US Soccer: "Our Proposal for Equal Pay for Women & Men"

[Ellejustus]

I might add, I've been a little harsh towards attorneys at times. It's a love hate relationship, like the dentist. I love America because we have a legal system. Although not perfect, when one get's hurt or does something stupid and or illegal, they can make a call and get real HELP!!!. Attorney's and I are opposites emotionally wise. I have so much respect for them though. They have to take all of our sh*t (Demons) out of each others toilets and then separate the truth somehow. Basically, clean it up so we don;t kill each other with the "Carl" Demon of murder. I'm dead serious you guys. TY to all attorneys for saving lives and destruction and protecting the innocent and getting justice for the oppressed. Help people through nasty divorces. Help woman have a voice. Thank you thank you

 

[EOTL]

So wonder what they mean by Lydia Wahlke being on leave - does that mean she is fired? Is this a disciplinary leave or is she out for stress and embarrassment. Pretty bad for a woman to be giving her stamp of approval on such a terrible and insulting legal argument against other women. I think it is worse coming from another female. She should have known better just from her own experience of being a female attorney working in the professional sports world.

Being placed on administrative leave almost always means you’re about to get fired if, as is the case here, there’s no dispute over the reason you are on leave. The interesting thing, though, is that Cordiero initially tried to save his own job by throwing her under the bus when he recommended that USSF fire and replace her with Latham & Watkins. Typical misogynistic USSF douche.

Does anyone really think Cone will turn anything around? USSF will have her settle the case to save their own asses, pat her on the head like a good little lady, and then come down hard on her a year later because she couldn’t turn around the financial woes caused by a bunch of misogynistic dudes and a female lawyer whom they used for cover. They’ll also probably blame Cone for GDA’s final downfall because, you know, she’s a woman. It couldn’t possibly be the result of a bunch of dumb men in a room making dumb rules that doomed GDA from the start.

 

[Ellejustus]

Being placed on administrative leave almost always means you’re about to get fired if, as is the case here, there’s no dispute over the reason you are on leave. The interesting thing, though, is that Cordiero initially tried to save his own job by throwing her under the bus when he recommended that USSF fire and replace her with Latham & Watkins. Typical misogynistic USSF douche.

Does anyone really think Cone will turn anything around? USSF will have her settle the case to save their own asses, pat her on the head like a good little lady, and then come down hard on her a year later because she couldn’t turn around the financial woes caused by a bunch of misogynistic dudes and a female lawyer whom they used for cover. They’ll also probably blame Cone for GDA’s final downfall because, you know, she’s a woman. It couldn’t possibly be the result of a bunch of dumb men in a room making dumb rules that doomed GDA from the start.

100% agree. Blame it on the rain too and the virus............

 

[Frank]

USWNT's unequal pay claim rejected by judge

A federal judge said members of the U.S. women's national soccer team did not demonstrate a "triable issue" that they were paid less than players on the men's team.

www.espn.com

Well there goes the argument that the women are paid less.

 

[Sheriff Joe]

USWNT's unequal pay claim rejected by judge

A federal judge said members of the U.S. women's national soccer team did not demonstrate a "triable issue" that they were paid less than players on the men's team.

www.espn.com

Well there goes the argument that the women are paid less.

The “women” are becoming too political.

 

[Sheriff Joe]

I hope they lose every game.

Judge Throws Out Lawsuit On Equal Pay From Women’s National Soccer Team

A judge dismissed the U.S. women's soccer team's equal pay claim Friday but will allow allegations of discrimination to continue to trial.

dailycaller.com

 

[espola]

I hope they lose every game.

Why is that?

 

[MWN]

The first step is to understand the current differences in pay. The women are paid "guaranteed" amounts, whereas the men are not paid any guaranteed amounts. As a result, the men get paid more for meeting certain milestones, whereas the women are paid less.

	MEN (Per Collective Bargain)	WOMEN (Per Collective Bargain)
SALARY (National Team Contract) 17 Players (16 in 2021)	$0.00 (No US Soccer Salary)	$100,000
MLS/NWSL Bonus by US Soccer	$0.00 (No US Soccer Bonus)	$67,500 (Tier 1) $62,500 (Tier 2)
Call Ups - Non Contract Players	$3,500 - $4,000 per call-up (8+ Camps)	$3,500 - $4,000 per call-up (8+ Camps)
World Cup Roster Bonus	$68,750.00	$37,500
Win Against Non Top Teams	$9,375 (Outside Top 25)	$5,250 (Outside Top 8)
Loss Against Non Top Team	$5,000	$0.00
Game Attendance $ per ticket	$1.50 to Union	$1.50 + 7.5% to Union above 17,000 txs.
Game Sold Out	No Bonus	Bonus
Viewership Bonus	No Bonus	Bonus (if increase 10+%)

Source: https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...ing-the-pay-gapswhats-at-stake-for-both-sides

It is absolutely true that the USWNT players not paid equally. This is because they negotiated a guaranteed deal, which guarantees pay of $167,500 for 17 of them, and $62,500 for the remaining 7, whereas the USMNT soccer players receive $0 in guaranteed pay.

My question to all of you is based on the fact that the Women negotiated guaranteed pay and the men don't get any, why do you believe that US Soccer is treating them unfairly?

Looks like the judge got it right (or is reading my posts ... which would mean he would always be right). The USWNT lawsuit claiming unequal pay rested on a fiction and falsehood that went against hundreds of years of case law ... "competent adults are free to make bad deals."

The remaining claims will be settled because its simply not worth pursuing for either party. US Soccer will likely throw the USWNT a bone equal to the nuisance value of the remaining claims so the USWNT can save face, but the fact will always remain that the lawsuit was doomed from the start.

 

[MWN]

Summary Judgement Order:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.739234/gov.uscourts.cacd.739234.250.0.pdf

 

[MWN]

So wonder what they mean by Lydia Wahlke being on leave - does that mean she is fired? Is this a disciplinary leave or is she out for stress and embarrassment. Pretty bad for a woman to be giving her stamp of approval on such a terrible and insulting legal argument against other women. I think it is worse coming from another female. She should have known better just from her own experience of being a female attorney working in the professional sports world.

At her level she is being put on leave to give her an opportunity to find something else (another job). She screwed up by not protecting the Federation from outside counsel's aggressive arguments. It was her job to manage outside counsel and she didn't do it in a way that would prevent a PR problem.

 

[Messi>CR7]

Looks like the judge got it right (or is reading my posts ... which would mean he would always be right). The USWNT lawsuit claiming unequal pay rested on a fiction and falsehood that went against hundreds of years of case law ... "competent adults are free to make bad deals."

The remaining claims will be settled because its simply not worth pursuing for either party. US Soccer will likely throw the USWNT a bone equal to the nuisance value of the remaining claims so the USWNT can save face, but the fact will always remain that the lawsuit was doomed from the start.

I thought common sense would drive USWNT to sell high (when Cordeiro resigned) and settle for a decent amount when public support was at the highest. Why would they let the case go to a summary judgment when the facts of the case were not on their side?

 

[MacDre]

I thought common sense would drive USWNT to sell high (when Cordeiro resigned) and settle for a decent amount when public support was at the highest. Why would they let the case go to a summary judgment when the facts of the case were not on their side?

I think there’s still hope.

Redirect Notice

 

[MWN]

I thought common sense would drive USWNT to sell high (when Cordeiro resigned) and settle for a decent amount when public support was at the highest. Why would they let the case go to a summary judgment when the facts of the case were not on their side?

Two reasons: (1) their legal counsel are not that smart; and (2) its a political ploy that was working well and because their counsel wasn't that smart, they rode the horse way too far.

The USWNT's argument of unequal pay was predicated on ignoring the "guaranteed" nature of their negotiated contract. Because the USWNT compensation and NWSL salaries are tied to the Collective Bargaining Agreement the judge properly rejected that position. This paragraph sums up the nature of why the USWNT could never prevail:

This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to
be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher
bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of
contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the
MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to play
structure when they themselves rejected such a structure. This method of comparison not only fails
to account for the choices made during collective bargaining, it also ignores the economic value of the
"insurance" that WNT players receive under their CBA. One of the defining features of the WNT CBA
is its guarantee that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not. This
stands in stark contrast to the MNT CBA, under which players are only compensated if they are called
into camp to play and then participate in a match. It is difficult to attach a dollar· value to this
"insurance" benefit, and neither party attempts to do so here. However, there is indisputably economic
value to this type of "fixed pay" contract, as compared to a "performance pay" contract. 13 (See generally
McCray Decl., Ex. 2.) Indeed, the WNT clearly attached significant economic value to this contractual
arrangement because it was willing to agree to lower bonuses in exchange for higher fixed payments in
its 2017 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 receive under their agreement, which they opted for at the expense of higher performance based
bonuses. Order, Page 19-20

I think there’s still hope.

Redirect Notice

No hope, just a politician with no basic understanding of the facts of the case doing what politicians do ... talking out of his ass.

 

[SoccerGeek]

Yeah I don't see how they have a leg to stand on with FIFA bonuses and asking US to make up the difference. Doesn't make sense to me but would it make sense to a jury?

Speaking of the entertainment factor...the women's US ticket sales exceeded the men's ticket sales for games played in the US and;

"On Sunday, a crowd of nearly 60,000 people gathered at France’s Parc Olympique Lyonnais to watch as the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) defeated the Netherlands 2-0 in the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final. Back in the U.S., millions more were watching. According to a statement from Fox Sports, citing data from Nielsen, approximately 14.3 million U.S. viewers tuned in to the final match on television, compared to 11.4 million for the 2018 Men’s World Cup Final, a 22% U.S. viewership boost. Fox Sports’ statement reports that total viewership, including online streaming, peaked at roughly 20 million, making it the most-watched soccer match on English-language television, men’s or women’s, in the U.S. since the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup final, which delivered 25.4 million viewers."

I guess people find them more entertaining. I am pretty sure the above information is why the women's team didn't feel their original employment agreement was appropriate.

As I previously posted, FIFA and US Soccer are non profit organizations with their purpose being to grow the game and viewership not maximize profits.

So your arguments/examples are not only trying to match apples to oranges but, equate to men deserve more money than the women because women are the weaker sex. The 60's must have been good years for you. LOL Insert my theme song by Helen Reddy. hahaha

Wrong!!!..get your facts straight before you text stupidity.

Football: 2018 World Cup watched by record 3.5 billion people, says Fifa. (REUTERS) - A record audience of more than 3.5 billion people watched this year's World Cup in Russia, with the final between France and Croatia attracting 1.12 billion viewers, football's world governing body said on Friday (Dec 21).Dec 21, 2018

FIFA announced on Friday that a combined 1.12 billion viewers tuned into official broadcast coverage of the 2019 Women's World Cup held in France. The final match between the United States and the Netherlands drew an average live audience of 82.18 million and reached a total of 263.62 million unique viewers.

 

[Sheriff Joe]

I think there’s still hope.

Redirect Notice

Biden already forgot about it.

 

[Keepermom2]

Two reasons: (1) their legal counsel are not that smart; and (2) its a political ploy that was working well and because their counsel wasn't that smart, they rode the horse way too far.

The USWNT's argument of unequal pay was predicated on ignoring the "guaranteed" nature of their negotiated contract. Because the USWNT compensation and NWSL salaries are tied to the Collective Bargaining Agreement the judge properly rejected that position. This paragraph sums up the nature of why the USWNT could never prevail:





No hope, just a politician with no basic understanding of the facts of the case doing what politicians do ... talking out of his ass.

When I read this part the other day all bets were off...I can no longer defend them:

This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to
be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher
bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of
contracted players.

I have no idea why they think they stand a chance in appeal. While women have often negotiated contracts less than what they deserved because it was either that or no job, obviously that is not the situation here so I don't see how they have any basis for taking this portion of the case further.

 

[MWN]

When I read this part the other day all bets were off...I can no longer defend them:

This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to
be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher
bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of
contracted players.

I have no idea why they think they stand a chance in appeal. While women have often negotiated contracts less than what they deserved because it was either that or no job, obviously that is not the situation here so I don't see how they have any basis for taking this portion of the case further.

Its always been a fact, the WNT never wanted the same deal the men had because the MNT's deal was not guaranteed. They negotiated a deal with a better downside and less upside. This has always been my problem with the lawsuit the WNT players made, they cherry picked the elements of the deal they made that could be worse and ignored the elements of the deal that were better. The law has always been that we look at the "total compensation."

Analogy: Let's say I need two sales people and I'm offering a commission only. Male salesperson comes in and say: "I'll take the job, no base salary and a commission of 10%." Great your hired. Female salesperson comes in and says: "I can't do commission only." Ok, what can you do? "I need a base salary of $100k, health and dental, but I'll take a smaller commission, say 5%." Hmmm ... we negotiate and arrive at a deal. A few years later, the Female salesperson sues me for unequal treatment claiming her 5% commission is less than the man's 10% and asks the court to ignore the fact she was paid a guaranteed $100k base with benefits and the man wasn't.

Its freaking insane and I've been baffled why so many on this board just don't get it, the Federation made a deal designed to promote the woman's game and support the NWSL as part of the collective bargaining agreement. The USWNT's union rejected and the men's deal and wanted something different and now are suing because in hindsight they think they could have made more? Bad faith.

The most striking thing and something that I did not appreciate was that over the course of the period at issue in the lawsuit the USWNT was paid an average of $220k and the USMNT was paid an average of $213k ... THEY WERE PAID MORE and the payments ignored the NWSL salaries, which likely would have put them over $300k. That is just plain old bad faith on the part of the USWNT, shame on them for wasting millions in legal fees.

 

[rainbow_unicorn]

The most striking thing and something that I did not appreciate was that over the course of the period at issue in the lawsuit the USWNT was paid an average of $220k and the USMNT was paid an average of $213k ... THEY WERE PAID MORE

$220k vs. $213k is basically the same...but that's also considering the USWNT won the world cup and the men's didn't qualify. What would have been the payouts if the women didn't qualify and the men won the World Cup?

 

[MWN]

$220k vs. $213k is basically the same...but that's also considering the USWNT won the world cup and the men's didn't qualify. What would have been the payouts if the women didn't qualify and the men won the World Cup?

Are we going to ignore OR also count the guaranteed salary and health benefits the men don't get when coming up with the calculation? The law says we are supposed to consider that ... but the Women's PR machine (and losing lawyers) want us to ignore this.

Edit: Do we take into account that there are 32 men's team in the Men's World Cup, and only 24 for the Women's World Cup? Do we also take into account the prize money "FIFA" and not the US distributes is not the same ($30M v. $400M)?

 

[es_surf]

Are we going to ignore OR also count the guaranteed salary and health benefits the men don't get when coming up with the calculation? The law says we are supposed to consider that ... but the Women's PR machine (and losing lawyers) want us to ignore this.

Edit: Do we take into account that there are 32 men's team in the Men's World Cup, and only 24 for the Women's World Cup? Do we also take into account the prize money "FIFA" and not the US distributes is not the same ($30M v. $400M)?

MWN, i havent been following this for a long time,..but from reading your posts, it appears you have a legal background?
Everything you have said is spot on correct, which is why it would appear you have a legal background. Not only is the WNT lawyer bad, but i suspect could be subject to malpractice.
Like many folks, I ignored the actual details of what was going on here and just assumed the #Equalpay had some validity and a leg to stand on (shame on me for just assuming). What person would not support equal pay and treatment for women? i have two daughters, so of course I support that. #Equalpay a handy catch phrase that is easy for uneducated followers to grab on to and support without looking into the somewhat complicated facts. My background is both finance and contracts, and as soon as i looked at the facts, it was clear to me this Equalpay mantra was a scam.
The WNT players can only bey one of two things,..1) completely lacking any knowledge of what they are doing with respect to CBA structure and value of both their guarantee and benefits compensation that they received in lieu of pay to play, and thus actually think they are in the right in their stance,..or 2) complete crooks and are try to steal money. Thats the only two possibilities from what I can see,..and as far as I am concerned, both lead to the WNT being poor roll models for our young ladies and women.

 

[watfly]

MWN, i havent been following this for a long time,..but from reading your posts, it appears you have a legal background?
Everything you have said is spot on correct, which is why it would appear you have a legal background. Not only is the WNT lawyer bad, but i suspect could be subject to malpractice.
Like many folks, I ignored the actual details of what was going on here and just assumed the #Equalpay had some validity and a leg to stand on (shame on me for just assuming). What person would not support equal pay and treatment for women? i have two daughters, so of course I support that. #Equalpay a handy catch phrase that is easy for uneducated followers to grab on to and support without looking into the somewhat complicated facts. My background is both finance and contracts, and as soon as i looked at the facts, it was clear to me this Equalpay mantra was a scam.
The WNT players can only bey one of two things,..1) completely lacking any knowledge of what they are doing with respect to CBA structure and value of both their guarantee and benefits compensation that they received in lieu of pay to play, and thus actually think they are in the right in their stance,..or 2) complete crooks and are try to steal money. Thats the only two possibilities from what I can see,..and as far as I am concerned, both lead to the WNT being poor roll models for our young ladies and women.

Was the WNT attorney bad, or were the facts just completely unfavorable for the WNT? To lose in summary judgement indicates the facts were overwhelmingly in favor of US Soccer and that even the world's worst PR couldn't overcome the facts. Facts are certainly more persuasive to a judge than to a jury, relatively speaking. It doesn't sound like either side's counsel is going down in the legal Hall of Fame. It makes you wonder even more my US Soccer's counsel felt it necessary to make sexist arguments to substantiate differences in pay when the actual pay was deemed by the Judge to be equal, more or less.