The USWNT lawyers should have included performance into the argument. Yes, they were paid nearly the same but their performance was much higher.
re-read MWN response to you. it still applies.
win/loss performance isnt that relevant since their contract was weighted toward a guaranteed structure (per the teams choice when they signed it).
however, lets ignore this and continue...
define "performance"?
I am going to assume by "performance" you mean winning soccer games, and winning the WWC.
As opposed to "performance" being defined by generating revenue (because revenue is how businesses have $ to pay people. given they cant pay people with trophies).
if players should be paid just on winning performance,..then the WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players. But of course they are not paid the same,..has nothing to do with gender discrimination, its simply due to the WNBA generating far less revenue than the NBA. So until the WNBA can generate similar revenue as the NBA, there will not be pay parity between the two groups.
So in short,..players get paid more because they generate more revenue,..not wins.
The same is happening here. The WNT generates far less revenue on average than the MNT.
For the women to generate the same revenue as the men, the women need to a) win more, and b) play more revenue generating games.
In recent years the WNT was spectacularly successful, they could not have done any better when measured by wins,..and they generated $50.8mm of revenue during that impressive success.
In the same recent years the MNT could not have done worse, not even qualifying for the MWC,..and yet they still generated 49.8mm of revenue.
So the best possible performing WNT actually does generate 2% more revenue than the worst possible performing MNT.
In that time frame the women were paid 25mm, while the men were paid 19mm. The women were paid 30% more than the men, even though they only generated 2% more revenue.
So technically the women were paid more than the men for each dollar of revenue earned.
Keep in mind, the womens 25mm and the mens 19mm are a bit of an apple to and orange comparison. Because in addition to the womens 25mm, they also received a guarantee and benefits, both of which have material value that you keep forgetting about (which is why the women pushed for the guarantee structure in the first place).
Why was the WNT paid 30% more even though they only generated 2% more revenue? is it because US Soccer is gender discriminating against the men?
No, it happened because
1), the MNT pay is based upon performance (pay to play percentage contract) and the MNT takes the risk of performance and not US Soccer,.. basically that means if the MNT under perform, they get less of the revenue pie (which is what happened). But if the MNT win, they get more because they took the risk and not US Soccer.
and
2) the WNT has a high probability of generating a revenue target (ie winning). So in US Soccers analysis of what they can pay the WNT in a guarantee, US Soccer can take the risk of offering a higher guarantee pay structure (higher % of revenue) for the women, because the probability is greater that the WNT will generate the revenue needed to cover the guarantee for US Soccer. If the WNT instead lost a lot of games and didnt make the WWC (ie didnt generate much revenue),..then US Soccer would have lost a lot of money because they are still on the hook to pay the WNT their guarantee. Thus in a guarantee structure, US Soccer is taking the performance risk, not the players.,..but as a compensation for US Soccer taking that risk (no one takes risk without reward), if the WNT does well, US Soccer gets that upside,..which upside is what the WNT is now trying to take, after US Soccer took the risk to earn it.
If you are currently thinking to yourself "yea, the WNBA players deserve to be paid the same as the NBA players because they also win and put a ball into a round hole",.... then I cant help you because you are not living in the real world.
