USWNT

Dof3 said:
The Golic discussion, and nearly all of the other coverage I have seen on this point, is leaving out an important element of the analysis. Let me start by saying that I think the USWNT is great and I think they have surely outperformed their contract and deserve a raise. I note contract because they have one and I have yet to hear that US Soccer is not paying them in accordance with their existing contract, but that is not the point that I think is being left out. If NFL players can renegotiate their existing contracts, why can't soccer players, right?

The real point is that they elected security over maximum revenue, and that choice does and should have real consequences. Just as it does in any other profession. If I am commission only salesperson, then I expect my maximum income would be higher than base salary plus commission, right? Who would ever take commission only if that were not the case? Here, assuming 20 games per season, the men and women are paid the same if both teams lose all their games - essentially the base line compensation for the men equals the base salary for the women. The men are bonus only (I expect they chose that because they have well developed alternative sources of income through MLS, the overseas clubs, etc. and don't therefore need the consistent security of a national team salary). The women elected a base salary for consistent, regular income for exactly the opposite reasons (no well developed alternative source of income through a still-fledgling professional league, etc.). Ok, so if the women's maximum earnings are 89% of the men's maximum earnings, it does not seem quite so egregious or sexist when one considers that the women themselves opted for the security of base salary as a result of the relative underperformance of their other professional options. Why should that not also come with a lower maximum compensation level?

Although the public opinion is already in their favor, their legal case is not so easy. Hence the maximum pressure campaign in the media on US Soccer as part of the ongoing mediation.

I would like to see them get a raise. I enjoy watching them play as much as any other athletes. But they are not telling the full story or taking full ownership of the choices they made in structuring their contract.
Click to expand...
@Dof3 I think we agree on the facts but we diverge on whether or not the USWNT should seek relief from their employment agreement with their employer. I think that their action is commonly done when there is a drastic change in the economics in many industries. In finance for example, it is not uncommon for a star trader to rip up his contract and demand a higher pay package. Conversely, I have also seen investment banks re-negotiate pay guarantees with employees after revenues dropped precipitously.

Finally, its obviously tough for many men to believe that a group of women are out-earning their male counterparts. Some of the comments and willful ignorance of the facts attest to the angry sexism that many women have to face in the workplace. I once had an employee who was shocked he was earning that same as the woman working next to him. He said he would prefer to earn less but more than her, rather than earn more but be paid equal to her!
 
espola said:
I will assume that you thought that that article was honest and meaningful.
Click to expand...

I don't assume. Found both links, informative and insightful. I have every reason in the book to want women to get paid more as, my DD if good enough to continue on a path that could lead to play at the professional level. I am also very aware that there is a reality. In other words, other than just winning, prove the sexism that woman are getting paid less because of their gender. Otherwise, simply come together, brainstorm, make changes to the current CBA and wait and build. Wanting more money because you win then we should only pay the starters and those who played on the field and the bench don't deserve to be paid because they didn't do anything to win.
 
Dos Equis said:
Given the depth of talent in the US Women’s game, this is more like Bewitched. And the more narcissism and arrogance they display in this victory/vanity lap, the more people will be ready for Darrin #2.

They do need to focus on the bigger picture here, and instead of partying on Caruso’s boat with the USC fake crew team, how about convince the billionaire to part with $$ million to fund an LA-based NWSL team. Perhaps get the USC Trustee Chairman to help provide some facilities as well for training and games at reasonable rates?
Click to expand...

@Dos Equis , having witnessed the "Girls Gone Wild: USWNT Edition" and the obnoxious, cringe-worthy "celebrations" during the game against Thailand, I can relate the sentiment you are expressing about the more visible members of the team. But that is a separate issue from whether or not they should try to renegotiate their deal with the USSF.
 
ChargerPride said:
I don't assume. Found both links, informative and insightful. I have every reason in the book to want women to get paid more as, my DD if good enough to continue on a path that could lead to play at the professional level. I am also very aware that there is a reality. In other words, other than just winning, prove the sexism that woman are getting paid less because of their gender. Otherwise, simply come together, brainstorm, make changes to the current CBA and wait and build. Wanting more money because you win then we should only pay the starters and those who played on the field and the bench don't deserve to be paid because they didn't do anything to win.
Click to expand...

One of those links came from a website that claims expertise in computer gaming and demonstrates ignorance of the reality of the WNT training program.
 
soccerobserver said:
I think we agree on the facts but we diverge on whether or not the USWNT should seek relief from their employment agreement with their employer. I think that their action is commonly done when there is a drastic change in the economics in many industries. In finance for example, it is not uncommon for a star trader to rip up his contract and demand a higher pay package. Conversely, I have also seen investment banks re-negotiate pay guarantees with employees after revenues dropped precipitously.
Click to expand...

The women have every right to rip up their contract and try to earn more based on the revenue they are generating. But, women's soccer is not the same product as men's soccer. Leveraging the "equal pay" argument is disingenuous and hurts the cause. Throwing it into the political realm is a cynical ploy to try to take advantage of the current political climate. In corporate America, women do the exact same job as the men and compete for the exact same positions...and get paid less. Crying "wolf" publicly could really hurt this issue, and keep quality legislation from moving forward.
 
tjsoccer said:
The women have every right to rip up their contract and try to earn more based on the revenue they are generating. But, women's soccer is not the same product as men's soccer. Leveraging the "equal pay" argument is disingenuous and hurts the cause. Throwing it into the political realm is a cynical ploy to try to take advantage of the current political climate. In corporate America, women do the exact same job as the men and compete for the exact same positions...and get paid less. Crying "wolf" publicly could really hurt this issue, and keep quality legislation from moving forward.
Click to expand...
@tjsoccer, I wish we could have a more nuanced discussion, but as you have seen with your own eyes on this thread, many still do not understand the issue, even when it is spelled out C-A-T. BTW you posted 4 times since 2016? Who is your other avatar ??
 
tjsoccer said:
The women have every right to rip up their contract and try to earn more based on the revenue they are generating. But, women's soccer is not the same product as men's soccer. Leveraging the "equal pay" argument is disingenuous and hurts the cause. Throwing it into the political realm is a cynical ploy to try to take advantage of the current political climate. In corporate America, women do the exact same job as the men and compete for the exact same positions...and get paid less. Crying "wolf" publicly could really hurt this issue, and keep quality legislation from moving forward.
Click to expand...

But --- it's not really clear which side you are supporting here.
 
espola said:
One of those links came from a website that claims expertise in computer gaming and demonstrates ignorance of the reality of the WNT training program.
Click to expand...

The source of the information should have some merit regardless of their ideology. However if the information is accurate and while slightly biased in exposing some facts, that shouldn't negate that it content has value. The links bring a side of conversation and I believe answers the question of why. I don't have to agree with everything in the links to share it for those that may not have had a different understanding of the situation. It was never a black and white answer. To chose a side and not offer a legitimate solution, then you will never have any progress.
 
ChargerPride said:
The source of the information should have some merit regardless of their ideology. However if the information is accurate and while slightly biased in exposing some facts, that shouldn't negate that it content has value. The links bring a side of conversation and I believe answers the question of why. I don't have to agree with everything in the links to share it for those that may not have had a different understanding of the situation. It was never a black and white answer. To chose a side and not offer a legitimate solution, then you will never have any progress.
Click to expand...

The content you posted from the video games master has no value in a discussion of WNT pay.

Change my mind.
 
Dos Equis said:
I find this analogy highly misleading. As you point out, the USSF is a single purpose entity with an anti-trust exemption so it can be the sole team able to wear the US Flag and represent this country in international competitions. Now if US soccer simply turned to the LA Galaxy and said, "Hey, go represent us this time in the World Cup", your analogy might be relevant. That would mean other private groups would, in theory, be given the same opportunity, or at least there would be competition to earn that designation.

Are Civil Rights really here to stay, as you claim? I think each player on this team should have the same rights -- to speak their mind anyway they see fit (even if that means choosing to kneel during our anthem, which I find distasteful). They are not exempt from suffering repercussions personally and professional, but should not from an entity supported by our government through an exclusivity agreement making them our nations representatives. And those rights also include no compelled speech, meaning if they do not want to wear something that is clearly advocating a viewpoint (a pink ribbon, a black armband, or even a rainbow number), that is their right. And I have every right to disagree or agree with any one of them, and to do so publicly. It seems to me a lot of people on this board who claim to support Civil Rights only do so when they agree with the viewpoint of those taking advantage of those rights.
Click to expand...

USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
 
End of the Line said:
USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

I disagree. But you are good at both setting up straw men, then tearing them down.
 
espola said:
The content you posted from the video games master has no value in a discussion of WNT pay.

Change my mind.
Click to expand...

SMH, This is a forum for discussion. The simple fact that the video speaks of the USWNT means it has relevance and value. You don't have to agree. I don't have to change your mind. Once again its an open soccer forum.

Or is there some rule, where this forum is only accepts opinions that you agree with otherwise they have no value.
 
ChargerPride said:
SMH, This is a forum for discussion. The simple fact that the video speaks of the USWNT means it has relevance and value. You don't have to agree. I don't have to change your mind. Once again its an open soccer forum.

Or is there some rule, where this forum is only accepts opinions that you agree with otherwise they have no value.
Click to expand...

My opinion? The posting was worthless. The author demonstrated he has no knowledge of the subject of WNT pay and appeared to be just trying to stir up some clickbait.
 
End of the Line said:
USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

Civil rights, by definition, includes the right to political and social freedom. It's the most fundamental right of them all. It's why the ACLU supported the Neo Nazi's right to march in Skokie. I guess "civil rights" is just a word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing the civil rights of others.
 
End of the Line said:
USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Ashlyn_Harris/s...-hinkle-homophobia_n_5d2cb2e5e4b0c145d7b26a21
 
espola said:
My opinion? The posting was worthless. The author demonstrated he has no knowledge of the subject of WNT pay and appeared to be just trying to stir up some clickbait.
Click to expand...

If I may be so bold, just in case I missed your take on the equal pay. I would like your thoughts as to the validity and a real solution. As I stated before, I have a vested interest in this as my DD is on a path where this would affect her decision on how far her soccer could continue. I simply believe that a lawsuit, while justified in performance, ignores the CBA. While also failing to understand the economics behind it. I am no expert , but after reading, listening, and watching how this has unfolded. I hope for the best, but can see that it's not just a simple, black and white choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top