Soccer equal pay ruling

#54
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
31,607
Likes
4,301
#54
I guess wait and see? Why do you think US soccer is going to say "no"?

It should be so obvious to everyone that US soccer should pay the men and women the same % of whatever revenue their teams generate, but everybody just wants pick a side and say the women get nothing or everything. It's so stupid, but this is American politics.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, if the women were offered the same deal as the men, I'm not sure they take it.
 
#55
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
31,607
Likes
4,301
#55
Honestly, US Soccer should just pay the women more for the optics, if nothing else. Why get dragged through the mud over a paltry amount of money the men likely don't even care about?
 
#56

ButchPlz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
4,692
Likes
5,727
#56
Honestly, US Soccer should just pay the women more for the optics, if nothing else. Why get dragged through the mud over a paltry amount of money the men likely don't even care about?
I'd rather US soccer take that paltry amount and invest in an actual youth system that's affordable for the best young American athletes. Screw the spoiled screaming children.
 
#57

dobre_shunka

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
849
Likes
338
#57
Women’s Soccer Negotiated the Compensation They Now Say Is Sexist

The women’s team collectively bargained for and won a pay structure that guarantees them salaries, severance pay, medical benefits, and some performance-based bonuses. The women’s team wanted the security of salary-based pay rather than purely performance-based pay, and they wanted to guarantee a salary even for players who were on the roster but didn’t play.

By contrast, the men are strictly pay-for-play. They do not receive a salary or additional benefits like health insurance or severance pay. Their pay structure is performance-based. As Michael McCann, who directs the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law told Minnesota Public Radio, “The two systems [for paying women and men] are designed differently . . . The men’s system pays players when they play, through bonuses, whereas the system for women’s players has guaranteed pay and also pays for certain bonuses as well. But it’s structured differently.”

But it’s disingenuous of the women’s team to claim they aren’t getting “equal pay” when they are the ones who agreed to a payment structure that is different from the men’s team.
 
#58

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
60,325
Likes
32,138
#58
Women’s Soccer Negotiated the Compensation They Now Say Is Sexist

The women’s team collectively bargained for and won a pay structure that guarantees them salaries, severance pay, medical benefits, and some performance-based bonuses. The women’s team wanted the security of salary-based pay rather than purely performance-based pay, and they wanted to guarantee a salary even for players who were on the roster but didn’t play.

By contrast, the men are strictly pay-for-play. They do not receive a salary or additional benefits like health insurance or severance pay. Their pay structure is performance-based. As Michael McCann, who directs the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law told Minnesota Public Radio, “The two systems [for paying women and men] are designed differently . . . The men’s system pays players when they play, through bonuses, whereas the system for women’s players has guaranteed pay and also pays for certain bonuses as well. But it’s structured differently.”

But it’s disingenuous of the women’s team to claim they aren’t getting “equal pay” when they are the ones who agreed to a payment structure that is different from the men’s team.
The article is suspiciously missing a date on this, so how can you claim these women are the ones that negotiated this deal? The article also never actually quotes anybody calling the deal "sexist". Weird.

If the women negotiated for a deal 10 years ago that was fair then, and now their revenue is a lot closer to the men's revenue, why shouldn't they try to renegotiate for more $? Especially considering most of the players from 10 years ago won't be on the next WC team (and probably weren't on this last one, either). There is a lot of turnover on national soccer teams.

Cool, bias-confirming article though, bro.
 
#59

TheDeeble

Guy on the Couch
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,130
Likes
2,201
#59
The article is suspiciously missing a date on this, so how can you claim these women are the ones that negotiated this deal? The article also never actually quotes anybody calling the deal "sexist". Weird.

If the women negotiated for a deal 10 years ago that was fair then, and now their revenue is a lot closer to the men's revenue, why shouldn't they try to renegotiate for more $? Especially considering most of the players from 10 years ago won't be on the next WC team (and probably weren't on this last one, either). There is a lot of turnover on national soccer teams.

Cool, bias-confirming article though, bro.
Looks like it was done a very recent 2 years ago....

Long Days, Google Docs and Anonymous Surveys: How the U.S. Soccer Team Forged a Deal

This one breaks down the deal with changes and benefits a little better...

USWNT CBA a victory for all American women’s players, not just the best
 
Last edited:
#61

ButchPlz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
4,692
Likes
5,727
#61
The article is suspiciously missing a date on this, so how can you claim these women are the ones that negotiated this deal? The article also never actually quotes anybody calling the deal "sexist". Weird.

If the women negotiated for a deal 10 years ago that was fair then, and now their revenue is a lot closer to the men's revenue, why shouldn't they try to renegotiate for more $? Especially considering most of the players from 10 years ago won't be on the next WC team (and probably weren't on this last one, either). There is a lot of turnover on national soccer teams.

Cool, bias-confirming article though, bro.
Any simple Google search shows that they collectively bargained for their salaries in 2017. It's widely public knowledge.

So again, you're being an ass for no obvious reason.
 
#62

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
60,325
Likes
32,138
#62
Thanks, this clarifies a lot.

So they started pushing for equal pay 3 years ago, in 2016. They didn't get it, but they got something. They promised to not let this interrupt WC 2019, and the deal ends in 2021. So there is nothing hypocritical about this deal and their continued position that they want equal pay. @dobre_shunka was claiming they chose security over equal pay, but that's not what happened. Equal pay was not on the table. They took what they could get and pushed the fight to another day.
 
#63

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
60,325
Likes
32,138
#63
Good info. Thanks

I wonder why this isn’t being reported? (I think I have a good idea why)
What do you mean? It's right there in the NYT.

Just because they accepted that deal doesn't mean it's what they wanted. The article suggests otherwise. This is why they continued to push for equal pay. There was no moment where they were like "oh, we're happy with this" and then suddenly became unhappy again.
 
#64

TheDeeble

Guy on the Couch
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,130
Likes
2,201
#64
Thanks, this clarifies a lot.

So they started pushing for equal pay 3 years ago, in 2016. They didn't get it, but they got something. They promised to not let this interrupt WC 2019, and the deal ends in 2021. So there is nothing hypocritical about this deal and their continued position that they want equal pay. @dobre_shunka was claiming they chose security over equal pay, but that's not what happened. Equal pay was not on the table. They took what they could get and pushed the fight to another day.
The USWNT changed their own language from "equal" to "equitable" because even they realize getting the same deal as the USMNT is very difficult. Men are paid based on playtime. The USWNT wanted guaranteed pay for all players,

This is why the USWNT started changing its language recently. Sauerbrunn recently told SI’s Grant Wahl on a podcast that “equitable” was a better word to use:

“We’re trying to figure out where women’s soccer is going, so we may not have the same exact structure as the men. So equal isn’t the right word. It would be equitable, because we are asking for a different structure.”​
USWNT CBA a victory for all American women’s players, not just the best
 
#65

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
60,325
Likes
32,138
#65
The USWNT changed their own language from "equal" to "equitable" because even they realize getting the same deal as the USMNT is very difficult. Men are paid based on playtime. The USWNT wanted guaranteed pay for all players

USWNT CBA a victory for all American women’s players, not just the best
This is not relevant to my point. They were not satisfied with the deal, otherwise why would it even be mentioned that they promised not to let the deal interrupt the 2019 WC? That's all you need to know. They came out of the negotiations promising that. Why would they need to say that if they were pleased?
 
#67

volfanngatorland

Well-Hung Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
24,544
Likes
29,907
#67
What do you mean? It's right there in the NYT.

Just because they accepted that deal doesn't mean it's what they wanted. The article suggests otherwise. This is why they continued to push for equal pay. There was no moment where they were like "oh, we're happy with this" and then suddenly became unhappy again.
Did someone force them to sign the deal with a gun to their head?
 
#69

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
60,325
Likes
32,138
#69
2 years, sister.

If you don't like the deal, don't sign it. If you can't get the deal you want, walk away.
So it's all or nothing? You don't agree with taking small steps towards what you ultimately want? Such a weird attitude. Does this attitude apply to your life, or is it just handy when you want to pass judgment on others?
 
#70

volfanngatorland

Well-Hung Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
24,544
Likes
29,907
#70
Completely irrelevant. Nobody is saying they were forced to sign the deal. The deal is almost over. They've kept up their end of the bargain. They are still pushing for what they originally wanted. What's the problem?
Very relevant. You say they weren’t happy with the deal, yet they signed it and are now complaining that it isn’t fair?

If it’s not fair, don’t sign the deal. It’s pretty simple.
 
#72

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
60,325
Likes
32,138
#72
Very relevant. You say they weren’t happy with the deal, yet they signed it and are now complaining that it isn’t fair?

If it’s not fair, don’t sign the deal. It’s pretty simple.
...

So it's all or nothing? You don't agree with taking small steps towards what you ultimately want? Such a weird attitude. Does this attitude apply to your life?
They want to play and they need $. Whether or not the deal is "fair" isn't the only consideration. Every deal you've accepted was one you were happy with? What a charmed life that would be.
 
#74

TheDeeble

Guy on the Couch
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,130
Likes
2,201
#74
This is not relevant to my point. They were not satisfied with the deal, otherwise why would it even be mentioned that they promised not to let the deal interrupt the 2019 WC? That's all you need to know. They came out of the negotiations promising that. Why would they need to say that if they were pleased?
Probably for the same reason when any professional league has a contentious cba agreement. "Yay! a deal was signed. Now we're good for another x years".

As for pay I don't know. Everything about USM and USW teams are different. Men aren't employees of US soccer and don't earn a base salary. The USW don't want that pay structure. FIFA pays out more for USM tournaments.

I'm guessing there's much more to the details of why's than "they don't want to pay us because we're women."
 
#75

dobre_shunka

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
849
Likes
338
#75
So it's all or nothing? You don't agree with taking small steps towards what you ultimately want? Such a weird attitude. Does this attitude apply to your life, or is it just handy when you want to pass judgment on others?
Sorry I'm not a woke social justice warrior like you trying to save adults from decisions they made of their own volition. You are obviously such a much better person.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top