USWNT

Discussion in 'WNT/MNT/World Cup/Int'l Soccer' started by soccerobserver, Oct 20, 2016.

  1. End of the Line

    End of the Line Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +226 / 8
    Great, blame the victim. It's not the women's fault they had to agree to a worse deal because USSF would not pay them equally, leaving them with two bad options, either less pay or no pay.

    Your hypothetical is a horrible one because it wrongly assumes the WNT (like the marketing department) deserve less opportunity than the MNT (sales department) without actually accounting for their real value. Why, exactly, isn't the MNT the less desirable marking department in your example anyway? The fact is, a job title is not a "protected class", but women are, so you can't pay them less because you deem their work to be less valuable. In other words, you can't just make the women work in the marketing department because you assume they're less valuable than men.

    If you want a more accurate hypothetical, I'll give you one. You have a man and a woman in your sales department (since they do the exact same job, just like the MNT and WNT players). The male employee sucks and is borderline incompetent (just like the MNT) and you know he can't close the two biggest potential deals in company history (coincidentally with VW and Nike, go figure). Because you and the male sales guy are part of the good old boy network, though, you create a commission structure that intentionally excludes the VW and Nike contracts from commission eligibility and then make the woman do all the hard work to seal the two biggest deals in company history. Then you blame the woman for pointing out that your commission plan intentionally discriminates against women, and tell her it's her fault because she knew the whole time the company's commission structure that you created discriminates against women but she agreed to work here anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +579 / 8
    EOL, do you know how much the VW deal is worth and how long it is for? I have only read that it was an 8 figure deal.
     
  3. soccerobserver

    soccerobserver Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +579 / 8
    Ok I see the VW deal is 8 figures annually for 4 years and less than the Nike deal whose details are shown in the Book of Reports. If I assume the VW deal is $10-$15 million per year through 2022 then that will add $40-$60 million of almost pure profit to the pot.

    If you look at the total revenues from Fiscal 2014-2020(E) it breaks down as follows:
    USMNT*: $120 million
    USWNT*: $105 million
    Sponsorship: $300 million


    * 2014-2020(E) includes 2 world cup cycles for both teams. I have slightly adjusted up the USSF forecast for the USWWC revenue since the USSF estimate was too conservative for the last WWC. Main source is the USSF Book of Reports

    Based upon the data you can make the case that players should be paid equally as soccer players period.

    With regard to expenses, the USSF pays about twice as much for the male youth teams as they pay for the women's youth teams. Also, USSF excludes coaching expenses from the expense line items for the US teams. Jill Ellis, the USWNT head coach, was paid slightly LESS then the men's U20 coach according to tax filings. Treatment and segregation of these expense items favors the men unfairly. Both teams lose money on the WC's but only if you exclude sponsorship which would be illogical to ignore.

    The new deal takes sponsorship to record levels due arguably to the success of the USWNT given the timing and circumstances of the USMNT failing to qualify for the Olympics twice and then failing to qualify for the World Cup in 2018.

    I can't speak to whether the USSF management (mainly men but that's irrelevant to me) are sexist, parsimonious, incompetent, greedy, or making an honest mistake. But it is clear to me the pay situation between the men and the women should be rectified.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. HouseofCards

    HouseofCards Bronze

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ratings:
    +21 / 0
    What about the Paralympic team? They are a protected class also. Should they be paid the same?
     
  5. espola

    espola Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +5,023 / 219
    Does hearing the term "protected class" make you melt, little snowflake?
     
  6. MWN

    MWN Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,973 / 22
    My hypothetical is on point. We have two different contracts that were negotiated, with the women fully aware of men's terms, so nobody was hiding any balls or keeping secrets. The men negotiated a riskier deal that pays them for only their participation on the USMNT; the Women negotiated a salary that pays them for participating in the NWSL and USWNT. Now the women are saying "Wait a second ... not fair." We want to keep our NWSL bonuses (that the men don't get) and also get paid the same per game as the men. Sorry, but your hypothetical ignores/attempts to rewrite this important fact. 2 years ago (2017), the women renegotiated their collective bargaining agreement that was purposely different to meet the realities of the market. We also cannot forget that at the time there were pending claims by 5 players alleging pay discrimination, the 2017 deal addressed many of the complaints, and gave back pay for some items and equalized many of the items (travel, per diem, etc.), but kept the salary structure in place because the players could not make a living wage playing on the NWSL salary, they needed US Soccer to "help out," which it did.

    US Soccer currently subsidizes the NWSL directly to the tune of $750k per year PLUS it pays millions to the top USWNT to play in the NWSL under the collective bargaining agreement, which is something the men don't get because ... they have a different deal.

    If the parties want to renegotiate their deal, there is a time and place for it ... at the next collective bargaining cycle.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Sheriff Joe

    Sheriff Joe

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2016
    Messages:
    21,466
    Likes Received:
    2,232
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +10,501 / 180
    Sounds like it had that affect on you, snowflake.
     
  8. End of the Line

    End of the Line Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +226 / 8
    Sounds like the WNT decided the time and place for a new deal is right now in federal court.

    Going forward, I recommend that you run personnel decisions through legal counsel first. Just a suggestion.
     
  9. younothat

    younothat Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +970 / 8
    U.S. Soccer still doesn’t get it as it prepares to fight against equal pay
    https://sports.yahoo.com/us-soccer-...res-to-fight-against-equal-pay-060521786.html


    The federation’s persistence with this self-inflicted public relations nightmare is baffling. It willingly frames itself as the penny-pinching overlord pitted against one of the nation’s most popular teams, just months before it begins its World Cup title defense in France.

    U.S. Soccer’s lesser-used argument that the reason for the disparity in pay in most years is a function of different pay structures — the women are essentially full-time employees with benefits, while the men are paid entirely in bonuses — isn’t without merit. And the federation can also point to the collective bargaining agreement, paying them less than the men, that the women willingly and knowingly signed just over two years ago, well after this standoff began.

    Instead, U.S. Soccer continues to focus on revenue. And that’s where its argument falls flat.

    Because as a non-profit, the federation really has no standing to reduce a moral quandary to money. The point of non-profits is that, exempt from income taxes and fiduciary obligations to shareholders, they can do the work that needs to be done, rather than pursue profit.

    So while pointing to a discrepancy in revenue between the men’s and women’s programs — if you accept that it exists — is, at face value, not entirely unreasonable, it rings hollow in a non-profit setting. It is, besides, far outweighed by the overwhelming and broadly held sense that paying the men and women the same, however that redounds to the bottom line, is simply the right thing to do. Even if they don’t bring in the same amount of money, which remains disputed.

    That’s what non-profits exist for: to serve the greater good.

    It would take only a few million dollars a year to bridge the pay gap between men and women. To make things right. That’s easily covered by the surpluses the federation is running, undermining any case that the money somehow isn’t there.

    isn’t a business no longer holds up. Maybe U.S. Soccer should start paying taxes on its operating profits — almost $11 million in 2017 and more than $46 million in 2016, according to the federation’s most recent Form 990 — or indeed the nine-figure reserves and investments it reportedly sits on.

    And this is a corner U.S. Soccer has backed itself into by forcing the team into a debate on revenue, rather than just equality. Because this is a losing issue.

    In its defense filed on Monday, the federation essentially argued that the women’s team isn’t entitled to equal pay because it isn’t doing equal work. It reckons this is true because the teams exist in separate frameworks.

    The document calls the two programs “physically and functionally separate organizations that perform services for U.S. Soccer in physically separate spaces and compete in different competitions, venues and countries at different times; have different coaches, staff and leadership; have separate collective bargaining agreements; and have separate budgets that take into account the different revenue that the teams generate.”

    There’s that revenue argument again. Which is a thin defense when you consider that sponsorship and broadcast rights, the largest sources of income by far, are bundled with the men’s national team — and in the case of the TV rights even with Major League Soccer. So who is to say, exactly, how much the women’s share is even worth?

    But then U.S. Soccer somehow also alleges that the pay gap has nothing to do with gender, according to Miki Turner, a Washington lawyer who broke down the defense on Twitter.

    This not only contradicts the idea that revenues must be compared — while competition, performance and compensation somehow can’t — but also denigrates the women’s game, and indeed the USA’s decades-long dominance of it. Read one way, it implies that the Americans are only dominating because the women’s game is weaker. Read another, the World Cup-winning women’s enormous success doesn’t count as heavily as success from the World Cup-missing men might.

    Perhaps that’s an unfair interpretation of the legalese, but then that’s the sort of criticism the federation exposed itself to. By fighting this unjustifiable fight, all U.S. Soccer does is raise questions about why, exactly, it remains hell-bent on denying its best team the equality it is morally, and perhaps legally, entitled to.

    The federation prides itself on being a pioneer in its investment in the women’s program, and rightly so. Guaranteed equal pay is the natural extension of that. But instead of taking another victory lap for its success in a promising Women’s World Cup year, U.S. Soccer prepares to face the stars and media darlings it created in a courtroom, in spite of the desperately bad optics.

    And all in the service of an argument that misses the point.

    This was never about revenue. It’s about doing the right thing.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. El Clasico

    El Clasico Silver

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +569 / 20
    Why copy and paste an opinion piece from a yahoo writer?
     
  11. outside!

    outside! Silver Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,925 / 39
    This is a soccer forum.
     
  12. younothat

    younothat Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +970 / 8
    I dunno why did Uber and Lyft drivers go on strike today...... to improve wages

    LS is not my favorite writer or nor is yahoo but there is a couple of good points worth considerations and saves you the clicks/ads by including the content not just a link
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Dos Equis

    Dos Equis Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +1,104 / 15
    While I agree with the writer's assertion that equal pay is the morally right thing to pursue, and US Soccer cannot hide behind the collective bargaining agreement for all its past disparities in treatment, this yahoo writer has a fundamental misperception in their view that non-profits are established or legally obligated to serve the greater good.

    I find it difficult for US Soccer to argue they are separate entities when the television revenues are indeed sold as a package. However, I am not sure what the impact would be of separating those rights. It is entirely possible that the women's game alone would not generate very large TV bids. Other than World Cup and Olympics, there is very little demand for women's soccer on TV. Does US Soccer own the rights to the TV/streaming broadcasts of Olympic and World Cup Soccer? I do not think so. So for WNT you are selling She Believes Cup, friendlies, and what, NWSL on Lifetime?

    I am skeptical of SUM and its marketing deal, but I do agree that when it comes to domestic soccer on TV in the US, the packaged whole (Men's,, Women's, MLS) may be worth more to a broadcaster selling advertising than the sum of the individual parts.
     
  14. Real Deal

    Real Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2016
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +480 / 15
    Maybe the solution is to lower the mens' salaries then... :cool:...

    Sheesh I'll bet more people have heard of Alex Morgan than maybe 99.9% of the MLS players.... especially now with the Sports Illustrated cover....
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  15. gotothebushes

    gotothebushes Bronze

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0

    You are so RIGHT my friend!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Soccerfan2

    Soccerfan2 Bronze

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +159 / 9
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page