US Soccer offers identical contracts to USMNT and USWNT UPD $24m settlement, equal pay
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
This doesn't seem fair. The Women's team is significantly more successful. The men didn't even qualify for the last World Cup and are (embarrassingly) struggling in qualifiers again.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
USWNT is only more successful because of Title IX. The rest of the world is catching up in women's soccer.
Mickey Marner
Registered User
nhlfan79
Registered User
And the USWNT consistently floundered through the Tokyo Olympics, barely landing a bronze medal.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
My guess is they have. Part of the current CBA dictates that they have to play in NWSL to get the USWNT salaries, but now we're starting to see way more money available in the European game and players don't want to be stuck stateside in this, in all fairness, inferior league.
When's the last time the men won an Olympic medal? The men couldn't even beat freakin El Salvador (who played on a field with a barbed wire fence surrounding the field). That's down right embarrassing.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Yep. They would have made a ton more money off of their World Cup wins if they had taken what was originally offered to them. They said no and opted for the safer route of guaranteed salaries instead of performance bonuses. Then they tried to frame USSF as having ripped them off because sexism.
LadyStanley
Registered User
USWNT blasts US Soccer's identical contract offer 'PR stunt' as equal pay fight continues
The union issued a short statement on Twitter, insinuating the federation is 'bargaining through the media.'
Men haven't had CBA since 2018. Women's CBA expires soon.
The union issued a short statement on Twitter, insinuating the federation is 'bargaining through the media.'
Men haven't had CBA since 2018. Women's CBA expires soon.
Pot, meet kettle.
"The USMNT Players Association expected the Federation to agree in 2017 to pay the women far in excess of what the men were being paid under their agreement negotiated in 2011 and was stunned to see that the Federation did not even agree to pay the women at the same level it had negotiated with the men six years earlier."
This bit from USMNT's amicus brief runs counter to what the judge said last year. Somebody is lying here...
mouser
Business of Hockey
Are they significantly more successful at generating revenue for US Soccer? The latest reports for 2016 to 2018 had the USNWT at $50.8m and the USNMT at $49.9m. That's with the mens team missing out on the 2018 world cup.
LadyStanley
Registered User
US Soccer hits back at USWNT, calls documentary ‘LFG’ a publicity stunt
Morgan said the team doesn't want to go into 2022 without a new contract. The post US Soccer hits back at USWNT, calls documentary ‘LFG’ a publicity stunt appe...
Response
Morgan said the team doesn't want to go into 2022 without a new contract. The post US Soccer hits back at USWNT, calls documentary ‘LFG’ a publicity stunt appe...
Response
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
They did when the women signed their current agreement too.
The women said no in favor of a steady paycheck regardless of games played
Some people here seem to think that because the pay structure in the contracts on offer are the same, that the actual amount of money that the men and women would get paid would also be exactly the same. This isn't the case.
The men have, by and large, operated on contracts based around performance bonuses instead of guaranteed salary and other benefits. The men's team does this for several reasons:
- Men's senior players are professionals who make pretty good scratch playing for their club teams, either in MLS or overseas.
- These players also normally receive health care benefits through their club teams, so there's no need to ask for insurance from USSF.
- Men tend to be less risk averse in general than women. This is not meant to be a statement about men doing things a better way than women or vice versa. The correlation simply exists, though I'm not sure if any causal link co-exists with it.
The women's CBA allows them to carry more contracted spots on the roster. This means that the player occupying that slot has a contract with USSF and gets paid regardless of whether she actually plays. They also get health insurance through their CBA with USSF. In exchange, the women forgo a large portion of generated revenue in the form of performance bonuses. Again, this is what the USWNT wanted. They specifically asked for this. I'm in no position to say whether or not this was the right decision for them at the time. They collectively bargained as a unit and came to a mutually agreeable solution (at the time, anyway). What I can say is that, after the court decision last year, they appear to not have much of a legal leg to stand on anymore. Their only hope for a better outcome is to sway the court of public opinion in their favor.
The men have, by and large, operated on contracts based around performance bonuses instead of guaranteed salary and other benefits. The men's team does this for several reasons:
- Men's senior players are professionals who make pretty good scratch playing for their club teams, either in MLS or overseas.
- These players also normally receive health care benefits through their club teams, so there's no need to ask for insurance from USSF.
- Men tend to be less risk averse in general than women. This is not meant to be a statement about men doing things a better way than women or vice versa. The correlation simply exists, though I'm not sure if any causal link co-exists with it.
The women's CBA allows them to carry more contracted spots on the roster. This means that the player occupying that slot has a contract with USSF and gets paid regardless of whether she actually plays. They also get health insurance through their CBA with USSF. In exchange, the women forgo a large portion of generated revenue in the form of performance bonuses. Again, this is what the USWNT wanted. They specifically asked for this. I'm in no position to say whether or not this was the right decision for them at the time. They collectively bargained as a unit and came to a mutually agreeable solution (at the time, anyway). What I can say is that, after the court decision last year, they appear to not have much of a legal leg to stand on anymore. Their only hope for a better outcome is to sway the court of public opinion in their favor.
nhlfan79
Registered User
Men's Olympic soccer doesn't matter. As you know, that's the U-23 squad, not the USMNT.
Yes, the USWNT is, and has been, trying to fight this battle in the public as they know they have no legal standing.
I understand their positions and it does suck for them but they are fighting the wrong enemy. The women make less because women's soccer is far less profitable then men's soccer. I am not talking about the US national teams, but rather across the world.
The mens world cup pays something like $400MM while the womens world cup pays $40MM, there is nothing US soccer can do about this. Other tournaments have similar differences in payouts. As you pointed out the men typically have significant benefits, including health care, built into their club contracts where as the women typically have less/worse benefits. This again is not the fault of US soccer and there is nothing they can do about it.
On a per game basis the teams bring in similar amounts of money, however the mens team brings in significantly more prize money than the women even though the womens team is more successful.
The USWNT wants US soccer to make up the difference but the only way US soccer can do that is by taking money away from USMNT. The men's team operates under a CBA just like the women and US Soccer cannot unilaterally take money away from the men to give to the women without the men's acceptance.
The USWNT's goal is to make US soccer the bad guy in order to get more money. The problem is the issues at hand are largely outside of what US soccer is able to control or even impact.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Yup.
They want all the benefits of a % based CBA without any of the risks. They chose the low risk path of guaranteed salaries, nothing was forced on them
LadyStanley
Registered User
U.S. Soccer, USWNT agree to stop paying NWSL salaries
The USWNT's contract was set to expire on Dec. 31, but the sides agreed to extend it three months while negotiating.
And agree to stop paying salaries in NWSL.
The USWNT's contract was set to expire on Dec. 31, but the sides agreed to extend it three months while negotiating.
And agree to stop paying salaries in NWSL.
LadyStanley
Registered User
The Women's team is so much more likeable than the mens. I actually find myself actively rooting against the men. I'd love to see them fail to qualify again, but it doesn't seem likely.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Long overdue. The women's team has either made more or been at about equal of revenue for several recent years, they're all but guaranteed to always advance further than the men's team, and women rely upon this as a higher proportion of their professional revenue than men, so parity in pay in this circumstance makes perfect sense.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
What's dislikable about the current men's side? This is dumb.
And there's plenty of unlikeable current and former players on the women's team, like Hope Solo and Abby Wambach.
One thing I really hate about this whole thing is how it's turned into people rooting against the men just for some disagreement with the federation above them.
One thing I really hate about this whole thing is how it's turned into people rooting against the men just for some disagreement with the federation above them.
Is this more about a different compensation model for a different situation faced by the women than the men than an issue of inequality?
Seems the narrative surrounding this has created a blind spot on all sides.
Seems the narrative surrounding this has created a blind spot on all sides.
