Women US Soccer Players Sue for Equal Wages

I'd forgotten some of the history -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2016/02/03/fearing-strike-us-soccer-federation-sues-womens-team-union/79798426/

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/schedule-for-friday-april-1-2016-1.3514895/q-sport-panel-on-no-canadian-teams-in-the-nhl-playoffs-1.3515061

Quote:

q's sports culture panel thinks beyond the play-by-play to weigh in on the societal impact of sports stories. Not a fan? Not a problem. Our panel watches much more than the scoreboard.

Shad checks in with Toronto Star columnist Bruce Arthur, CBC host and reporter Sonali Karnick and host of the Edge of Sports podcast Dave Zirin.

At issue today:

How we should cope with our great national shame of the Canadian lockout of the 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs?
Why don't female soccer player get paid as much as their male counterparts?
Although the NCAA final four is this weekend, should basketball players stage a strike for their rights?

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Interesting that these women, four of which are household names ...

Not in my household.

engineer wrote:

I can't believe the US Men make the US Soccer Federation more than the women since the women are their premium product and fill stadiums around the country.

I think the most surprising thing about this story is the fact that the US has a national soccer team. Two, in fact. Who knew?

1 Reply

To me, this is one of the most blatant cases of deliberate, systematic discrimination. Asking a string of questions about how successful the women's game is just an attempt to divert the discussion from the obvious, systematic discrimination. Equal pay for equal work and equality in accommodation (such as the per diem) are not difficult concepts to understand. We've just got a lot of male supremacists here who don't want to face facts, and who are attempting to defend male privilege.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

"I think the most surprising thing about this story is the fact that the US has a national soccer team. Two, in fact. Who knew?"

Over here in Europe we are well aware of your fine football team. They are pretty good, and getting better.

3 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

And the women are doing even better......

0 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

Lordyaswas wrote:

Over here in Europe we are well aware of your fine football team. They are pretty good, and getting better.

Unfortunately true. But we got seven women teams (additionally the U 23, U 21, U 20, U 19, U 17, U 15 ... most ranked better than the German women's national football team)

0 Replies

So if I have it right...

1 - both the men and women work for US Soccer (the same entity pays both groups)
2 - the women can be shown to provide a service of equal value to what the men provide (based on revenues generated)
3 - the sole reason the women are paid less is that they are women, and their contributions are considered inferior because of that

Looks like they have a good case.

0 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

The men were in trouble for awhile in the penultimate qualifying round for the 2018 World Cup, but unfortunately they beat Guatemala last week.

0 Replies

Now that I'm done worrywarting about the baseball fantasy draft I can open my eyes and pay attention to Copa stuff for a while.

0 Replies

This died down over the last two years and the EOC never moved on the complaint filed by the women, so now they have sued for "institutionalized gender discrimination". All 28 members have signed on to the suit.

Quote:

The bulk of the suit mirrors many of the issues raised in a wage discrimination complaint filed by five United States players with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2016. Frustrated by a lack of progress on that complaint after nearly three years of inaction, the players received permission from the federal agency in February to sue instead. (One of the players on the original complaint, the former goalkeeper Hope Solo, filed her own gender discrimination lawsuit against U.S. Soccer in August.)

The suit offers a new forum but also new hurdles. The players, represented by Jeffrey Kessler, who has been involved in labor fights in nearly every major American sport, will have to prove not only that their team and the men’s squad do the same work, but also overcome questions about the differences in their pay structures and their negotiated collective bargaining agreements. And the C.B.A. has already left them without one bit of leverage: The players cannot strike to press their case at least until it expires at the end of 2021.

2 Replies

@engineer,

The Men's National Team (which is also approaching contract negotiations) has issued a statement in support:

Quote:

The United States National Soccer Team Players Association fully supports the efforts of the US Women's National Team Players to achieve equal pay. Specifically, we are committed to the concept of a revenue-sharing model to address the US Soccer Federation's "market realities" and find a way towards fair compensation. An equal division of revenue attributable to the MNT and WNT programs is our primary pursuit as we engage with the US Soccer Federation in collective bargaining. Our collective bargaining agreement expired at the end of 2018 and we have already raised an equal division of attributable revenue. We wait on US Soccer to respond to both players associations with a way to move forward with fair and equal compensation for all US soccer players.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Almost impossible to look at the financials

Quote:

Trickier still is working out what each team is actually bringing in. U.S. Soccer long made the argument that women are paid less because their team generates less revenue. But it’s nearly impossible to underscore that claim with data, even though the federation has tried. While World Cup bonuses from FIFA are far bigger for men than women, beyond the control of U.S. Soccer, the domestic broadcast and sponsorship rights to both teams are bundled into the same contracts. The TV deals, in fact, also include Major League Soccer rights, further conflating the numbers. As such, there’s really no telling which team makes what, exactly, other than to point out that the women have far more mainstream traction and larger social media followings.

1 Reply

@engineer,

It is not really the share of the revenue that is important, economically speaking it is the market value of the players. If you pay the men's players significantly less than they make playing professionally you run the risk that they will choose not to play.

I think the political argument on both sides is diverging from the economic reality.

1 Reply

Reading up on the legal parts of this. There are three ways this can end.

1) The women win the lawsuit and are paid as much as the men. If this happens it creates artificial market conditions that will have to be resolved (see below).

2) US soccer wins the lawsuit and something like the status quo continues (with the attendant political fallout).

3) There is a compromise that gives women and men a shared based salary and bonus for wins... and some percentage (I am reading that 25% is being suggested) of the TV and game revenue. This would mean the men continue making more (assuming current conditions continue) but the calculations would be equal and the only difference would be based on revenue.

If the women win the lawsuit it will lead to an impossible economic situation. It will mean that men will be paid far less for playing on the national team then they make professionally. I expect if this happens US soccer will be forced to split into two completely separate organizations; one for men and one for women. In the end the women will still be paid less than the men... but by a different employer.

I don't think the women will win the lawsuit... US soccer will argue successfully that men's and women's soccer are fundamentally different.

A compromise is possible. I like the idea... I don't know if it is politically feasible.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Engineer (or anyone else who wants to make a rational argument)

Do you want to make the argument that paying men less then their market value is economically feasible? How do you make this work without facing the economic consequences of an artificial price.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is not really the share of the revenue that is important, economically speaking it is the market value of the players. If you pay the men's players significantly less than they make playing professionally you run the risk that they will choose not to play.

I think the political argument on both sides is diverging from the economic reality.

Not sure I follow that. If the women draw bigger crowds and produce greater revenue, they have greater market value than the men's teams. How else can define market value?

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

Not sure I follow that. If the women draw bigger crowds and produce greater revenue, they have greater market value than the men's teams. How else can define market value?

Women don't draw bigger crowds or produce greater revenue over the long term. They generate significantly less revenue.

This is a case where everyone wants the story to be true; they want women to draw bigger crowds and make better revenue. And, you can find single games or short periods of time where this was true (the world cup final was a spectacular story and a great success). They are cherry picking single games or short periods where they can find data to fit the narrative. This is a political argument, not an economic one.

But economics is a long term game. The men generate significantly more money and have significantly more viewers over the long term. If the women were truly a better market draw over the long term, than this problem would solve itself.

The woman's professional soccer league in the US folded. The men's professional soccer league generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That drives the market price of male soccer players.

In either case, the solution is simple. Separate the men's national team, and the women's national team into two completely separate organizations. Then let each pay its players with its own revenue. I don't think this would be a good solution for women's soccer.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Maybe you should research stuff before you spew garbage.

The difference between what the US men's and women's soccer players make is shocking

Cork Gaines Apr. 1, 2016, 11:33 AM

Five members of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team filed a complaint this week alleging wage discrimination based on gender, citing a gross disparity in how much the women are paid by the US Soccer Federation compared to the men's national team.

While it will take the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to decide whether the women should be compensated more, a closer look at the differences in pay between the men and women reveals a disparity that is jarring.

Part of the issue is that the women's and men's teams are paid in different ways. While the women's players have a base salary ($72,000) that is supplemented by bonuses for winning games ($1,350 per win), the men receive a per-game bonus ($5,000 per game) and receive a bonus for each win ($3,166 per win), according to the New York Times.

Both teams are required to play 20 international friendlies each year (exhibitions against other countries). Here is how the players are compensated depending on how many games they win. Even if the women go 20-0, the men will still make nearly twice as much just by going 10-10.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/56fe88c09037f7204b27be6e-750-563.jpg

Of course, there are other forms or payment. One of those is each team's per diem. While it is the smallest form of compensation, the difference between the men and women is arguably the most jaw-dropping.

The women receive $50 per day for travel expenses to games in the United States and $60 per day for games in other countries. In both cases, the men receive 25% more.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/56fe88bf918a0fd0273cf1de-750-413.jpg

There is also a huge difference in how much each team receives for participation in their biggest competitions, the World Cups.

Members of the women's team received a $75,000 bonus for winning the 2015 Women's World Cup. If the men were to ever win a World Cup, their bonus under the current structure would be more than four times larger at nearly $400,000.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/56fe88bf8a4565b7793cf1de-750-413.jpg

A big issue when it comes to pay for the men and women in their respective World Cups is how much money FIFA is dishing out to the participants, something that impacts revenue streams for the US Soccer Federation.

As the champions of the 2015 Women's World Cup, the US Soccer Federation received $2 million from FIFA. Compare that to the $35 million FIFA gave Germany for winning the 2014 World Cup.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/56fe88bf8a4565ae783cf1de-750-413.jpg

Thanks to the Women's World Cup, the women's team generated more revenue than the men in 2015. However, based on the US Soccer Federation's own projections, the women are expected to generated more money than the men in both 2016 and 2017.

At the end of the day, it is hard to look at these numbers (a lot more money for the men), how much work is being done (equal), and the success of each program (a lot more for the women) and think that the amount the women are being paid is fair. Because it is not.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Neptune,

Do you agree that the men's national team and the women's national team should split into two completely separate organizations, and that each should pay their players from their own revenue?

Would you be OK with this solution?

(Actually I wouldn't... this would be a disaster for woman's soccer).

I am curious about where you are getting your numbers. The simplest undeniable fact is that the men's world cup makes $4 billion world wide. The woman's world cup makes $73 million. This is where much of the money is coming from. It seems like everyone is massaging the data for the national team (it depends on how you calculate this figure).

The bottom line is clear. Men's world cup soccer generates significantly more revenue. And, woman's professional soccer in the US can't generate enough revenue to stay afloat.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I believe in equal work, equal pay. No, there should not be 2 separate organisations.

I've cited where I found the article and the graphs. It seems your numbers are not.

The bottom line is clear, you're right about that. Clearly, you believe in discrimination and will block any attempt to remedy the situation.

1 Reply

Women US Soccer Players Sue for Equal Wages

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know