay male players for the Olympics at all. The WNT has been paid more as a percentage of revenue generated by the team than the MNT. ...]
Page 27
[... U.S. Soccer also pays WNT players two different annual salaries, plus benefits, for playing in the NWSL because supporting the league in this way is a benefit to the players themselves. ...]
Page 28
[... FIFA determines the prize money for the Women’s World Cup, and it is FIFA and Concacaf (and, on occasion, CONMEBOL) who sponsor the tournaments that carry substantial prize money for MNT players, not U.S. Soccer. ...]
Page 29
Is there a term for race-baiting when it's about the sexes? Because that's what Buzzfeed is doing with it's headline (who would've thought?). Creating drama for clicks and pulling the statement out of context. If the defending attorney is correct in his assessment, if anything - I see a reasonable chance this backfiring considering his claims that the WNT is earning more under their contracts than the MNT.
I am with you on this. I used to love watching the UFC but now I cherry-pick their events and watching numerous women's fights just doesn't interest me and they usually have 3-5 on every card now.
It's also tiresome seeing Sky shoving Women's sports down everyone's throats.
I watch sports to watch the elite against the elite and even the best female athletes would get destroyed by D level male athletes. Case in point the Australian Women's national team lost 7-0 to a team of 15-year-old boys and they're ranked 5th in the world.
They are paid employees of the federation. Their responsibility is to earn money for the federation. It's why staff in revenue generating roles are usually paid bonuses or commission based on performance.
A member of a team that can earn $50m has more responsibility than a member of a team who can earn $5m because the result of their performance has a bigger impact on the financial viability of the company that employs them and the ability for all employees of that organisation to get paid.
I mean I don't believe that they deserve equal pay but that reason is just bollocks. They don't deserve equal pay because men's football is infinitely more popular/lucrative.
I believe the argument they are using is that team members represent the country and are therefore essentially federal employees, and it is illegal to discriminate against federal employees on the basis of gender.
Generally speaking men should be paid more than women when it comes to football, but in this instance I totally support paying the women the same if not more. If they generate more revenue than the men’s team, why not?
@Carolina Red if the women want equality then why have the turned down the offer of the same agreement as the men?
If they want equality why are they getting maternity leave, a guaranteed base salary, subsidized club wages and medical care? None of which the men receive.
They've qualified for the last 7/8 world cups. We're at a point in time where the women's team is the most dominant and the men's team has hit a rough patch. It's a unique scenario.
They don't deserve to be on par with the men.
The women should be paid more but as far as just saying 'they deserve the same because it's the same job' no, not for me.
You've talked about things like "this point in time", "the women are having a spell of dominance", "the men's team has hit a rough patch" and then accuse others of being short sighted, when in reality the women's dominance and the men's rough patch has been going on 25 years now.
Ever since international women's football became a thing the US has been the dominant team and everything I've ever heard about US soccer has always been that the women's team are more popular, have more attendance, tv-viewers etc. So it's not a women's team that has suddenly hit their peak vs a men's team that's struggling momentarily, it's more like comparing SAF's United to Watford.
I notice that women tend to not roll around like little bitches when someone touches them on the pitch unlike many “men” who play. That alone deserves a pay raise.
I notice that women tend to not roll around like little bitches when someone touches them on the pitch unlike many “men” who play. That alone deserves a pay raise.
Go on youtube and find the video called: 'Why Women's Football suck' by the channel: 'Politisk Korrekt'. (As a newb I don't have the privilege of linking videos)
You can see a woman get stretchered off for the ball hitting her on the elbow in a women's international match between Germany and Norway.
Go on youtube and find the video called: 'Why Women's Football suck' by the channel: 'Politisk Korrekt'. (As a newb I don't have the privilege of linking videos)
You can see a woman get stretchered off for the ball hitting her on the elbow in a women's international match between Germany and Norway.
I am with you on this. I used to love watching the UFC but now I cherry-pick their events and watching numerous women's fights just doesn't interest me and they usually have 3-5 on every card now.
It's also tiresome seeing Sky shoving Women's sports down everyone's throats.
I watch sports to watch the elite against the elite and even the best female athletes would get destroyed by D level male athletes. Case in point the Australian Women's national team lost 7-0 to a team of 15-year-old boys and they're ranked 5th in the world.
Been an avid fan since the earlyish 2000s, used to do some MMA journalism also and yeah, WMMA isn't for me (except for a small handful of fighters). Inferior version of the sport, in my opinion. The days of me staying up all night getting wrecked to watch live are long gone though,and the beauty of torrenting/recording is that you can fast-forward those abysmal prelims with 4-3 vs. 3-2 type fighters.
I'm surprised someone had the stupidity to make that argument in public, esp for Women's Team which is far more popular and influential than Men's team.
I notice that women tend to not roll around like little bitches when someone touches them on the pitch unlike many “men” who play. That alone deserves a pay raise.
You've talked about things like "this point in time", "the women are having a spell of dominance", "the men's team has hit a rough patch" and then accuse others of being short sighted, when in reality the women's dominance and the men's rough patch has been going on 25 years now.
Ever since international women's football became a thing the US has been the dominant team and everything I've ever heard about US soccer has always been that the women's team are more popular, have more attendance, tv-viewers etc. So it's not a women's team that has suddenly hit their peak vs a men's team that's struggling momentarily, it's more like comparing SAF's United to Watford.
The “rough patch” I was referring to was them not qualifying for the World Cup. Something they’ve done consistently since the 90’s except the last one.
Money talks. If women soccer is more lucrative than, they will be paid more. However, I doubt it is. If it was, you would see David Beckham, Floyd money maywether, and other celebrities with cash pumping their money into their game.
I m all for equal pay, but the structure will be imbalanced if they started to pay women more or equal to men if the accounts doesn’t add up.
Go on youtube and find the video called: 'Why Women's Football suck' by the channel: 'Politisk Korrekt'. (As a newb I don't have the privilege of linking videos)
You can see a woman get stretchered off for the ball hitting her on the elbow in a women's international match between Germany and Norway.
Money talks. If women soccer is more lucrative than, they will be paid more. However, I doubt it is. If it was, you would see David Beckham, Floyd money maywether, and other celebrities with cash pumping their money into their game.
I m all for equal pay, but the structure will be imbalanced if they started to pay women more or equal to men if the accounts doesn’t add up.
Having high profile advocates is actually a great idea to be honest. Beckham would be a great one since he’s still got the sex appeal and massive money.
The “rough patch” I was referring to was them not qualifying for the World Cup. Something they’ve done consistently since the 90’s except the last one.
Right, but the men's team have only got out of the group stages three times since 1990, and were knocked out in the first knockout round all three times.
The women's team have won 4, reached a further final, and have never finished lower than 3rd in a world cup.
One is THE dominant force in their sport, and the other has been there to make up the numbers, and couldn't even do that last time out.
I am with you on this. I used to love watching the UFC but now I cherry-pick their events and watching numerous women's fights just doesn't interest me and they usually have 3-5 on every card now.
It's also tiresome seeing Sky shoving Women's sports down everyone's throats.
I watch sports to watch the elite against the elite and even the best female athletes would get destroyed by D level male athletes. Case in point the Australian Women's national team lost 7-0 to a team of 15-year-old boys and they're ranked 5th in the world.
Whatever about football, that's such a bizarre approach to take to the UFC given how technically accomplished the female fighters are. Even more so coming off the back of the JJ v Zhang fight which was probably the best of the year.
What has more lucrative got to do with the standard of the football?
I expect the USMNT would comfortably beat the USWNT and all MLS teams would beat WMLS teams but that has no bearing on how popular the women‘s team is, the draw they have and how many kids they inspire.
They earn more money for their federations so they should get their fair slice.
Right, but the men's team have only got out of the group stages three times since 1990, and were knocked out in the first knockout round all three times.
The women's team have won 4, reached a further final, and have never finished lower than 3rd in a world cup.
One is THE dominant force in their sport, and the other has been there to make up the numbers, and couldn't even do that last time out.
That's a fair point to be honest. I'm all for equal payments, shares, etc. based on various factors, though I haven't looked at this particular case in months and haven't the foggiest anymore.
A counter point is the games are completely different physical aspects and the US men are the late comer to their sporting environment whereas the US women were right there as the pioneers (with a massive money and talent advantage) to other nations. Basically, US women are Brazil and US men are, well, the US men.
One side lost to the FC Dallas U15 Boys, which isn't a factor for pay but I find shows the differences in the sport.
What has more lucrative got to do with the standard of the football?
I expect the USMNT would comfortably beat the USWNT and all MLS teams would beat WMLS teams but that has no bearing on how popular the women‘s team is, the draw they have and how many kids they inspire.
They earn more money for their federations so they should get their fair slice.
It's not solely about the USFF and in fact, in context of this situation the women's game brings in a lot less. The USWNT turned down parity pay with the men's team as the men get paid per game and play more games, so the women's team would have been paid less by virtue of playing fewer games. Instead, the women's team opted for a set salary and bonus/sponsorship rights that could hypothetically put them at the same pay as the men but likely wouldn't if the men qualified for the WC due to the more games the men would end up playing- and the fact that the men's teams receive bigger bonuses from FIFA.
It's FIFA who aren't paying the USFF as much for the women's team. The USMNT is benefitting immensely from the success of the men's game, despite themselves being shit. As FIFA pays a bigger bonus to the USMNT than they do the USWNT, the USFF is arguing that they would be losing money by paying the WNT the same as the men's from the FIFA prize pool. Should FIFA be paying the women's teams more? I dunno. I mean they play fewer games and bring in a lot less money, but they're also the best in the world and reigning champions. It's a tricky one and really not as cut and dry as the buzzfeed article makes out. Though god knows why the USFF decided to present that as their argument.
Right, but the men's team have only got out of the group stages three times since 1990, and were knocked out in the first knockout round all three times.
The women's team have won 4, reached a further final, and have never finished lower than 3rd in a world cup.
One is THE dominant force in their sport, and the other has been there to make up the numbers, and couldn't even do that last time out.
Yeah, I get the women's side are the best but I don't know what a fair comparison is. The men getting to the knockouts/quarter-final is probably as big an achievement as the women winning their respective competition IMO based on how far behind the men are and how dominant the women are.
I'm not trying to belittle the achievements of the women either it's just a completely different level without being condescending. Like has been posted above, an U16 boys team hammered the world champions, it just shows the gap.
What has more lucrative got to do with the standard of the football?
I expect the USMNT would comfortably beat the USWNT and all MLS teams would beat WMLS teams but that has no bearing on how popular the women‘s team is, the draw they have and how many kids they inspire.
They earn more money for their federations so they should get their fair slice.
Gate receipts and stuff yes, prize money no. Their two most recent WC wins fell short of the prize money the men got in the 2014 WC.
I personally think they should absolutely get equal treatment from the federation (appearance fees, bonuses, travel arrangments) but as far as prize money, etc. goes then I don't believe they should get a bigger slice of that.
