ADVERTISEMENT

US soccer women win $22m in equal pay

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
120,645
79,571
1
  • Like
Reactions: Roar More
This whole issue is incredibly confusing because the reporting on it sucks.

is the US soccer federation the employer who the women negotiated a CBA with?
 
Settlement. Good for them. Honestly, I thought they had zero chances. Now it will be interesting to see what FIFA does. FIFA gives the men’s team a lot more than the woman’s team

I thought they had zero chance also but US Soccer caved. Isn't this about TV money? If so just about no one watches women's soccer unless its the finals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scbob
I thought they had zero chance also but US Soccer caved. Isn't this about TV money? If so just about no one watches women's soccer unless its the finals.
What is interesting is that Soccer, like all pro sports, is really just entertainment. LIke any other entertainment, participant income is based on entertainment income. The money is finite.

Sports creates an interesting intersection of "what should be" and "competition". For example, should there be regulations to make more black head coaches? And if so, should we also have more white and female players? If you are going to dictate "fair", shouldn't it fair all the way around? Asian, gay, handicapped...etc.

The money is finite. Where is this money coming from? As I understand it, a lot of money comes from FIFA who pays a ton more to men than women. Can that be corrected? I doubt it. So paying more to the women will mean they will have to find greater revenues or they will have to cut pay to men.
 
This is wrong, period. They had a CBA that was negotiated, if they didn't like they shouldn't have signed it or renegotiated it when it expired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues
What is interesting is that Soccer, like all pro sports, is really just entertainment. LIke any other entertainment, participant income is based on entertainment income. The money is finite.

Sports creates an interesting intersection of "what should be" and "competition". For example, should there be regulations to make more black head coaches? And if so, should we also have more white and female players? If you are going to dictate "fair", shouldn't it fair all the way around? Asian, gay, handicapped...etc.

The money is finite. Where is this money coming from? As I understand it, a lot of money comes from FIFA who pays a ton more to men than women. Can that be corrected? I doubt it. So paying more to the women will mean they will have to find greater revenues or they will have to cut pay to men.

Which means our best men will seek duel citizenship and play for Mexico, Brazil, or some Middle Eastern Country that hands out Citizenship documents to promising athletes all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues
Which means our best men will seek duel citizenship and play for Mexico, Brazil, or some Middle Eastern Country that hands out Citizenship documents to promising athletes all the time.
I get that concern - and I think it is silly if they are simply "pooling" money from the men's and women's team and then distributing it evenly given the revenue generation is different - but the players who are on the national team for the US make a ton more money from their club contracts than from playing for the national team. I don't think finances plays much of a role in choosing a country to play for.

That's really a big difference here and why it was a significant issue for the ladies - most (all?) of them make more money from national team play than their clubs, so how much they get paid via that system is of vast importance to their livelihood (except for the lucky few who are famous enough to make significant endorsement money).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues
I get that concern - and I think it is silly if they are simply "pooling" money from the men's and women's team and then distributing it evenly given the revenue generation is different - but the players who are on the national team for the US make a ton more money from their club contracts than from playing for the national team. I don't think finances plays much of a role in choosing a country to play for.

That's really a big difference here and why it was a significant issue for the ladies - most (all?) of them make more money from national team play than their clubs, so how much they get paid via that system is of vast importance to their livelihood (except for the lucky few who are famous enough to make significant endorsement money).
great points. We'll see. I think most of the elite US players play in leagues outside the USA. As such, have probably lost that affinity to the USA. So they'll go where the money is best. And that isn't just payroll but who can elevate their brand to make more money when they negotiate their next contract in addition to sales of merch.

An example has been a spirited conversation about the legacy of lebron james. Had he stayed in CLE after coming back he's have been a local hero beyond description. Today, he's seen as a gun for hire with no affinity to any particular team or brand. His legacy will suffer even though he will clearly be a top ten player of all time. But who really cares? I don't care about Kobe or Bird although I respect their games. But Kobe will always be a basketball god in LA and Bird will be in Boston. My point is, a top player playing for the USA will be a USA legend. But a top player playing for Mexico or France is just another player.
 
I thought they had zero chance also but US Soccer caved. Isn't this about TV money? If so just about no one watches women's soccer unless its the finals.

It's not just TV money, but also ticket sales money from games and payouts from competitions (e.g. the World Cup). The problem is that in all of those categories, the men's team generates far more revenue than the women's. Of course, when the men's team fails to make the World Cup (as happened in 2018) and the women make theirs (and win it), the women will make more money in that category.

Regarding TV money, ask around and see how many people are watching the women's team in the She Believes Cup tonight. And if you have no idea what that is or that there is a game tonight on ESPN2, yeah, that's the point.

I'm very curious as to see what the details of a new CBA would be but articles seem very short on details. When they say that the USMNT and USWNT will be paid the "same" do they mean the methodology will be the same (i.e. they get the same percentages of generated revenue by their respective teams) or that the dollar amount will be the same (they both get paid x). It's hard for me to believe that the men's team will agree to the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fayette_LION
It's not just TV money, but also ticket sales money from games and payouts from competitions (e.g. the World Cup). The problem is that in all of those categories, the men's team generates far more revenue than the women's. Of course, when the men's team fails to make the World Cup (as happened in 2018) and the women make theirs (and win it), the women will make more money in that category.

Regarding TV money, ask around and see how many people are watching the women's team in the She Believes Cup tonight. And if you have no idea what that is or that there is a game tonight on ESPN2, yeah, that's the point.

I'm very curious as to see what the details of a new CBA would be but articles seem very short on details. When they say that the USMNT and USWNT will be paid the "same" do they mean the methodology will be the same (i.e. they get the same percentages of generated revenue by their respective teams) or that the dollar amount will be the same (they both get paid x). It's hard for me to believe that the men's team will agree to the latter.
Agree....the money comes from a finite pool. if you pay the ladies out of whack pay relative to that pool, some other entity will suffer.
 
I get that concern - and I think it is silly if they are simply "pooling" money from the men's and women's team and then distributing it evenly given the revenue generation is different - but the players who are on the national team for the US make a ton more money from their club contracts than from playing for the national team. I don't think finances plays much of a role in choosing a country to play for.

That's really a big difference here and why it was a significant issue for the ladies - most (all?) of them make more money from national team play than their clubs, so how much they get paid via that system is of vast importance to their livelihood (except for the lucky few who are famous enough to make significant endorsement money).
Yes. This is why the women negotiated a CBA that paid them base salaries and medical benefits, while the men were paid only for being on a roster for a National team match. Further, as was detailed on these boards when Subway Megan and her cohorts started the dust up:
-The FIFA money is like 10X or more for men vs women for the world cup.
-They cherry picked the data on revenues in a year when the US Women went deep/won the world cup, but the US men didn't qualify.

I am for full equality and believe the women should get every $$ they earn. To ensure that the men cannot take advantage of the women, I am still calling for US Soccer to split into 2 separate organizations - US Men's Soccer, and US Women's Soccer.
The Men and Women should negotiate their own TV contracts.
They should control their own revenues from FIFA and other sources.
They should negotiate their own CBAs free from the influence of the other.

The time has come for the Men to stand on their own and stop taking advantage of the Women!*

*Unless the men claim to be women, then they can take all of the roster spots of the women in the name of equality and tolerance.
 
Last edited:
Just dissolve both the mens and womens teams and create one unisex team, problem solved.
 
Did I miss something? They didn't "win" the case right? There was simply a settlement reached.

US Soccer just didn't want to look "bad" given the current climate and paid them IMO
 
Did I miss something? They didn't "win" the case right? There was simply a settlement reached.

US Soccer just didn't want to look "bad" given the current climate and paid them IMO
well, few civil cases are actually "won" in a court. Fewer and fewer cases are tried in front of a judge and jury due to their volutility. Few jurors would understand the complexity of a case like this. So it "settled" but the numbers indicate that the woman won over US Soccer. And US Soccer's statements indicate that they capitulated on the notion of "equal pay". So I am comfortable using the word "won" in this case.
 
well, few civil cases are actually "won" in a court. Fewer and fewer cases are tried in front of a judge and jury due to their volutility. Few jurors would understand the complexity of a case like this. So it "settled" but the numbers indicate that the woman won over US Soccer. And US Soccer's statements indicate that they capitulated on the notion of "equal pay". So I am comfortable using the word "won" in this case.
Gotcha--makes sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
Why is this good? My understanding is that men earned more because their TV contract was much more valuable.
I think I should get paid the same amount to sing that Celine Dion gets paid to sing. Millions are willing to pay big $$$ to hear her sing but wouldn't pay a nickle to hear me sing... but that should have nothing to do with it.
 
So when the men go deep in the tournament and win big cash they have to share with the women. So how much did the women give to the men when they won their title and the men failed to qualify ?
Aren’t we supposed to call them birthing people?
 
ADVERTISEMENT