Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Ron

USWNT 2020

Recommended Posts

I couldn't find a thread through 3 pages, so sorry if there isn't one.

The US Women's National Team continues to do more for soccer than the men. All of it last week.

First a quick rewind, for those that forgot the USWNT sued US Soccer last year for equal pay. That has been going on since. It came to a head when court documents broke last week during the She Believes Cup that showed US Soccer's argument was basically the men are more skilled than the women:

This thread has a few choice excerpts so follow it and take a look. Since it came from US Soccer, it was seen as the view of Carlos Cordeiro, President of US Soccer. The same one we debated about for a long as time during his election in 2018.

That didn't go over very well with the Women's team and during warmups for the Cup Final on they had their shirts on inside out

uswnt-wore-inside-out-shirts-protesting-

uswnt-wore-inside-out-shirts-protesting-

This sparked an idea and you can now buy a shirt just like this: https://breakingt.com/products/4-stars-only

This caught a lot of attention. And forced Cordeiro to apologized the day of the game. But the damage was done.

 

Friday Cordeiro resigned:

US Soccer: Carlos Cordeiro Announces Resignation as U.S. Soccer President

WashPo: Carlos Cordeiro resigns as president of U.S. Soccer

SI: Why U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro Had to Resign After Disgraceful Defense in USWNT Case

And the women keep getting more done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah and they also qualified for the Olympics with a pretty good run through the qualifying tournament out scoring their 4 opponents 21-0 (Panama, Costa Rica, Mexico and Canada).

The She Believes Cup was a little closer (England 2-0, Spain 1-0, Japan 3-1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cordeiro seems like an idiot.  The women's case is also pretty spurious imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team is a money-making machine and no reason to expect that to change even as the rest of the world catches up talent-wise. Coke, Visa, Budweiser and Deloitte publicly took the players' side last week. There is a NASCAR-like passion and loyalty around the country, including a lot of wealthy shoppers.

I saw tweet a while back that FIFA was considering holding the women's WC every two years, which I think would be a great idea. But I never saw any follow up and obviously the entire sport is sidelined worldwide for a bit now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, WBT said:

Cordeiro seems like an idiot.  The women's case is also pretty spurious imo.

Us Soccer had/has an argument regarding enticing pros who make much more money from their clubs to risk injury away from the clubs while playing in Central American hotspots on crappy pitches. They also could bring up TV payout and World Cup/ Copa America payouts, and having to financially support the Women’s League. 

A non-starter argument was that men are physically superior. This was an diotic argument. 

Just like women & men ~deserve equal play at most tennis tournaments, but at the grand slam events, the men play best 3 out of 5 vs 2 out of 3 played by the women, so the men are paid the same as the women for much more work... which brings in more TV revenue... which pays the bills. Not really fair to the men. 

Edited by Napoleon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sketchy countries/pitches argument is probably weaker than the genetics argument. The women likely face harassment and dangerous conditions in pretty much any country they visit, and I can't imagine the facilities aren't worse than the men.

The crux is definitely the fact that the men's game worldwide is far more lucrative and you shouldn't punish USMNT for taking the money. But nothing says some of that can't be used to elevate the pay of the women to something that can be labeled as "equal". They're all under the US Soccer umbrella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not about safety, it’s about economics. The men have much better options through private clubs and really don’t need to ever play for a national team to have a long lucrative career. That is not the case for the women as the national team is basically the only game in town if they want to make 6 figures and even supports/funds their only options for private employment for the women in this country as well. It’s feeling, not facts and the women basically want a cut of the men’s cash and use their on field success vs the men’s as justification to do so.....and the are offended when USA soccer makes the same claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

US Soccer already subsidizes the entire women's pro league and the top players are on salary rather than strictly per appearance fees.  The men have higher bonuses (provided they ever actually qualify for anything again) but that's because the FIFA TV rights are exponentially higher for the men.

But all the women have to do is say "equal pay" and the pr battle is won, facts be damned.

Edited by WBT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bartles said:

The sketchy countries/pitches argument is probably weaker than the genetics argument. The women likely face harassment and dangerous conditions in pretty much any country they visit, and I can't imagine the facilities aren't worse than the men.

The crux is definitely the fact that the men's game worldwide is far more lucrative and you shouldn't punish USMNT for taking the money. But nothing says some of that can't be used to elevate the pay of the women to something that can be labeled as "equal". They're all under the US Soccer umbrella.

With the exception of maybe Mexico, I don’t think that the women play any games south of the border. The other teams know that they are going to lose, so they choose to play the USWNT in the USA and take the payday. The women are safe as fuck. 

That’s a huge difference. Their life is cake once they’re on the team. 

*If someone can show otherwise, that’s fine, but I’m on my phone and don’t care to look it up. I just can’t recall the women ever traveling to a developing country for a qualifier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one in CONCACAF would care enough to show up and harass them anyway.  Maybe in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, I don't know where they've played but it makes sense they would cash in by bringing teams up here. Though I would think the USMNT could do the same thing - wouldn't Bolivia or whoever want the paycheck for the men as well? 

I do recall the women having to cancel games pretty recently because of field conditions like astroturf that was coming apart.

I'm no expert, I just smell a rat in regards to how much value USWNT obviously generates for US Soccer compared to what they're paid. Also not sure what harm it would cause to create a structure that can at least be labeled "equal" for the two national teams in terms of salary. It probably wouldn't be dollar-for-dollar because the men's sport is larger and they have to play more games, travel, etc. But to create some sort of equal structure probably wouldn't cost a ton...it's like 20-25 players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I understand the men only get paid per appearance?  If they don’t participate or are passed over they are not compensated?

Are younger or better players passed up due to those that make the team not wanting to give up the salary and benefits?  How much turnover year to year is their on the woman’s team and is it due to a lack of challengers or something else (assuming it’s low)?

Seems odd that in a sport like tennis athletes peak early and its an exception to play at the highest level around 30.  The sports seem similar in their need for physicality, why do we have so many mature players on the highest level team in the world?

Edited by ChickenSandwich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Seems odd that in a sport like tennis athletes peak early and its an exception to play at the highest level around 30.  The sports seem similar in their need for physicality, why do we have so many mature players on the highest level team in the world?

No chemistry is required on a tennis court, at least not in singles. In doubles, where chemistry is required, the top teams tend to have older players. 

Hope that clears it up for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 7:04 AM, Bartles said:

Good points, I don't know where they've played but it makes sense they would cash in by bringing teams up here. Though I would think the USMNT could do the same thing - wouldn't Bolivia or whoever want the paycheck for the men as well? 

I do recall the women having to cancel games pretty recently because of field conditions like astroturf that was coming apart.

I'm no expert, I just smell a rat in regards to how much value USWNT obviously generates for US Soccer compared to what they're paid. Also not sure what harm it would cause to create a structure that can at least be labeled "equal" for the two national teams in terms of salary. It probably wouldn't be dollar-for-dollar because the men's sport is larger and they have to play more games, travel, etc. But to create some sort of equal structure probably wouldn't cost a ton...it's like 20-25 players.

I believe this game was to take place in Canada.  The women argued that the men wouldn't be asked to play on this type of surface.  That's not entirely true.  JerryWorld, for one, was falling apart during one of the games there.  I also distinctly recall a qualifier that the men played in one of the Caribbean countries on which the field had no grass and massive puddles of water throughout parts of the surface.  The women also don't have to play in venues where they're getting piss and batteries thrown at them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so you think women are physically equal to men. Look, I am no sexist, but understanding body composition....women are not built the same as men. 

 

Proof? Go google when Serena Williams played the 200th ranked male tennis player and got swept. I love our womens soccer team. Claiming that women are inferior physically, while accurate, probably isnt smart. The real reason is their sport doesnt bring in the dollars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TexanTraveling said:

Wait, so you think women are physically equal to men. Look, I am no sexist, but understanding body composition....women are not built the same as men. 

 

Proof? Go google when Serena Williams played the 200th ranked male tennis player and got swept. I love our womens soccer team. Claiming that women are inferior physically, while accurate, probably isnt smart. The real reason is their sport doesnt bring in the dollars. 

Not according to this article by the Chicago-Tribune, citing the Wall Street Journal

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ny-uswnt-outgenerates-usmnt-game-revenue-20190618-vpccjc5si5ejrlm3xkri2mt4yu-story.html

"The USWNT generated nearly $51 million in revenue (mostly from ticket sales) from 2016-18. In the same time frame, the USMNT generated just under $50 million."

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/

"Nike chief executive Mark Parker reported the jersey “is now the number one soccer jersey, men’s or women’s, ever sold on Nike.com in one season.”

Although, interestingly enough from the same article:

"The Fact Checker obtained the new (collective bargaining) agreement, which took effect in April 2017. Using the same 20-game scenario (if, hypothetically, each national team played 20 friendlies per year), we calculated the player on the women’s team would earn $28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player. If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount. That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary. USWNT players have previously said publicly they believed this was the best agreement they could get without going on strike"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheBryMan81 said:

Not according to this article by the Chicago-Tribune, citing the Wall Street Journal

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ny-uswnt-outgenerates-usmnt-game-revenue-20190618-vpccjc5si5ejrlm3xkri2mt4yu-story.html

"The USWNT generated nearly $51 million in revenue (mostly from ticket sales) from 2016-18. In the same time frame, the USMNT generated just under $50 million."

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/

"Nike chief executive Mark Parker reported the jersey “is now the number one soccer jersey, men’s or women’s, ever sold on Nike.com in one season.”

Although, interestingly enough from the same article:

"The Fact Checker obtained the new (collective bargaining) agreement, which took effect in April 2017. Using the same 20-game scenario (if, hypothetically, each national team played 20 friendlies per year), we calculated the player on the women’s team would earn $28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player. If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount. That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary. USWNT players have previously said publicly they believed this was the best agreement they could get without going on strike"

 

Well if they are truly bringing in more revenue than they should be paid more, thanks for the article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The USWNT generated nearly $51 million in revenue (mostly from ticket sales) from 2016-18. In the same time frame, the USMNT generated just under $50 million."

The women played 52 home games during this time frame.  The men played 34 home games.  Of those games...

17 of the men's games were friendlies; 17 were tournament or qualification games.

27 of the women's games were friendlies; 25 were tournament or qualification games.

I'm pretty sure the men would have made up the ~ $1 million gap with 10 more friendlies and 8 more "important" games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

The women played 52 home games during this time frame.  The men played 34 home games.  Of those games...

17 of the men's games were friendlies; 17 were tournament or qualification games.

27 of the women's games were friendlies; 25 were tournament or qualification games.

I'm pretty sure the men would have made up the ~ $1 million gap with 10 more friendlies and 8 more "important" games.

There's a lot of variables that make it complicated. Supposedly, only a quarter of USSF revenue is actually from games played. About half of it is from sponsorships. You may argue that sponsorships for the USSF have increased specifically due to the USWNT (global success, championships, worldwide movement towards gender equality and more support for women's sports), but exactly how much sponsorships have increased solely due to the USWNT is difficult to quantify, and therefore difficult to argue.

But even without that, the USWNT has a strong argument: "We play more games in order to bring in more revenue than the men, we sell more jerseys, we win more championships, and we still get paid less."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TheBryMan81 said:

There's a lot of variables that make it complicated. Supposedly, only a quarter of USSF revenue is actually from games played. About half of it is from sponsorships. You may argue that sponsorships for the USSF have increased specifically due to the USWNT (global success, championships, worldwide movement towards gender equality and more support for women's sports), but exactly how much sponsorships have increased solely due to the USWNT is difficult to quantify, and therefore difficult to argue.

But even without that, the USWNT has a strong argument: "We play more games in order to bring in more revenue than the men, we sell more jerseys, we win more championships, and we still get paid less."

I agree with pretty much everything you've stated.  

I kind of wish that the federation would just split into two.  That way, the women can make their bank; the men can make theirs.  If the women make twice as much as the men with more games, better marketing, better results, etc... so be it.  

I'm also, admittedly, biased as I'm not a fan of the US Women's team.  I have a daughter that played at an extremely high level.  Additionally, I coached both club and high school girls soccer for years, so it's not a misogynist thing.  I've just had my issues with the women's team (not political, btw) for awhile.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2020 at 4:16 PM, Knoxtnhorn said:

The women played 52 home games during this time frame.  The men played 34 home games.  Of those games...

17 of the men's games were friendlies; 17 were tournament or qualification games.

27 of the women's games were friendlies; 25 were tournament or qualification games.

I'm pretty sure the men would have made up the ~ $1 million gap with 10 more friendlies and 8 more "important" games.

Do these numbers for compensation include the benefits the woman players receive from USA Soccer that are not availability to men?  Things like a guaranteed annual salary? Maternity leave etc?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2020 at 7:12 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

Do these numbers for compensation include the benefits the woman players receive from USA Soccer that are not availability to men?  Things like a guaranteed annual salary? Maternity leave etc?

 

It does include the guaranteed salary.  That's kind of the point they're making; they get a guaranteed salary, but it's less than what the men make.  The men's salary is partially based on wins while the women's is not.  So if the women were losing all of the time, then this would be a way better deal for them.  (See hypothetical above.  If both teams played 20 friendlies a year and lost all 20, they would get paid roughly the same.  The women are arguing that since they play more, win more, and have high revenues, they should get paid closer to equal what the men get paid).  If they had the same, nonguaranteed deal that the men have, then they would make more money because of their wins.  One of the statements the player's federation made has to do with the CBA that the men signed in 2011.  Since then, the USSF has had unprecedented growth in their financial assets (almost tripled).  When the women went to negotiate their next CBA in 2017, the USSF, even though their revenues had tripled, offered them a deal that was worse than what the men had signed 6 years prior (at least subjectively. I don't know the terms of the deal, but just going off what I can find when I google). And then the men renegotiated their CBA in 2018, which is their current CBA.

It's been stated that they agreed to this collective bargaining agreement because they felt that it was the best that they were going to get without going on strike, which would've affected their 2019 World Cup qualifying and also would've included non USWNT players in the NSWL, since the USSF is in control of it.

Also, I don't know how the guaranteed annual salary works.  If they make the roster one time in a calendar year, are they guaranteed that salary? If they make the roster x amount of times? Annual salary is adjusted for how many times you make the roster? Idk, but for your question about maternity leave, if the guaranteed annual salary is anything but that first option, then maternity leave isn't really a benefit that they get (since it would affect the amount of times they would be able to make the USWNT roster that year). However, I'm sure there's something about that worked into the CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genco said:

Interesting.  Per that article, in the last 5 years, "cited as undisputed fact that from 2015 to 2019, the women's national team averaged $220,747 per game in total payments (for a total of $24.5 million), while the men's national team averaged $212,639 per game in total payments (for a total of $18.5 million).

Those figures do not include compensation women's players receive from U.S. Soccer for play in the National Women's Soccer League."

I did not know that and if that's true, then I don't see what the argument is in terms of compensation.  

So the hypothetical that the USWNT presented about 20 friendlies...how can that be true if they got paid more per game in the last 5 years? I don't know.

Also, ChickenSandwhich hit the nail on the head.  In the article, there's a video interview with Julie Foudy (https://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=29125706) where she states that back in her day, they negotiated the CBAs to include guaranteed salaries in order to provide protections from injury, maternity, severance pay etc since women didn't have the massive club contracts that men do to fall back on.  The federal judge ruled against them partly because of these extra protections and guarantees and the value that they add. "Therefore, while the women's players argued that, after winning the World Cup in 2015 and 2019, they would have made more money under the terms of a men's CBA, which offered higher game bonuses, the court noted that there was "indisputably economic value" to the guarantees included only in the women's CBA.

"Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they would have received under the MNT CBA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed benefits they received under their agreement," the ruling stated, "Which they opted for at the expense of higher performance-based bonuses."

Also interesting to note: "Klausner (judge) noted that representatives of the players rejected a pay-for-play model identical to the men early in those negotiations in 2016. In later negotiations, the players offered a counterproposal with lesser bonuses than the federation's offer in exchange for more contracted players and higher base salaries -- benefits not part of the CBA between U.S. Soccer and the men's union."

The only thing the court left unsettled was "the plaintiffs' Title VII claims regarding discrimination in charter flights and hotel accommodations and medical and training support" which I suppose would be much simpler to prove one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This still leaves more to be desired. Sydney Leroux made headlines last month when she told Forbes that she paid more in child care in 2019 than she made in salary from the Orlando Pride. "If you're not on the national team, you're sitting in the back seat," Leroux said. "I think we need to make it important that it touches everybody. What we're doing is only affecting certain people, and I think that that's not good enough because we're losing out on really good athletes because you can't survive on an NWSL salary. People have different jobs. People's parents are helping them, and that's not OK. This isn't a hobby. This is our livelihood."
 

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usaw/story/4071258/uswnt-lawsuit-versus-us-soccer-explained-defining-the-pay-gapswhats-at-stake-for-both-sides
 

mom and dad might have done her a disservice by not introducing her to the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

This still leaves more to be desired. Sydney Leroux made headlines last month when she told Forbes that she paid more in child care in 2019 than she made in salary from the Orlando Pride. "If you're not on the national team, you're sitting in the back seat," Leroux said. "I think we need to make it important that it touches everybody. What we're doing is only affecting certain people, and I think that that's not good enough because we're losing out on really good athletes because you can't survive on an NWSL salary. People have different jobs. People's parents are helping them, and that's not OK. This isn't a hobby. This is our livelihood."
 

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usaw/story/4071258/uswnt-lawsuit-versus-us-soccer-explained-defining-the-pay-gapswhats-at-stake-for-both-sides
 

mom and dad might have done her a disservice by not introducing her to the real world. 

Isn't Leroux married to Dom Dwyer - a professional soccer player in the MLS?  If the two of them can't figure out how to pay for child care, then I don't know what to tell her.  Dude earned 1.3 million last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Soccer Federation had argued that the women’s team was paid under the structure the players asked for in the last collective bargaining agreement and that they “asked for a very different contract” that offered them more benefits, which the men’s players did not -- including “guaranteed annual salaries, medical and dental insurance, paid child-care assistance, paid pregnancy and parental leave, severance benefits, salary continuation during periods of injury, access to a retirement plan, multiple bonuses and more," The Associated Press reported.
 

funny how this part is left off of the accounting of pay by the plaintiff. I’m shocked their attorneys were blindsided by common sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 10:21 AM, Knoxtnhorn said:

Isn't Leroux married to Dom Dwyer - a professional soccer player in the MLS?  If the two of them can't figure out how to pay for child care, then I don't know what to tell her.  Dude earned 1.3 million last year.

They have it covered, but most of her teammates do not.

Back to the judgement... the more that is released to the general public, the bigger of a joke the "Equal Pay" complaint was/is. I think that even some feminists will see that the women aren't helpless victims. (Though many won't see that... I grew up in a feminist household and there's no way that my mother will agree with the summary judgement.)


*Are "judgement" and "judgment" both okay? That word has always bugged me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 2:37 AM, TheBryMan81 said:

 

The only thing the court left unsettled was "the plaintiffs' Title VII claims regarding discrimination in charter flights and hotel accommodations and medical and training support" which I suppose would be much simpler to prove one way or the other.

 

I agree that they have a legit gripe with this. The rest not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...