@soccerobserver I agree with that point and that it is no different than a football player holding out to renegotiate. But there is a term to those contracts. And they have the opportunity to renegotiate when that term ends. I doubt the USWNT would be receptive to having their base salary cut during the term of their contract if they were underperforming expectations. A question for me is whether they get paid if they are dropped from the team for the balance of that year. I don’t know the answer to that. In football, contacts are not guaranteed and ownership can get out of its contract by cutting an underperforming player (other than signing bonuses or other guaranteed dollars). I think that matters. If ownership can get out of a bad contract, then a player should be able to hold out and renegotiate. If the USWNT base salary is guaranteed, then “holding out” or suing to break their contract is a choice, but it is more opportunistic than noble. If their contract did not include some participation in the growth of sponsorship revenue, then that is their fault either because they didn’t think of it or didn’t have the bargaining power to command it. I am sure we all wish we had do-overs on lots of things with better information later on. Would the conversation still be as it is if the USWNT failed to qualify for the Word Cup? Let’s not forget that prior to this World Cup, their last 3 years have been a little up and down with the Olympics, She Believes Cup, friendlies, etc.
A fair argument is that the team has outperformed, revenue has dramatically increased as a result, and they should participate in that revenue growth. But part of the reason that US Soccer is not worried about proactively rewarding its overachieving players is because there is relatively little risk that that won’t keep playing. Where else are the going to play? Do we know their names because of their NWSL careers? No, and we are soccer people. Imagine how little the casual sports fan would know.
Now, just like a company with an unexpectedly great employee is smart to reward that employee with a raise to make sure they stay happy and performing, US Soccer should be smart and reward this team proactively given what has happened and the momentum they have now to keep growing the women’s game. I have a DD and I would love to see that. The USWNT focus should be on growing the women’s game. Here and abroad. The approach they are taking is alienating a big portion of their customer base, and that is not at all in their self-interest.
Making this about sexism without context for the benefits and concessions of the contract the players themselves negotiated is not the full story. Playing on turf fields, underweighted marketing or development budgets, all screams sexism and bias and they rightly call that out. But the equal pay thing is more smoke than fire in the context of their contract. That is unless US Soccer is giving all that extra sponsorship revenue growth to the USMNT, but I at least haven’t read that that is the case. Both teams are still being paid per their in place contracts. Please correct me if that is not right.
There is also a limit to the efficacy of the dollars and cents arguments about sponsorship dollars. That at some point is about splitting a pie that is smaller than it could be. That’s fine, but shortsighted. The real arguments should be about support and development (sexism), overperforming their contract and thus a merit raise, and growing the game domestically and abroad so that the disparity in revenue and attention between the men’s and women’s game globally can continue to shrink and shrink faster. Growing the game is how they grow their league, grow their TV contracts and sponsorships, their alternative professional outlets and thus their income. Joe Montana didn’t come anywhere near the money that Brady, Rodgers, and even middling NFL quarterbacks now make. The game has grown, and with that growth has come the money.
