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

[EOTL]

I would agree with you if those were the only numbers to take into consideration.

However, like most things in this debacle, not all the information is being considered. The average viewership on all channels for USMNT friendlies in 2019 (a year after failing to make the World Cup) was 1.27 million. The average viewership on all channels for USWNT friendlin 2019 (post World Cup) was 295k. Those numbers aren’t even close.

To be fair, the women had great numbers in the World Cup and could easily use the nearly guaranteed participation in World Cups to negotiate a better deal. If you compared the viewership in apples to apples cycles (4 years when each team played in a World Cup) then men’s numbers are much more than the women.

Again, I would fully support the USWNT negotiating their own TV deal, but to think their deal would be worth than the men’s is just not reality.

Huh? The cycle included a WC for both. You’re arguing the women don’t deserve more for their greater profitability because the men sucked so bad that they were unprofitable. You’re arguing that it would be unfair to the men to let the women get credit for actually accomplishing something they couldn’t - massive tv ratings and profitability resulting from their success and qualification for the WC? You are doing what all misogynists do, which is blithely dismiss the very things that make the women more profitable. Because if we don’t count all the things that make the WNT better and more profitable, then they aren’t better and more profitable.

My god, you’re essentially arguing that a male sales person should be paid as much as his female counterpart because he might have been able to generate the same sales as her if he weren’t so f**king incompetent. But let’s not hold that incompetence and lack of profitability against him because, you know, maybe he’ll get his act together someday and do what we assume men should be able to do, which is to be better than women at earning money for the company.

Please find me one actual metric by which the men do better than the women. It isn’t ticket revenue. It’s not tv viewership. It isn’t ad revenue. It isn’t success in the field. It isn’t profit. And don’t tell me that Michael Bradley deserves more money than the women because Landon Donovan used to generate tv viewership.

 

[outside!]

@outside!, you raise a point that is very important and should be looked at "objectively." My position will likely differ than yours, but let's lay it out there:

Are sports and participation in sports important from a societal perspective? Should we promote investment into sports?

Providing equal opportunities in the areas of health, education, work, housing, and other "necessities" are important. But is sports a necessity?

I say no way. Sports is nothing more than entertainment and another form of exercise. If we are going to use "investment" as a criteria then we must look at the ROI from both a public and private point of view.

The youth level?
While athletics and team sports in general are nice and some could argue they contribute to health, the reality is that sports offers no additional health benefits to the individual that general exercise and fitness do not already meet. At the amateur and recreational level, sports is simply a form of exercise. We should strive to provide comparable opportunities to each, especially because of the opportunities at the advanced amateur level for education. Here girls and boys have had comparable opportunities for many decades. Both the public and private sectors invest comparably in the girls and boys.

So you see no value in advertising things that are beneficial to the public good? In general, Americans need to exercise more. How do you calculate the health cost savings of more people participating in sports? Trying to get everybody to just workout at the gym or go for a jog will not work very well.

Since most youth sports leagues use public facilities, one could argue that even in the past 20 years there has been unequal investment toward boys sport (DA existed long before GDA for instance which probably violated CA AB 2404 Fair Play Act).

Advanced amateur level?
Title IX addresses access to education through scholarships by ensuring an equal number of scholarships are available to each sex. This has been the law for nearly the last 50 years and arguably, the reason our USWNT does so much better than the rest of the world has been opportunities to play college soccer in the US, whereas, the rest of the world doesn't tie college teams to education. So, women have had equal investment for almost two generations (47 years) in the US. Taken as a whole, both the public and private sectors invest comparably in the women and men.

Title IX does not mandate and equal number of scholarships. The number of scholarships available required for each gender can be calculated several ways, none of which require and equal number of scholarships for men and women. Since there are more women undergraduates than men, an argument could be made that women deserve more scholarships than men. There are no schools that offer 85 full ride scholarships to women, most women's scholarships are partial scholarships.

Professional level?
At the "professional" level, sports is nothing more than entertainment. The professional level the interest is eye balls, seats in the stands and advertising dollars. Nothing more and nothing less. If a professional athlete or team can drive revenue dollars that athlete is paid. There is no dispute that for the last 100 years, investment in women's team sports has been a failure and league after league after league has failed. There is also no dispute that 99% of the private sector dollars are invested in men's sports because of the historical ROI.

My reaction to the funding issue is two fold:

1) At the amateur and advanced amateur level (college) and youth, the funding disparity is non-existent for nearly two generations. There really has not been one. If anything, women's soccer has benefited 2x versus men due to the scholarship imbalance.

There is a scholarship imbalance. Male athletes receive $133 million more athletic scholarship dollars than female athletes each year. https://www.athleticscholarships.net/title-ix-college-athletics-5.htm

2) At the professional level, "so what!" It doesn't matter, especially if the investment is being made by the private sector which has every right to invest in businesses that represent a better return.

Not all investment in professional sports have been private sector. Most professional sports stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars, and most have lost money for the communities they are located in.

 

[MWN]

Ooh underlining. I have read the order. I have read the motion papers. I have read everything filed in this case and a lot of things that weren’t, including discovery. As an attorney, you know that courts often get it wrong, and this is one of those instances. Whether it’s because the judge is a Bush appointee, and idiot, or the WNT attorneys didn’t litigate this very well, or some combination of the above is debatable.

I get your argument there is no discrimination because the women got what they agreed to in the CBA. But I also get why that’s wrong, which I have explained it in detail. The women agreed to a CBA they didn’t like because they have less bargaining power than the men solely by virtue of the fact that they are women. If an employer offers a woman a job that underpays her relative to her male peers for their respective values, it is not a defense to a gender discrimination claim that “she signed the contract and therefore agreed to the discrimination.” It doesn’t matter whether it’s a contract for one women or a group of them. That’s only relevant to class cert, not liability.

In the end, we’ll see how this goes at both the 9th and with advertisers. The WNT attorneys have put so much time into this, and the principle of the matter for their clients probably makes it inevitable that the 9th will ultimately issue a ruling unless it settles for a ton of money despite the district court ruling. And we both know how the 9th is likely to go. Despite Trump, it still has a majority of liberals.

Why do they have less bargaining power?

Where I suspect we disagree is that I reject the notion that the Federation is responsible for curing market forces it did not create. The Women's World Cup only officially began in 1991, due in part to the USSF's support. Both the WNT and Federation attempted to compensate for those market forces by giving the WNT a guaranteed deal and different bonuses, which was further refined in the 2017 deal. The Federation should be applauded and not lambasted. The FIFA World Cup prize money at the time the 2017 CBA was being negotiated was about $2M for the winner. The WNT wanted bonuses that exceeded what the Federation would have received.

Ultimately, the USWNT would have lost because the Federation's defense was about as airtight as it could be because of the quantity/quality exception. SEC. 206, (d) (Prohibition of sex discrimination), provides:

(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

The production of "prize" money would fall under this exception, the quantity of prize money produced by the team/players is precisely what the Federation's reason for paying the players differently was based on, and a factor the court never had to consider because undisputed testimony was before the Court that the average pay to the women's players was more than the average pay to the men.

But if we consider that it wasn't, and let's just say the women did not win the World Cup and the men Won the whole enchilada during the period under review and the men received $2M average salary and the women only $150k, the Federation would have likely still prevailed at trial because of the quantity/quality exception that is in the statute.

Ultimately though it would be awesome if FIFA, who controls the tournament, could get it to the same level economically as the Men's World Cup and treat the prize money the same, but that will not cure the fundamental defect that consumers have limited entertainment dollars to spend and tend to spend those entertainment dollars on entertainment that represents the highest form, which is why the Premier League makes a magnitude more than the MLS.

 

[EOTL]

Why do they have less bargaining power?

Where I suspect we disagree is that I reject the notion that the Federation is responsible for curing market forces it did not create. The Women's World Cup only officially began in 1991, due in part to the USSF's support. Both the WNT and Federation attempted to compensate for those market forces by giving the WNT a guaranteed deal and different bonuses, which was further refined in the 2017 deal. The Federation should be applauded and not lambasted. The FIFA World Cup prize money at the time the 2017 CBA was being negotiated was about $2M for the winner. The WNT wanted bonuses that exceeded what the Federation would have received.

Ultimately, the USWNT would have lost because the Federation's defense was about as airtight as it could be because of the quantity/quality exception. SEC. 206, (d) (Prohibition of sex discrimination), provides:

The production of "prize" money would fall under this exception, the quantity of prize money produced by the team/players is precisely what the Federation's reason for paying the players differently was based on, and a factor the court never had to consider because undisputed testimony was before the Court that the average pay to the women's players was more than the average pay to the men.

But if we consider that it wasn't, and let's just say the women did not win the World Cup and the men Won the whole enchilada during the period under review and the men received $2M average salary and the women only $150k, the Federation would have likely still prevailed at trial because of the quantity/quality exception that is in the statute.

Ultimately though it would be awesome if FIFA, who controls the tournament, could get it to the same level economically as the Men's World Cup and treat the prize money the same, but that will not cure the fundamental defect that consumers have limited entertainment dollars to spend and tend to spend those entertainment dollars on entertainment that represents the highest form, which is why the Premier League makes a magnitude more than the MLS.

They have less bargaining power because they do not have an alternate source of revenue and cannot hold out. Unlike the men, who earn a ton of money from other sources and don’t need the MNT to make a living, the women do. It is not USSF’s fault that the men have more opportunity in a misogynistic world, but it does not mean USSF can perpetuate it by paying the women less than their relative value to USSF. For the women, it is a matter of having to take what they are offered, or not make a living.

Stated differently, external market forces that USSF did not create have absolutely no relevance to the internal market forces that determine the value the WNT players provide to USSF. It doesn’t matter how much FIFA makes off men’s soccer worldwide. It doesn’t matter that in every country in the world but one the MNTs are more valuable to their federation than their WNT. What matters is how much value the WNT players provide to USSF’s bottom line compared to the MNT. And no one yet has provided any actual evidence that the MNT remotely approaches what the WNT does in that regard. No one can make a legitimate argument that the men bring in more profit from tv, advertising, ticket sales, or anything. They don’t and the numbers prove that

If the women had equal bargaining power with the men, this would be easy. The women would just hold out until USSF was crushed under the weight of the advertising losses that would result from it. But the WNT players can’t pull the trigger because they need to eat, USSF knows it, and USSF uses the leverage of external forces (aka the entire history of misogyny worldwide) to negotiate deals in which it pays the women as little as possible rather than what they are worth.

As for prize money, that isn’t something the MNT earns. It goes to the Federations, not teams, and there is nothing that says that money must be designated to MNT players. Taking prize money that is so much greater for the men based on an entire world history of misogyny and the applying it to the MNT just for qualifying only perpetuates misogyny. There is no reason that money should not be shared equally with the WNT. Some of it goes to pay USSF staff and other admin personnel for goodness sake, and they aren’t on the MNT.

But if you look at the prize money the women receive, they are woefully shorted by FIFA because the USWNT is single-handedly responsible for the WWC’s very existence but most of the money goes to other federations. There would be no WWC without the WNT, and every country in the world and also FIFA owes the WNT a huge debt of gratitude for the money they receive by virtue of the WNT’s awesomeness. But FIFA’s failure to properly compensate the WNT for its role generating revenue for FIFA doesn’t mean USSF should (or even may) take money FIFA provides it for WC qualification by the men and then give most of it to them because ”that’s the way the world is.”

 

[es_surf]

You are both wrong and going down the wrong path and clearly, neither of you have taken the time to read the full text of the Court's analysis of the 2017 CBA. The current contract that the USMNT have with USSF does not take into account revenue or value that either team brings to the Federation, unless that revenue is ticket sales and/or prize money. The women have a different deal under the 2017 CBA.

if my message comes across as saying the MNT compensation is based directly on a calculation to revenue, then i should have been clearer. it is indeed not. i was just doing my own analysis based upon how i would analyze (as a % of revenue comparison to the men) to come to my own conclusion. it gets to the same conclusion the judge came to, that the claim has no basis.
i did read 2/3 of the analysis but frankly lawyers are not known for their math and analytic ability, so i was not trying to replicate the courts analysis as its not how i would have looked at it.






:

 

[es_surf]

if my message comes across as saying the MNT compensation is based directly on a calculation to revenue, then i should have been clearer. it is indeed not. i was just doing my own analysis based upon how i would analyze (as a % of revenue comparison to the men) to come to my own conclusion. it gets to the same conclusion the judge came to, that the claim has no basis.
i did read 2/3 of the analysis but frankly lawyers are not known for their math and analytic ability, so i was not trying to replicate the courts analysis as its not how i would have looked at it.

btw, just to clarify for the math nerds. the reason i used a % of revenue analysis here as my basis for comparison, is because the WNT and MNT made essentially the same revenue over the period of analysis (50.9mm vs 49.9mm) and i am just assuming they have similar expense ratios (before compensation).
if the two groups made materially different revenue or had materially different expenses, it would likely not work. For example, i suspect if i did it with the WNBA vs the NBA, the WNBA would likely have a much higher expense ratio (before compensation) on their business vs the NBA. The result of this means there would be less dollars available after non compensation expenses to pay the ladies, so it would probably show the WNBA women being paid 25 cents on every dollar of revenue vs the men making 60 cents of each dollar of revenue, and would not be as relevant a measure.

there is probably many ways to do the analysis in the WNT case to get a feel if they are paid reasonably. But since the WNT argument is so weak in multiple ways even beyond the math, it not hard to see that their argument is phony.

 

[MWN]

... Stated differently, external market forces that USSF did not create have absolutely no relevance to the internal market forces that determine the value the WNT players provide to USSF. It doesn’t matter how much FIFA makes off men’s soccer worldwide. It doesn’t matter that in every country in the world but one the MNTs are more valuable to their federation than their WNT. What matters is how much value the WNT players provide to USSF’s bottom line compared to the MNT. And no one yet has provided any actual evidence that the MNT remotely approaches what the WNT does in that regard. No one can make a legitimate argument that the men bring in more profit from tv, advertising, ticket sales, or anything. They don’t and the numbers prove that

If the women had equal bargaining power with the men, this would be easy. The women would just hold out until USSF was crushed under the weight of the advertising losses that would result from it. But the WNT players can’t pull the trigger because they need to eat, USSF knows it, and USSF uses the leverage of external forces (aka the entire history of misogyny worldwide) to negotiate deals in which it pays the women as little as possible rather than what they are worth.
...

All of what you said is fine and good for the next round of negotiations in 2021/22. When the courts and parties are looking at things like fairness, equality, bargaining power, etc., its through the historical lens of the time when the negotiations were taking place. In 2012, the Women's World Cup was not financially significant to FIFA or the Federation. But like some investments, it has grown and grown.

The Federation at the time created a model that was significantly different than the men's deal. If the Federation was truly interested in perpetuating inequality it would have dug its heals into the ground and said the WNT gets the same deal as the MNT, but it didn't. It recognized there was no viable league to grow as players as the other 2 attempts folded. It agreed give the WNT salaries, bonuses for playing in the NWSL, health insurance, etc.

All at a time where there was questions as to whether the US would receive a return on its investment.

In 2017, the Federation saw the Women were popular. Gave them additional concessions to provide bonuses for exceeding marketing goals.

If the argument is we go back in time with the advantage of hindsight and retroactively change the deal, I can't get on board. If the argument is that we sit down now and renegotiate the CBA moving forward in light of changed circumstances that have resulted in "better" results, then great, but we have a problem.

The WNT has refused to sit down and renegotiate unless the Federation agrees to give them retroactive compensation based on a fiction of what they might have received under the men's deal, which they rejected. That is wrong and bad faith.

Employees are never in an equal bargaining position with the employer, which is why unions exist to help level it out a bit. The WNT's bargaining power has grown and is growing and likely more powerful than the MNT.

The problem for the Federation is that it is a two-edged sword and if they give the WNT more than the men then they expose themselves to a lawsuit for unequal pay by the MNT.

 

[rainbow_unicorn]

100% correct.
I suspect they tried to press to settle, but US Soccer probably told them it better be a low settlement amount given the WNT only have a 0.0000001% chance of success in their bogus claim.

I thought there was a $9M number initially offered. I guess the USWNT didn't like that number and rolled the dice?

 

[Keepermom2]

As I read posts from several people (pretty sure most are men), I am struct how people are arguing the value of women (generally speaking). I appreciate you are not considering that is the number one battle women have had to fight back to the right to vote, to the right to work in executive business positions etc. By the way, I respect most of the posters. This isn't an argument. I would just like to add some information for thought.

For the last several years, men have argued that women do not bring in enough revenue to justify equal pay and then all were shocked that they actually do. Then men started arguing this point and that point as to why they shouldn't be paid equal. Interestingly, if women had to justify their value when there was no basis to do so, the women's movement would not be where it is today because there was no history. You have to invest to achieve returns and returns take time.

The ability of women in sports to generate revenue has been the number one argument since the arguments over Title IX. Had that been considered during the implementation of Title IX, we wouldn't be where we are today in Women's soccer and Title IX wouldn't have passed and we wouldn't be where we are today in women's sports.

The women's national soccer team have had to fight all the way..".From its inception in 1985, the public responded to the USWNT with an attitude of inferiority. The USSF ultimately allowed for the formation of the team solely to avoid a lawsuit, not out of interest in promoting women’s soccer. In its early stages, the USSF made it very clear that it did not think the squad was a legitimate professional enterprise, with players earning no salary. The USSF only provided players ten dollars a day in meal money."

"Despite its slow start, the team stayed together long enough for the announcement that FIFA planned to launch the first ever women’s soccer world championship in 1991. FIFA opted to call it the M&Ms Cup, after the tournament’s sponsor, rather than the FIFA World Cup, in case the event flopped, highlighting the inferior treatment that the women’s game received. FIFA also decided that the games in the women’s championships would only last eighty minutes, believing women were incapable of possessing the stamina to play a full ninety minutes. Such thinking echoes the fears of physical educators in the mid-twentieth century and resembles policies of moderation."

"The U.S. Women’s National Team fought its way to the final of this initial event. The squad faced off against Norway in front of sixty-three thousand fans, at the time the largest crowd to ever watch a women’s soccer game. The U.S. prevailed, defeating Norway, 2-1, to win FIFA’s M&M’s Cup, bringing the first Women’s World Cup title back to the United States. Soccer officials and family members made up the welcome reception for the team; no media attended the return."

The reality is, the women's team now brings in more revenue and the potential for growth in the sport here in the US is huge because women's soccer in the US does not have to compete with American football. Look at what the women's national team has accomplished since 1985.

 

[es_surf]

hopefully this will be my last post. i enjoy mathematical puzzles, so this one got me intrigued and sucked in. its been interesting to think thru the math.

i will leave you guys with a couple last things
when you have a theory about WNT and MNT and economics,..if its investing money that you think it needs or if they are paid well or anything like that,...first test your theory instead on the WNBA and the NBA. I think its the perfect test case for your analysis.
The NBA gave birth to the WNBA 23 years ago. Its its baby, and they are motivated to see it succeed, they have the money to invest (to the extent they think its worth it) and have had 23 years to do so.
Remember how much the NBA advertised the WNBA during prime time finals NBA games and playoffs etc? "We got next!" That was not free to do vs selling that advertising time to someone else.
After 23 years, the WNBA now generates about $60mm in revenue while the NBA generates 120 times more revenue at $7.6B.
It would be very hard for the women to argue gender discrimination, or that they dont invest enough money, or in any way want to hold back the WNBA growth against the parent who gave birth to them and invested so much time and money.

Here is a fascinating web page I just found that goes through the comparisons of the two businesses and the math:

NBA vs WNBA: Revenue, Salaries, Attendance, Ratings

How does the WNBA stack against the NBA in terms of revenue, salaries, attendance and ratings? WSN launches into a comparison of the NBA and the WNBA!

www.wsn.com

check out my above post guess at the WNBA and NBA player % of revenue (25% and 60%), vs what this article states it is,..(20% and 50%).
I dont want to toot my own horn,..but "TOOT TOOT!!"

 

[EOTL]

hopefully this will be my last post. i enjoy mathematical puzzles, so this one got me intrigued and sucked in. its been interesting to think thru the math.

i will leave you guys with a couple last things
when you have a theory about WNT and MNT and economics,..if its investing money that you think it needs or if they are paid well or anything like that,...first test your theory instead on the WNBA and the NBA. I think its the perfect test case for your analysis.
The NBA gave birth to the WNBA 23 years ago. Its its baby, and they are motivated to see it succeed, they have the money to invest (to the extent they think its worth it) and have had 23 years to do so.
Remember how much the NBA advertised the WNBA during prime time finals NBA games and playoffs etc? "We got next!" That was not free to do vs selling that advertising time to someone else.
After 23 years, the WNBA now generates about $60mm in revenue while the NBA generates 120 times more revenue at $7.6B.
It would be very hard for the women to argue gender discrimination, or that they dont invest enough money, or in any way want to hold back the WNBA growth against the parent who gave birth to them and invested so much time and money.

Here is a fascinating web page I just found that goes through the comparisons of the two businesses and the math:

NBA vs WNBA: Revenue, Salaries, Attendance, Ratings

How does the WNBA stack against the NBA in terms of revenue, salaries, attendance and ratings? WSN launches into a comparison of the NBA and the WNBA!

www.wsn.com

check out my above post guess at the WNBA and NBA player % of revenue (25% and 60%), vs what this article states it is,..(20% and 50%).
I dont want to toot my own horn,..but "TOOT TOOT!!"

You seem to be making a straw man argument. No one is claiming NWSL players should make as much as MLS players. This is just a deflection from the real issue, which is that USSF should pay the women more than the men because, unlike in your WNBA/NBA example, the WNT actually is responsible for more revenue and profit.

This argument just reaks of misogyny. You went out and found a place where women don’t bring in as much revenue as the men to justify why women who actually do outperform their male peers financially still deserve to be paid less. This may be the stupidest of many stupid arguments to rationalize why the WNT players should not be paid what they’re worth.

 

[outside!]

You seem to be making a straw man argument. No one is claiming NWSL players should make as much as MLS players. This is just a deflection from the real issue, which is that USSF should pay the women more than the men because, unlike in your WNBA/NBA example, the WNT actually is responsible for more revenue and profit.

This argument just reaks of misogyny. You went out and found a place where women don’t bring in as much revenue as the men to justify why women who actually do outperform their male peers financially still deserve to be paid less. This may be the stupidest of many stupid arguments to rationalize why the WNT players should not be paid what they’re worth.

There is one other flaw with the argument, the comparison of soccer to basketball. Soccer is the most popular game in the world and the potential for growth in the US is much greater than it is for basketball. Soccer is also more relatable than basketball since players can be of average build and still play at the highest levels. Basketball is a great sport, but it will never reach the popularity levels of soccer.

 

[whatithink]

I have to admit to being somewhat mystified by the back & forth here. The facts are pretty simple and the judge ruled on the facts, based on the contracts the players negotiated and the versions of the contracts offered during the negotiations. The judge also allowed the WNT to proceed with the pieces which appeared discriminatory, but outside the contractual relationships.

The WNT were offered the same contract as the MNT and rejected it. So there's no gender discrimination. They generated more revenue in the period in question and got paid more in the period in question. Both were marginal but probably equate. They could have had a bigger upside with a different agreement ... but they didn't have a different agreement!

If the WNT now feel they have greater worth and deserve a better deal, then have at it and negotiate that. You can't go back, though, and say I want everything I had plus I want all the upside from a different contract that I rejected.

 

[es_surf]

You seem to be making a straw man argument. No one is claiming NWSL players should make as much as MLS players. This is just a deflection from the real issue, which is that USSF should pay the women more than the men because, unlike in your WNBA/NBA example, the WNT actually is responsible for more revenue and profit.

This argument just reaks of misogyny. You went out and found a place where women don’t bring in as much revenue as the men to justify why women who actually do outperform their male peers financially still deserve to be paid less. This may be the stupidest of many stupid arguments to rationalize why the WNT players should not be paid what they’re worth.

correct, the WNT did make more revenue
but the WNT was actually paid more than the MNT for making more revenue, and i stated so in my original post.
if i have flawed data, happy to stand corrected

WNT revenue was $50.9mm and the players were paid $25mm (49% of revenue)
MNT revenue was $49.9mm and the players were paid $19mm (37% of revenue)

 

[EOTL]

correct, the WNT did make more revenue
but the WNT was actually paid more than the MNT for making more revenue, and i stated so in my original post.
if i have flawed data, happy to stand corrected

WNT revenue was $50.9mm and the players were paid $25mm (49% of revenue)
MNT revenue was $49.9mm and the players were paid $19mm (37% of revenue)

OMG. You clearly aren’t an accountant or MBA. How many times do I need to explain to folks that revenue is irrelevant? The question is how profitable they are, which also means including expenses. And we all know USSF spends a lot more on the men to earn that lower revenue. The women bring in higher revenue and have lower expenses. They deserve to be paid more.

 

[EOTL]

I have to admit to being somewhat mystified by the back & forth here. The facts are pretty simple and the judge ruled on the facts, based on the contracts the players negotiated and the versions of the contracts offered during the negotiations. The judge also allowed the WNT to proceed with the pieces which appeared discriminatory, but outside the contractual relationships.

The WNT were offered the same contract as the MNT and rejected it. So there's no gender discrimination. They generated more revenue in the period in question and got paid more in the period in question. Both were marginal but probably equate. They could have had a bigger upside with a different agreement ... but they didn't have a different agreement!

If the WNT now feel they have greater worth and deserve a better deal, then have at it and negotiate that. You can't go back, though, and say I want everything I had plus I want all the upside from a different contract that I rejected.

We must accept it because that’s how a judge ruled? Is that how you feel about the Dred Scott case? People should have just accepted that black people aren’t American citizens because that’s what some judges decided (Dred Scott)? Or it was constitutional to make black kids go to black only schools (Please v Ferguson)?

But let’s put “the law” aside for a minute. Do you agree that the WNT should make more than the MNT if the WNT consistently brings in more revenue and has fewer expenses? Do you agree that - if it were possible to apportion out the $10 million Nike contract for the WNT and MNT and the WNT was responsible for $7 million of it - that the WNT should get credit for that? Should the WNT get credit for the higher tv ratings and additional revenue generated by that? No hiding behind a CBA to rationalize why they don’t. I’d like to know what you think they should receive, not more excuses about why they don’t.

 

[MWN]

We must accept it because that’s how a judge ruled? Is that how you feel about the Dred Scott case? People should have just accepted that black people aren’t American citizens because that’s what some judges decided (Dred Scott)? Or it was constitutional to make black kids go to black only schools (Please v Ferguson)?

But let’s put “the law” aside for a minute. Do you agree that the WNT should make more than the MNT if the WNT consistently brings in more revenue and has fewer expenses? Do you agree that - if it were possible to apportion out the $10 million Nike contract for the WNT and MNT and the WNT was responsible for $7 million of it - that the WNT should get credit for that? Should the WNT get credit for the higher tv ratings and additional revenue generated by that? No hiding behind a CBA to rationalize why they don’t. I’d like to know what you think they should receive, not more excuses about why they don’t.

????

Under the 2017 CBA they negotiated additional bonuses for exceeding Sum gross revenue targets and for increased viewership, so they are getting many of these things you identified above.

Ultimately, the parties USSF and WNT agreed and compromised and entered into a new CBA, which provides for bonuses for Olympic qualifying, bonuses for medaling, NWSL bonuses, guaranteed minimum compensation, one-time signing bonus of $230,000, ticket revenue share of $1.50 per ticket, $5k bonus for She Believes and Four Nations Tournament win, severance, injury protection, health, dental and vision, pregnancy pay, guaranteed rest time, child care assistance, partnership bonus for exceeding Sum gross revenue targets, bonus for increased viewership, annual payment in exchange for USSF's commercial use of player likeness; and, a clause that the USSF will schedule a minimum number of WNT games. (source, Page 13 and 14 of Summary Judgment Opinion)

 

[texanincali]

But let’s put “the law” aside for a minute.

And...this is where everything falls apart.

Do you agree that - if it were possible to apportion out the $10 million Nike contract for the WNT and MNT and the WNT was responsible for $7 million of it - that the WNT should get credit for that? Should the WNT get credit for the higher tv ratings and additional revenue generated by that?

Absolutely not. That is not how those contracts work. The contracts were negotiated before any of that information was available. Since the 2015-2019 info is now available, the women can use that information to go after more in their next CBA. You do not get to go back and change the terms of a contract in any business, soccer included.

You're moving a lot of goal posts here.

 

[whatithink]

We must accept it because that’s how a judge ruled? Is that how you feel about the Dred Scott case? People should have just accepted that black people aren’t American citizens because that’s what some judges decided (Dred Scott)? Or it was constitutional to make black kids go to black only schools (Please v Ferguson)?

But let’s put “the law” aside for a minute. Do you agree that the WNT should make more than the MNT if the WNT consistently brings in more revenue and has fewer expenses? Do you agree that - if it were possible to apportion out the $10 million Nike contract for the WNT and MNT and the WNT was responsible for $7 million of it - that the WNT should get credit for that? Should the WNT get credit for the higher tv ratings and additional revenue generated by that? No hiding behind a CBA to rationalize why they don’t. I’d like to know what you think they should receive, not more excuses about why they don’t.

Yes, they should get paid more and should go to USSF and negotiate accordingly. I'd suggest they hire someone competent to do that who can clearly align the revenues they generate, the success they bring and therefore their worth and how that should be compensated.

wrt the court case, they have no case under the CBA, that's clear. They signed a contract, so you can't put the law aside and now say what about this, that and the other. None of that is an excuse, its just a fact.

They may have a case for the rest, and so that's been allowed to proceed.

 

[EOTL]

And...this is where everything falls apart.


Absolutely not. That is not how those contracts work. The contracts were negotiated before any of that information was available. Since the 2015-2019 info is now available, the women can use that information to go after more in their next CBA. You do not get to go back and change the terms of a contract in any business, soccer included.

You're moving a lot of goal posts here.

That’s what I thought, hiding behind a contract to continue rationalizing the continuing underpayment of women. No contract may waive someone’s civil rights, whether a CBA or otherwise. You can’t even muster the “courage” to admit that women should be paid more even when they earn more. Sheesh.

How about a labor union negotiating a contract that pays blacks at a lower rate? They agreed to it, are they stuck with the lower pay rate until the next collective bargaining cycle? Or is it just women who we can force to endure discriminatory CBAs?