Women's National Soccer's unequal pay class action suit thrown out

[Atreus21]

The decision can be read here, but a summary is as follows:

1. The women's team made more money than the men. They averaged $220,747 per game whereas the men averaged $212,639.
2. The women's team made less in bonuses, but this was offset by their receiving guaranteed annual salaries and severance pay, which the men don't get. Furthermore, in 2016 the women were offered higher bonuses similar to the men's CBA but rejected it in favor of higher base salary or other benefits.
3. The women's team would've made more under the men's collective bargaining agreement, but the men would also have made less under the women's CBA.

Some excerpts from the decision:

This approach - merely comparing what each team would have made under the other team's CBA - is untenable in this case because it ignores the reality that the MNT and WNT bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the WNT explicitly rejected the terms they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves. The first time the WNT requested bonuses equivalent to those received by the MNT was in January 2016. USSF rejected that proposal, however, because the WNT was not asking for a pay-to-play arrangement similar to the MNT CBA; instead, it was asking for all of the upsides of the MNT CBA (namely, higher bonuses) without any of the drawbacks (e.g., no base salary).

This history of negotiations between the paiiies demonstrates that the WNT (Women's team) rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT (Men's team), and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play strncture when they themselves rejected such a structure. This method of comparison not only fails to account for the choices made during collective bargaining, it also ignores the economic value of the "insurance" that WNT players receive under their CBA. One of the defining features of the WNT CBA is its guarantee that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not. This stands in stai·k contrast to the MNT CBA, under which players are only compensated if they are called into camp to play and then paiiicipate in a match. It is difficult to attach a dollar value to this "insurance" benefit, and neither party attempts to do so here.

 

[uclaLabrat]

The judges' ruling is a master class in motivated reasoning.

In a world where pay-for-performance is the rule, a woman's team that is absolutely world class (favorites or par to win every single world cup or international championship event for the last 20 years) barely matches a men's team who can't even make the world cup, and never get past the round of 16, is antithetical to the stated logic of the ruling. A world class woman's team is paid the same as an also-ran men's team.

Thank judges, for arriving at the laughably wrong conclusion.

 

[soundforbjt]

The judges' ruling is a master class in motivated reasoning.

In a world where pay-for-performance is the rule, a woman's team that is absolutely world class (favorites or par to win every single world cup or international championship event for the last 20 years) barely matches a men's team who can't even make the world cup, and never get past the round of 16, is antithetical to the stated logic of the ruling. A world class woman's team is paid the same as an also-ran men's team.

Thank judges, for arriving at the laughably wrong conclusion.

Judge was appointed by George W. Bush and is 78 years old.

 

[Atreus21]

The judges' ruling is a master class in motivated reasoning.

In a world where pay-for-performance is the rule, a woman's team that is absolutely world class (favorites or par to win every single world cup or international championship event for the last 20 years) barely matches a men's team who can't even make the world cup, and never get past the round of 16, is antithetical to the stated logic of the ruling. A world class woman's team is paid the same as an also-ran men's team.

Thank judges, for arriving at the laughably wrong conclusion.

But the women specifically wanted a contract that rewarded them less for performance, seeking instead for more guarantees about things like base income. When they were offered the same model as the men, they turned it down.

 

[brycejones]

Thank god those uppity women have been put back in their place.

 

[jameny5]

A White "old" judge. White men just don't want "women" to have their day. Not the White House, the Vice Presidency or their bodies. Such a shame from the "corrupt" United States justice system. Always works for White men and nobody else!

 

[fskimospy]

I generally agree with the judge’s ruling, but if I were the USWNT I would simply demand to be paid much more than the men regardless in my next contract.

Because they are, you know, actually good at soccer unlike our men’s team.

 

[Atreus21]

I generally agree with the judge’s ruling, but if I were the USWNT I would simply demand to be paid much more than the men regardless in my next contract.

Because they are, you know, actually good at soccer unlike our men’s team.

That's what I was wondering. Are they operating under the terms negotiated in 2016?

If so, it's just rotten luck that they happened to blow the doors off while under a contract that doesn't reward as much for performance.

 

[HomerJS]

I don't know much about these soccer so I looked up Woman's world cup history.

1991 was the 1st WWC. The US has won 4 times 1 runner-up and 3 third place.

During that same time how many have the men won?

 

[Atari2600]

When the agreement reaches its expiry it can be renegotiated as they see fit.

Seeking to change terms half way through requires the agreement of all parties.

A ruling in favour of the US WNT here would have connotations across the business world.

 

[TheVrolok]

I generally agree with the judge’s ruling, but if I were the USWNT I would simply demand to be paid much more than the men regardless in my next contract.

I agree with you this.

Because they are, you know, actually good at soccer unlike our men’s team.

Sorta. Our women's team is dramatically better than the women's teams of the world and our men's team is worse versus the same standard largely because of the popularity of sports vs soccer in the US vs elsewhere. If the Jordan's, Lebron's, Jackson's, etc etc grew up playing soccer rather than having options for football, baseball, and basketball that pay dramatically more (in the US) our men's national team would probably be in a very different standing. Having said all that, I'm not sure what value this point has because it's the reality we live in. Shrug. The women's team absolutely out performs the men's in their respective contexts.

 

[Starbuck1975]

American women’s soccer has been dominant for decades, due in large part to the strong university based women’s programs that feed our talent pool.

They unquestionably deserve more pay than the men’s team.

However, the judge is correct in that their pay is a function of the contract they specifically negotiated for. They are in a strong position to negotiate a better contract in the future.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with you this.

Sorta. Our women's team is dramatically better than the women's teams of the world and our men's team is worse versus the same standard largely because of the popularity of sports vs soccer in the US vs elsewhere. If the Jordan's, Lebron's, Jackson's, etc etc grew up playing soccer rather than having options for football, baseball, and basketball that pay dramatically more (in the US) our men's national team would probably be in a very different standing. Having said all that, I'm not sure what value this point has because it's the reality we live in. Shrug. The women's team absolutely out performs the men's in their respective contexts.

I agree that if our very best male athletes played soccer instead of football or basketball or whatever that our men’s team would be much better. As you say though, they don’t, so let’s not pay these scrubs the same as the people who actually win.

 

[1prophet]

Typical American exceptionalism thinking courts magically create economic equality in a sport considered 5th rate below hockey in their own country even though it's number one world wide

the main reason women will never reach men in pay in the sport of soccer.

The entire purse for the 2019 Women's World Cup was $30 million, with the winning country receiving $4 million. In contrast, FIFA's purse for the men's 2018 World Cup was $400 million, with the champions receiving $38 million, more than the entire purse at the Women's World Cup

Equalize the purse first internationally then women will have a place to draw equal pay from.

But before we go telling the world howabout we deal with disparities in the top American sports first and their respective women leagues like with the NBA vs WNBA

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

Stephen Curry $40 million vs Brittney Griner $113,500

 

[fskimospy]

Typical American exceptionalism thinking courts magically create economic equality in a sport considered 5th rate below hockey in their own country even though it's number one world wide

the main reason women will never reach men in pay in the sport of soccer.



Equalize the purse first internationally then women will have a place to draw equal pay from.

But before we go telling the world howabout we deal with disparities in the top American sports first and their respective women leagues like with the NBA vs WNBA

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

Stephen Curry $40 million vs Brittney Griner $113,500

Steph Curry makes more money because the NBA brings in more revenue than the WNBA. For US soccer the women bring in more revenue than the men.

 

[KB]

This is the most likely reason I can think of why they are so different.

Mens vs Womens WC Viewership:
Total viewership
2018: 3.572 billion (mens)
2019: 1.12 billion (womens)

Final viewership
2018: 1.12 billion
2019: 82.17 million

Average audience
2018: 191 million
2019: 17.27 million

 

[fskimospy]

This is the most likely reason I can think of why they are so different.

Mens vs Womens WC Viewership:
Total viewership
2018: 3.572 billion (mens)
2019: 1.12 billion (womens)

Final viewership
2018: 1.12 billion
2019: 82.17 million

Average audience
2018: 191 million
2019: 17.27 million

Not sure why this is relevant as these are worldwide figures. Wouldn't the most relevant thing for US salaries be revenues to US soccer?

 

[pauldun170]

Not sure why this is relevant as these are worldwide figures. Wouldn't the most relevant thing for US salaries be revenues to US soccer?

Disclaimer - I have not read the ruling or reviewed the facts of the case. I am going by OP summary and 60 second google search.

What would be relevant would be statistics locally for national games AND worldwide since that also factors into revenue streams (world cup) over a time period that spans prior to the lawsuit to today.

The lawsuit was initiated in 2015 complaining about pay parity
In 2017, the women's team appeared to have negotiated a contract that brings about parity with mens team.

Complaints about this thread seemed to be more about disagreement with the contract the Women's team negotiated for themselves. That they should have tied their contract more to viewership and wins vs pursuing stable income.

It appears that the womens team have achieved parity with the Mens team in their 2017 contract negotiations, but they valued different perks in their compensation package vs the men's team.

 

[fskimospy]

Disclaimer - I have not read the ruling or reviewed the facts of the case. I am going by OP summary and 60 second google search.

What would be relevant would be statistics locally for national games AND worldwide since that also factors into revenue streams (world cup) over a time period that spans prior to the lawsuit to today.

The lawsuit was initiated in 2015 complaining about pay parity
In 2017, the women's team appeared to have negotiated a contract that brings about parity with mens team.

Complaints about this thread seemed to be more about disagreement with the contract the Women's team negotiated for themselves. That they should have tied their contract more to viewership and wins vs pursuing stable income.

It appears that the womens team have achieved parity with the Mens team in their 2017 contract negotiations, but they valued different perks in their compensation package vs the men's team.

I said I already agreed with the ruling, I'm saying in their next contract they should demand more money because they bring in more money. This is primarily because they are actually good at soccer, unlike our shit men's team.

 

[Jaskalas]

Unequal pay should be focused where it matters, on the low end. Not on 6 figure contracts for the rich and wealthy.

 

[pauldun170]

I said I already agreed with the ruling, I'm saying in their next contract they should demand more money because they bring in more money. This is primarily because they are actually good at soccer, unlike our shit men's team.

I don't follow soccer but it sounds like it would be the natural progression in their next round of negotiations to ask for more.
To me appears that this is no longer an gender gap situation and now more of a normal song and dance around compensation. Working out the increments for each round.
Dishing out huge increases all at once is going to be a tough sell. Giving the women's team more money in their contract means money has to be taken away from somewhere else. Which means more contracts to negotiate or restructuring or whatever.

 

[mect]

I don't follow soccer but it sounds like it would be the natural progression in their next round of negotiations to ask for more.
To me appears that this is no longer an gender gap situation and now more of a normal song and dance around compensation. Working out the increments for each round.
Dishing out huge increases all at once is going to be a tough sell. Giving the women's team more money in their contract means money has to be taken away from somewhere else. Which means more contracts to negotiate or restructuring or whatever.

I disagree, this is absolutely a gender gap situation. Can you think of a single professional sport where a men's team that is significantly outperforming the women's team gets only the same pay? I can't. The women getting equal pay for far superior work is absolutely a sign of a gender gap situation.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't follow soccer but it sounds like it would be the natural progression in their next round of negotiations to ask for more.
To me appears that this is no longer an gender gap situation and now more of a normal song and dance around compensation. Working out the increments for each round.
Dishing out huge increases all at once is going to be a tough sell. Giving the women's team more money in their contract means money has to be taken away from somewhere else. Which means more contracts to negotiate or restructuring or whatever.

Why would it be a tough sell? They win more, they bring in more money, they should get more of that money. If cuts have to be made then they should be made to the underperforming part, the men's team.

I mean this is just A->B capitalism.

 

[trenchfoot]

Seems to me the solution to this problem is to have the men's and women's teams representatives form a joint bargaining committee and have that committee represent both team's interests for the common good.

 

[pauldun170]

I disagree, this is absolutely a gender gap situation. Can you think of a single professional sport where a men's team that is significantly outperforming the women's team gets only the same pay? I can't. The women getting equal pay for far superior work is absolutely a sign of a gender gap situation.

Reminder that I'm going by info being presented and my questions are actual questions. Not leading questions.

Perform on what metric?
Compensation for sporting events is going to be directly tied to viewership and attendance because that's how the organizations make money.
This is not to be confused with the ability for Individuals are also able to independently secure sponsorship through popularity.

What is the Current viewership and attendance nationally for both women's and men's teams for past 7 years?
The time span is important because it establishes trend as it relates to the initial lawsuit and later contract negotiation.
How long is their current contract?