Its unlikely the lawyer would be subject to malpractice, after all the lawyer and the USWNT PR machine has got Biden and many others fooled. I can't say their advice deviated from the standard of care AND was the proximate cause of the USWNT suffering damage ... we want advocates to advocate, even if the argument is weak. The problem is the USWNT's claim for equal pay was and remains at its core intellectually dishonest and that is sad. The only way the lawyers could potentially be liable is if the Federation is awarded "costs" and "attorneys fees" against the USWNT. This thing will settle long before that move.
US Soccer: "Our Proposal for Equal Pay for Women & Men"
- Thread starter MWN
- Start date
Its unlikely the lawyer would be subject to malpractice, after all the lawyer and the USWNT PR machine has got Biden and many others fooled. I can't say their advice deviated from the standard of care AND was the proximate cause of the USWNT suffering damage ... we want advocates to advocate, even if the argument is weak. The problem is the USWNT's claim for equal pay was and remains at its core intellectually dishonest and that is sad. The only way the lawyers could potentially be liable is if the Federation is awarded "costs" and "attorneys fees" against the USWNT. This thing will settle long before that move.
Keepermom2
GOLD
I honestly presumed there was more and the past years were at play. From reading the judgement, that wasn't the case. There is a lot of incorrect information our there but the judgement speaks for itself. The big thing that turned for me was there was evidence they turned down an equivalent deal. When I looked at the tax documents for 3/31/19, the top women's players made $312k to $314 so your number is correct.
Well, if you have been reading my commentary on this issue from over a year ago (see: https://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/uswnt.708/post-254841) its a point I have been making, the women know what the men's deal was and asked for a deal that was unique to their situation. It was right of US Soccer to treat them differently as they requested, it was wrong for Alex Morgan and the USWNT union to claim inequality in the deal the union's lawyers negotiated.
100%
both. more than unfavorable,..i cant see the WNT perspective at all. It appears to be a completely fabricated #equalpay lie. i dont know in what world someone lives in where you can be offered two CBA agreements,.you sign the one you think is a best fit for your needs (ie guarantees and benefits), and then when the outcome plays out (ie they won the WWC), then demand to be paid in addition under the other contract that they originally rejected. No man or women ever gets the best of both contracts. And then claim gender discrimination, under the banner of womens equality to gain the publics sympathy in hopes that they can get US Soccer to cave to the public pressure to settle to give them more money than they are contractually obligated.
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
The USWNT lawyers should have included performance into the argument. Yes, they were paid nearly the same but their performance was much higher.
And not only that; the legal fees may have sunk or became the final blow of ending DA which effected thousands of kids....
Was it? Was their performance higher than the MNT or was the competition weaker? If we are looking at performance, then we also need to look at the competitive field, yes? Should 24 teams in the Women's World Cup be a factor, when the Men's World Cup has 32? How about the fact that there are 211 Men's teams and only 144 Women's teams that qualified (Worldwide)? Might the "men" play better or be more motivated if they too had $100k salary from the Federation like the women? Do we factor that in that the men are paid $0 of guaranteed salary, which is clearly "unequal" compared to the $100k the women get? How about the fact that in the CONCACAF 28 teams competed for 3.5 slots in the last Women's World Cup (12.5%), whereas 35 teams competed for 3.5 slots in the last Men's World Cup (10%)?
You do raise an excellent point. By including performance in the criteria, we can't cherry pick and would have to look all all elements that impact performance and/or results. The reward is often greater when the process is more difficult. The reward is also greater when more dollars are at stake. Ultimately, the USWNT are in an excellent bargaining position, but the better argument for the Women earning the same or more than the USMNT is "value."
By winning in a tournament that pays 10x less then the Men's Tournament, USWNT still bring a greater or equal value to the Federation in the form of TV Rights, Jersey Sales, ticket revenue, etc., because the competitive field is much weaker on the Women's side than the Men's side and this value should translate into guaranteed income and/or a greater share of the income to makeup for prize money discrepancies at the International level. It is a two edged sword (but extremely low risk). If the USMNT where to somehow overcome the competitive disadvantage they find themselves in international play and actually make it and win the Men's World Cup, then the value the men bring would be far greater than it currently is (but that isn't going to happen for many, many years).
Right now FIFA ranks (https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/) our USMNT at No. 22 (1542 points - Belgium is No. 1 with 1765 (220 pt difference)) whereas the on the Women's side the USWNT is ranked no. 1 (2181 points - Austria is No. 22 1792 points (389 pt difference). The greater the point difference the "less competitive" the match, so the women have a good "value" argument.
Correct, we have to look at the relative competitive strength of the opponents. On the women's side, there is a much wider disparity between teams. For example, there is a +91 point difference between the US Women and Germany (Ranked No. 2), which tells us that the German team is far less of a competitive opponent. On the men's side the there are 13 teams between No. 22 (USMNT at 1542) and No. 8 (Spain at 1636), which represents a farm more competitive (aka tougher) challenge.
There is an argument that we could achieve parity by eliminating gender based tournaments and just make it COED, eliminate the rule that women cannot play on Men's teams and deal with the religious freedom claims from the theocracies.
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.
outside!
DA
How does one address the fact that there has been orders of magnitude less investment and support for women's sports over the past decades when compared to men's sports? Seems like an uneven playing field.
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
Why does it need to address that perception? Investment comes to organizations that have a strong foundation with big upside growth potential. Sure, there is initial investment that come when getting something off the ground, but still investors are not charitable, they want a return. The fact of the matter is, there is minimal return in women's sports, thus investment money just isn't there. When there is a return to be made in women's sports, investors will be there, just like they are for all businesses.
The women seem to have an elementary understanding of business and math. The quotes put out by Turasi, Bird and Rapinoe are embarrassingly unintelligent and do little to help their cause. I have no issue if the current USWNT players want to view themselves as pioneers and be key players that started something that eventually becomes financially rewarding. That said, pioneers are never the ones that reap the benefits, its the generations that come after that get the rewards. This current crop of players seem to want the riches that won't be seen for decades to come.
This entire thing has backfired on the women. It's only a matter of time before they have to look themselves in the mirror and admit they almost single handedly threw chaos into youth soccer in the US, but even more so for girls soccer who are now losing prominent clubs.
MacDre
PREMIER
The could be the dumbest shit that I have read in a long time. Perception? You can’t even acknowledge the facts. Who the fuck raised you?
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
What facts? Is the lawsuit and summary judgment missing pertinent facts that would change what was presented? Go ahead and give me the facts then. Just make sure they incorporate at least 4th grade math and business 101 principles...something the USWNT lawsuit was missing from the jump.
outside!
DA
It is not a perception that there has been minimal investment in women's sports. Over the years there have also been rules against allowing women to play sports. Men's sports have benefited from this bias of investment and rules. It is kind of like compound interest.
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
We should not discount the possibility that the USA women are as much better than their international competition as the formulas indicate.
Coed soccer leagues I have seen require a minimum number of each gender on the field. It could be completely coed with 5 men and 5 men in the field and a male and female keepers alternate halves.
MSK357
GOLD
So only allow women to play goalie for a half? lol
texanincali
SILVER ELITE
Which is my point, why is there a need to address a perception that is really a fact? No one with half a brain would argue that there is more investment in men's sports. The reason why might be up for debate, but its really not hard to figure out. Investment comes when a product is put out to market that generates a) lots of sales and in turn a profit, or b) lots of eyeballs that watch something to bring in advertising revenue. Men's sports have not benefited from bias or rules, they have benefited because they generate public interest that can be capitalized on from a business perspective. There is a timeline that goes hand in hand with investment and earnings. There was no bias against MLS players, but given they have only had 25 years to generate interest is the reason they are paid a fraction of what Premier League players earn, who have benefited from over 100 years of the sport to be ingrained in their culture. Women's tennis is massively popular and they earn as much as the men in many tournaments, not because of charity, but because the number of people that watch.
You can try to turn this into a "men's sports were established during a time when women's rights were not what they are today" scenario, but it doesn't hold any water from a business standpoint. There are a multitude of women centered businesses that formed recently that are widely successful. Today's influencer businesses are a prime example of this, why? The answer is simple, because women typically generate more eyeballs and sell more products, thus bringing in advertising dollars and revenue.
NFL, NBA and MLB players made fractions of what today's players make, that's not up for debate. Why are the athletes of today paid so much more than they were years ago? Again, simple answer is they can charge more for tickets, they get multiples more revenue from advertising and sponsors because their product is in front of millions of more eyeballs.
Could we look back at this USWNT and say they laid the groundwork for women soccer players earning millions of dollars per year in another 20 years, sure, and I hope it happens. However, they first must be able to sell their product to the general public and in turn bring in the dollars to build a sustainable, profitable business There will be an investor line a mile long if women's team sports can show there is money to be made, as there should be.
I want the women to be wildly successful and make as much money as possible. That only happens when they can build enough interest to sustain a league of their own and grow it to the point where there is enough money involved to be shared amongst investors. This will never be a $25k salary to a $500k salary in the matter of a few years. It will be a steady increase that may take 25 years to accomplish. That seems to go missing on the USWNT that want it all right now.
The FIFA rankings formula is set up so that the more important the game, the more points it is worth. The USA women are so far ahead in the FIFA rankings that second-place Germany would have to beat the USA twice in a World Cup elimination round in order to overcome the gap between them.
Fair and balanced.