USWNT suing U.S. Soccer for discrimination

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,151
410
#1
USWNT suing U.S. Soccer for discrimination

Three months before kickoff for the Women's World Cup, players for the U.S. women's national team filed a gender discrimination lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Soccer Federation.


Of the current USWNT player pool, 28 team members were named as plaintiffs in the case filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles, and they are seeking class-action status over "institutionalized gender discrimination" toward the team. The lawsuit was filed under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.





"Despite the fact that these female and male players are called upon to perform the same job responsibilities on their teams and participate in international competitions for their single common employer, the USSF, the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts," the lawsuit said. "This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players -- with the female players, in contrast to male players, becoming world champions."


The U.S. women's national team won the World Cup in 2015 and will open defense of the title at the 2019 Women's World Cup, which begins in France on June 7.


"I don't know if there was a tipping point, but the feeling was that this was the next best step for us to put us in the best possible position to continue to fight for what we believe is right and what the law recognizes," midfielder Megan Rapinoe said. "And to try to achieve equality under the law, equal working conditions, equal working pay. It goes far beyond equal pay into the working conditions as well."
"A comparison of the WNT and MNT pay shows that if each team played 20 friendlies in a year and each team won all 20 friendlies, female WNT players would earn a maximum of $99,000 or $4,950 per game, while similarly situated male MNT players would earn an average of $263,320 or $13,166 per game against the various levels of competition they would face,'' the lawsuit says.


The U.S. Soccer Federation said it does not comment on pending litigation. The USSF has maintained in the past that any pay disparity between the men's and women's teams results from separate collective bargaining agreements.


The women's team set up its compensation structure, which included a guaranteed salary rather than a pay-for-play model like the men, in the last labor contract. The players also earn salaries -- paid by the federation -- for playing in the National Women's Soccer League.


In 2016, five members of the U.S. women's national soccer team filed a similar complaint against the U.S. Soccer Federation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That filing noted that, despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue in 2015 than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn.


Representing the federation, attorney Kathryn H. Ruemmler wrote in a May 2016 letter to the EEOC that the USSF had invested more than $3.5 million in the National Women's Soccer League in addition to $3.45 million in salaries for women's national team players. She said over the previous four years, women's national team players averaged almost $280,000, a figure $90,000 more than men's national team players. She also said the women receive benefits the men don't, including severance pay, medical insurance, maternity leave, child care and a relocation allowance. Ruemmler also said men's games generated about $144 million from 2008-15, while women's matches generated $53 million, and men's games from 2013-15 were twice the average for women's matches.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
649
455
845
Ottawa, Canada
#3
Isn't based on advertising revenue, ratings and crowd draw (ticket pricing)? The same reason why women's professional sports athletes (WNBA) make less than the men (NBA).

That's not discrimination, that's economics, right?
You'd have a point if these were regular teams, but these are the national men's and women's teams. That and being paid less than half as much is pretty rough by any standard.
 
Dec 3, 2013
18,652
12,482
565
#4
You'd have a point if these were regular teams, but these are the national men's and women's teams. That and being paid less than half as much is pretty rough by any standard.
Point applies if the revenue stream is invested in one league more than the other.

If advertisers are putting less money, and ratings are much lower, you're not going to get paid the same whether you are national team or an NBA team.
 

Voost Kain

Daily Mail headline writer
Jun 6, 2015
1,555
438
460
#5
I don't get Women professional athletes not realizing that the guys get more money because people actually go to see their games.

Many of the Women league organizations have not even tries outreach programs and have even in some cases lowered requirements. Why not push things like womens soccer and the WNBA? Work with tons of sponsors, make it so people will actually go and watch the games, buy the merchandise, anything.

This is kind of like Women union teachers asking to be paid the same salary as the male equivalent, when they themselves perform worse across the board and their school registration and attendance is dropping. Why do you think you deserve more money?
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
#8
You'd have a point if these were regular teams, but these are the national men's and women's teams. That and being paid less than half as much is pretty rough by any standard.
Sure it's rough. But that's how the world works. If you generate less revenue, you get paid less than the people generating more. What these plaintiffs are really doing is saying the men should be discriminated against by being denied the fair value of their labor in relation to the revenue they generate.
 

Voost Kain

Daily Mail headline writer
Jun 6, 2015
1,555
438
460
#9
Sure it's rough. But that's how the world works. If you generate less revenue, you get paid less than the people generating more. What these plaintiffs are really doing is saying the men should be discriminated against by being denied the fair value of their labor in relation to the revenue they generate.
They want forced parity in cash paper for less results, which doesn't make a lick of sense.
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,456
5,546
335
#11
You'd have a point if these were regular teams, but these are the national men's and women's teams. That and being paid less than half as much is pretty rough by any standard.
But they still attract less crowds etc. or? This is not a government funded league or team. In the end they and everyone else should be based on worth and income they bring
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,294
684
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#12
So they generate about a third of the revenue of the men's team...

...and they also negotiated a different pay structure with more security and benefits than the men. Well, OK then, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If they wanted guaranteed salaries and better benefits than the men who are more mercenary...and they got it....you can't demand parity in pay because those additional benefits carry a value as well.

Women's sports just have a very small paying fan base. For every cute "girl power" anecdote where a mom takes her daughters to a women's soccer game, for whatever reason that does not translate into the adult sports fan world, where men spend BILLIONS to watch sports, outfit themselves in gear, and get drunk.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,151
410
#13
There was an interview and its also mentioned in the article, where they were asked about the guranteed contracts. Women have them, men don't. They quickly pivoted and pulled a 180 and backed down on their equality stance. They wouldn't give up their guranteed contracts, doubt they would give up their maternity leave either.

Also saw a video and don't remember if it was the national team or wold cup overall, but women actually got a larger % of revenue than men did. I think it was something like men got 9% of 4 Billion dollars, while women got 13% of 130 Million dollars.
 
Jan 19, 2007
11,019
476
1,135
#20
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/ne...-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
That's irrelevant. It's why there is a Men and Womens national and international competition for the obvious difference in gender capabilities.

Their pay however I would expect to be distributed by what the team brings in in revenue, which I don't know what it is compared to the men so I can't really say how fairly they are being paid.
 
Nov 27, 2014
267
97
285
in my head
#21
I would simply allow women to be in the men's team if they are good enough. So it's not a men's team anymore, and instead a team of the best players in the country. Should be like that in every sport everywhere. Strictly women's teams and men teams can of course continue to exist.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#22
In leagues like the NBA and WNBA I understand the discrepancy in pay, but this is the national team where both men and women are trying to represent their country. This should be an instance where the pay is equal in my opinion.
 
Apr 5, 2018
462
591
225
#23
Well na , its all about putting bums on seats and unfortunate not many people in Europe want to watch women trying to play football , sorry its just a fact. In Britain the arsenal ladies team might get 2000 people watching a big game , i mean non league teams could get that from a big match aswell ( non league meaning 4 + leagues down from the premier league )

people need to accept the sport watching public mostly want to watch the Top Players , players in there apex , top of the mountain and mostly that is Male sport unfortunately.
 
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
#26
Honestly the only way you could not understand why the US Men's and Women's teams don't get equal pay is by not understanding football at all.

The actual abilities of the players first of all. Is there a single female player in the US who could comfortably walk into the Men's team?
Of course not.

In terms of raw ability you would expect your best players to get the most money. If a player isn't performing at a high enough level? They get no money because they don't get called up to the International squad.

Consider that there are literally 100s of US "soccer" players who don't get paid ANYTHING at all because they are not good enough to make the squad.
Then consider that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those players is objectively better than all of the players in the woman's squad.

The woman's team is a squad of inferior players. Plain and simple.

You'd got to laugh at people bringing up that "the woman's team have won the world cup but the men's team can't even get to the final".
Yes, that's because the men's game is FAR more competitive and the margins for error are far far narrower.

I would offer USWNT a simple solution.
Gather all of the available money for US soccer players into one big pot.
At the end of each season the men's team will face the women's team in a "winner takes all" match where the money is divided up among the players in the winning squad.

IF they do not agree to this and the answer is "we will never be good enough to beat the men's team" then why the fuck would you expect to be paid the same as them?

The Men's team are objectively better at the job. Plain and simple.

In what other occupation could you get away with saying "my colleagues are more talented than me, better at the job, bring more money into the company, attract more attention to the company, train harder, perform at a higher level and could better me easily if we went head to head BUT I really think you should give us the same salary".

PLUS equal pay here would only end up screwing over the Men's team and US Soccer as a whole. You can be sure that success with the lawsuit would not result in massive pay raises for the women but would more likely result in pay cuts for the men. Otherwise, where is the money coming from to pay the extra to the women? Your grassroots programs would suffer because they will lose funding in order to pay the Women more.

If you end up balancing the scales by paying the men less then all those dudes who are eligible to play for other nations besides the US will opt to play for those nations instead. FIFA allows players to play for the nation of their parents or grandparents birth. Also players who live overseas for long enough are eligible to play for their country of residence provided they have not previously played for a different national team.

So, imagine a potential US Ronaldo or Messi with Polish immigrant parents moving to Germany at 15 or 16 to be raised and nurtured in Bayern Munich's youth system. By 21 he is an emerging superstar making big waves in Europe.

Most of these young lads will have agents and advisors and my guess would be that any young and promising US players with possible eligibility for other national teams would be warned off of committing to the US national team too early. The knock on effects of this should be obvious when you see that many of the more successful international sides will often have a core that have been playing together since their early teens.

Money, facilities etc is a potential factor in attracting that player to the US national team instead of Germany or Poland buuuut he's gonna be making shit pay playing for the US cos they have some goofy rule where the women's team needs to be paid the same as the men's?

Good luck with that.
 
Oct 1, 2006
3,412
2,867
1,090
#27
You'd have a point if these were regular teams, but these are the national men's and women's teams. That and being paid less than half as much is pretty rough by any standard.
Maybe they are only worth half as much?

That seems fair when they can probably be beaten by a competent high school men's team. Their abilities just aren't as valuable.
 
Feb 27, 2017
220
234
210
Germany
#29
In leagues like the NBA and WNBA I understand the discrepancy in pay, but this is the national team where both men and women are trying to represent their country. This should be an instance where the pay is equal in my opinion.
I kind of agree, but when one side brings in $70 million and the other $4 billion (figures from 2014 WC), then I can kinda understand why woman are being paid less... there is only a limited amount of money available. I mean... half of the $70m total revenue would go to the WC winner IF they got equally paid (the German NT got $35m for winning it in 2014, the woman got $2m)...

They want half of the pie... it's ridiculous.
 
May 17, 2012
5,379
1,317
455
Canada
#32
In leagues like the NBA and WNBA I understand the discrepancy in pay, but this is the national team where both men and women are trying to represent their country. This should be an instance where the pay is equal in my opinion.
There are economic factors in representing their country. None of this would even exist if there wasn't revenue generation somewhere. The men's sports still generate more money from these events than the woman's version.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,151
410
#34
There are economic factors in representing their country. None of this would even exist if there wasn't revenue generation somewhere. The men's sports still generate more money from these events than the woman's version.
sounds like they want the mens team to subsidize them. Seems kinda anti feminist if you ask me. What happened to paying equal on dates? This is the same thing but on a grander scale, the want the mens profits to pay them, i.e. they want men to pay their salaries.
 
Likes: Yakuzakazuya
Oct 1, 2006
3,412
2,867
1,090
#36
Wow, that's a wildly unsupported and sexist assumption.
Unsupported?

https://usatodayhss.com/2017/the-fc-dallas-u-15-academy-team-beat-the-u-s-women-s-national-team-5-2

The U.S. women’s national soccer team is considered the best in the world, champions of the 2015 World Cup and winners of multiple Olympic gold medals.

All those awards didn’t intimidate an MLS academy squad.
The best female team in the world got bested by a bunch of teenage males. That is just physiological fact - the best females will always be substantially less athletically capable than the best males. If acknowledging science is sexist, then I am proudly a sexist.

I look forward to the standard misinterpretation of this fact as "But all men aren't more athletic than all women!" That's not the point.
 
Last edited:
Sep 24, 2014
124
102
295
Nope
#37
United States Women's National Soccer Team (USWNT) represents the United Statesin international women's soccer. The team is the most successful in international women's soccer, winning three Women's World Cuptitles (including the first ever Women's World Cup in 1991), four Olympic women's gold medals (including the first ever Olympic women's soccer tournament in 1996), eight CONCACAF Gold Cups, and ten Algarve Cups.

Vs USA mens team results: jack shit

They totally deserve more based on merits alone, but unfortunately for them they still have to realize its apples and oranges comparison that are not equivalent based on the revenue in women's sports vs mens sports. Only way to change that is more people watching and attending women's sports and that's not gonna happen free market and all.... Alex Morgan is still GOAT
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,910
1,115
330
#38
United States Women's National Soccer Team (USWNT) represents the United Statesin international women's soccer. The team is the most successful in international women's soccer, winning three Women's World Cuptitles (including the first ever Women's World Cup in 1991), four Olympic women's gold medals (including the first ever Olympic women's soccer tournament in 1996), eight CONCACAF Gold Cups, and ten Algarve Cups.

Vs USA mens team results: jack shit

They totally deserve more based on merits alone, but unfortunately for them they still have to realize its apples and oranges comparison that are not equivalent based on the revenue in women's sports vs mens sports. Only way to change that is more people watching and attending women's sports and that's not gonna happen free market and all.... Alex Morgan is still GOAT
Accolades mean nothing without revenue. According to US Soccer the men's team brings in about double in revenue over a 4 year cycle. One of the issues with tracking just one year is that the male and female world cups are not in the same year. so while the women did gain more revenue last year to the tune of 5.8 million, that was in a wold cup year.

This whole thing is bs, if you even look into the contract the women's team agreed to. They have a way to get paid the same in their contract.

"If in any calendar year, the ratio of aggregate compensation of women's national team players to the aggregate revenue from all women's national team games (including all games in U.S. Soccer promoted women's tournaments) is less than the ratio of the aggregate compensation of the men's national team players compensation to the aggregate revenue from all men's national team games (including all games in U.S. Soccer promoted men's tournaments), then U.S. Soccer will make a lump sum payment to the women's national team player pool to make the ratios equal."

They just can't trigger it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: infinitys_7th
Oct 1, 2006
3,412
2,867
1,090
#39
Accolades mean nothing without revenue. According to US Soccer the men's team brings in about double in revenue over a 4 year cycle. One of the issues with tracking just one year is that the male and female world cups are not in the same year. so while the women did gain more revenue last year to the tune of 5.8 million, that was in a wold cup year.

This whole thing is bs, if you even look into the contract the women's team agreed to. They have a way to get paid the same in their contract.

"If in any calendar year, the ratio of aggregate compensation of women's national team players to the aggregate revenue from all women's national team games (including all games in U.S. Soccer promoted women's tournaments) is less than the ratio of the aggregate compensation of the men's national team players compensation to the aggregate revenue from all men's national team games (including all games in U.S. Soccer promoted men's tournaments), then U.S. Soccer will make a lump sum payment to the women's national team player pool to make the ratios equal."

They45 just can't trigger it.
As someone else said, they also don't want their pay guarantee to go away, just like the men who don't have it. They don't want equality, they want special treatment.
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
649
455
845
Ottawa, Canada
#41
Please, go into the science of it.
Look, while men clearly have the testosterone advantage as a general rule, assuming that one of the consistently strongest women's soccer teams in the world could be beaten by any "competent" high school men's team is making a lot of assumptions. It assumes there aren't enough women on the squad with running power comparable to an average male player; it assumes that tactics and experience don't matter, which they do.

You're probably going to point to Infinity's claims as 'proof,' but he's being intentionally misleading. And even if we took his claims at face value, isn't the whole point to reflect achievement within a given league, not absolute human achievement? Women are not lesser human beings if they can't run as quickly as a man; top-tier players deserve top-tier pay... certainly better than "less than half what the men make."
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
#42
Look, while men clearly have the testosterone advantage as a general rule, assuming that one of the consistently strongest women's soccer teams in the world could be beaten by any "competent" high school men's team is making a lot of assumptions. It assumes there aren't enough women on the squad with running power comparable to an average male player; it assumes that tactics and experience don't matter, which they do.

You're probably going to point to Infinity's claims as 'proof,' but he's being intentionally misleading. And even if we took his claims at face value, isn't the whole point to reflect achievement within a given league, not absolute human achievement? Women are not lesser human beings if they can't run as quickly as a man; top-tier players deserve top-tier pay... certainly better than "less than half what the men make."
Please don't move goal posts in such a disingenuous manner. No one is saying they are lesser human beings. People are discussing their value in relation to revenue. That is not even close to saying they are not worth as much as human beings. And comparing people who compare revenue in / out to determine what someone should be paid, to people who believe women are lesser human beings, is a vile tactic.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,517
2,906
240
#43
You're probably going to point to Infinity's claims as 'proof,' but he's being intentionally misleading. And even if we took his claims at face value, isn't the whole point to reflect achievement within a given league, not absolute human achievement? Women are not lesser human beings if they can't run as quickly as a man; top-tier players deserve top-tier pay... certainly better than "less than half what the men make."
No one has said that. Not anything close

God, it's like you people want to be victims all the time.
 
Oct 1, 2006
3,412
2,867
1,090
#44
You're probably going to point to Infinity's claims as 'proof,' but he's being intentionally misleading.
Yes, the Olympic class female soccer team getting beat by high school males is misleading.

Shooting is basically the only sport females compete on an even playing field in, which is because it is almost entirely practice and skill based. Everything else they have a tremendous physiological disadvantage at high levels.

Value in sports is heavily based on performance and entertainment value (which is a function of performance). Why would you expect females to be paid exactly the same as males when their performance is so much lower?

Note that I am purposefully using (somatic) sex rather than gender as well.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,151
410
#45
The championship AAA team is not going to play its players the same as the last place MLB team.

You think if Bryce Harper was stuck playing AA or AAA he would make his huge contract? Is that sexist/racist or whatever ist you want to put out there?

Nope its economics.

I have an idea, do the equal pay thing, but take away all the revenue men bring to the sport. So no mens games subsidizing the womens team. The Womens team would probably be broke within a year or two.
 
Oct 1, 2006
3,412
2,867
1,090
#48
Likes: cryptoadam
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,782
385
#49
They attract far less crowds and far less money. Insisting upon this will only cause them to just shut down women's soccer teams because it's not economically viable. The most hilarious part about this is that they have contract payment guarantees that the men do not have, and are unwilling to give this up even if they get their pay equality.


And even if we took his claims at face value, isn't the whole point to reflect achievement within a given league, not absolute human achievement? Women are not lesser human beings if they can't run as quickly as a man; top-tier players deserve top-tier pay... certainly better than "less than half what the men make."
My God if you want us to take you seriously you need to at least take basic economics into consideration. They are already making top tier pay for women's soccer.

If I can fill the front row of a boxing match with thousand dollar tickets for men's boxing, and $50 tickets for female boxing, do you think we should pay male and female boxers equally?
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
30
25
90
#50
I see people say that the pay inequality is wrong, and that pay should be closer if not equal because the women are top tier in their leauge. But I rarely see solutions from the people making this claim. Are they saying the men should have a pay cut to equal the women's pay or that the women's pay should be subsidized like a charity or social service to equal the men's pay due to women's soccer players already getting equal pay in regards to their cut of revenue from their own leauge?