Five USWNT players file wage discrimination claim

Jeff Kassouf March 31, 2016 738

Five of the most prominent United States women’s national team players have filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing U.S. Soccer of wage discrimination in the latest act of a labor dispute which escalated earlier this year.

Carli Lloyd, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and Hope Solo are represented in the claim, which lawyers say was filed on Thursday. The players say they represent the interests of the entire U.S. women’s national team, which won the World Cup nine months ago. The group accuses U.S. Soccer of paying the women four times less than the men.

Thursday’s news comes after the United States Women’s National Team Players Association lawyer Rich Nichiols and the U.S. Soccer federation traded public barbs in previous months regarding whether or not a collective bargaining agreement even exists between the USWNTPA and the federation. U.S. Soccer argues that a memorandum of understanding is in place from 2013 and lasts through December, but U.S. players refute that.

“The reason the players have filed is because the USSF has made it clear that they will not consider equal pay [with the U.S. men] in the negotiations for a new agreement,” the players’ lawyer, Jeffrey Kessler, said. “So whether or not there’s an existing agreement, they won’t ever agree to make a change to give us the right salary. And the players have been very patient and have concluded they have to bring a case.”

U.S. Soccer responded Thursday with the following statement:

“We understand the Women’s National Team Players Association is filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against U.S. Soccer. While we have not seen this complaint and can’t comment on the specifics of it, we are disappointed about this action. We have been a world leader in women’s soccer and are proud of the commitment we have made to building the women’s game in the United States over the past 30 years.”

Grass-only playing surfaces and better travel accommodations remain among the most contentious issues for the U.S. women in CBA negotiations. U.S. players led the charge against FIFA to have the 2015 World Cup moved from artificial turf to natural grass, an effort which ultimately failed but did raise significant attention to the players’ battles for equal treatment from their federation and international governing body. The U.S. women boycotted a match scheduled to be played in Honolulu, Hawaii, in December less the 24 hours before the match was scheduled to kick off, a move which served as a precursor to the current labor negotiations.

“Recently, it has become clear that the Federation has no intention of providing us equal pay for equal work,” Rapinoe said.

According to Kessler’s law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, the EEOC conducts an independent investigation, ultimately issues its findings and, if warranted, seeks relief on behalf of the complainants.

Asked on NBC’s Today show if players would strike ahead of the Olympics, the players did not specifically answer the question.

  • 謝廷凱

    wow, five players, five most wealthy women player in the world argue the wage….?

    • Guest

      Are freaking serious? They have money because of endorsements not because of USoccer. And they are the leaders of the team fighting for the other members. Do me a favor and pull your head out of your..

    • chive-on

      Trolling much? Tool……

    • Gary Diver

      These five players are not sue for themselves, they are suing on behalf of the complete NT. Look at the financial numbers of this case and history of discrimination in women soccer before trying to educate the rest of us.

      • CED

        They aren;t educating anyone, they are using the same silly logic post Wcup from the people whining about the mens wcup winner gets 35mil compared to 2 mil for women. You do know that;s the basis if their 4 times less claim, It’s economically ignorant logic or even worse purposely pretending the economics are different and the revenue is 4.5 billion compared to less than 100 million. That the sponsor revenue is 530millon compared to 17mil. It also neglects as % of revenue the womens Wcup gets more pay.

        • Gary Diver

          In these cases you can always find numbers that support your politics. Do you think that men tennis players should receive more money then women tennis players? After fighting for over 30 years for equal pay there are some people still arguing that male tennis players do deserve more money than their female counterparts. Do you agree?

          • CED

            LOL…Men and women tennis get paid the same by the major tournies..Try again! Btw, they got that b/c they produced the same revenue/ratings for the events.. When the revenue is the same the pay will be the same in soccer.

          • Gary Diver

            Equal pay for women tennis players took a long, long time to be accepted. Most people were not onboard at the beginning of the fight for equal pay. It is interesting that Billie Jean King is now speaking up for women soccer equality.

            What were the arguments against equal pay for women tennis players? Where those arguments valid 40 years ago? If they were valid 40 years ago, why aren’t they still valid today? Interestingly, Novak Djokovic recently tried to argue that the equal pay situation in major tennis tournaments was unfair to men tennis players. Do you agree with him?

          • CED

            Can you read? The pay became equal b/c revenue and ratings were equal or sometimes better. What part can’t you get threw your head..this is about revenue/profit! It’s not about what year it is. Pay is equal when you produce the same revenue/profit for the company, organization, sponsor, etc…b/c then it can;t be justified. Produce 4.5 billion in revenue and 530M in sponsors and the womens pay would be equal.

          • Guest

            Yet the women’s team made ussoccer 16 million dollars last year and the men lost 2 million so I think they have earned a raise.

          • CED

            You can’t really be that stupid..of course you are. Compare MNT Wcup year to womens Wcup you moron..try apples to apples. Of course you’re not smart enough to. You’re comparing the 1st year of a cycle of men to the biggest year for WNT, that woud be like comparing MNR Wcup year to first year of WNT cycle like 2013 the year WNT played the least games by far in their cycle and all were friendlies and sevral were foreign which are always money losers.

          • Ethan

            I didn’t know the US was the only country that plays in a World Cup. You’re constantly comparing men’s World Cup revenue to women’s World Cup revenue to criticize the US women’s players, but that’s far from a solid argument considering that revenue is generated in large part because of history and by several national teams that are more popular than the USMNT.

          • CED

            Clueless the 4x wage difference they are complaining about is based on the Wcup. That’s their argument they got 2 mil in 2015..men got 9 mil in 2014. Using their own argument against them. If you actually use apples to apples they have no argument compare revenue/profit by each in their wcup years. Also, they get a base salary…MNT only get paid by being on the roster of an actual game.

          • guest

            the uswnt don’t want just a raise. they are going to get that already. they want equal pay based on gender.

    • Ashley C

      I don’t think they’re just doing it for themselves or anything. Morgan is one of the most recognizable faces in women’s football. And let’s not forget Australia fought for this too in their homeland.

      • Guest

        Maybe because Alyssa Naeher and Whitney Engen arguing for it would not have the same effect as the five most prominent on the team right now?

    • AlexH

      I think they are making the argument on behalf of the rest of the players so that younger less secure players don’t have to worry about retaliation.

    • Guest

      Are you kidding? So just because these five players make a decent salary, that means that they should not be entitled to the salary that they deserve?

      • mockmook

        “entitled to the salary that they deserve”

        Which is what exactly? Are they making too much?

        • Guest

          If they brought in 18 million in revenue and the men lost 2 million in revenue, then I think it is pretty obvious that they should be getting more instead of USSF giving them 200k and saying they should be grateful.

    • Guest

      This is exactly what is wrong. You are saying that because these women get paid a livable wage, they should just accept it and be happy.

  • chive-on

    Good. It’s especially ridiculous that the men are paid more considering they are terrible and have never won a major tournament. Meanwhile the women have been ranked first or near first since the beginning, and have several World Cup wins and Olympic gold medals. It’s like, what do they have to do? It’s past time for US Soccer to get with it, their refusal to treat the USWNT equally is beyond laughable at this point.

    • CED

      You really can;t be that stupid to not no why the 4 times claim is stupid…Hint 1 tourney produces 4+ billion in revenue and 430 million just from sponsors, the other less than 100 million total and 17 million from sponsors.

      • Lindsey

        The revenue you are referring to is what FIFA makes from the men’s and women’s WC tournaments not what Us Soccer makes from their own sponsors, home ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. Us Soccer and FIFA are not the same thing. These women are going after US Soccer, not FIFA. The gender discrimination coming from FIFA is a whole other ordeal. Before you start calling people atupid please take a second to inform yourself of what is going otherwise pot… meet kettle. It was proven in the NYT article yesterday that the men are not bringing in a whole lot more money than the USWNT yet the women are not given the same amenities and are on a pay scale that limits their earning potential compared to the men.

        • CED

          The basis of their 4 x claim is FIFA money. using their own stupid argument against them, Btw, trying comparing apples to apples..MNT Wcup years to WNT Wcup years. The article doesn’t. Btw, I have gone thru the figures when they were released a month ago.

          I hope they get equality, they can get paid just like the men..only when they actual make a roster, no salary. Pay based on the bonus from the international events, that means nothing form Olympics since IOC plays liitle and USSF takes a loss on it. Only 20 games a year max so no per game extra bonuses(MNT avoid exceeding 20 unless unavoidable, that means no VT or max 2 games in a year like this. USNT would cry if they had the MNT contract on what the MNT get as % of payouts on events and earned bonuses from event payout only like Wcup.

          • Lindsey

            I think you are thinking of the prize money difference between the men amd women’s world cups. Again, that is FIFA, not US Soccer. Also it is odd that a lot of articles talking about this topic point out the prize money difference coming from FIFA for the champions of each WC/WWC tournament, but they don’t mention that every USWNT player got $300k which was the same amount that each GerMNT player got for winning in 2014. US Soccer made up for the difference. The second part of your post is what it seems like these girls want.

          • CED

            Yes, it’s the prize money and the 4x is what is in their own press statements trying to make their case. Thus if they want to make that case total revenue from MWcup to WWcup is using their own foolish logic against of them . Second, the clown lawyer on tv tries to say USWNT made 16 mi in 2015 and men lost 2 mil. He’s being a purposely deceptive in comparing WWCup year to Mens 1st year of a new cycle where they play less by design. Now somebody could be just as deceptive and compare MWcup year 2014 (their big revenue year) to 2013 the 1sy year of a cycle for women where they purposely played 10 games and actually lost money. They really don’t want to play apples to apples b/c the fact is they are actually getting a higher % of revenue they produce than the men over a 4 yr cycle.

          • Lorehead

            You incorrectly believe that the women make a higher percentage of all their revenue that the men do. That is not the case, as USSF itself admits.

  • VaFan51

    “We have been a world leader in women’s soccer…”
    The paternalism and utter incompetence of US Soccer is breath-taking. They have charge of a WNT program that is the most popular and successful women’s sports team in the world, one that has created thousands of fans and players in a huge developing soccer market (the U.S.) and they seem to have absolutely no strategic vision.
    What would US Soccer do if the men’s side became a world power? They would absolutely throw money at it. When the WNT does it, they pat them on the head and tell them how lucky they are not to live in another country.

  • Guest

    High-profile, low impact suit, because USWNT players’ situation is rather unique. Asking for similar pay structure to men would benefit a handful of women only. Thus, there are aspects of this suit that come across as selfish.

    • Gary Diver

      I suppose you could argue that every equal pay individual lawsuit is “selfish”. But the outcomes affect whole classes of people beyond the individuals immediately involved. This case really involves how women soccer players are treated by their federation.

      • Guest

        The pay model Lloyd et al. are asking for is fair, but it will actually penalize USWNT pool players not regularly called up, and it cannot be applied to other women’s clubs/leagues without subsidization. So, as a matter of principle, this action is just. As a matter of practicality, it’s limited in its impact.

        • koolaide

          This situation is not relevant to clubs/leagues. Those are separate employers.

      • mockmook

        It only affects the pay of USWNT members — there is no larger statement or benefit being made.

  • guest

    how about equal uwsnt pay for the nwsl players that do equal work? i don’t see any concern for their pay.

    • STT

      Are you the same anonymous guest making this general comment multiple times? Lame.

      • Steglitz49

        It is not as lame as you would like it to be.

        Most NTs work on the nation reimbursing the clubs for the time that they make use of their players for camps, friendlies and tournaments.

        In such a system Alex, Carli and Hope and anyone would be free to negotite their club salary. That would be the base. On top of that bonuses for winning the WC etc can be paid but those vary between countries.

        • STT

          The “lame” was criticizing the double-posting, not the complaint itself, which I replied to on the other comment.

          • guest

            similar but not quite equal. like most things in life.

  • CED

    “The group accuses U.S. Soccer of paying the women four times less than the men.”

    If your read the full statements given they are basing thus on they got 2 mil/ for 2015 Wcup and Men got 9 mil for 2014Wcup. Thus back to the same stupid argument that neglects that the mens Wcup has 4+ billion in revenue and the womens around 100million.

    • Gary Diver

      Let’s assume, as reported, that the men’s NT individual pay would be higher if they lost all 20 Friendlies than the women’s NT individual pay would be if they won all 20 Friendlies. Can you really justify that inequality?

      • CED

        If a company had a mens and women division and the mens 4had .5 billion revenue and the womens 100 million they would not pay the womens division 376millon, that’s what the player pay was for mens Wcup. The company would 86 the womens division if they had to pay them 376 million, as as they would be losing 276million/yr.

      • guest

        depends on how many people were watching it. no revenue if people aren’t watching.

        • guest

          look at the recent attendances. the uswnt got 13,00 people to watch them play germany the second best team in the world. the usmnt got 20,000 to watch them play guatemala.

          • Gary Diver

            You are comparing apples and oranges. The 13,000 was at Boca Rotan (not a big city) and was the third Friendly game in 8 days. The Guatemala game was a do or die game. The USNWT did draw over 25,000 a few days earlier in Nashville which may be a better comparison.

          • guest

            that’s true. but the uswnt is at peak interest now. the uswnt know this and that’s why they are striking now. their numbers will likely go down from here. take a look at attendance comparisons for the last five years. they are even more apart.

          • Gary Diver

            Agree, but one can’t criticize USWNT for their timing. If I was going to fight for my self-interest, I would try to time my fight in the best way possible.

          • guest

            not even mentioning the tv numbers.

          • Andy

            It’s at a peak right now, but like the stock market, you can’t predict easily whether it will go up or down from here.

          • Craigaroo

            Not the best comparison. The men’s game against Guatemala was a World Cup qualifier and the Fed put the game in a proven market. EDIT – I see Gary Diver making a similar point and doing a better job of it 🙂

        • Gary Diver

          If Fox is showing the men’s Friendlies and ESPN is showing the women’s Friendlies, how do you compare?

    • Constant Weeder

      You’re setting up a straw man argument; the complaint isn’t aimed at FIFA. Unfortunately, US Soccer has set up an organizational structure to evade the fiscal transparency a public body should have, so it’s impossible to know how much revenue the USWNT generates for it. (They commingle the WNT finances with all the other NTs and development programs.) So it’s impossible to know how they compare with the men.
      In any case, equal pay for equal work is the law.

      • CED

        Clueless the basis of their 4X argument is stated., It’s nonsense. Btw, lets give USWNT equal pay, they can get paid only when they are called up and only based on the bonuses paid by the event. They would be crying if they had that contract instead of their guaranteed salary regardless of pay.

  • guest

    that is a good idea. from now on only the clubs should pay their salary and the ussf pay achieved bonuses. and no more guaranteed yearly allocated roster spots. the ussf should be able to call up new players when they see fit like on the usmnt. they should have to earn their spot every game.

    • CED

      LOL..They don;t want that..they claim to want equality in theory but not in practice. They don’t want to just get paid when you actually get called up to a roster like the MNT.

      • guest

        yes that seems to be the case. the uswnt players really want equal pay… but not equal work.

        • Steglitz49

          “All WoSo players are equal but some are more equal than others” — to borrow and employ a slogan or quote.

        • guest

          equal pay for equal work is one thing. equal pay for guaranteed work is something very different.

    • Gary Diver

      A BBC commentator during the SBC US versus England game made the interesting and important observation that USWNT really operates as a national “club team”. This is not how most other NTs operate. In Europe the players play for club teams and are usually called up briefly for Friendlies and tournaments. In the US the situation with USWNT is quite different – our national team is essentially full time and their players are more or less “lent” to their club teams when not needed.

      • Steglitz49

        The US playing as a national club team has been brought forward to FIFA as unfair competitive advantage. The NWSL was partly ste up as a response to blunt to that critcism.

        • Gary Diver

          Any suggestions? You won’t eliminate NWSL would you?

          • Steglitz49

            You can’t eliminate the NWSL. The big Federations would immediately raise the point again with FIFA.

            The NWSL is here to stay in some form or another, if only as “Potemkin’s stage scenery”.

          • Lorehead

            That claim is completely delusional. There’s no FIFA rule against national teams going into residency, and Brazil, Australia and Canada have all done so.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Other countries should develop into first world behemoths by hook or crook, by fair means or foul like the U.S. did, then they’d be able to maintain national teams like clubs.

          • Gary Diver

            The US may just be lucky. During the WC there were several articles/reports on how poorly Brazilian women are viewed and treated in soccer-mad Brazil. And we all know how well Australia treats their women players.

            I don’t know the merits of this case, but it is true that if you don’t stand up for what you believe you fairly deserve, nobody else is going to do it for you.

        • USMNTfan4life

          Also, the USSF subsidizes the NWSL, which they have never done for the MLS. If the women challenge the USSF, then the federation can always say,”we will pay you more, but the amount we give to subsidize the NWSL will be very low or none at all.” The federation is not obligated to help the NWSL financially.

          • koolaide

            hahaha. The USSF, SUM, and MLS have long been closely tied together financially. And those near the top in each have profited off each. Look at who owned SUM & who owned MLS teams and who got the $$. Dig into the travel agency USSF & SUM use to use and who owned/profited from it.

        • Lorehead

          No it wasn’t.

        • koolaide

          Presenting facts not in evidence. There are no rules preventing other nations from paying their national team players year round to play and train for national team duty.

          • Steglitz49

            Seeing that the US bent over and took it like a man, one concludes that FIFA rules the waves and don’t waive the rules — at least not in this case.

      • F0OtballNowAndAlways

        Which is why the players are very keen to have the whole contract/memorandum of understanding snafu resolved. If there is a contract, then their status as members of USWNT FC will be set in stone. You couldn’t simply invite players to camp and waive them willy Nilly. They will essential maintain the same long term contracts players do in clubs.

        Personally, I don’t think that is a good thing. The NT should be in a constant state of flux, with currently performing players constantly replacing their faltering peers on the team.

  • Jason Naquin

    US Soccer HAD the opportunity to make a statement to the world and pay the women what they are worth but chose to stick with the status quo and not be visionaries. After being nauseated this past week watching the US Men play a vulgar version of the beautiful game, I am so thankful that we have our women’s side to demonstrate to the world that we do know how to play the game. Wake up US Soccer. Develop a new business model. Pay the men and women, coaches and players, the exact same across the board.
    And while you’re at it, put install Jill Ellis as director of development because the women are clearly better at making top notch players than the men.

    • CED

      Yes, pay the women like the men..of course they women would be crying b/c they would not longer have a guaranteed salary. The MNT only gets paid for games you’re called to the roster for. WNT get USSF base salary for tier I that’s 72K whether they are on rosters or not after a status is given.

    • mockmook

      “US Soccer HAD the opportunity to make a statement to the world and pay the women what they are worth”

      How do you know they aren’t already doing that?

  • Ron Bishop

    What the MWC produces as far as revenue is irrelevant.

    The USWNT is hired, managed, and paid by US Soccer. They are under US laws.
    The women do the same thing as men for the same employer. They should be paid equally.

    • CED

      You’re the kind of economic and business ignorant person they are depending on.

  • guest

    why does alex morgan have higher pay than the non-uswnt nwsl players? they do the same job.

    • STT

      I know you’re trying to troll, but:
      Skill and market worth. Morgan, being good enough to be on the USWNT, is valued as being more skilled and more marketable than her NWSL teammates.
      The issue with this NT suit is two-fold. On the skill front, you can never directly compare men and women since the physical differences make a direct comparison the general men’s game and women’s game impossible. However, relative to their respective games, the WNT are much more skilled than the MNT are. Market worth would then be the only thing that could put the MNT above the WNT, but with how SUM has obscured everything, it’s nearly impossible to evaluate that as well. What we do know is that the women have been profitable the last two years while the men haven’t, and the women are projected to bring in more money than the men in the next two years. So, all those considered, the WNT seems to have an argument here, unless SUM comes out with all their detailed finances and proves otherwise.

      • guest

        morgan is getting from just nwsl salary alone of around $50,000 while people at the bottom of the nwsl are getting $6000. that seems quite unequal.

        • STT

          As I said – skill and market value. Or course Morgan should be making much more than a rookie. We can argue how MUCH more, but Morgan clearly bring much more to the table for an NWSL team than a fresh-out-of-college player.

          • guest

            i agree. but that doesn’t seem to be the arguement that the uswnt players are making. they are saying the females work is equal to the men’s work but not to all the females work. the work is not equal.

          • STT

            The argument the USWNT players are making is the the WNT should be payed similar to the MNT. They aren’t making any argument about NWSL payment because that’s a separate issue entirely – just as they aren’t making an argument about how MLS players are payed. League salaries have not, and should not, be entering this discussion.

            It’s also worth pointing out the club play is essentially an open market and for-profit, while NT play is NOT open at all (you can’t jump between nationalities) and, as national orgs, shouldn’t be for-profit. So, again, discrepancy in club wages is 1) completely fair, and 2) a completely separate issue.

          • Gary Diver

            Good point. When people conflate issues or see the situation in the way they want to see, confusion triumphs and it is hard to carry on a rational discussion.

          • #1Fan

            Your facts are correct, I just see that the potential fall out for such an arrangement is the failure of the NWSL. As such I see the issues as correlated.

          • STT

            Oh, I agree USSF could use the existence of NWSL as a trump card. They shouldn’t, since aside from the fact that USSF indirectly runs NWSL there’s nothing in common with the issues faced. So they’re only correlated in name only.

          • Steglitz49

            In the ladies game, Alexandra the Great outranks Zlatan in the men’s but in terms of income, I guess she trails some less than average males. It must sting in her soul.

        • Lorehead

          Nice try, troll.

          • Steglitz49

            Why and how is the truth the province of trolls?

          • Lorehead

            Steglitz, this is a bit of false-flag snark about a strawman argument no one is actually making. In fact, one of the major arguments for the women’s case is that they both win more than the men and bring in more money.

      • #1Fan

        but that is the issue. If this were a club discussion the players would be free to find a higher paying club. I think all these numbers have to be based of the revenue base of the game they play. not just NT revenues.

        • STT

          I don’t follow what you mean. NTs are different business entities than club teams, men or women, every nation – there shouldn’t be a connection between the two financially.

          • #1Fan

            they kinda do in the end. because one should feed the other. this issue of standalone NTs is what underpins the argument. If the NT players were paid by their clubs and free to negotiate mkt value. And the USSF compensated the clubs for their time and paid bonuses , you would have a far better system.

      • mockmook

        “On the skill front, you can never directly compare men and women since the physical differences make a direct comparison the general men’s game and women’s game impossible. ”

        Untrue. You can play young amateur men against the women and they beat the women.

        In general, fans support the higher athletic abilities of men compared to women.

        • STT

          Yes, athletic abilities for young men are better than those of women, However, those are not “skill”. I’m talking about how the game itself is played – the dribbling, the passing, the faking, the vision, all the technical skills. Being naturally able to run fast is not skill, that’s just altheticism.

        • STT

          While browsing the MLS site today ahead of the weekend’s games, I actually found a very nice article about the differentiation between “athleticism” and “skill”, specifically in the soccer sphere:
          http://www.howlermagazine.com/dont-believe-the-hypothetical-spring-2016/

          • mockmook

            Regardless, in general, more fans are drawn to the skill/athleticism of males over females.

          • STT

            True – but that’s doesn’t change my previous point at all.

            Also, valuing athleticism is basically valuing male athletes at the expense of females for the sheer fact that they are male. That is much more justifiable for professional teams in a league where making money is the core of the organization – not so much for a non-profit organization representing national teams.

          • mockmook

            Non-profits have to balance their books too, or they end up shutting down. They should be as “smart” with how they spend their money as profit making enterprises.

    • Steglitz49

      Why does Zlatan have a higher pay than Kim Källström or Lotta Schelin?

  • dw

    copy paste from where I posted prior to this thread going up:

    NWT players have filed pay discrimination case against USSF. More money for them, little to no care about the rest of WoSo in USA/NWSL. Borislowian model still very much alive in US WoSo.

    Rick, we may have to change the motto to: “The gig isn’t good enough!”

    • F0OtballNowAndAlways

      If the men are generating more revenue, then the issue of “equal pay for equal work is bogus.” And if these litigious women want to hang their hats (or dresses) on that premise, assuming the men generate more revenue, then they should be prepared to share their salaries and bonuses with their lesser-paid NWSL counterparts.

      If the men are generating more revenue, methinks these women will have to reincarnate Clarence Darrow to win against any halfway competent defense attorney.

      • JL

        The budget reports from US Soccer show that the men aren’t generating more revenue. In fact the women have been generating more revenue recently.

        • F0OtballNowAndAlways

          It seems to me both sides are playing games, maybe more the players. USSF swears by a memorandum of understanding they claim has been in force since 2013, while the players insist a contract to the contrary is in place. This is where I say, please be not severe in your condemnation if I indulge myself by asking a few questions, some of which might be stupid:

          How can there be a dispute about the agreement upon which NT players’ salaries are based? Don’t they check their accounts after the direct deposits are made? Do the figures tally which those specified in the contract you insist exists? If yes, there is a contract and USSFers are lying skanks. If the figures do not agree with your projections based on a contract, then you are obviously not being compensated in accordance with provisions from that contract.

          What I am getting at is, it seems to me, only two or more payments of wages by USSF to the NTers would suffice to identify the legitimate compensation avenue.

          Speaking of contracts, these beasts are usually put in writing in America, are they not? So presumably, the women can produce copies or obtain copies from their lawyers?

          As for generating more revenue and being paid less, if this truly translates into more profits, then it would seem the USSF has been maintaining an immoral and dastardly practice in paying the women less. I don’t think we have quite reached a point in our evolution where women should be sacrificing vicariously for men.

    • koolaide

      The NWSL is a separate employer. Can’t sue USSF about NWSL. The USWNT players do advocate for improved work conditions for NWSL teams. All of the NWSL players could and (imo) should form an NWSL players’ union to better negotiate with NWSL ownership.

  • guest

    it is good that the uswnt player opinion is at least on record. people on equalizer in the past have said that the players only want better, fairer pay not equal pay. but that has never been their goal. they feel they not only deserve but it is their right to get equal pay.

    • guest

      equal pay based on gender regardless of revenue.

      • Steglitz49

        The USWNT pulls in a fair amount of revenue. How the NWSL clubs do compare to MLS clubs I don’t know but I presume that even for Portland the women bring in less cash.

        • Gary Diver

          Here are some questions: Is the pay discrepancy between Jill Ellis and Jurgen Klinsmann relevant in the equal pay battle? What are their salaries? Are these salaries fair for the work that the two national coaches do? What do these salaries tell us, if anything, about the attitude of USSF toward women?

          • #1Fan

            I don’t think it tells you anything at all about attitude . Just mkt forces

          • Gary Diver

            Maybe, but isn’t it strange that it would be hard to find two people in the past year who are happy with the job Klinsmann is doing? I don’t follow the US men team very much but the thing I notice most is the huge number of people arguing that Klinsmann is not earning his salary and yet USSF is sticking with him.

            Honestly, do you think if Ellis had not made it out of group play at the WC, USSF would have supported her as they have Klinsmann?

          • #1Fan

            you cannot compare. One is struggling to establish a presence in a global game that has been in existence for years. the other is trying to maintain dominance in a game that most of the world does not care about at all.,while building off a college soccer platform that is funded by parent and college scholarships. The college platform is currently great for girls because it is a huge pipeline that exists nowhere else in the world. On the mens side it is irrelevant and worthless. You just cant compare the size and scope of the 2 jobs. I honestly reckon we could take one guy off this blog and give him the same assistants as JE had and be honest. How much worse would you do?

          • Gary Diver

            Another question: Independent of individual cases, does everybody want more support, more money, and more appreciation for women soccer at all levels? From reading some posts, I am not sure that is true. There are people who have argued that Title IX is unfair to men and should be repealed. If we care about the interests of our daughters, what is the best way of going forward and improving their soccer opportunities?

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            I know I’ve had my disagreements with you in the past but I think you are simply killing it with your comments on this thread. This is the third post I had read that has encapsulated my exact thoughts on this issue.

          • #1Fan

            I never take it personal. we all love the sport and it inspires passion. I enjoy reading all the threads even the contentious ones 🙂

          • mockmook

            You’re trying to have it both ways. Arguing that the market value for Alex shows she deserves high pay, but then denying the respective market values of JE and Klinsmann.

          • Gary Diver

            In what world is the market value of Klinsmann worth 50% of all USSF coaching salaries? People act as though “the market” is something real and it is transparent and it is fair. Where do you see Klinsmann worth what he is paid?

            Note: January 2014 article by Steven Goff in the Washington Post from USSF’s own budget figures: “Coaching salaries, for the men’s and women’s teams at all age levels, total $4 million. More than half goes to Juergen Klinsmann ($2.5 million).

          • Gary Diver

            I found this quote from a January 2014 article by Steven Goff in the Washington Post from USSF’s own budget figures: “Coaching salaries, for the men’s and women’s teams at all age levels, total $4 million. More than half goes to Juergen Klinsmann ($2.5 million). The USSF recently extended his contract through the 2018 World Cup. Terms were not disclosed but he will probably collect up to $3 million in base salary.”

            I am not convinced of the role of market forces in financial decisions by USSF. Really, Klinsmann getting about 50% of all USSF coaching salaries is a mind bender. How can this amazing number be explained by market forces?

          • AlexH

            I don’t think the pay difference is relevant nor should it. Both are individual talents that negotiate their contracts individually. If the USMNT decided to open up the checkbook hire Pep Guardiola tomorrow would that mean they would have to give Jill Ellis a raise? That doesn’t seem right.

          • koolaide

            No. There is a union for USMNT players. They have negotiated contracts with USSF.

          • Steglitz49

            Klinsmann did worse than his former team mate Rudi Voeller at coaching the German MNT. Thus, the question remains: why not hire the man who nearly succeeded rather than the one who failed on home turf to boot?

  • nose cutter

    Something about a golden goose comes to mind.

  • jimbobv2

    I wonder what Nike pays Clint Dempsey and Alex Morgan?

  • Eugene Debs

    Time to take the U23s a little more seriously. Will they walk out in solidarity?

  • Steglitz49

    If NT players were paid through their clubs, that is the NT reimbursed the clubs for the time they are away at camps and tournaments, then the players could negotiate their own individual contracts with the clubs.

    Thus Alexandra the great might be seen in a light unto like Messi and Carli as CR7 and Pinoe as Zlatan while Hope might be Neuer or Buffon.

    Would they get paid as much by their clubs? Who knows?

  • guest

    Compares to most women’s professional soccer player in the US these ladies were treated like queens, now they wanted to be treated like kings like the men, the next thing the men’s are the one who’s gonna be complaining, look what’s happening in Tennis equal pay prize for both men and women even though the men’s play more sets and attracts more viewers and spectators and the most important thing tournament sponsors, WTA tour has not have a sponsor for the past two years before a chinese company came in.

  • Ando91881

    The Today Show, Good Morning America, and Ellen DeGeneres are not allowed to interview any WNBA stars…ever. About anything. Mainstream news media aimed at women only interviews gymnasts, figure skaters, soccer players, and Lindsey Vonn. Such hypocrites. The Today Show does not say anything about the NCAA Women’s Final Four teams (Connecticut, Syracuse), even though the Final Four is happening right now, but The Olympics is 4 months away.

    Certain female sports make the women at home feel comfortable. They pass the femininity standard. The WNBA needs to be on The Today Show to gain exposure, but they can’t get on.

    • CED

      Please stop lying you troll. Elena Delle Donne and others have been on GMA, NBC, etc,,,WNBA has contract with ESPN thru 2020..they are owned by Disney who also owns ABC. NBC has rights to Olympics and promotes USWNT bball during and coming up to Olympics. They have WNBA people on when they have stuff to promote. Please stop being stupid.

      • Ando91881

        Nope. Show me a clip of Candace Parker or Elena Delle Donne or Maya Moore being interviewed by Savannah Guthrie on The Today Show or Ellen DeGeneres interviewing a WNBA player on her couch. They are not allowed on the very mainstream stuff. The Today Show gets 3-4 million viewers every single morning. It gets higher ratings than Jimmy Fallon. The Today Show is as mainstream as it gets.

        • CED

          Your clearly a militant gay agenda person looking for false slights and micro aggressions. Today show and Ellen have had WNBA people on. Go away troll !

          • Ando91881

            Candace Parker, Elena Delle Donne, and Maya Moore are all straight. They are not allowed on.

          • Steglitz49

            “Straight”? Is that a PC word these days?

          • Ando91881

            People often say that the news media in general is sexist towards women’s sports. That’s a nice bumper sticker slogan. But what is more interesting is to look at media that is very popular with women, and see what they choose to report on. They only talk to their female audience about things that pass their test. So, in a lot of ways, women’s media is just as sexist as men’s media.

          • guest

            why are you saying the wnba players are not allowed to promote on tv? it is the media’s fault, owners fault or are you saying it’s because of player attractiveness?

          • Ando91881

            To understand why the WNBA gets low TV ratings every year, it is not because players like Candace Parker or Elena Delle Donne or Sue Bird or Maya Moore are very, very ugly (sarcasm).

            It is because you have to look at how mainstream news media aimed at women (The Today Show) is NOT mentioning anything about the NCAA women’s Final Four. That is the female sports news that should be reported on this week. They should be telling their audience about UConn this week and coach Geno. Let them interview Hope Solo and Alex Morgan in June or July as The Olympics draws closer.

          • CED

            Go away with the typical it’s others fault nonsense and victim mentality. How stupid are you…WNT were on every morning show before and after Wcup including your obsession with Today Show. They will be on every show leading to Olympics and especially NBC b/c they own the rights to the Olympics…You as bright as a table and a liar.

          • oRegon

            Yes…still searching for a mention in NYT….vs. the men’s big chart & all…
            It’s on ESPN so it must exist, right?

          • Steglitz49

            Attractive to whom? Middle-aged male lechers or butch others?

          • Ando91881

            It is important to note that it is not racism, though. Most of the WNBA players are Black….but the mainstream news media loves to talk about Serena Williams (tennis) or gymnasts who are Black (Gabby Douglas, Dominique Dawes, Simone Biles). Being a black female athlete does not mean you don’t get any coverage. You just have to be in a sport that is deemed feminine enough by a huge chunk of the public.

          • Steglitz49

            Fair point. Think the Flying Squirrel and Allyson Felix, for example.

            The Europeans don’t seem so fussy about the racial purity of their WoSo players. As long as they can deliver the goods, more power to their elbows.

            An irish surname seems an advantage for the USWNT but that is probably just coincidence, like the police forces.

    • Gary Diver

      I have said this before: the coverage of women sports in America in general is terrible. (For example: None of the Chicago newspapers has a sports reporter who regularly covers the Red Stars.) And the argument is always that if women sports had more bums in the seats or was more interesting there would be more coverage. Does anybody really believe that? With more and better coverage there would definitely be more bums in the seats and more money for women sports.

      • mockmook

        Do you want to force papers to cover the NWSL?

      • ARED

        True, largely. But is it not also reasonable that a massive event -both numerically and sentimentally -like the Olympics or WC that interests the majority of the public deserves more coverage than a low-level athletic league which interests only a fragment of the public?

        I don’t think it’s fair to simply say that ESPN/NBC/etc should just start covering NWSL or WNBA to the same degree as the Olympics based simply on the idea that “it might perform just as well if we give it the coverage”. 1) B/c does anyone *really* believe that? and 2) B/c it’s difficult to tell others how to spend their money and resources.

        A lesser-discussed issue is how condense a WC or Olympics Games are. It’s much easier to send a non-designated reporter to a single 2-4 week event than to send a designated reporter on the road with a club over the course of 6-10 months….

  • #1Fan

    this is a horrible situation imo. I have never believed a NT can survive as a separate entity because no one has any incentive to develop players. This suit does nothing to build the pyramid from the ground up. it just argues for more pay for the tip of the pyramid. I think the women have an argument on some level, but equal pay makes no economic sense to me. The counter argument would be to reduce the mens numbers, but with clubs wielding so much power in the mens game, too low and some players would just say no thanks, Ill just play for my club. Pick someone else. these figures cannot be looked at in the vacuum of the WC and the WNT.

    • Gary Diver

      Devil’s advocate: No equal pay legislation (in the US or elsewhere) is or can be based on purely economic data. Sometimes doing the right thing is not based on a cost-benefit analysis.

      • #1Fan

        which is why I said they have an argument on some level.

      • mockmook

        Doing the right thing is not always whatever notion that Gary Driver has.

  • A_Dog_Without_A_Clutch

    Soccer economics summed up in song:

    https://youtu.be/DohRa9lsx0Q

  • koolaide

    How much do you want to bet that if the USSF had not filed their lawsuit about the MOU and also left the players’ personal info un-redacted that this lawsuit does not happen?

    • AlexH

      Things go down hill fast once the lawyers get involved. It’s a shame.

      • koolaide

        Lawyers are always involved. The USSF has lawyers in leadership positions and to negotiate the CBA. Why should the players not also have legal representation? The relationship between the USSF leadership and the USWNT has always been unsettled. It is only through collective bargaining and legal action and striking that the women’s team has improved their working conditions (for the youth and full national teams). This has been the case from the very beginning of the USWNT.

        • AlexH

          But it cuts both ways. The federation has lawyers too and deeper pockets to pay for them. And yes, obviously both sides need lawyers when negotiating a contract but it is one thing to have a lawyer looking things over to make sure all of the legal i’s are dotted and ts are crossed and quite another to unleash them on each other as a negotiating tactic.

          • koolaide

            But that’s the point. None of the legal i’s or t’s were properly dotted or crossed. If the allegedly non-profit employer has proved again and again to not deal uprightly or fairly with a specific (protected class) of employees, then it is the job of the lawyer to point out those flaws.

          • mockmook

            You are judging the case before MANY relevant facts are known.

      • Rufan

        Rich Nichiols is taking the steps he feels is needed to achieve what the players wanted when they decided to hire him to replace the former long time union director.

    • CED

      Blame the WNT scumbag lawyer, he clearly threatened a strike, no matter how many times he pretends he didn’t now. He started this and has made an ass himself with several purely nonsensical court filings, devoid of fact or logic.

      • koolaide

        Nope. Try again. The USSF needs to negotiate fairly with the USWNT. They never have. Now the team has finally decided it is time to pursue legal action as is their right. Sunil et al might want to be careful. If it comes to airing misdeeds, the players & their lawyer might start talking about all the money-making conflicts of interest with him & SUM & MLS & USSF & travel agents for bookings & tv deals & so forth.

      • MrTemecula

        The players have a good case. They draw roughly the same revenue but get paid less. The women have their highest leverage right now and it would be US Soccer’s best interest to resolve it.

        • AlexH

          The devil is in the details however. First revenue isn’t profit and it is profits that produce paychecks. Second how is revenue calculated? Is it over a 4 year cycle or just last year? I have no answers but I always take claims from lawyers with a grain of salt.

          • Andy

            Well, revenue is on the side of the USWNT as shown by recent financial documents released. And if you’re looking for profit, then the WNT has an even better argument because their expenses are so much lower.

          • mockmook

            The sponsorship revenue percentages for men vs women are completely unknown (at least to us, probably unknown to the USSF too).

        • CED

          Except they don’t have a good case. USSF should offer the same % as the men and watch the WNT then not take it. They only get paid for being on rosters, 20 games max,(men avoid more unless absolutely necessary to avoid the extra payments, thus no VT b/c that makes over 20 games, same % of Wcup payments as men(women get alot more than men do from FIFA payments to USSF)

  • AlexH

    I’m not a lawyer but I play one on the internet. I seem to recall that many employment laws do not apply when employment terms are established under collective bargaining. For example it would be illegal for law firms to draft lawyers as they come out of law school but sports leagues can do it because the players collectively bargained away that right in exchange for something else.

    • koolaide

      Collective bargaining agreements often allow employers and unions to bargain around certain laws (that’s why CBAs are not a violation of antitrust
      law). But a collective bargaining agreement is not a defense to an Equal Pay
      Act claim. 29 CFR 1620.23

      • CED

        MNT are independent contractors with a CBA. WNT are employees with a CBA. They are apples to oranges , the case will be thrown out b/c they are comparing 2 disparate classes.

        • koolaide

          Wrong. The USMNT has a union and has negotiated with USSF in the past.

  • #1Fan

    The statement from Morgan that they are doing it for little girls across America is just ridiculous. Surely campaigning to raise the salaries of NWSL players would have a far greater impact on the league AND the quality of the NT. ?

    • AlexH

      Of course it is but I’m sure the other side is saying equally ridiculous. That’s what happens in labor disputes. Labor says they are protecting all of the little people and management says that they are standing athwart the thin blue line against communism.

    • koolaide

      Well, do you think girls and women are empowered when they see women fight for equal pay in the workplace and fight against discrimination? I do.

      • mockmook

        No.

    • MrTemecula

      The U.S. women team have been campaigning for higher NWSL pay. Advocating for this issue does not mean giving up on other issues.

      • #1Fan

        it sure sounds like it. take care of Us first. even though we are already far ahead of the rest.

        • AlexH

          Why should it be any way else? If I go in to my boss’s office and demand a raise I am doing it for myself. If it helps those around me great but I’m not crusading for others. Why should it be any different for anybody else?

          • guest

            no problem. just be honest about it and say your doing for yourself

          • #1Fan

            exactly

          • #1Fan

            Because they are saying it is. Read the comments coming about doing this for all the girls.

          • AlexH

            But that is just the typical BS that goes around any labor dispute. Yes it is disingenuous, but all sides do it and for some reason the public demands it.

      • Lorehead

        Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true: they inserted a clause in the MOU guaranteeing that the NWSL can’t close the pay gap between the players on the USWNT and anyone else in the league.

        • MrTemecula

          Do you have a link pointing to the MOU? I wonder what else did the players agree to. Even so, they could still advocate pay increase for NWSL. It would just mean the WNT players getting a raise, too.

    • guest

      they are doing it for little girls across america that they then block from taking spots on the national team so that they can all do three cycles with the uswnt.

      • koolaide

        Untrue.

        • F0OtballNowAndAlways

          Guest has a point. That is what players who play past what should be their expiration dates essentially do.

          • Lorehead

            I do not get why people act as if Jill Ellis is obligated to keep calling Christie Rampone up until she retires, and therefore Rampone is morally obligated to retire as soon as she’s no longer the third-best centerback in America. What if she likes playing in the NWSL, or even the WPSL, and she just stops getting call-ups? Like the men do it?

          • tonysocref

            She’s not getting called into camp but is still receiving a 6 figure salary.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Neither me nor the guest implied that Rampone should retire from soccer altogether. Jill Ellis is not obligated to call up anyone, but unless a player who is firmly established on the team officially retires, they are still within the system and effectively obstacles to new call ups. For all practical intents and purposes, the coach acts like one obligated to retain established NTers on the team barring official retirements.

            Simple acid test: How many of the players on the world cup team has Ellis released from the team? Zero as far as I can tell. All the departed team members retired. Now we don’t know the driving forces behind those retirements, and I will not indulge baseless though titillating speculation, but those retirements bear out the perception that players never depart the NT unless they retire.

            Leroux and Rodriguez are still officially members. So are Engen (thankfully) who saw no minutes at the world cup and who has featured sparingly since the tournament. McCaffery was let go, but she wasn’t a world cupper. Rampone is still officially on the team, and even though currently dormant, essentially complicates all efforts to configure the central defense with finality.

            So it would seem Ellis does in fact shoulder some obligation to preserve on the roster players who ignore the summons of the angel of retirement.

          • Lorehead

            That’s because it’s in their contract, revealed in the USSF lawsuit against them, that they have to be paid as Tier I players for one extra year.

            Also, let’s suppose you were in charge of the transition to the next generation of players, such as Pugh, Sonnett and Horan. You might want to handle the transition gracefully, without humiliating any players in front of the entire world. One way to do that would be to have a private conversation in which you told them they aren’t in contention for the Olympic roster, but asked if they would like to be honored with a testimonial game and retire?

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            No, I would let the clause in their contract which obligates them to remain for that extra 1 year to retire them. I just won’t call them up again. Pugh, Sonnett and Horan would have to wait until then. I would however courteously inform them at the end of that one year term, that it’s time to say goodbye, that I have decided to move in a different direction, e.t.c. I would also bring up the going-away games out of courtesy.

            The point is, I wouldn’t be negotiating their retirement with them. They wouldn’t have any choice in the matter. I would try to handle everything with all the delicacy I could muster, but I would leave the players in no doubts of my decision not to invite them back to the NT.

          • tonysocref

            If there was a 1 year severance clause in the original contract, it would have been superseded by the severance clause in the 2013 MOU. The severance clause in the MOU is only for 3 months.

        • guest

          one example. just last fall ellis was blocked from having a nwsl player camp by the uswnt players. the coach should be able to call up any player they want just like the usmnt and every other national team in the world except for the uswnt girls club.

    • Andy

      Would be nice that if they get a raise that they invest it in the future of the NWSL. In that case, their statement would be true.

    • Gary Diver

      I agree that raising NWSL salaries is essential for the future of US soccer and opportunities for women players. How to do it?

      A couple personal experiences may shed some light on the problem. I really didn’t know about NSWL until the WC. I got interested in Julie Johnston’s story and some article during the WC mentioned the Chicago Red Stars and since I have been following the Red Stars.

      I’ve noticed a few things since the WC.

      1. Even in Chicago they do not have a single newspaper reporter who regularly reports on the Red Stars. In general, coverage in the sports pages and websites of women’s soccer is terrible.

      2. Finding NSWL results is not easy. Even on soccer sites you often have to struggle to find them.

      3. During the VT and WC celebrations, NSWL was rarely mentioned by anybody and certainly not by USSF.

      4. The television coverage of USWNT games is second-rate, often on ESPN which many people don’t have access to.

      The history of advertising has shown again and again that with proper advertising and marketing you can make almost endeavour a success. Listerine, for one simple example, was going nowhere until a marketer came up with the idea of it being a solution to a problem that really didn’t exist – halitosis. And, as they say, the rest is history. But there are thousands of case studies showing that proper marketing is the key to making people want something, even if they don’t want it. Even a no-brainer like the Star Wars franchise spends tons of money marketing its products.

      The success of women tennis is connected with the hiring of savvy marketers who get the job and promoted women tennis. Women soccer in general and NSWL in particular needs to move with their marketing.

      • A_Dog_Without_A_Clutch

        The second thought that came around when the USWNT went to the White House was “Why isn’t President Obama not wearing a Chicago Red Stars scarf? And why aren’t his daughter’s wearing a CRS or Washington Spirit scarf?”

        • USMNTfan4life

          His daughters want to meet Leo Messi.

      • koolaide

        Welcome to following women’s soccer. Hope you stay around. The marketing woes and failures to be creative or even consistent will be with us always.

      • F0OtballNowAndAlways

        “The history of advertising has shown again and again that with proper advertising and marketing you can make almost endeavour a success.”

        Women’s soccer is a little-explored frontier ripe for the taking. If I had the wherewithal, I would be loading my wagons right now.

  • dw

    The non-NWT Reign players should file a complaint that they don’t make the minimum wage in Seattle (which IIRC is $13/hour on its way up to $15). How do you think this’ll play out in the Reign locker room?

    • koolaide

      Sure. I say go for it. NWSL is a separate entity from the USWNT. Chew gum and walk at the same time. NWSL player action on pay and treatment is separate from what the USWNT is doing. I would encourage the NWSL players to form a union and organize for better working conditions.

      • Steglitz49

        That is the key. They should not be separate entities. The NT should reimburse the clubs in the NWSL for the time that they use their players for camps, friendlies and tournaments.

        The players should be paid their club wages. Obviously, there can be bonuses for winning the WC and other tournaments but they should be reasonable and not outrageous.

        • #1Fan

          I agree. the separate track that exists in the US is stupid. It re-inforces the concepts that being a great pro has no bearing on anything if you are not on the NT

          • Steglitz49

            To me pulling on the NT jersey in a real match is a great honor. Obviously, it must not be exploited but the club is where their heart should be — though we know it is not for some of them, at least.

            FIFA and UEFA and I presume the other Federations have repeatedly stated that soccer is a club game on to which the NT is a superstructure. The clubs are where the gems are crafted and the NT is the shop window where they are displayed.

            WoSo in the US differs in that it is the NCAA that crafts the jewels.

          • #1Fan

            Agree 100 pct. Its a huge flaw Playing for your country is an honor, not a fully funded job.

          • koolaide

            So, FIFA and the USSF should get to keep all the money raised off the work of the players? I disagree.

          • CED

            Not very bright are you. That’s not what they inferred or stated.

          • Lorehead

            Your name-calling did not persuade anyone when you were calling yourself Schoup, either. People can disagree with each other without one of them being stupid.

          • CED

            Facts are irrelevant to you and you have proven it man times. It’s to WNT too…they have freaking sweetheart deal already.

            Tally up the % of bonus/revenue they get per revenue it’s astronomical compared to the MNT.

          • Lorehead

            No, according to US Soccer itself, that is simply not true.

            Even if it were, it just pushes the sexism back one level. I hear you saying that, if FIFA paid higher bonuses for the women’s World Cup, which given its TV ratings in the U.S., it can certainly afford to, that would massively increase investment in the women’s game by the federation.

          • CED

            You really struggle with basic comprehension. You also have no clue how rights are sold by FIFA clearly. Hint, WWcup rights are an afterthought. They are packaged with MWcup rights so broadcasters have to buy the rights to WWcup..Since broadcasters already have the right they might as well broadcast ot, they already paid for it, they were forced to . Btw, Mwcup broadcast ads are 530+ million…womens are pittens in comparison. Also, rights are sold 2 or 3 Wcup’s in advance so any increase in any world region take more than a decade to be seen by FIFA. Also rights fluctuate based on the host per region.

          • JL

            And you apparently have no concept of treating other individuals and their points of view with respect. Are you seriously that threatened by women that you feel the need to spout the same tired twisted numbers and nonsensical talking points? Is this your way of trying to knock down a group of people who have accomplished more in the last year than you probably have in your entire life?

            Honestly, I’d rather sift through the battles over whether or not Press and/or Dunn should be starting, or if Lloyd is past her prime than have you pollute this site with your crap.

          • Lorehead

            By US Soccer’s own numbers, the women’s bonuses are lower and the revenues they generate are higher, so you’re plainly delusional.

          • CED

            OMG

            How much does WNT get for making Wcup roster? 30k x 23 = 690K

            How much does USSF get for qualifying/group stage? 300K

            Compare that to the MNT making wcup roster? 76K x 23 = 1.748M
            Team bonus for for group stage ? 5.1 millon

            USSF revenue for qualifying/group stage? 9 million

            Tell me who gets a higher % of revenue again.

            The WNT get 90% or even 100% of the payout for the event in some cases. Men get 60 % even lower in most cases. A win for Men they get 9.3M of the 35M..WNT gets 1.8M of the 2M…Please cry me a river of who sis getting a higher % of revenues.

          • Lorehead

            Now add in the revenues from the two ten-game victory tours.

          • CED

            The squirming is starting when facts are presented. The VT is just more to paying them bonus mostly..look at the VT numbers in the budget…profit after expenses is 200-250K/game…take that USSF is in the hole previous as explained by paying 390K more in roster bonus than payouts. Also for Wcup year like 2016 revenue for a win 250K expenses are 1.9M..that’s a huge loss inititially on the Olympics initially that must be recouped and that doesn’t include the 1.8M team bonus and 75k per person bonus…the VT in Olympic year gets USSF to even.

          • Lorehead

            Let’s accept your numbers and do some basic arithmetic. USSF estimated each victory-tour friendly generates $235K in profit, which is less than the July friendlies but within your guesstimate range, and there were ten of them, then another victory tour in the four-year cycle. 2 × 10 × $235 000 = $4 700 000. You stated that there is a $2M payout for the WWC win and a $250K payout for the Olympic gold win. $4 700 000 + $2 000 000 + $250 000 = $6 950 000 over the four-year cycle from tournament winnings and the victory tours.

            The men made about $9M from the World Cup winnings; their expenses, though, were three times as high. They won’t get any winnings from the Gold Cup, because they didn’t even make the semis, nor from the Confederations Cup, because they failed to qualify, nor from the Olympics, because they didn’t qualify for that, either.

            Therefore, on your own assumptions, you should have concluded that the women generate about the same revenues from tournaments over the four-year cycle as the men. And of course jersey sales and the like are much greater.

          • Lorehead

            Fixed an error.

          • CED

            MNT being the host of the Gold Cup produced 10M in revenue, that’ a stated fact in USSF financials. Btw, MNT friendlies generate more profit per game than WNT, especially the high profile ones. WNt friendlies attendance really don’t increase based on opponent. 13K for Germany for WNT…Men play germany MNT it’s 3 times that. The Olympics is a loss for USSF for women of 1.9M btw. Btw, you are forgetting WNT has to pay 3M/yr in salaries for allocated players. I could keepe going all the errors in how you came to your conclusion. The notion WNT sells more jerseys than MNT is repeated conjecture. Btw how the NIke deal works is flat payment of money and equipment valued close to 20M…USSF receives a % of sales after the sales exceed a certain amount in Nike stuff with USNT merchandise. Btw, if you look at figures the values from NIke are constant over the lengths of contracts so that means the % sales thing isn’t a big add on to the base value. Ir just jumped b/c the deal was just renewed in 2014 to start 2015 I believe.

          • Lorehead

            No, you specifically asked how the bonuses from the women’s tournaments compare to the revenues from those tournaments, and since the explicit purpose of the victory tour is to pay for those bonuses, those revenues need to count toward the denominator.

            If you’re comparing profits to profits from everything, not just the tournament bonuses you were focused on, US Soccer says that it makes money on the USWNT and loses it on the USMNT: recall, it spent $20M more on the USMNT in FY2015.

            And I have seen statements by people who know that jersey sales for the women are higher, but you can confirm this just by going to the US Soccer store and seeing what they sell.

          • Lorehead

            Excuse me, it’s really much better for the women than I had first thought. Now, remember, the $9M the men made from World Cup winnings was revenue, not profit. According to US Soccer, each women’s victory-tour match generates $235K in profit and $803K in revenues. Furthermore, per the USWNT CBA, the purpose of the victory tour is to cover the bonuses paid out to the USWNT for winning the World Cup and the Olympics. Therefore, it should be counted when you ask what proportion of the revenue they generate the women earn in World Cup bonuses. As an apples-to-apples comparison, we should of course compare revenues to revenues or profits to profits.

            The USWNT received $2M from winning the WWC, $250K from winning the Olympics, and $746 886 in USOC funding, plus twenty victory-tour games to generate additional revenue to pay its bonuses. Since not all that Olympic Committee funding was due to the USWNT, only most of it, let’s just say it cancelled out the cost of going to London and call it a wash. If we compare revenues to revenues, the women’s revenues from tournaments and victory tours are, $2 000 000 + $250 000 + 20 × $803 000 = $18M over the cycle, more than twice the $9M the men bring in in revenues.

          • CED

            LOL..You’re pretending the MNT revenue is 9M per cycle. You’re squirming is hilarious to the facts presented…keep making up nonsense up. I have to go but I;m sure you will keep squirming trying to ignore the facts and the WNT sweetheart deal. Real equality same CBA..and watch you and the WNT cry like babies.

          • Lorehead

            Oh no, if you count profits from all sources, the USWNT is much more profitable than the USMNT. You obsessively harp on the ratio of the women’s win bonuses to the prize money they got from the tournament. But, properly, the women get a much lower share of the pot of revenue those bonuses came from, which include the VT.

          • CED

            They aren’t I already told you moron the purposeful dishonesty in comparing a Wcup year to a 1st year of a cycle. Even a moron like you eventually got that.

            Again wrong moron the don’t receive a lower share of the pot..they receive a higher. Did you fail basic math or are you purposefully obtuse.

          • Lorehead

            You keep harping on the fact that FIFA made the women’s World Cup bonus too small, even though it’s irrelevant. Nobody said, “We’re so thrilled we won the World Cup, because now we’ll get all that prize money.” It’s a small fraction of the money US Soccer made from the World Cup victory.

          • CED

            This has been explained to you a dozen times. USWNT RECEIVED 2.415M IN PAYOUTS FROM THE 2.3M USSF RECEIVED FROM THE WCUP FROM FIFA! …Are you stupid?

            Roster bonus 690K..FIFA qualify payout 300K
            Win bonus 1.725M..FIFA payout 2M

            Simple math….2.415M WNT pay..FIFA payout to USSF 2.3M

          • Lorehead

            Irrelevant because the payout from FIFA was a small fraction of the revenue the USWNT brought in. You’re dividing the number of fruits by the number of oranges.

          • CED

            Sorry the facts hurt and the BS USWNT based their entire media appearance on yesterday were the 2x claim based on Wcup. That’s how they are rallying the ignorant public based on absolute BS if you know the facts, That’s why you’re squirming. Btw, over a cycle MNT revenue>WNT and WNT receives a higher % of that the MNT. That’s not even taking into account all their extra benefits of medical, dental, housing subsidy, severance paid leave, etc…The total compensation is much higher than salary b/c they receive things MNT don’t get. They chose a structure of security and guaranteed over a mens structure and now are complaining about what they insisted upon and demanded . If they don’t want it, give it up, go to a mens structure of pay for play. Of course even you admitted before that’s somehow unequal, astonishing logic having the same structure os unequal. Of course that’s only the case if you know you have a sweetheart structure now and the MNT is much more risky.

          • Gary Diver

            Right or wrong, the situation in the US may be unique. When we see Hope Solo, Alex Morgan, Becky Sauerbrunn play for the NT or for their NWSL teams we expect to see the same player. I am always struck with the fact that Christine Sinclair doesn’t look the same to me on Portland than when she puts on her national Canadian jersey. Her reputation as one of the 5 greatest all-time women soccer players couldn’t be from her club play, could it? It is almost like the Grinch effect: when Sinclair puts on her national jersey she is a different player. The US fans don’t want to see that difference in their players.

          • Steglitz49

            Small countries have no choice but so far Lotta and Caroline, Ada and Caroline, have not disappointed — nor has Zlatan come to think of it. The great stand and deliver, weddings or no weddings.

          • #1Fan

            I disagree on that one. She is the focal point of one team and a part of the other. I have never seen her as a top 5 player EVER. The problem is we extrapolate goals in Intl play to supersede club form. Its like saying Messi is no good because Arg have not won the WC. Its clearly rubbish. He is. I don’t care how many Intl goals Sinclair scores, when I see her playing with similar players week in week out she is ok, but not a top player imo. You are touching on a central issue tho.- at the end of the day in WoSo , Club soccer is just not taken seriously at all. So why bother ?

          • Gary Diver

            You may be right but this would be an interesting discussion for another day. Personally I have sought out top 10 all-time women player lists and Sinclair usually sits high on the lists I’ve seen. Once she passes Wambach as all time international goal scorer male or female, there will be people falling over each other to sing her praises. (Maybe living in Canada where she is treated as a goddess skews my reading of the situation). Some other day we can discuss who you think rates as top 10 all time.

          • Steglitz49

            Lost her temper and berated an official. Not quite pukka.

          • Gary Diver

            What we see depends on where we are standing. Believe it or not, in Canada Sinclair’s transgression was viewed as showing she loved her country and willing to calling out a wrong. This act of defiance turned her into a national hero. Go figure. I saw her actions as showing poor sportsmanship, but Canadians saw it very differently.

          • Steglitz49

            FIFA handled that transgression with aplomb.

          • JL

            Contrary to popular opinion, Sinclair was not punished for saying that the ref decided the result before the game began. What got her into trouble was her telling the ref that she was “f***ing horrible” and the ref hearing the second word without the “ible”. That’s why Sinclair refused to apologize- because she was getting sanctioned for something she didn’t do.

          • Lorehead

            She must have known that, as the team captain and face of Canadian soccer, she’d be held to a high standard.

          • #1Fan

            do you think Wambach is top 10 ? here is my problem. Rightly or wrongly I weigh aesthetics pretty heavily as I think a lot of the stats are empty in my view. it does come abck to Club vs NT though. I believe that in WoSo it is far easier to rack up big time stats if you are from one of the dominant countries and if you are in the USA you can say bye bye to club play. Just forget it. WoSo is a different game. I rare Wambach as very effective but I would never pay to watch her play.

          • Steglitz49

            Unfair! Foul!!

            I object.

          • Gary Diver

            You know, I always enjoy reading your comments. You bring up two interesting points: (1) statistics can be misleading in soccer, and (2) it would be nice to defocus American attention from totally on NT and increase it on NWSL, NCAA, U20, etc.

            P.S. Interesting that Wambach doesn’t make your top 10 list. I think it would be a difficult challenge to find a top 10 list anywhere that doesn’t include both Wambach and Sinclair. Definitely an interesting future discussion.

          • Steglitz49

            Who is his #9?

          • ARED

            Agree with first point.

            On the second, a top-10 “best” and top-10 “favorite” list may differ ; )

            And perhaps more on #1Fan’s point, the “best” players may differ if you are rating them mostly on stats or on performance against any opposition as opposed to weighing things more on how they fare against top opposition. Not to rip Wambach, but she is far “greater” by the first measure than the second…..

          • koolaide

            The separate track exists in every sport and in most every country. For soccer. For basketball. For track. etc. These are two different employers.

          • #1Fan

            we agree to disagree then.

          • Steglitz49

            Soccer is a world game. The passing of Johan Cruyff has confirmed that, if we needed confirmation.

          • Gary Diver

            An side: I think you should have been able to comment on Johan Cruyff’s passing seven days ago. I am curious, is there anything WoSo can learn from Cruyff and his views on soccer?

        • koolaide

          They are separate like MLS is separate. USSF funds some of the USWNT salaries but the clubs themselves own rights and make payments and take in revenue. The league is not owned by USSF. It is in the interest of players to keep the NWSL and the USWNT separate. Just like it is in the interest of the employers to keep them separate.

          • #1Fan

            what are MLS salaries compared to NWSL ?

          • Steglitz49

            Don’t ask difficult question. They can’t cope poor lambs.

          • koolaide

            See my comment below. The MLS union has made the MLS salaries public each year for well over 15yrs. Google is your friend.

          • Steglitz49

            If it is important, synopsize in 32 words, please.

          • JL

            If it’s that important to you, then go look it up. Since you seem so unwilling to actually do that, then shut up.

          • koolaide

            The MLS players’ union has made salaries public for many years as part of their many fights with MLS over CBAs and other working conditions. It is out there if you know how to google.

    • Andy

      Well, this is a perfectly good idea if your aim is to destroy NWSL and WoSo in general. Humble beginnings.

      • dw

        The reality of it is that Hope’s going to have to look teammates in the eye who make league minimum. Being part of a movement to enrich the best 23 players in the land may not be universally popular. Same with Alex in Orlando, because I’m sure Hope doesn’t care one whit.

    • F0OtballNowAndAlways

      Let’s figure 3 days of training every week for 5 hours each day. Subtotal = 15 hrs.
      From April to September inclusive is 26 weeks. Total = 390 hrs.

      3 hours to arrive at the stadium plus 5 hours for the match, post game decompression and trip back home. On match days at home. Subtotal = 8 hrs. For 10 home games, total = 80 hrs.

      For match days on the road, all of the eve of game day, game day itself and the day after game day are paid. Subtotal = 72 hours.
      For 10 road games, total = 720 hrs.

      Final total: 390 + 80 + 720 = 1,190 hrs.

      Based on my simple-minded football fan formula above, the non-allocated Reign players should receive $15,470.00 a year as minimum wage employees.

      So it would seem they have a valid case of employee exploitation.

      • Andy

        While it was nice of you to take a stab at this, travel time is often not counted. That 72 hours for an away game is way wrong.

        • F0OtballNowAndAlways

          What do you mean travel time is not counted? You mean they just pay them for the actual time they spend playing and practicing regardless of how long it takes to make the round trip? Why, that’s unpaid overtime!

  • guest

    are the uswnt players willing to give up their guaranteed salaries and guaranteed yearly roster spots for higher potential bonus earnings? there might be a deal there.

    • guest

      the nwsl players deserve the same pay as the uswnt players in the nwsl league. equal work.

      • CED

        NWSL non NT players are not USSF employees.

      • koolaide

        Different employers. Different situations. I agree that the NWSL players should form a union to negotiate with the NWSL employers.

      • Andy

        It’s not equal work. Alex Morgan does much more for her team than any non NT (US) player you can name.

    • STT

      From several news outlets I’ve seen, it sounds like yes, they are open to moving to the exact same compensation system the men use, as part of the equal treatment issue.

      • Steglitz49

        Excellent.

      • guest

        christie rampone will not be happy about this.

      • guest

        that would be a big improvement. but something tells me that what the gang of five stars would benefit from is not something all the backups would be eager to support and risk job security.

  • AlexH

    One of the things to consider is that WNT are employees of the federation where as MNT players are mercenaries that are employed by other entities. In most businesses the compensation between the two types of workers differ radically.

    • CED

      Comparing anything MNT to WNT has tenuous legal basis in the suit filed b/c you’re comparing an employee to a independent contractor negotiated deal.

      • koolaide

        Wrong. The men’s team also has a union and a negotiated CBA. And equal pay/equal work cannot be negotiated away by CBAs. Know the law.

        • CED

          Know the law, MNT are the equivalent of per diem/temporary contract workers who all agreed to the same per diem via the same rep or agency. MNT have no guarantee beyond the game they are called up for. WNT are salaried employees who are guaranteed 1 yr contracts. By your logic and what they WNT are trying do contend is that if a business had salaried engineers on contract and then also had temp engineers where all the temps negotiated the same salary via an agency/temp service that temp engineers must be paid the same as the contracted engineers. That ridiculous and does not happen in the real world. Seen it in the area of STEM. Happens all the time in nursing, engineering, etc…

          • koolaide

            That is not the proper analogy. Also, if you are working somewhere that is bringing in short term temps at a much, much higher wage to do the same work you are doing, then you and your coworkers work for a terrible company.

          • #1Fan

            not necessarily. Benefits like health insurance, longer term security etc cost $$$

          • koolaide

            It also costs more to repeatedly hire temps or to have high turnover of employees. Retention, even with good pay raises for employees, is better for business income earning & profits. Might sound counter-intuitive but it is true.

          • CED

            Actually, it is the proper analogy. I own my own business. The analody jus shows the real world real world ignorance of the WNT position. They have no case, they are 2 different classes of employees not governed by the same rules. The equality must be between classes…salaried male employees of the same job/experience to women equal jpb/experience. Male T=temp/per diem worker with same job/experience to women equal job/experience. WNT knows thye have a weak case just like their initial case. The ran to the media to try to play public relations game b/c they will be crapped on in court. There lawyer is a clown, he did the same nonsense before threatening a strike and then when USS didn’t cave pretended he didn’t..facts show he did. Then he responded to USSF filing with legal nonsense and bluster devoid of facts. The legal analysis was damning of this clown. This clown hasn’t learned USSF will not be strong armed they will take a B team to Rio if they have to, they called the bluff of the 2000 team when they tried the same stuff.

          • guest

            Jeffery Kessler has a good reputation. The argument doesn’t seem to be that they should be paid the same wages as the men but that they should receive fair compensation relative to the revenue that they bring to the federation.

            Why did you change your username schoup?

          • simple minded

            Kessler was the one who brought the pay-for-NCAA-athletes lawsuit, which is a total joke, in my opinion. I hope this lawsuit makes more sense than that one.

          • Lorehead

            I think that argument made a lot of moral sense. I have no opinion on its legal merit, as I don’t understand the legal issues well enough.

          • guest

            I don’t know enough about that case to comment on it but why shouldn’t NCAA athletes be paid?

          • simple minded

            From my understanding they’re compensated with room, board, tuition, and free advertising when their games are shown on national TV. I don’t know what more they could ask for. Spending money and a car, I suppose.

          • Guest

            There is an argument to be made that some athletes, not all, are more valuable to those institutions than the compensation you’ve listed. I also think that many players would prefer to have control over their image and likeness and reap the financial benefit from it along with other financial opportunities.

          • simple minded

            If they’re such a hot commodity, then they need to go pro. The NBA allows high school grads, not sure about NFL.

          • Lorehead

            The NBA now requires a year of college: one-and-done.

          • Lorehead

            Let’s say all the firms in your industry colluded with each other and agreed: from now on, all of us will only hire new people as interns making room and board for one to four years, and after that, we’ll all use the same standard salary scale and cap across the entire industry.

            Furthermore, employees will get no say which company they work for or even what city they live in. Employers will get to draft and trade them, if they want jobs at all. Your contract will also stipulate that you are a spokesperson for your company and what you can do in your personal life so as to reflect well on your company’s reputation.

            Your employer doesn’t do this, because it would be massively illegal, and everybody would immediately go on strike against this outrageous form of crony capitalism that took away your earning power and your control over your own career.

            Except in sports. There, Americans seem to have the attitude that any kind of reform of this system is somehow wrong.

          • simple minded

            I think most Americans would say room, board, and tuition is more than adequate compensation for playing a game on a Saturday afternoon. More importantly, most athletes would jump at the chance to be victims of this collusion, get exposure on national TV, and have the chance to sign a multi-million dollar contract to play in the pros. Now there may be cases where athletes are already in such high demand that they don’t need college and can jump straight to the pros, in which case they should be free to go wherever their skills are in demand, but if they agree to play for a school, then they need to stick to the terms of their agreement, and if that means not getting paid for their likeness, then so be it. I think most people would consider this agreement fair and reasonable.

          • Lorehead

            The tuition is what makes that argument not completely ludicrous, but the fact is that all those athletes are paid much less than their market value. For comparison, the forces that run soccer haven’t been able to collude to create a cartel like that outside the U.S. and Canada, and many soccer players do jump at the better deal they can get in Europe. Lindsay Horan was one.

          • simple minded

            As to the argument that athletes are much more valuable than the compensation they receive, maybe so, in which case I say enter the labor market and get paid real money. What is stopping them? Why does the NFL bar high school grads? It seems to me the NFL needs reforming, not the NCAA. The NCAA can run their league any way they want, and nobody is going to have much sympathy for poor athletes when they voluntarily agree to the terms of their contracts.

          • Lorehead

            Let’s imagine that President Jane Smith takes office and signs the National Healthcare Act of 2021. It says that there’s one nonprofit National Medical League covering the United States, with one private monopoly franchise in each area, and doctors now must sign with the hospital that drafted or traded them if they want to practice medicine at all. “Tampering” with another hospital’s doctors by offering them a competing deal is strictly forbidden. To hold medical costs down and ensure that even the smaller markets have parity in medical care, doctors now have a hard salary cap. She explains, “It works so well for football!”

            Can’t doctors just quit the medical profession and use their skills and training in some other line of work, if they’re more valuable than the compensation they receive under this new system? Is anybody going to have much sympathy for poor doctors who voluntarily agree to the terms of their contracts, even in a situation designed to take away all their power to bargain for a better one?

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            For just playing a game on a Saturday afternoon? Well what about practice and all the sacrifices they have to make for their programs, like not receiving gifts and such?

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Yes, they should be paid commensurate with the profits realized by their schools. All that tosh about scholarships and character building is simply slavery by another name.

          • ARED

            But no one makes them go to college, do they?

            I agree it’s more fair to treat them better, maybe with money, but it would only apply to top bball and football men, right? So NCAA play is basically a “training program” which can turn into million-dollar contracts. Enroll, for free, or don’t.

            I’m not a fan of NCAA or the USA’s college $ystem, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it slavery when that really happens around the world. If you don’t like the game at the NCAA, you can still take your ball and go home….

          • CED

            That can’t be their argument b/c they already get paid a higher % of the revenue than the MNT and if they don’t there is already a remedy. MNT doesn’t have the same clause. Have them put their money where the mouths are, no guaranteed salaries(thus no security just like the MNT), you just get paid by appearance to appearance which can end abruptly. No pay from NWSL they can free lance and get the league max of 38K or try their fortune abroad. Hold games to 20 games or less to prevent the big per game bonuses extras..that’s how the 17K per game max cited comes in, that’s for games above 20 vs a top 5 opponent. 20 games max means no VT, which means no extra bonus or a very short VT. That clause would make a VT for Rio 2 games to stay under 20. USSF should play hard ball and say there’s actual equality, the WNT would surely run from that deal saying how unfair USSF was being if offered. They don;t want equality, they want a super sweetheart deal better than the normal 20-25% bump USSF does normally per CBA.

            Btw, if you read the CBA on the clause VIX Compensation ratios:

            “If in any calendar year, the ratio of aggregate compensation of women’s national team players to aggregate revenue from all WNT games is less than the ratio of the aggregate compensation of the MNT players compensation to the aggregate revenue from all MNT games, then USSF will make a lump sum payment to the WNT player pool to make the ratios equal”

            So tell me again the argument…they have none. USSF has consistently given 20-25% increases CBA to CBA..they are clearly are seeking some outrageous increase far above the norm.

    • koolaide

      MNT players have their own MNT union.

    • F0OtballNowAndAlways

      “where as MNT players are mercenaries”

      Mercenaries? A bit harsh?

      • JL

        And untrue. Mercenaries can go to the highest bidder for their services, whereas international soccer players don’t have that option.

        • F0OtballNowAndAlways

          Well in fairness to the poster, I think he was being metaphoric.

  • simple minded

    This should be a pretty simple matter. The players should get paid according to how much revenue they generate. So if they bring in gate receipts of x and TV revenues of y, then they should get a certain percentage of that, call it p. The formula for their pay would then be (x+y)p. The same formula would apply to both the men and the women, obviously. The only thing to figure out is what percentage p of the revenues the players should get and what should go to administrative costs, executive salaries, advertising and player development, etc. You would have to pay management whatever salaries prevail in the private sector, but the players should get whatever’s left over. Is this too simple minded?

    • koolaide

      Revenue is not simply gate receipts. There are marketing deals with sponsors. There are all of the youth player registration fees. There merch sales. There are tv rights. etc.

      • simple minded

        I’m talking about all revenue, of course. So for example when US Soccer gets a sponsor like Ritz crackers, how much of that revenue is due to the women or to the men? Often times the sponsor will tell you up front. They’ll say stuff like “we love the young female demographic at USWNT games.” But accountants have ways of assigning revenues, for example using attendance numbers, or TV viewers. If someone buys a “Solo 1” shirt, I think we know where that revenue came from.

        • Steglitz49

          Do we know which Jerseys sell best?

          I would hazard Alex > Carli > Solo >>> the rest.

          • simple minded

            Alex>Hope>Carli surely.

          • Steglitz49

            Hope so?

          • simple minded

            You meant “…and please don’t call me Shirley,” surely.

          • Steglitz49

            Shirley Bassey, Temple or Cruz?

          • Hwah

            I’m not sure that can be fully relevant, since they don’t sell shirts for the women’s team in men sizes; because they apparently don’t want folks confused that the men’s team has won three stars. Thus, revenue differential in this area becomes a sticky issue.

          • Lorehead

            Yes they do. In fact, last time I went to their online store, all the men’s shirts were for the women’s team or its players.

          • Hwah
          • Lorehead

            Here you go. Now, the new kits are out, and those are unisex, but a few months ago, there was even more 2015 World Cup merch on sale.

          • Steglitz49

            Why on earth not? Sell, sell, sell! The business of America is business.

            I bought a young lass a Braca training shirt and stuck Zlatan on it — the oaf was going to spell it Slathan but fortunately I was able top keep him right. Anything goes.

  • koolaide

    FYI everyone: There is a CBA for the USMNT. And a separate union for the USMNT.

  • koolaide

    Outside of sport, in discussions of equal pay for equal work, many
    people argue that women end up being paid less for the same work “only
    because they don’t negotiate but men do.” It is never as simple as that.
    When women do negotiate to attempt to gain closer to equal pay for
    equal work, they pay a price men never pay. They are lambasted for
    daring to challenge the status quo or for ‘stirring up trouble’ or any of a number of other complaints. They are often ostracized. They are told to be grateful for what they have. Since the early
    1990’s the USWNT has also been criticized any and every time they try to
    improve work conditions for themselves and the younger teams. At every
    step they and their coaches have been told to “just be happy with what
    you have.” Remember the post 2008 report DiCicco made that rightly
    complained of the unequal treatment of the U-20 team compared to the
    boys U17 & U20 men?

    • AlexH

      That isn’t unique to women though. Male athletes got screwed over by things like the reserve clause for decades before finally breaking through and whenever male athletes go on strike, threaten to, or even complain about their salaries they are often accused of being millionaire crybabies.

      Here is a very well written example of that. I doubt that any WNT player is going to be treated similarly:

      http://www.si.com/vault/2004/11/15/8191994/getting-by-on-146-mil

      • koolaide

        The USWNT is being called names (eg selfish) in this very thread. They are being criticized for doing what the MNT has done — collectively bargain and negotiate contracts — in this very thread — eg ‘it should be an honor not a job.’ And every single time of the many times the USWNT has tried to negotiate better working conditions they have been criticized for being overpaid or ungrateful, etc. They have had to strike before (eg in 2000) to get any improvements in their working conditions and pay.

        • AlexH

          You are correct. All I am saying is that male athletes get similarly vilified for seeking more money too.

        • #1Fan

          playing for your country is a representative honor. Sure some sports have central contracts, but the honor part remains true. The job part is usually club based. it is a hard argument to understand when the players are currently centrally contracted by USSF. Now playing for your country IS a job. All the nationalistic pride benefits create an instant support group and added revenue. Now we end up with a 2 tier have and have not league that can never succeed because there is no financial incentive for anyone but the NT players. So how is the quality going to improve? How is the p[product going to attract more regular supporters. Or are we saying that we only care about WoSo come WC or Olympic time. Or that the club/college system can produce NT players and we don’t need a league ? I understand that USSF and NWSL are separate entities, but I see that the fall out of something like this could have huge impacts on the current league.

          • guest

            The NWSL isn’t at a point yet were teams pay higher wages and operate with financial stability. Only the MLS backed teams so far seem to be able to support themselves financially. If Orlando has a successful year this year with attendance, then we might see more investment into the NWSL from other MLS teams and sponsors. The WNT in contrast is very profitable right now and appeared to cover their yearly expenses from gate sales alone.

          • #1Fan

            and if this happens it never will be. There is no point is bothering. Just have a fully funded residential NT and be done with it.

          • Steglitz49

            Not possible. A league is required.

          • #1Fan

            why is it required? is it a rule?

          • Guest

            FIFA requirement.

          • #1Fan

            ty. until these clubs actually can sustain real interest, this is Title IX without the equality in $$. I don’t see how you can have a strong , long term foundation based on a weak token league. The underlying issue still remains the real lack of commercial interest in Club WoSo

          • Guest

            To be fair the interest in club soccer in america right now in general is still growing not just interest in the USWNT or USMNT. The MLS hasn’t exactly been posting numbers close to those of the big 4.

          • Guest

            I disagree with you that if the NT women succeed it will never happen. I think there can be improved conditions for both the NWSL and WNT players. I don’t think that the success of one will necessarily inhibit the other. Some of the NT players, not all, have expressed a desire to help improve the conditions of the league. The Thorns are operating on a profit at the moment and I can possibly see Orlando challenging them in a year or two.

          • #1Fan

            I hope I am wrong

      • Ethan

        I remember Morgan being criticized a lot for how she acted regarding the bed bug scandal.

        • Gary Diver

          The bed bug incident is interesting. Alex Morgan got the attention needed to deal with the problem. People don’t seem to realize that she was not directly involved herself. She was not with the team at the team and it was Christine Sinclair who first tweeted about it. Morgan was supporting her teammates. I would say that was pretty unselfish on her part.

      • koolaide

        The USWNT players have been widely criticized on this board and other discussion boards for getting maternity leave. Maternity leave is part of many, though not all, employment contracts. But players still get called out for using it. For those commenting who are not from the USA, the US is one of the few countries of its size and wealth that does not have mandated paid maternity leave. All the Euros have it.

        • mockmook

          It really galls you that people have free speech, doesn’t it?

    • F0OtballNowAndAlways

      Let’s not get into the oppressed gender thing too much. Hundreds of men in the prime of their lives play every year in sports generating millions of dollars for their colleges, for which their coaches get paid hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, yet they are denied compensation on the justification that their paltry scholarships more than compensate them for their exertions.

    • mockmook

      Assuming your “lambasted” comment is true, so what?

      You can’t regulate all human behavior. They have to push through it.

  • AEGYPTI BRASILEIRO

    Right. But first tell Ali Krieger that, if it has the highest salary, canot miss a championship semi-final because of a dad’s wedding.
    Endear themselves first and then be valued.

    • koolaide

      That is a club issue. Not a USWNT issue. I agree that it was a bad decision on her part. I certainly think much less of her for it. But her club is the employer in that case. Not the USSF. Separate things.

      • Steglitz49

        Wrong. It is a WoSo image issue.

        Do you really think that Messi, Zlatan or CR7 would have missed an SF for their club for such a lame excuse? Think again.

      • Lorehead

        Her employment contract is in fact with USSF, not her club, which is presumably why she felt free to do it.

        • guest

          I don’t think there is any chance she would have been allowed to do it if she had a contract with her club without breaching that contract.

      • Lorehead

        Also, under the NWSL single-entity structure, the club isn’t formally the employer of any player.

      • AEGYPTI BRASILEIRO

        What I mean is that with higher wages, bigger and tougher the rules. Do women accept?
        PS: It was irresponsible, but it is the fault of the club? clownery

  • AlexH

    I think there is another issue that can be raised that is related to the equal pay issue.

    Male sports teams often get sweetheart deals from governments to move into a particular area. In the MLS, lots of soccer specific stadiums have been paid for out of the public purse. So long as tax money is involved I think it is entirely appropriate for citizens to demand that those teams support a women’s team.

    Obviously the two issues are separate legally but I think that if your goal is to secure a future for woso, this is the place to agitate.

  • Hwah

    I just truly don’t understand the vociferous objection to women playing for the national team to be paid equal to what men playing for the national team are paid. Theoretically, the USSF is a non-profit that is supposed to benefit both the men and women players in this country equally. It is not a corporation to benefit the revenue generators more than others. Period. It is profoundly disappointing that this is their stance and that many justify their position.

    Now, for profit leagues like the NWSL/MLS have different goals and I can fully understand pay discrepancies in those leagues.

    • Gary Diver

      The issue of the nature of USSF, its funding sources (is taxpayer money involved), and its mandates is relevant to discussing this case. It would seem that a national nonprofit organization’s obligations and responsibilities are different than those for a profit league.

    • AlexH

      Who is objecting? There very well be a good reason to have different pay scales though. For example the best male players on the MNT get paid millions per year and may not think it worth their time to play for what the women make for an international game. The federation then is forced to chose between paying them more or selecting an inferior roster. If they chose the former I don’t think they are engaging in discrimination.

      • Hwah

        well, some here are reminding the women that it is an honor just to play on the national team; I suppose we could tell that to the men as well!

        • #1Fan

          it is , and we are. they get paid far LESS for putting on a NT jersey

        • Steglitz49

          If you are selected for NT duty you cannot refuse.

          In the NWSL skipping a semi-final seems par for the course — at least if you are a WNT member.

          • Hwah

            that has nothing to do with my point.

          • Steglitz49

            It has everything to do with your point, if you think about it.

          • Hwah

            nah, thought about it, bringing up the NWSL actions of one player for one game have nothing to do with equal pay arguments playing for a non-profit US federation.

          • Steglitz49

            It is all about respect.

          • #1Fan

            if she was not on a gteed contract and her club paid her a meaningful salary, she would be fined. If a man did this he would face a serious fine.

          • Steglitz49

            If WoSo wants to be taken seriously, their top paid players must take the fans and their lesser paid team members seriously. It is all about respect.

            When a WNT member who has done the Treble in europe, considers her SF to be dung — why should anyone care, least of all sponsors?

          • #1Fan

            SF ?

          • Steglitz49

            Semi-Fnal of the NWSL championship. SF and QF are pretty standard and in soccer FA is unique and unambiguous.

          • #1Fan

            calling it her SF is not ..the SF ..I get 🙂

          • Steglitz49

            She failed the call; she takes the penalty.
            Traitresses get the same reward as traitors: ignominy.

      • #1Fan

        yes, because they derive the lions share of their income from their club. If this goes thru, then for the women the equation flips. So why even play for a club? just take these players out of the league and call it a full time residency

      • Hwah

        When you ask “who is objecting”, it seems like USSF, and 93% of the commenters here are objecting.

        • AlexH

          They aren’t objecting to the concept of equal pay for equal work but rather to the assertion that it is relevant to the compensation of the WNT vs. the MNT.

          • Steglitz49

            As long as they can make their case, they ought to win, and by the time their case reaches the Supreme Court, there may be a liberal majority. Hurry slowly, should be their watch word.

    • CED

      They don;t want equal pay, they want a sweetheart deal and the fact they won;t say what the number is and means it’s clearly ridiculous. USSF has historically given 20-25% increases per CBA clearly they want something much more than that. If they wanted equal pay they would give up salaries and get paid by appearance like MNT and not have 1 yr guaranteed spots(well pay whether you’re selected or not).

    • guest

      that’s fine. then get rid of the guaranteed annual roster spots which the men don’t get. the coach should be able to select whoever they want. this is a national team not a club.

      • Hwah

        Are you okay then with women being paid equally to men for appearances and bonuses? I think the women would be fine with this. If they are treated equally, I am all for that as well.

  • NYRick

    I don’t quite understand why EVERY currently allocated USWNT player wouldn’t put her name to this? Why just these 5? Unity of all on this will win the day.

    • guest

      I think they are the leaders of the PA.

      • NYRick

        Well, the group can have their leaders (key visible players like Alex, Carli and Hope etc.), but their power will lie with the collective body of all together on this.

        • guest

          They were probably told that they didn’t have to. Becky tweeted that all of the players are behind them.

        • Steglitz49

          The one that opted out of her semi-final might be a liability, don’t you think?

    • Steglitz49

      It is a middle-class female thing.

      • koolaide

        That’s bs. Particularly in this case. This action is for the entire players’ union.

        • Steglitz49

          Start by playing your semi-final.

          • JL

            OMG! LET IT GO! Get over it! You’re acting so damn offended by one incident that is most likely long forgotten by her teammates. Grow up.

    • Gary Diver

      I may be wrong but it makes perfect sense to me. It is like a university faculty dispute with the administration. Often it is only the tenured faculty members who put their names on pieces of paper though the untenured faculty tend to be the instigators.

      The Gang of Five: top two tweeter queens: Alex Morgan and Hope Solo, two co-captions Carli Lloyd and Becky Sauerbrunn, and the amazing Megan Rapinoe. I would that it was a good mix – the tenured USWNT. And too many names would lose focus on the issue. All discussions now go to the Gang of Five, which is good – I wouldn’t want Whitney Engen being asked complicated questions about this case. Let the Gang of Five do all the talking.

      It is my understanding that USWNT has a united stance and fully support the Gang of Five.

    • Gary Diver

      Here is another thought. If all USWNT players signed this lawsuit then people would immediately be asking, “is this going to be a big distraction for Olympic preparation.” I would not want to see reporters constantly asking JJ., Morgan Brian, Lindsey Horan, etc., legal questions about this case. At some point early on it could be a serious distraction. So the Gang of Five gives coverage to the the other players, which I think is a very good idea.

      • JL

        And more to the point, while the players are very confident that they’ll win this case, there is still the slim possibility that something could go wrong. It’s better for these 5 players to be the ones to stick their necks out and take the heat than for the rank and file to have to do it.

  • NYRick

    I’d also like to hear some comments on this from Mia, Abby, Chastian, Foudy etc. This is the brave fight they tried to fight two decades ago. Get behind your current brethren and support it and stand tall.

    • Steglitz49

      Hear hear!

  • Gary Diver

    Independent of the facts, this is a legal case and if it goes to court, one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. Can anyone predict what the fallout will be if USWNT wins or if they lose?

    • guest

      Leverage during the next CBA negotiations for whichever party comes out on top.

    • Lorehead

      Since this is an EEOC complaint, if the government accepts it, it might try to have both sides negotiate a settlement, or it might intervene on behalf of the players in their court case. I am not a lawyer, but a finding by the government that their employment contracts are illegal would surely help their case that they are not bound by the no-strike clause during the Olympics, which they are using to gain leverage in their CBA negotiations.

      • Steglitz49

        It is an election year. get Donald on your side and all is easy street because Mrs Bill would have to trump him.

    • Lorehead

      More likely, though, all the bad publicity this is going to create for US Soccer could make them cave. FIFA didn’t, but US Soccer is much more dependent on the revenue from WoSo.

      • Steglitz49

        But, can they afford to? And, do they need to in an Olympic year and an election year to boot.

        • Lorehead

          Can they afford not to?

          • Steglitz49

            Yes.

      • CED

        LOL.. You have no idea. 2000 all over again. The lawyer is as naive as you and his initial strike threats started this. Then followed by his laughable response to USSF void of facts to back up his claims,

        Give them equality, pay per game, no salaries, same % as men of revenue/bonus from events, they currently get way more. USWNT would cry to bloody hell if they had the MNT deal…true equality.

        • Lorehead

          You’re full of surety.

  • Lorehead

    This seems like a good time to link back to the budget information that leaked out from U.S. Soccer’s last annual meeting.

    According to US Soccer itself, the women made $5M in profit from $18M in revenues, while the men lost $1M on $9M in revenues. The lawyer for the USWNT claims the actual gap is $20M. The real numbers are buried in the books of Soccer United Marketing, but a lawsuit might discover them.

    We have someone here, posting as Schoup or now CED, who persists in believing that it’s the other way around, but he’s wrong.

    • Guest

      I am interested in seeing the audit of US Soccer’s finances for the last fiscal year too.

    • CED

      Try to keep up as explained before apples to oranges..Please compare Mens Wcup 2014 to 2013 the 1st year of the cycle for women. Honest people, not you or the lawyer compare Wcup years to Wcup years, that’s if you honestly want to compare revenue for each team. The clown lawyer and you want to make a bogus case comparing 1st year of cycle of men where they have there lightest year in games to the biggest year for WNT. Again compare the lightest year for women 2013 to mens biggest year 2014… But why bring facts when silly people like you are guided by emotions and feel good gender fights

      • Hwah

        From Grant Wahl: Revenues for 4-year cycle: $60.2 million for US men, $51.2 million for US women. Women trending upward too.

        • Guest

          That is only gate sales right? What I want to know is how nike and the other USSF sponsor value the men and women’s teams.

          • Lorehead

            The executive for Fox Sports, with whom they have the TV deal along with ESPN, said that the women’s games were nearly as important as the men’s. The other major sponsor is Nike, which sells a lot more USWNT gear than USMNT.

          • Steglitz49

            Nearly as means less than. Coming second is what Americans call losing.

          • Lorehead

            It also means close to half, not a small fraction of.

          • Steglitz49

            Close to shoots no hare.

          • Lorehead

            That’s not an appropriate analogy here.

          • Steglitz49

            As the great man quipped: sometimes it is post in and sometimes it is post out.

          • CED

            Only in your mind is 530 million close to half of 40 million. Hint, he’s lying and the 40 million was on circumstance on being in North America and the fact they have no live sports content for FS1 and FS2 in June so they showed every game. ESPN has content so they never showed every game.

          • Lorehead

            You’re comparing the revenues from dozens of men’s games to the revenues from one English-language broadcast of a single game.

          • CED

            Wrong that’s all Fox made from every game they broadcast it’s less than 1 mil/game.

          • Lorehead

            You have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s just for the English-language broadcast of the final, not for the entire World Cup. Many of the other matches had millions of viewers, too. Furthermore, Fox did not broadcast every game of the WWC, as I know because I subscribed to its streaming service for a month.

          • Guest

            We probably wont ever get specific numbers but I would be very interested to know them. Nike probably cleaned up in USWNT merchandise sales following the WC victory. I definitely found the FOX executive’s comment about the women’s value in the deal interesting.

          • Lorehead

            We might get them in the discovery phase of a trial.

          • Gary Diver

            The discovery phase could be very interesting.

          • Gary Diver

            Didn’t Nike have trouble keeping up with demand for USWNT merchandise?

          • CED

            LOL! You keep spouting this disproven BS over and over.

          • Guest

            Disproven by who? Would you really be shocked if Alex Morgan was a more valuable marketing commodity than any male player? I wouldn’t.

          • Steglitz49

            Fair enough.

          • CED

            She isn’t …Dempsey, Altidore, Bradley, Howard, etc…have more sponsor/advert/ endorsement money.

          • Guest

            I think I already know the answer to this question but, do you have any sources to support your claim? A quick search yielded nothing conclusive.

          • Lord Otter-Blotter

            Unfortunately CED appears to be at least partially correct (though entirely by coincidence, I’m sure), with Dempsey earning an estimated $3.5 million annually from sponsors while Morgan earns somewhere between $1-3 million.

            Dempsey:
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/07/01/2014-world-cup-clint-dempsey-by-the-numbers/#586ba4267cee

            Morgan:
            http://equalizersoccer.com/2014/02/01/report-uswnt-top-paid-players-2012-13-alex-morgan-sauerbrunn-rampone/
            http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/33114171

            Though one could guess, based on the sharp upward trend on Morgan in those two articles (assuming the figures are accurate), that her current income is actually higher than or even with Dempsey’s. Found no information about Bradley, Altidore, or Howard, but I can’t imagine they’d earn as much as Dempsey.

          • Guest

            How current are these estimates though? The Dempsey article is now a year and a half old and the equalizer article is 2 years old. The BBC article is the most current but even they don’t have the exact figure.

          • Lord Otter-Blotter

            I’ve already done the best I can do without putting some real effort into this. I feel like I fairly acknowledged the imprecision of the information I provided. Please do better if you can and/or want to.

          • Guest

            I couldn’t and that was kind of my original point.

          • Lord Otter-Blotter

            I understood. I thought I was being helpful, sorry.

          • Guest

            The effort was appreciated. If the BBC estimate of close to 3m was correct along with the Dempsey estimate of 3.5 they appear to at least be pretty close. I still wouldn’t be surprised if Morgan was the the most valuable star in terms of marketing.

          • Lord Otter-Blotter

            I believe that as well.

          • Lorehead

            Well, compare the coverage of Hope Solo’s scandals to what happened when Clint Dempsey threw a temper tantrum and tore a ref’s notebook in half. I know who he is, but it doesn’t subjectively seem to me that most people in America do.

          • Lord Otter-Blotter

            I’ve never even heard about that tantrum, and I agree with your general premise (although domestic violence and DUI charges are much bigger news than an on-field meltdown); but I can’t really say with any confidence that that’s because the WNT gets way more press, since I voluntarily expose myself primarily to media that cover the women’s game and not the men’s. Definitely can’t imagine my experience represents that of a majority of soccer-watching Americans.

          • Lorehead

            I only saw it because he was playing my team at the time, and did we ever have a good time with that. Our rivals finished with seven players on the field! In Portland, we call it the Red Card Wedding.

          • Lord Otter-Blotter

            Hahahaha I love that!

          • Lorehead

            The quote is by David Nathanson, head of business operations for FOX Sports, in the New York Daily News. That was specifically about the World Cup deal with FIFA, but he additionally said that the NWSL broadcasts drew a healthy mix of male and female viewers, and the ratings show that the USWNT friendlies draw well.

          • CED

            Yes, he paid 450 million for rights to 2018 wcup..btw WWcup is thrown in as package by FIFA so broadcasters will buy WWcup rights worldwide . Yes, he paid all that b/c they are almost equal so they could get 40 million in ad revenue for WWcup while the MWcup produced 530 million in 2014. He’s giving a political correct statement, it makes people like you feel good and you bought the almost equal nonsense. Let me see what was the decided the 530 million or the 40 million which was an anomoly b/c it’s was North american based whcih fit for US primetime

          • Steglitz49

            You would be better off asking him to explain the difference between a subsidy and a marginal profit.

            Also, in the case of the ladies WC, it is not just that you have to buy the rights with the men’s, you must show some of it also.

          • Lorehead

            You can’t even remember the terms right.

          • CED

            Well since you already bought it it would kind of silly not to show it, that would be just throwing away money. Btw, people forget that the reason Fox showed all the WWcup games(more ad revenue) is b/c they were devoid of live sports content on their FS1 and FS2 networks looking at their current deals. ESPN/ESPN2 showed less games (1/2 as many )when they had rights b/c they have a lot more live sports content in June.

          • Lorehead

            The ratings and the demographics of who was watching bear his statement out.

          • CED

            LOL..

          • JL

            You can’t compare ad revenue from the 2014 and 2015 WC because 2014 was on ESPN and 2015 was on Fox Sports. ESPN is available in more homes than Fox Sports is, so naturally the ad revenue is going to be higher.

            Get a damn life, schoup. Stop going on WoSo websites to spew your misogynistic POV.

          • CED

            I love the excuse to ignore the facts on ad revenue. Keep squirming you loser. Btw, asshat Fox broadcast network aired 16 games. which has more households than ESPN…Come up with a new excuse and a good one this time.

          • JL

            schoup, just give it up. No one is taking you seriously because any post that rationally disputes your numbers is automatically disregarded by you with rude name-calling. You do know that it is possible to have a civil discussion without you resorting to antics that would be embarrassing to 5 year olds, right?

            And no, Fox did not air 16 games on its network broadcast station. It was much less than that.

          • CED

            The numbers are not disputable the come from the actual USSF info and CBA/MOU..You people just don’t like the facts. The USWNT have gone on a path iof purposeful distortion, cherry picking and touting the 4x BS claim as their media calling card. They are depending on the ignorance of the public and most are falling for it.

          • CED

            “And no, Fox did not air 16 games on its network broadcast station. It was much less than that.”

            Please stop embarrassing yourself and look things up.

            http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/fox-sports-makes-unprecedented-broadcast-commitment-to-fifa-women-s-world-cup-2015-121614

            NEW YORK — FOX Sports is planning the most expansive and
            comprehensive multi-platform coverage ever of the FIFA Women’s World
            Cup™, including an unprecedented 16 matches airing live on FOX broadcast
            network, when the tournament commences in Canada next June. The
            announcement was made today by Eric Shanks, President, COO and Executive
            Producer, FOX Sports.

            FOX Sports televises all 52 games in the expanded tournament from
            six cities across Canada between June 6 and July 5, 2015 live on FOX;
            FOX Sports 1, America’s fastest growing network; and FOX Sports 2.
            Digitally, all games are available on tablets and mobile devices via the
            FOX Sports GO app and online at http://www.FOXSportsGO.com.

            In addition to the 16 matches committed to FOX, which include one
            semifinal, the third place match on July 4 and the final on July 5, FOX
            Sports 1 carries 30 matches, including all eight in the round of 16,
            two quarterfinals and one semifinal. The remaining six games are slated
            for FOX Sports 2. Never before has a broadcast network televised 16
            FIFA Women’s or Men’s World Cup matches, and the 2015 event marks the
            first time since 2003 that any FIFA Women’s World Cup™ matches are
            scheduled for over-the-air broadcast in the U.S. Combining games with
            anticipated pregame, postgame and complementary programming, FOX Sports
            is expected to provide almost 200 hours of coverage from the FIFA
            Women’s World Cup 2015™, averaging between six and seven hours a day
            over the month-long tournament.

          • Kevin

            You’re a moron.

            The MWcup may have produced 530 million in 2014, but not the USMNT. If the USMNT failed to qualify in 2014, the MWcup would not have produced $0, it probably still would have produced $500+ million.

            The USMNT had practically nothing to do with those numbers.

          • CED

            Clueless look up how much ESPN got in ad revenue in MWcup 2014..it dwarfs the pittens of the WWcup. Fats hurt asshat!

          • Kevin

            LOL… you’re so clueless and what I said went right over your head.

            If the USMNT didn’t make the World Cup in 2014, the ad revenue still would have been through the roof.

            If the USMNT fails to qualify for Russia 2018, which sadly is a good possibility, the ad revenue will still be through the roof.

            Do you get it yet? or are you still clueless?

          • Lorehead

            As for Nike, go to the men’s T-shirt section of US Soccer’s online store (I shared the link elsewhere in this comment section) and see what’s for sale.

          • CED

            Are you brain damaged? Logic, reasoning, facts are your something you’re immune to.

          • Hwah

            Grow up. If you have facts state them. If others have facts, they can as well. Indeed, both sides are entitled to opinions without insult. You don’t help your case by being insulting. Move on.

          • Steglitz49

            It must be known how many #13, #10, #1 and #23 shirts are sold.

            If Hope Solo is the nearest we get to Petter Northug, will Alex get close to Johan?

          • Paul Klee

            Except Men cannot buy a Lloyd or Press jersey in Men’s sizes. So any jersey I buy is going to come from the Men’s side of the ledger.

          • Steglitz49

            Be loyal to the ladies and don’t buy one. Go without. Don’t sit in the back of the bus.

          • Lorehead
        • Lorehead

          Which four-year cycle is that? 2012–2015 is probably a lot better than 2010–2013.

          • Steglitz49

            Each side will use whichever period suits their case.

          • Dillon77

            Was traveling yesterday and missed the fun. Of all the comments, this one strikes home very well. And you can probably extend the use of “periods” to statistics being presented in a way that best befits each side.

          • Hwah

            Looks like 2014-17, original information from Danny Page citing USSF numbers.

          • Lorehead

            It’s 2016. What are the actual numbers?

          • Hwah

            go to Danny Page’s twitter feed, he shows the financials filed by USSF.

          • Lorehead

            But they could not possibly know how much their teams have made in 2017, because it is March 2016.

          • Hwah

            it’s projections for that year. I don’t have any access to financials other than what I’ve seen today.

          • Lorehead

            Those are meaningless. I want data.

          • Hwah

            Go look for it then.

          • Captain Picard

            I want Data too.

          • dw

            We seem to be stuck with his cynical twin brother…

          • Guest

            I think it’s year ended 2017. So 2017 would be this year starting April 1st and ends on March 31 of 2017

          • Lorehead

            That’s tomorrow. Tomorrow is in the future.

          • Guest

            I think 2017 is the budget that leaked earlier this year and it includes all revenue earned between April 1st 2016 and March 31 2017. Obviously the budget is just a projection and not actual data.

        • Steglitz49

          If this is correct then the USMNT is 9.0m ahead of the ladies or17-18% higher. A lot ofr a team that performs less well than the lesser financially.

          • Lorehead

            But not three times as high, yet USSF spends three times as much on the USMNT.

      • Lorehead

        Why would any rational person compare a men’s WC year to a year with no major women’s tournament?

        • Guest

          I think he/she was trying to say to compare the respective WC years to each other. It probably makes sense to compare the totals of the last 4 years though.

          • Lorehead

            It would, but that data is not publicly available anywhere I’ve seen.

          • CED

            LOL…

        • CED

          Try to keep up, that’s what you doing and the WNT lawyer. in their attempt to make a purposeful deceptive case. Try reading comp..I said compare apples to apple.

          • Lorehead

            You are a remarkably obnoxious ignoramus.

          • CED

            You’re remarkably ignorant. You tried to make the same stupid case as the lawyer and then you din;t get why it was wrong ..You said why would somebody compare those years when that’s what you’re doing.. You’re not a bright bulb!

          • Lorehead

            I used the numbers for the four-year cycle because that’s what I have, but the fact that it’s the World Cup year of the women’s cycle counts against you.

            US Soccer’s own numbers clearly show that they spent $31 million on the men and $10 million on the women even in this first year of the cycle. Yet there are two fat years and two lean years in the women’s cycle: the 2012 Olympics were another tournament that led to a lucrative sendoff tour and ten-game victory tour. The USWNT absolutely generates much more than a third of the revenue of the USMNT over the four-year cycle.

            You incorrectly claim that the USWNT gets paid a higher share of its revenues, but that is an illiterate misreading on your part.

          • CED

            They do get a higher % you just don’t understand numbers.

          • Lorehead

            Even your own numbers don’t back that up. For example, your best argument is that it’s FIFA that’s sexist, not USSF, by paying higher bonuses to the men. By your own apples-to-apples reasoning, all the tournament bonuses should be amortized over four years, so that $7M bonus is $1.75M/year. When we do that, and count the bonuses and victory tours for both the WWC and the Olympics, the women come out ahead in a cycle such as 2012–2015 where they win everything.

          • CED

            You really can;t be that stupid! Of course you are.

            Moron this has been shown in another post how the WNT receives way more not even close higher % of revenue in their bonuses.

            Hint moron WNT receives 1.8M of 2M for Wcup win the mNt woudl get 9.3M of 35M.

            Even for making Wcup 2014 men received in bonuses 5.1M of the 9mil payout by FIFA. The WNT received 90% or 1.8M of 2M.

            For qualifying the WNT got 30K x 23 for the roster + 690K ..FIFA payout for making it and group is 300K,,the MNT got less than the participation and group payout that was guaranteed…they got 2.5M+1.7 or 4.1M of the 8M.(just over 50%)

          • kernel_thai

            Not that it matters in the long run but the USSF gets the $2 million for winning WC. The VT is what generates to $1.8 million bonus.

          • CED

            A win of the Wcup WNT gets a 75K/player bonus and a 1.8M team bonus. For Olympics they get the same 75K/player and 1.8M team and there is no payout of 2M from the tourney. The simple fact in both situations WNT are getting essentially all the revenue, even more so in Olympic year without the 2M FIFA payout to USSF..Olympic payout is 250K by the tourney for a win.

          • Johnny Appleseed

            Here’s an apple: there is equal pay for men and women in pro tennis. Why should national soccer be any different? The US men get 4 times as much as the women? That’s pure sexual discrimination.

          • CED

            How stupid are you? The 4x claim is based on the stupid logic comparing MNT Wcup 9 mil to WWcup 2 mil…The difference is based on MWcup revenue being 4.5 billion and the WWcup less than 100 million. Tennis has equal pay b/c of equal revenue at their major events..Soccer the MWcup is 45X more revenue while just 17X more in pay..

          • Hwah

            Ah yes, the “no you’re stupid”, “unuh, you are stupid” phase has begun.

          • Steglitz49

            Either he is right or he is wrong. You chose.

          • Gary Diver

            Is somebody paying you a bonus for each time you type “stupid”. You can relax, I think you’ve already passed your quota for the day.

          • Hwah

            I think they may also be getting a bonus for saying “moron”, it’s ridiculous!

          • CED

            All you have to do is show how the 4x claims isn’t stupid and dishonest, but you can’t. It is however how WMT are leading their appearance on every media outlet. It’s a purposeful distortion, but of curse they wantt to compare that as their basis but that the revenue is 4.5 billion ot less than 100million. Then follow up with last year comparing WWCup year to a mens 1sy year cycle . The dishonesty of WNT on this issue is astounding. Btw , some reporter should ask WNT receives 90% of Wcup payout as a bonus in 2015, the men would receive 26% for a win and 51% in 2014. You’re roster bonus is more than 390K more than the pay for participation and group stage payout of 300k, while the MNT 4.2M of 8M for the same is just over 50% Aren’t they being short changed and not you on revenue to pay. It would be met by silence ! Facts destroy their argument they are making on basing their 4x montra on Wcup. A nice deceptive headline precluding the details.

          • Lorehead

            When people respect women, that threatens him.

          • ARED

            This is true, but does not refute the argument given (does it?).

          • Guest

            The WC bonuses are only a small piece of the revenue that the USWNT generated last year. Just going some of the information available they generated 24 million in event revenue this past year Which will easily cover their expenses this past year. Why are the women only getting $1.20 per ticket compared to the $1.50 the men get for friendlies get when their ticket prices are roughly the same prices. What about the sponsorship revenue? The women made the federation a lot of money last year largely because the VT was a huge financial success.

          • guest

            nobody writes a contract based on one peak year. you have to look at the historical trend.

          • Guest

            Who is suggesting that they write a contract based on one peak year. It should be based on the entire cycle or the past 4 years. If they win the Olympics and the budget numbers become actual numbers hey will have earned over 50 million in the past 4 years to the men’s 60. I think the total spent on each NT’s player expense for the year should at least be somewhat proportional to the revenue split.

          • Lorehead

            And with much lower expenses.

          • ARED

            A lot of people seem to be…..(but not all).

            I agree, it should go on the actual numbers for all revenues. I do not believe those 50 and 60 million figures include all revenues (TV, sponsorships, etc). And as you say, only time will tell whether those figures become real or not.

          • ARED

            Yes, but I was referring to one (or two) part of the picture -the point CED was making. Included in his point was how it is rather biased to use numbers only from the women’s best year ever.

            You are right the women made the federation a lot of money. And the federation spent a lot of money on the USWNT. It’s a big picture, and I do believe that improving the player’s compensation for friendlies is one area that could improve for the women. However let’s not forget that they get benefits the men do not (salaries, benefits, security, Olympic bonuses). Let’s not forget that there is no cash award for winning at the Olympics -so US Soccer is expending that money to support and send the team without a return from the tournament. They make money on TV and sponsors, and then on friendlies. So in Olympic years it’s likely that the women DO get a fair piece from friendly revenue.

            The answer is that none of us know the whole story; we’d need to see the finances disclosed to understand exactly the whole picture.

    • Guest

      Here is the tweet that is I think based on budgets for the teams. I think the numbers for 2017 are assuming the US wins the Olympics though. If they don’t win the number will be lower since there will be no victory tour.

      https://twitter.com/DannyPage/status/715519791470092288

      • Steglitz49

        After the WC-11 final debacle there was some consolation tour that was well attended as far as I remember.

        If the PR system could do a snowjob on 8-1 in 1981, there is hope yet — but it won’t come to that, will it?

        • Lorehead

          Steglitz, losing on PKs in the final is no debacle, and a second- or third-place finish gets the team a three-game tour.

          • Steglitz49

            A meltdown and a penalty still rotating Saturn was a disgrace — but the same PR-machine went into overdrive. Phew! Thank goodness for the suits on Madison Avenue.

          • kernel_thai

            Wait…ur saying that Japan’s greatest moment wasnt a Japan victory by a plucky and over matched squad who dug deep to find their samurai spirit BUT it was just a US melt down and Japan was lucky to be the recipient?

          • ARED

            Can be both, no?

            I wouldn’t say “meltdown”….maybe “letdown”?….but the USA through management, selection, and performance was far from their highest possible level in 2011. And still, it took a heroic effort from Japan to beat them.

            (After that moment, Japan’s level seemed to jump quite a bit -as belief and experience came. But still, we have seen them as a great top-4 nation who struggles against the top nations -who happen to be physically dominant).

      • CED

        Failed econ 101..pay is based on profits.

        • Hwah

          And yet, USSF is a non-profit organization that is supposed to benefit men and women equally.

          • CED

            OMG..the idiot brigade!

          • Hwah

            OMG the arrogant nonsense brigade with no answer to the truth of the charter. Hop off darlin.

          • CED

            The facts were presented before ..the WNT would cry themselves to sleep if they were offered actually equality..ie…the MNT CBA %’s and terms. They don’t want equality they want a sweetheart deal better than the great one they have now.

        • guest

          What sports organization pays based on profit instead of revenue?

        • DumbAss Detector

          Hey dumb ass, US Soccer is a non profit. Any money they make should be spent on the non profit goals not paying a losing men’s side. Not the same rules or econmics as a commercial enterprise. In this case pay on performance should be the rule. Cut the men’s salaries until they can produce for the USA. We should never reward failure.

          • CED

            LOL..So when the WNT lost money for 2 decades they shouldn’t have been paid? The fact that they receive 90 or 100% of paid bonus for tourney is not charity when MNT receives 25 to 55%. Again the morons are on the Natinal News now spouting the 4x bullshit based on wcup payouts and media are lapping up the nonsense neglecting the massive revenue difference of each tourney. The WNT can show they want equality by taking the MNT CBA with the same bonus structure as %’s, only pay for actual being selected, etc,,They would cry their eyes out if they had MNT CBA instead of their sweetheart deal of guaranteed pay and security for a year and huge % of payouts from tournies.

        • Lorehead

          False: that graph shows the USWNT becoming much more profitable than it was when the MOU was signed and their pay was set.

    • Terry Lash

      There is a lot of sexist blather in response to this action by members of the USWNT. Although it bolsters their case women deserve equal treatment to the men, same as in college under Title IX. Period. Second, men’s professional soccer is not a realistic model to follow. Women’s clubs do not have the financial strength to pay players adequately at this time. Members of the national team have to rely on US Soccer for equitable pay. The NWSL clubs cannot afford it. If they tried there would be no league. The experience of the WUSA makes this point vivid.

      • Steglitz49

        If they can’t afford a league, why keep one? Very unamerican that, subsidizing losing enterprises. But. Don’t worry. The explanation is simple. Without a league, no entry to the World Cup and OG.

        Hmm?! Better subsidize it quick.

        • Hwah

          that’s what they used to say about MLS too, but folks subsidized it until it could make some profit.

          • Steglitz49

            The alternative is worse: no world cup.

        • USMNTfan4life

          US Soccer could threaten or eventually decide to stop subsidizing the costs of higher salaried players, and then the NWSL will be in trouble. This will go back and forth…

        • Terry Lash

          You are truly a sexist jerk.

        • Lord Otter-Blotter

          Nearly all businesses lose money for a while before becoming profitable.

  • Guest

    KNOCK EM DEAD BROON.

  • Gary Diver

    Skeletons in the Closet

    If this case goes to court, there might be a discovery phase where USWNT lawyers can look at USSF’s books. Is it possible that there are skeletons that USSF wants to remain hidden at all costs? The lawyers may even ask for access to emails. The recent expose of NHL emails involving concussions and fighting is probably going to have a major fallout. It is harder today to hide questionable and/or improper actions.

  • smallchief

    Seems like an easy solution to me. The USSF should separate receipts and costs into men’s and women’s teams. That’s not hard to do.

    Then pay the players, both men and women, based on what they earn. If the men’s team earns more, they get more money; if the women’s team earns more they get more money.

    • simple minded

      I think most people see it this way. I think the players would agree too, because they don’t get the same proportion of their revenues that the men do. I haven’t read too many comments that they should be paid the same, period. You could make the argument for equal pay, of course. For example, a doctor should be paid the same for a given procedure no matter their sex. But pay in sports, or entertainment in general, doesn’t work this way. Unlike a doctor, the value of the services performed by an athlete is very subjective and subject to variation, so you have to rely on metrics like gate receipts and TV viewership to determine somebody’s worth. Advertisers certainly see it this way.

      • guest

        make no mistake. that is what the uswnt want and expect. not fairer pay but equal pay.

  • Gary Diver

    USSF is not a private business.

    The USSF is the official US governing body for soccer. It is not a private business with a mandate to maximize profit. Some of the posts seem to think it is the Microsoft of soccer. It is not. Its primary responsibility is not to its stock holder. Its primary responsible should be to do the right thing for the American soccer community.

    Policies and decisions do not have be based entirely on a cost-benefit analysis. If the question is “what is the fair way to treat the American women national players,” then pulling out selective financial figures is not the moral compass for determine what is the right thing to do.

    Let’s be honest, every attempt to obtain equal pay for women has been fought tooth and nail with every legal and economic excuse to prevent it from happening. And also, it is only when you can look at the financial books that you see how the system has always found ways to pay women less for equal contributions. Women have had to fight for equality because it is never given to them. And in this case, equality has been given to them.

    Ironically, the turf wars was just a foreshadow of the second-rate status of women within USSF. Why for so long did the men nearly always played on grass while the women nearly always played on turf?

    • Hwah

      Thank you!

    • Steglitz49

      They lost the turf war. Worse, they have not objected to 12 ladies teams in Rio but 16 men’s teams. Fair is as fair does.

      • HOFCToDi

        You are a hypocrite

        UEFA lost the turf war.

        2016 UEFA Women’s Olympic Qualifying Tournament

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_UEFA_Women%27s_Olympic_Qualifying_Tournament

        Kyocera Stadion – artificial turf
        Stadion Woudestein – artificial turf

    • CED

      They have a sweetheart deal, If they had the MNT they would cry. Pay per game, no salaries, instead of getting 90 to 100% of revenue from a Wcup win they get 26% of 35M..that’s what MNT get 9.3M of 35M. Every bonus structure for event the WNT gets way more % of the revenue, its not even close.

    • Lorehead

      It’s important to separate FIFA (whose cash cow is the men’s World Cup, and whose executives come from cultures that don’t value the women’s game) and US Soccer (whose cash cow is the USWNT, and which has a public image to maintain in the United States).

      Both, however, are ostensibly non-profit organizations that exist to promote the sport of soccer, and the values of opportunity and fairness. That is the basis on which they claim their tax exemptions. Paying men and women equally even if this would cost them a bit of money is exactly the sort of thing such an organization should do.

      • guest

        just don’t ask for guaranteed annual roster spots. no other team get’s that.

        • Guest

          They aren’t guaranteed anything more than a years worth of salary. The USSF can deallocate any player if the following year if a player isn’t getting called up.

          • guest

            they shouldn’t even get guaranteed for a year. you get paid if you get selected for the games just like the men

          • Guest

            That’s your opinion and maybe it is the best direction to go. Regardless it needs to be collectively bargained

          • dw

            Why is that, exactly?

          • Guest

            That’s how the unions work. The MNT has a CBA too.

        • Lorehead

          They’re only guaranteed roster spots in the victory tours; the explicit reasoning for that in the contract is that it’s a way for them to pay for the bonuses they get for winning the World Cup and Olympics. Therefore, one of the many mistakes Schoup/CED makes is not to count that revenue toward their bonuses.

        • guest7

          us men got guarantee annual roster spots and base salary for the 1984-1996 period when no domestic men’s league – very similar to base salary setup currently with USWNT

    • simple minded

      The USWNT is a non-profit, but oddly enough it still runs on money. We all want the team to succeed and the best way to do that is to reward them when they do well, and the simplest and most direct measure of success in the sports world is revenue generated. The more successful you are, the more interest you attract from the public, and the more money sponsors are willing to give you. The fairest and simplest way to compensate a team for their success is to give them a percentage of the revenue they generate. The more successful you are, the more you earn. You can talk all day about the intangibles of national,pride, and the meaning of it all, but at the end of the day it’s still a business and like any business, you have to adequately compensate your players, and a percentage of revenue generated is the best way to do that.

  • Gary Diver

    Value of USWNT

    How does one measure the value of USWNT to the United States? It is certainly more than selective revenue figures. The joy and pride that the accomplishments of USWNT has given Americans since winning its first WC can’t be measured in dollars.

    I remember the effect the ’99 WC had on a nation and especially the young girls. And following the past three OG gold medals made many people proud of their efforts. Yes, they won the gold medals for themselves but they also won them for the nation. And the WC15 victory was a remarkable victory over doubt and adversity.

    The value of accomplishments is not always measured in how many dollars they bring in. If that were true we won’t have had a space program and landed on the moon, we would never built particle accelerators to explore subatomic physics, and we won’t fund the humanities.

    The USWNT has made a lot of Americans proud of their accomplishments and also being proud to be an American. I went to all 3 SBC games and was moved by the thousands of psyched young girls attending the games in NT jerseys and cheering on their heroes. Honestly, you cannot buy heroes and when you’ve found ones that do you proud you should do right by them.

  • Rock N Roll

    US Soccer is a non profit, which not the same as a private business like the NFL or NWSL thus profit is not paramount. If the men’s side generates more money there is no reason that US Soccer cannot spend some or all of it on anything they want like boys development or the USWNT.

    The national teams represent the United States. They should be paid for results not anything else. The women bring home World Cups and Olympic Gold. The men bring home nothing. The men are rewarded for failure and women penalized. US Soccer should humiliate the men, reduce their pay and tell them that until they produce they can expect minimum rewards.

    It is not complicated. US Soccer is a non profit. Their missions as a ruling body is to advance soccer in the USA. They money they have, no matter its source is for the non profits goals not the enrichment of a losing men’s team. Pay the women what they are worth.

    US Soccer is sexist in the sense they see the men as superior and the men’s needs are more important.

    • mockmook

      The “laws” of economics don’t cease because you are a “non-profit”.

      • guest

        The USSF has over 80 M in net assets and year before last(men’s WC year) they ended the year with 8.5 M in profits. Usually the excess cash is converted into long term investments. The USSF’s total assets have almost doubled in the last 10 years. I don’t know how much of an increase to their pay would be fair but I think they can afford to pay the women more than they do.

    • #1Fan

      this analysis is so simplistic .You just cannot compare the 2 programs. the WNT has massive advantages that the men just dont have. The men are not rewarded for failure, they are paid market rate for their sport. Please give me the comparables for other WNT players from other countries? The WNT is the beneficiary of a system that can work in the womens game. Will never work for boys. I would love to know is USA basketball pay the men and women the same for representing them? Do women NT players make more than their counterparts in the league who are not NT players ?

    • guest

      that’s fine. then pay them like the men. no guaranteed annual salary and no guaranteed annual roster spots. the coach has the power to call in players whenever they want. bonuses are then paid for performance dependent on market forces. just don’t tell me they want the same pay as the men but then also have guaranteed annual roster spots.

      • another guest

        FYI – in the period (1984 to 1996) when their was no domestic league in USA the USMNT players had CBA that did pay annual base salary to USMNT players (basically similar to current CBA for USWNT). Base salary for men was only dropped after USSF helped establish MLS.

  • mockmook

    Haven’t read most of the other comments yet, but several initial thoughts occur to me:

    == The men’s game and the women’s game are essentially two different sports. That is true of all physically demanding sports. A team of men/boys of 17 or 18 yo can beat the USWNT.

    == So, such sports should divide pay and revenues by male/female. The complete segregation of “wealth” and organization of golfers in the PGA and LPGA is probably as good model.

    == This suit may be an attempt by the players to see a complete breakdown of income/expenses of male/female for the USSF — then, an intelligent debate can be had about who deserves what slice of the pie.

    == If this suit is successful, that money has to come from somewhere. I suspect that a lot of it will come from less resources being available to women/girls not on the USWNT senior team. AND, there will be even more rigidity on player selections (there won’t be money to experiment with a large player pool).

    == The suit isn’t some great cause to help all women; it doesn’t help anyone except the “lucky” few who are signed to the USWNT by the USSF.

    == A successful suit could be the beginning of a bad period for the USWNT. This is going to cost them some fan support. This will likely make players on the roster even more entrenched. Resentment between the haves and have nots in USA WoSo will grow. This could hurt the USSF’s programs to help/develop players below the Senior team level.

    • Oregon

      But…Men’s and women’s tennis are essentially the same sport?

      (Because a 17 yr old male can’t beat a Sharapova or an
      Azarenka or a Williams?)

      • mockmook

        No. Like the other sports, elite men trounce the elite women.

        And, a very good 17 yo male (say the top amateur) probably can beat an elite woman.

    • One of a Kind

      Very well said. I can’t help but think this isn’t some grand crusade to help ALL WoSo players, but rather a ploy help those that are able to overcome various obstacles and become a mainstay on the USWNT. I found it intriguing how the issue of pay inequality began as soon as the confetti fell in Vancouver last July. Things can go awry pretty quickly if this isn’t settled quickly; what’s to say USSF doesn’t decide to just sent a squad of amateurs to the Olympics out of spite?

      Also, as you said, soccer isn’t like tennis where the female and male versions of the sport are essentially their own separate entities that are viable independent of one another. Outside of the Olympics and World Cup, WoSo is still kind of struggling to draw consistently both TV audiences and spectators. I really don’t see how all of this ends positively besides maybe drawing public attention to the issue and using the upcoming Olympics as leverage.

  • Guest

    Do not understand people who feel the need to bring up the point that these particular five players make a lot of money. Does that mean that it is okay just to pay them a decent wage, and not what they actually earn and bring in? Basically you are saying that despite what they bring in, it is okay just to pay them a decent amount and then give the rest of what they bring in elsewhere.

    • Craigaroo

      Marshall High School in Los Angeles, when I was growing up, was never much of a football school. But we did have one guy, Michael Haynes, who went on to have a tremendous career as a defensive back in college and the NFL, one of the greatest of his generation. I was so proud to hear him say once, when the players prepared to go on strike, potentially forfeiting a lot of salary, “someone else paid the dues for me”.

  • Guest

    Becky should be the primary talker in these interviews. She is very well spoken and articulate, much more so than Lloyd and Morgan who are not so great at it.

    • Craigaroo

      No surprise there, hey? I’m not taking immediate sides here but damn it’s easy to love Broon 🙂

    • AlexH

      The WNT is blessed with a stable of intelligent women that took advantage of their scholarships by actually attending class. I actually think that Hope Solo is the most articulate of the bunch but that is probably just a mater of taste.

      • Guest

        I kind of disagree. Hope seems to try hard to use big words and it does not sound natural, with BS it just flows and comes naturally it seems like.

    • F0OtballNowAndAlways

      Even the Carli Lloyd Hate manifests itself in a simple TV interview. She is clearly the most articulate of the players who spoke. Her delivery was erudite and unforced.

  • CED

    USSF should call the WNT bluff. Offer them the exact same CBA as the MNT, same %’s of bonuses for tourney payouts, pay per play, no salaries, they get paid by NWSL or any club that wants them abroad, same appearance fees, cap the game number like the MNT to prevent the bonus for 20+ games like they try to do for MNT unless 20+ is necessity..ie..no extended VT etc..

    The WNT would cry bloody murder and show they have no interest in actual equality, but a sweetheart deal better than the sweetheart deal they have now. Then after the WNT reject actual equality in a CBA. USSF offer them what they normally get a 20 to 25% pay increase that has occurred the last few CBA’s take it or leave it. Plenty of NWSL players will be happy to play for 128K guaranteed with potential of 300K+ with bonuses.

    • dw

      Typed essentially the same idea at the same time.

    • Lorehead

      You’ve made this same point repeatedly, and it’s nonsense. First, all it does is push the sexism back one space, to FIFA paying much less in prize money than the broadcast rights to the Women’s World Cup are worth. Second, prize money is a small fraction of what USSF gets in revenue over the four-year cycle, and women get a much smaller percentage of the total revenue they generate.

      • CED

        So the same CBA is nonsense? Yes actual equality is nonsense! LOL b/c you know I’m right. Btw, WWcup rights are an add on nobody wanted to pay for them on their own, that’s why they are sold together with MWcup b/c people really didn’t want them.

        Again you have already been shown to be fool on the revenue..you wee shown the numbers on payouts and the WNT receive much higher % and that’s how they make about 1/2of their pay in a cycle.

        • Hwah

          Here’s the thing, you keep saying the WWC rights are worthless. Fact is that apparently they were valued at $17 million last time (based on Fox projections), but the ad revenue brought in $40 million.

          Perhaps it is that the USSF is undervaluing the USWNT and then arguing that that don’t bring in that much, when they should be trying to actually get more for a valuable asset.

          • CED

            I was explaining how the right are sold by FIFA. You do know USSF gets nothing from WCup rights, they don’t own them. The perceived or lack of value is irrelevant. It’s the same with USSF has no rights to Olympics or CONCACAF quals..they only have rights and thus value in US friendlies. All USSF rights are sold in a bundle MNT/WNT with a deal also involving MLS to Fox and ESPN.

          • Hwah

            Actually, NWSL is not part of that bundle

          • CED

            That;s’ why NWSL wasn’t mentioned. The deal was just signed last year thru 2019 or 2020 and NWSL was not added.

          • Hwah

            But, my point was that by the NWSL not being bundled with the others, USSF has automatically reduced its revenue potential. Again, shooting women’s soccer in the foot and then claiming the women have an injury (being shot in the foot) so they should get less.

          • CED

            NWSL value are you serious. NWSL short deal with Fox was pittens, the value is virtually non existent to the bundled deal. NWSL with 4k average attendance and the only games Fox put on were involving a handful of team..Seattle, Portland, Houston, KC. If they have a deal this year maybe Orlando b/c of Morgan going there.

          • Hwah

            So why not bundle for relative value (sure, lets say zero) and get it on TV? Because it’s not going to grow if it isn’t there. Bu, the folks are going to say it isn’t growing, even though it was left out of the bundle, so it can’t grow. Even you have to see the cycle here if you are being honest.

          • CED

            I have a probable explanation nobody wanted it very much and/or wanted to commit to airing it saturday nights or sunday during the day when most NWSL games occur. That’s a valuable spot in sports saturday and sundays. WNBA doesn’t even much air time and they get bundled with the very lucrative NBA deal.

          • Hwah

            I’m sure no one wanted it, but that’s the point of bundling, if USSF doesn’t want to do that to grow the sport, well I’m not terribly inclined to give USSF credit when they say the sport hasn’t grown.

          • kevin

            of course it would have been better if it was included. hopefully, the networks just wanted to see four more years of improving numbers from more mls clubs before they commit their valuable weekend air times to it. so that the nwsl will be bundled in the next contract in 2019

          • Hwah

            maybe I am wrong here, but don’t NWSL teams also play on weekdays? Just saying….

            Beyond that, I really have no interest in the USSF crying about the NWSL if they decided to leave it out of their negotiating bundle. Is there honestly no one here who sees how that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

          • Nicole C.

            In the past, yes, but the number of midweek games this year is relatively low. Excluding Friday evenings, the first weekday match will be in mid-June.

      • mockmook

        Just because you keep repeating “sexism” doesn’t mean it is.

        • dw

          Right this is only about more money for a group of 25 women. Not even the WNT, just specifically this group of women.

          • Hwah

            Balony. At least be honest in your arguments.

        • Lorehead

          Would you prefer the more neutral term, “disparity?” The women get only about $2M of the tens of millions in revenues from the WWC US broadcast plus the millions in revenues from the victory tour.

          Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say I accept that this is really FIFA’s fault for paying out only $2M to the winner of the tournament.

          All that does is push the disparity back onto FIFA. They should really pay out a larger share of money than that, especially since what I hear Schoup/CED saying is that that would lead to all the federations that participated massively increasing what they pay their women.

          • mockmook

            I just hate throwing out the “sexism” charge without hard evidence.

            I’d want to see ALL the revenues and outlays for both men and women.

            Of course, past history (e.g. turf) does show that FIFA isn’t above discriminating against women.

          • Lorehead

            That might come out in the discovery phase of a trial, but right now, it’s all hidden in a bunch of transactions at FIFA and SUM. The NY Daily News tried to dig into it and said it’s opaque.

          • Lorehead

            Anyway, I can avoid that particular word if you like; I’m more interested in the impact of the decisions people make than their intentions.

    • #1Fan

      I agree with this, whatever the numbers come out to be. They will not do it for fear of upsetting the one national franchise they have. The women are in a privileged position relative to the majority of the world. Unlike the mens game, it is not a relatively level playing field. Even in Intl competition, how many legit challengers are there to the women? I dont mean in ability, I mean in actually caring. Mens is a global game,women really isnt. I believe they should be paid for what they produce. If more,great. In reality the womens game is still a bit of a joke. You have players with 200 caps ffs, that is just nonsense. It says a lot about the game and where it is. I still think that you could remove this whole team and still be top 5 in the world

      • Gary Diver

        ” In reality the womens game is still a bit of a joke.”

        I respect your view but how do we move forward? Today I heard Canadian coach John Herdman actually say that women should not be lured by money – it is a distraction from the honor of playing for one’s country. And then he quoted how much CSA has “given” the women program. This can’t be the future, it sounded so 1950s.

        I believe that women soccer will achieve greater value when it is valued more and given more respect. You can take almost any case where women had to fight for equality in pay and you see a similar pattern. Take doctors. Forty/fifty years ago only about 10% of medical students were women and women doctors were generally paid less then their male counterpoints. Today they have parity in both areas, but there was fierce resistance to this achievement. In athletics, women were not allowed to participate in many sports for decades for dubious reasons. All contact sports were discouraged and most distance racing was thought to be too difficult for women. Didn’t women try to use a lawsuit to be included in the ski jump a couple of Olympics ago?

        In tennis there are still people who argue men should be paid more because they play best out of five sets instead of best out of three sets. If one believes that it is fair for women to be paid less for equal work one can always find figures to support that belief. But do we want to live in a world where it is o.k. to pay women less for equal work?

        P.S. The economic arguments neglect the fact that there can be value that is not economic value. Winning 3 WCs and 3 OG gold medals is a value to the country that cannot be neatly measured in dollars.

        • #1Fan

          I agree with you. Except IF we are measuring our National teams as having intrinsic National value, then we need to underline that by watching the league games. we cant expect to just show up come a major event and get all USA USA . But in reality that is what happens. In other countries, the NT is the tip of the pyramid, but the base is very strong. here it is the opposite. Herdman is correct in my view, the economics of playing should be covered in the pro league. In WoSo this is not the case although the federation is trying to subsidize. There is no clear solution because until the general public care enough to support the game at all levels, it will be hard for the game to improve beyond where it is now. There is no incentive. A girl today can dream of playing for the NT, but financially it is currently an all or none proposition. make NT or get paid nothing. The only pay off is a college education and even that is so hard to balance with full time soccer.
          the WNT needs to realize that they are the ones who need to be promoting the NWSL and the NT part will follow. it seems we promote the WNT and that about it .

          • Gary Diver

            Interesting views and I mostly agree:)

            Though I live in Canada and cannot attend games of my favorite NWSL team, the Chicago Red Stars, I am helping the best I can by buying Red Stars “charity tickets.

          • Gary Diver

            I agree that the priorities of a lot of the actors seem to be backwards. I don’t understand why there was nearly no mention of NWSL during the WC, during the VT, and during the victory celebrations including the New York City ticker tape parade. And I have always felt that if the NT and USSF increased their support and promotion for NWSL everyone would benefit.

            P.S. During each of the SBC games there were a 2-3 minute promo for the NWSL on the big screens. It was something, but it could have been much better.

  • dw

    Have to say that U$$F did this to themselves, but I would take the out presented.

    It’s time to break the model that this group of women can declare themselves the WNT, rather than have USSF select it.

    Issue aggreeance with the WNT assertion that the MOU is not a CBA and is terminable. Then terminate it.

    Never callup any of the current squad again. Send the next best 21 players to the OG.

    Divide up WNT salaries and pay called up players weekly or monthly or however accordingly. Divide allocation dollars evenly among owners of NWSL teams and up salary cap.

    If you’re in a hole, stop digging.

    • Lorehead

      I disagree that that would be a wise business decision. First, that would be a PR disaster. Second, any woman playing in the NWSL or who wanted to play in the NWSL would be under immense social pressure to refuse the call-up. Third, the US would certainly fail to medal in the Olympics under those circumstances, and fans would not turn out to watch its friendlies, so USSF could kiss an eight-figure sum of money goodbye this year alone.

      • guest

        The USSF would probably be under immense pressure from sponsors too.

        • dw

          Also very true. Gotta take your lumps

      • dw

        I submit that the next 21 players are medal contenders. I do agree that this is not the wisest decision in the short run, but rather has more potential in the long run. I think people would still support the team (some here might support it even more). I don’t regard it as an equality issue at all, but one of entitlement by an overly entitled group of players. That’s all it is. All you do by acceding to demands is grant yourself the privilege of giving in to more demands in the future.

        • Lorehead

          “Acceding to demands” would mean signing a new CBA through 2020 with a no-strike clause, so no, it would not.

        • Guest

          It won’t work. The next 21 players would be at the table fighting for the same exact things in a year or two if they happened to be as successful in a best case scenario for the USSF.

    • Hwah

      I’m not sure who is in a hole in the argument you are presenting:) I would think USSF would be in the hole and should stop digging, but I think you are saying otherwise.

      • dw

        I am saying USSF is in the hole. They should stop digging. Digging being a metaphor for “continuing the same actions that resulted in you being in a hole.”

        • CED

          USSF is not in the hole.. The WNT argument is silly and they have been spouting all over the media today claiming the 4x pair difference based on Wcup. The don;t mention the difference in revenue of the 2 at all. It’s a dishonest argument. Gi fir true equality ..ask for the mens CBa..of course they would cry and reject it if they were offered that, t

  • dw

    Argument is similar to the time when the US Men’s Ryder Cup team said they should be paid for representing their country…

    • CED

      Not close to the same.

      • dw

        Seems exactly the same to me. The argument was that a parent organization was making a ton of money and not passing it on to the players.

  • dw

    Don Ovan should cry foul (again) and say that Men’s CBA needs to be as good as the women’s. That way he could have played in WC14.

    • CED

      Yes, he would have protected like WNT took 3 or 4 dead weight legacy players to 2015 Wcup

    • ARED

      One of the many ironies/oddities in the world of soccer in the USA, US Soccer, etc….

  • Hwah

    So, we don’t agree on the big issue, let’s see if we can agree on smaller ones:

    Men get $1.50/per ticket sales for friendlies
    Women get $1.20/per ticket sales for friendlies

    Any objection to men and women getting the same per ticket sale?

    • guest

      Depends on how much men’s tickets cost compared to the women’s. The only way you can justify the higher payment to the men is if their tickets cost 25% more than the women’s.

      • Lorehead

        According to the USSF budget, tickets for most friendlies cost $50 for both men and women.

    • Hwah

      Okay, maybe even this is apparently a step to far. Next question, is there any reason for the men’s team to get a bigger per diem per day than the women? I mean that’s just supposed to be about an expense of a player for a day. Is even this subject to question?

      • guest

        Does a man typically have more expenses in a day than a woman?

        • koolaide

          It is not legal to give different per deim’s based on gender.

      • guest

        It sounds like just another case of income disparity.

      • ARED

        Well, I think the numbers and luxury (ie, having enough money to go around) for US Soccer would make this easy enough to accommodate.

        However, of course it still all comes from revenue. There is a reason minor league athletes ride on busses instead of planes, and may not have any “per diem” bargained for (since they don’t have enough bargaining power).

        • Hwah

          yeah, this is why I’m all in with the USWNT EEOC suit, ffs if one can’t agree that they should get the same meal money, damn right they should go to court. I’m embarrassed for lots of folks here.

          • ARED

            Well, to be fair it seems you passed over the second part of my comment, but the first remains my personal opinion -that all parties here are blessed enough to where the per diem should be an easy item to settle.

            I’m not sure that Colombia’s women should get an equal per diem to Colombia’s men. Because women don’t deserve to eat? No of course not! But, because you can only pay for food if you have money. Now, again, this should be one of the areas that is easiest to accommodate despite any revenue differences as a sign of good faith. However, whether this means 100% exactly equal terms or not I don’t know. (and I really don’t know that going to court is needed or justified -until you can show you are bringing in the money to the federation to pay for it).

      • Oregon

        Agreed. Should get: Same per diem, same per ticket sale.

        In solidarity,
        …..

    • Gary Diver

      Where did this information come from? If true it is pathetic:(

  • dw

    Excuse my ignorance, but who exactly has CBAs? All WNTs? All bodies of athletes that represent their countries? All MNTs?

    • mockmook

      All types of Unions — and I believe it is a term that is only applied to union deals.

      • dw

        That much I get. The followup question then is who on the above list has a union?

        • mockmook

          That’s something I don’t know.

          I suspect it is common in the Western/Commonwealth countries.

    • another guest

      in USA
      – union for USMNT, the US National Soccer Team Players Association (USNSTPA), has a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with USSF for the USWNT players.
      – union for USWNT, the US Women’s Nation Team Players Association (USWNTPA) has (had?) CBA with USSF for USWNT players.
      – MLS, the union is Major League Soccer Soccer Players Union (MLSPU) and their is a CBA that covers the players in MLS.

      in Australia (as of the most recent negotiation last year) the players union, the Professional Footballers Australia (PFA,) negotiated an overall CBA agreement that represents both WNT and MNT teams and both pro woso (W-league) and pro broso (A-league) players. I think the Australia situation, where union negotiated for both men and women and for both NTs and pro leagues, may have been the among the first time an agreement covered both men/women.

  • F0OtballNowAndAlways

    So is Alex Morgan going to be purposely shanking shots on Sunday? Will Broon “misread” a play or two? Will Hope Solo be a little slow coming off her line. And will Lloyd just dribble until ball goes out of play?

    • Lorehead

      No, no and no.

      • ARED

        One might wonder whether you left out a fourth “no” intentionally…..
        ; )

        • Lorehead

          No?

        • F0OtballNowAndAlways

          I was just going to rejoin that he was shy one answer. Stuff like that only breeds mischievous speculations. Not that I am closely monitoring the current anti Carli Lloyd feeling that has come into vogue recently you understand.

          • ARED

            Yes indeed -it was a bit mischievous I suppose, and I do love subtle (attempts at) humor. Hope it isn’t seen/taken too strongly by yourself or anyone else.

          • Steglitz49

            and I who thought you were giving us a taste of Shakespeare in love …

          • ARED

            I must admit, my readings of the Bard are both narrow and long past. Any quote of his is probably an accident from me. (Do you have an actual quote I nearly quoted?).

          • Steglitz49

            Feste (the fool) — “conclusions to be as kisses, if your four negatives make your two affirmatives” — towards the end of the play (Act 5, scene 1).

            — the interpretation being that a girl (or boy) who is about to be kissed exclaims “no, no! no, no!!”, which is interpreted by the boy (girl) as “yes! yes!!”

          • Lorehead

            Honestly, I didn’t do it on purpose, but my subconscious is a better comedian than me.

          • ARED

            Haha. And just to be clear, I was admitting my post was a bit mischievous in nature, and “attempting” to point out the humor that may or may not have existed in yours, not questioning you for mischievousness or your subconscious’ attempts at humor. ; )

            Ok, I think I killed this thread, for the sake of a laugh, sorry guys….

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Actually, if I am not mistaken, the poster has come out on the pro side of the Carli Lloyd debate in the past. As for where his sentiments currently lie on the matter…

          • ARED

            I meant my “speculations” about Lorehead’s comment were a bit mischievous. I thought you were thinking I was “anti CL”….lol.

            Which to be fair, compared to some posters here perhaps I am -but I see at as a bit more nuanced than that. (Believing you can critique a player or even suggest other potential options without “hating” them).

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            “I thought you were thinking I was “anti CL”

            Not at all. In fact, your “speculations” suggested a CL devotee taking up the cudgel on her behalf.

        • Steglitz49

          Now you are quoting the Bard — Feste in Twelfth Night, I think.

  • NYRick

    I applaud and support the fight and as a WoSo fan would like to see them gain some type of equality with the men, though I highly doubt it.

    But here’s a question for the Gang of 5 staking the claim as well as their other NT allocated teammates who are supposedly on board. IF YOU LOSE THE CASE what does that mean exactly? Are you planning to leave the program? Are you boycotting playing the OG or the NT for the balance of the year. Would you be welcomed back if it got ugly (and it very well might).

    I raise these points because I truly believe that these NT players would never under any circumstances or money walk away from being a member of this team. Sorry I have to use my phrase, “Gig too great.” And it’s usually a lifetime appointment to your mid 30s and beyond if you make the team by age 20-22.

    NONE OF THESE PLAYERS would walk (and you have to be willing to walk) once you essentially threaten or sue to get what you want. They won’t walk. That’s why it’s BS. Each of them knows that there are hundreds lined up to take their place at the salary they currently make in a heartbeat. Until I hear one of the 5 say, “I’M LEAVING THE PROGRAM EFFECTIVELY IMMEDIATELY,” if we don’t win this case, I’m not buying the commitment. I believe in the cause and it’s just. But this is just for optics. None of them would truly walk.

    • Hwah

      Your false concern is noted. Virtually every move like this is made with only the leaders names attached to it. But you go on and keep missing the point.

      • NYRick

        I have no false concern. I’m stating an obvious scenario that everyone choses to avoid. In any negotiation you have to play hard ball, have commitment and stand strong. That means the main representatives like Hope, Alex, Carli, Brunn and Pinoe have to hold out and not play until they get what they want. That is symbolic for them. What part of that don’t you understand? I say none of them would walk if it came down to it. And by walk, I mean leave the program to make a statement for their cause. They are essentially striking here but you are missing the point.

        • Hwah

          I’m pretty sure the EEOC judges cases differently that you do. I’m all for this, as they are, let’s go once and for all.

          Also, lots of men have raised issues in negotiations in their sports, but I’m not aware in recent history that they any aren’t allowed back in if they don’t get everything they were asking for. What part of that don’t you understand?

          • NYRick

            I didn’t say they wouldn’t be allowed back in. I said would any of them be willing to walk. Big difference. They are essentially their own small unique union in this instance. They are the talent and they feel they have the hammer and have delivered handsomely for the program. I’m not arguing with any of that. But how committed are they truly about this? Do you honestly think Alex, Hope and Carli would hold out even for months or not play in the OG as a statement? That is an impossibility. None of them would give up their NT gig and they know it.

          • Hwah

            Do you honestly think anyone in a major sports team that has struck in recent years was really going to walk away? Did you really think the NFL players were going to do that way back when? Did you really believe it when MLB players struck? I’m not sure what your point is…

          • NYRick

            Are you seriously kidding? Have you not seen baseball, football and hockey strikes of the not too distant past? Many of those players are jeopardizing millions and are willing to do that. Hold out a whole season if necessary. Also keep in mind that any athlete in any sport has a shelf life. Sacrificing even a year for a player in their prime, male or female, is a big deal. And on an NT, they could also get essentially blackballed with such a bold play if it goes the wrong way for them.

          • Guest

            The time to strike would be right before the next WC. I think their best option right now is to try and win the OG and get the 10 game victory tour. If that happens and the budget estimates are accurate. Gulati won’t be able to claim that the men bring in double the revenue of the women.

          • NYRick

            Correct. So why are they doing this now? I think the EQ staff or really any soccer journalists (now that the story is quite public) should simply ask any of the 5 making the claim, “Would you walk or strike or advise ALL of your NT teammates to strike and not play for the team or in the OG if this inequality is not met to your satisfaction?”

            The answer to that question would be telling, but a journo should be asking it first and foremost.

          • Guest

            I think I read that the case would take up to 6 months to be resolved which means it won’t be done by the end of the Olympics but the MOU ends after this year.

          • NYRick

            That’s why they did it now. Carli would cut off her arm before missing this year’s OG. So would many of the others.

          • Guest

            They probably want a ruling in their favor before the MOU expires to use as leverage in their CBA negotiations

          • NYRick

            Agree and I get the leverage thing, makes sense.

          • Hwah

            So, why are you so crazy saying ……cut them, disown them, lose them. I’m pretty serious with this question.

          • NYRick

            Show me where I said, “cut them, disown them, lose them.” I said would any of the players making the claim (speaking collectively for the whole current NT allocated roster) be willing to walk. That is an individual or collective team decision based on leverage to get what they want. I say there is not one player on the current roster who would be willing to do that. That is strictly my opinion. Also this has nothing to do with how the USSF treats them after this is settled one way or another.

          • Hwah

            But you just said above, that all would be cool if they had all the players in the picture for this lawsuit. So, basically, you are saying you just didn’t like a photo so you will disagree with the intent that all women on this team wants.

            Seriously, you are pissed because not everyone was on the tv this morning?

          • NYRick

            It has nothing to do with the freakin photo! Goodness. I said it would look better if the whole team (for PR and solidarity reasons) was pictured as one unified force. If you just want to picture these players and have them be the mouthpiece, that’s fine.

          • Hwah

            You are the one who brought it up, I was just responding

          • Gary Diver

            As I’ve said before I think it was wise that the Gang of Five is dealing with this. It is very clear that the whole team supports them. But the fact is that it would be next to impossible to control the situation with everybody being a plaintiff. It is like trying to keep a secret – the more people involved the more likely it won’t be a secret for long. Having 22 women freely speaking about this case would be a recipe for disaster. You want to control the odds in your favor as best you can.

          • Steglitz49

            Your point is well taken. One assumes the Famous Five have a plan, policy and have had some media training. Most are used to being interviewed.

            They are fighting for an critical issue: equality. The question that the powers that be must decide is — on what basis equality. And, as a corollary, what is a workable equitable solution going forward. The devil is in the detail.

          • Gary Diver

            I agree the devil will be in the details.

          • Hwah

            They are doing this now because of leverage. If they wait until after the Olympics the four year cycle starts in their down revenue years. You are smart enough to realize that.

          • ARED

            And it would give US Soccer a chance to make a fair deal at the end of this year -which they maintain is their intention, and the time when the current “deal” ends. (No?).

          • Guest

            I think all of these lawsuits are just negotiating ploys to gain leverage when they write the next CBA

          • ARED

            Me too. Sad it is needed, but in today’s world it seems if you ain’t playing the game you ain’t tryin’. It’d be nice if we could all just do our best and treat each other better because we want to (not because a court ordered us to).

          • Hwah

            The thing to me is that USSF has had what, multiple opportunities to sign a new women’s CBA over that last fifteen or sixteen years or so, but they haven’t. They’ve just pushed things along and expected the women all to be fine with that, no need for a true agreement.

            I don’t believe they will do the right thing without leverage, and the women have leverage now. It would be nice to think things could be different, but history has taught us otherwise.

          • ARED

            I agree there is no (good) reason to believe that USSF will do the right thing here (or in many other decisions…).

            To be fair though, didn’t the players agree to this current structure in 2012 or 2013? Not saying it was the deal of their dreams, but if they wanted security and longevity and were willing to give up some of the “upside”, it seems a convenient time to decide they want the upside -now that it’s here.

            Hence the leverage building and digging in to improve the arguments on each side…..

          • Steglitz49

            The USWNT members know that after Rio follows 3 fallow years. If things go haywire in Rio, there will be no VT and lesser bonuses.

            It is USSF who organizes friendlies and tournaments, not the USWNT. USSF could take the risk of no deal, no play. They will lose a bit of revenue but 23 or so women will earn precious little. The crew pay in the NWSL is not great. Worse, no NWSL is needed till a year before WC-15 so that can be put in mothballs for 2017.

            A negotiated settlement will be agreed no doubt.

          • ARED

            Yes, I think it’s obvious (and even partially stated by the players) that -after the Olympic games -they have a lot more to lose than US Soccer. US Soccer can stand a barren year or even two more than most/all individual players, who unfortunately have time constraints on their earning potential as players. And 2017-2018 will be somewhat barren in comparison to 15-16 anyway, so again, not so much to lose -other than general growth of the women’s game and NWSL, which might go under w/o a deal.

          • Steglitz49

            It is, of course, right that they fight for better conditions. Lets trust they achieve something.

          • koolaide

            The USSF has made a number of empty promises. And the last CBA was negotiated in 2006. The current players did not agree to it since, they were (almost all of them) not in the union at that time.

          • ARED

            Which empty promises? And yes, part of the other current legal issue is to determine who “agreed” to the current deal and when.

            I think that is a big underlying feature there though which I have avoided bringing up (but since you did….lol):

            How much of this is stemming from the “veteran crew” bargaining for and then continuing to agree to guarantees and safety, which perhaps the current/younger generation are not so keen to take (either b/c they prefer a bigger slice of a variable pie, or b/c they were the very ones “held back” by the lifetime membership policy of the USWNT)…..?

            Rampone was still captain until January right? And head of the player’s representation, no?

          • guest

            Ur exactly right, they opted for financial security over a share of the upside, and now they see that may have been a mistake.

          • NYRick

            With that said, let’s say they lose the OG. Maybe not even medal. It’s possible. Brazil could become a huge threat to win outright with the home crowd advantage every match, and Germany, France and England are all quite capable of winning a medal, less another surprise in the field emerges due to a weak draw.

            So if the lose the OG, then what? They have now almost set themselves up to OG Gold being a must win to sustain the leverage they need moving forward. Added pressure for sure.

          • Hwah

            Yeah, but they didn’t walk away, they moved on, didn’t they?
            And why on god’s green earth do you think these women will be blackballed, they are doing what this team wants them to do.

            I think what you are missing is that USSF simply cannot shut down the women’s team here. They are better, they generate revenue and, by god, no one would stand for the women being locked out or having to strive for equality.

          • NYRick

            “The USSF simply can’t shut down the women’s team?” And why not just replace them with a talent pool of 5-10 deep of replacement players who would kill at the chance to play for the NT. You are forgetting this a NATIONAL team, not a club team.

          • Hwah

            I truly don’t understand how you keep clinging to the thought that what the women are doing here is limited to just a few. I really don’t! They are standing for everyone on the team. But, please, go on…

          • NYRick

            “…here’s a question for the Gang of 5 staking the claim as well as their other NT allocated teammates who are supposedly on board.”

            This was in my initial comment. I know they are standing up for the entire team. That’s why for pure PR optics, the whole team should be pictured, not just the 5. The five can be the front and center spokespeople.

          • Hwah

            Holy god, you are saying if there was a different picture, you’d be for this but because you didn’t like the picture, you aren’t?

          • NYRick

            Read my initial comment to start. I said I am all for their fight and right to stake the claim, and I truly would like to see them win. What you don’t understand is my argument concerns true commitment to a cause. Do yourself a favor and read about the origins of the Virginia Slims tour in women’s tennis. BJ King, Rosie Casals and many others fought like hell and had major commitment so today players like Serena and Sharapova are very wealthy women.

          • Hwah

            We can disagree, but please, please, don’t lecture me about history. That’s just insulting. Why do you assume you know more about history than me (you don’t). Be better.

          • NYRick

            Not lecturing you about history, just citing an interesting example if you were curious about a similar topic as it pertains to equality in women’s sports.

          • Gary Diver

            We will see how this plays out. Our USWNT is a very close group of women and that should aid their commitment. And I take their statements of support for women soccer in general at face value until it is proven otherwise.

            Sooner or later something had to give on this issue. Women could not and should not sit back forever and be told that they should be grateful for whatever the powers at be decided to “give them”. The question I have is simply “if not these women, who, and if not now, when?”

            I applaud the USWNT for not quietly collecting their USWNT checks and passing the buck to a later generation of players to deal with. Courage means doing the right thing at the right time even if it is risky. Without people who are willing to stick their necks out there would never be any progress in society.

          • NYRick

            I understand and respect your points, they are valid. But I guess we will see just “how close” this group of women are in their commitment. Money, fame and power do strange things to people in times of crisis. My main ask is, “what is their true leverage?” Is it walking? And walking by the big stars. Do you honestly think Alex Morgan would sacrifice the OG for this? That is a several million dollar loss for her personally around OG time and to the build up this summer. Do you honestly think Carli won’t cave if they start playing hard ball with her on this team? Hope?? She lives to be on this team and the fame, good and bad, it has bought her.

            The key thing here that we are all sweeping under the rug is that THIS IS A NATIONAL TEAM. This is not a club team or even league (NWSL) issue. Thirty or so players are arguing for “their” good, not the good of every WoSo player. That can’t be understated. The USSF can argue that it is a privilege (which it is) just to be chosen. Can you imagine if Carli got too outspoken for some reason and it jeopardized her starting role on the team? I would say Trump and Rand Paul would run as a President-VP team before that would happen, but you never know. The USSF is a political machine and has proven that for nearly three decades. Once you acquire power in the program it is absolute. The Gang of 5 have that absolute power right now. How willing are they going to go for the Mallory Pugh’s in all this and younger. Those are who this is about, not them.

          • Steglitz49

            Dyed in the wool WoSo commentators rarely if ever read what others write and comprehend even less.

          • Steglitz49

            I thought it was cows that were holy in American sports lore.

          • guest

            i wonder how much support the uswnt reserves will give if they have to give up their guaranteed annual salaries for a play for pay model like the usmnt has.

          • kevin

            i know others have said that if the uswnt does strike during the olympics, that there would be immense pressure for others not to cross the picket line. now that is probably true for youth national players like pugh that have a long uwsnt career ahead of them. but i have to think there are quite a few nwsl players that know they probably won’t get this uswnt opportunity and pay day again. that they would jump at the chance to do a one and done on the uswnt at the rio olympics. hopefully it doesn’t come to that but i hope the ussf is preparing for any worst case scenario.

          • kevin

            whether they had a chance to medal is another story

          • One of a Kind

            Hockey was locked out for a whole season in 2004-2005 and still suffers mightily from that to this day. I read the rest of this little convo and you bring up a couple very interesting points (don’t know why that person didn’t understand what you’re trying to say). At the end of the day, these women can’t walk because it’s not as if they have another option that’s even close to playing in the Olympics (hockey players and NBA players during the 2011-2012 NBA Lockout were able to go overseas and get different pay).

          • Steglitz49

            I was surprised that the NHL got back on the small screen after that strike/lockout. I was told that it was because hockey appeals to a totally different demographic than the NFL, NBA and MLB do.

            Therefore, one question that WoSo needs to ask themselves is: what is their unique demographic?

            Judging by the ongoing World Championships in Boston and the just past ones in Sweden, it is figure skating, horse riding and gymnastics that pull in the ladies for sports.

          • Hwah

            Ahh, I know, the urge is to say to the women…”we will crush you”!! And yet, this non-profit entity can’t do that and remain intact. It must be so frustrating!

          • Steglitz49

            You need to think in terms of what could be the structure going forward. If the EEOC were to rule that the way USSF runs its two NTs is sex-discrimination, then the USSF must propose a solution to fix it.

            There can be a number of models but if the WNT players don’t accept those, there will be no internationals because it is the federation that run those. With 3 fallow years after Rio, USSF may chose to forego income from the WNT rather than agree to some or other structure they do not like.

          • koolaide

            Lockouts are very different than strikes. The employers (ie owners) kept the NHL teams from playing that season. They are the ones that locked the doors. Not the players. The CBA negotiations between the 1999 WWC and the 2000 Olys did have a player strike prior to the Olys. The players made some gains & the USSF also got a few things they wanted after that strike. Were the USSF to lock out players, that would be, imo, a massive mistake on their part.

          • Steglitz49

            The ladies versions of the NFL, NHL, MLB and Basket earn a pittance compared to the men. Heck, is there an NT for the NFL even.

            In those cases the strikes were about the men earning more, not a comparison between the sexes, and the whole corps stood to benefit.

          • Hwah

            Seriously, Steg, sit this one out, you have no idea what you are talking about nor what the real issues are here. Honestly.

          • Steglitz49

            The real issue is obvious: equality or, rather, equal pay for equal work. The matter that the EEOC has to decide is what does equal mean in this case? and, as a corollary, what is a workable solution?

            One assumes that the counsel for the ladies has thought this one through so that it won’t be a repeat of the turf war that the ladies lost and which was a given loser even before they started.

          • Guest

            Are men’s soccer and women’s soccer truly equal work? If so, why are there separate teams, tournaments, etc.? In the non-sports arena, equal work is fairly easy to define. The USWNT’s allegation is exploring interesting territory.

          • guest

            there is no way lloyd doesn’t play in the olympics. she won’t even play less than 90 minutes in tomato can games. she said her goal is to be the greatest womens soccer player in history. can’t miss the major championships and do that.

          • NYRick

            If Lloyd had a broken leg in August, she would convince Ellis to let her play on the pitch riding around in a Segway. There is no way she would jeopardize for any money for herself or her future NT players her starting spot at the OG or WC19 (which is inevitable).

    • guest

      Winning or losing the case just give the winning party more leverage in the next CBA negotiation.

    • Gary Diver

      The Gang of Five need to be careful of everything they say and everything they do. They will be watched and judged. It is good that only the “senior tenured” players signed off. It is much harder to control the situation if all of the players were officially part of this – maybe impossible to control it. And the younger players would be putting their futures in jeopardy. You would hope USSF would not be vindictive, but stranger things in this world have happened.

      My worst fear is that somebody will make a bad miscalculation and do something stupid and irreversible. Honestly I will cry if the USWNT is broken apart by this situation.

      • Hwah

        Yeah, I get all of that. And I too worry that someone in the five blows it!! We all know who scares us!!!!

        I know some would like all of the team signed to this, but I respect that the veterans stepped up and put their names on the dotted line, if you will, as is done in so many sports.

        I want teenagers to benefit from this, but I have no interest in seeing a teenager (Mallory Pugh) have to be on the front line here. That’s why we have veterans. We’ve all seen how a kid can be savaged in her decision as to whether or not to go pro. That was wrong and I have no desire to see a repeat of ripping a kid here. That’s why players have representatives.

        • Gary Diver

          Hwah – I agree with your concerns. I noticed earlier in the day that Pugh’s twitter said nothing about the case unlike senior players.

          I am sorry for repeating this again, but it was wise that only the Gang of Five signed the lawsuit. These are the senior players and I have confidence that they can control themselves. Everyone who spoke on the Today show, including Hope, spoke eloquently and very carefully. It would be simply insane to have Morgan Brian, Lindsey Horan, JJ, Mallory etc., be asked questions about this from the press everywhere they go. I want this team to stay together and the best way is to let the Gang of Five deal with the press and the legal aspects. In this case, they made the right decision to go with the Gang of Five and I support them.

      • guest

        “do something stupid and irreversible” Like jump your nephew? Sorry, that bridge has already been crossed.
        “USWNT is broken apart by this situation”
        They’re not going anywhere, this suit is a just a negotiating position and they can stand down from it at any time.
        “go to hell and walked”
        Personally, I wouldn’t be too distraught, I’ve long been in favor of fielding a “team B,” but that may just be a fantasy of mine.

        • Steglitz49

          The Gang of Five may well want to walk away from it but if the USSF scent victory then they will also smell blood and move to crush the gangsters. Make no mistake about it.

  • ARED

    I think it is summed up well in this quote by Lloyd stating that it is not right to have a mindset: “That we as women should “appreciate” what we’ve been given, even if it’s less than what we are worth.”. Most can/should agree with that.

    So it comes down to determining what they are worth. But unfortunately not in our hearts, but on a balance sheet. So, the only way to know is to look at all the numbers from all angles over all timelines and determine what is fair going forward. (Which should “equally” be how it’s done with the men). It’d be nice if both sides could do this in a room with a handshake, instead of in various courts. It’d also be nice if the USA women (and men!) were paid more than NFL players (at least to me). But, before that happens you have to show your worth -by the numbers. I’ll be interested to see how it plays out, and what (new) numbers are revealed.

    • HOFCToDi

      Pipe dream

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

      Professional Sports Leagues by Revenue
      NFL – $13 billion
      MLB – $9.5 billion
      NBA – $4.8 billion
      NHL – $3.7 billion
      MLS – $461 million

      • ARED

        Like I said, the numbers have to add up, and unfortunately I don’t see NWSL anywhere on that list. Maybe someday…

        • Steglitz49

          Even the USWNT does not pull in that much over a 4 year period.

      • Guest

        Yes. Equal pay for equal play for USWNT is a nice idea, but until FIFA gets on board the only way this will happen is for USSF to take money from USMNT revenue and subsidize the women’s side.

        • Guest

          The MNT is not subsidizing the women according to the latest financials. If anything it is the other way around.

          • Guest

            They financial statements also suggest that over a 4-year cycle, USMNT generates considerably more revenue, particularly from FIFA WC participation/performance. If the USMNT doesn’t make WC, then it’s a different equation. If both teams participate in WC, then to equalize pay, might need to divert USMNT FIFA money to the USWNT. Or convince FIFA to pay equally for men’s and women’s WC participation/performance (not going to happen).

          • Guest

            The CBA is created with expectation of what they will be earning in the future. Per the USSF’s own budget. The difference in revenue will be anything but substantially different over a 4 year period.

    • MrTemecula

      The case is not about what players are payed in their pro leagues. It is about the pay for national teams. The women are being paid only a quarter of the men even though they bring in roughly the same revenue.

    • jmclarke

      I find a lot of the focus on “wages must be based on revenue” to be, well, kind of specious.

      I mean, first, play a thought experiment: what if there were no revenue to speak of? Consider a world where neither team, after expenses, brought in any more money than it took to keep the whole operation afloat. Where is the justification for any wage disparity there? I really don’t see that this is all that crazy of a scenario, because this is ultimately what all non-profits should boil away to when they have a come to Jesus moment.

      Secondly, what exactly is it about the labor being performed by the players that has anything to do with revenue generated from sponsorships and broast rights and the like? Those things are a function of the federations efforts in selling their product, not the work of the players on the field. The way people talk about it, it almost seems as if everyone that the mens team has actually earned all of the extra money that stems from sponsorship/broadcast rights because of their heroic fitness regimen and countless hours in the film room. I don’t buy that at all.

      • Steglitz49

        It is all about the money, the top line as well as the bottom line.

        We are set for another pyrrhic victory but that is par for the course seeing that WoSo has been good at shooting itself in its feet.

        As others have noted, there will be a split into two separate entites: one for the lads and one for the ladies. The NWSL will not expand by adding MLS-teams because it would be too dangerous for the MLS.

        In short, post-college pro-WoSo in the US will wither away but there will needs have to be some league so the WNT income will be used to keep an NWSL going and the WNT members will earn zilch or close to nada.

        • guest

          I don’t follow you at all. How are they going to split into two entities in the first place? And it they do split, how would prowoso wither away?

          • Steglitz49

            By setting up two separate entities, there will not be an equal pay situation.

            HOTCToDi and others have already provided english language TV viewing figures etc that show that many more watch men’s soccer than women’s. If you include Spanish language channels, the imbalance is even greater.

            The shortfall in the NWSL, ie income not generated by matches, would need to be made up from revenues of the WNT. In reality much if not most of the NWSL will be funded from WNT profits. But 2017 and 2018 will be lean years for the NT. Brrr.

          • guest

            I still don’t understand why there would be “two entities,” as you put it. The lawsuit claims that the women aren’t being paid the same as the men. The remedy would be to give them women equal pay, but they may lose their salaries in the process and get paid on a per-game basis, like the men. I don’t see how any of that effects the NWSL. US Soccer would still be allowed to fund prowoso according to their mandate to promote soccer in general, etc.

      • guest

        “‘wages… based on revenue’…[is] kind of specious”
        Not at all. Why do some sport stars have larger salaries than others? Because they attract more eyeballs, which makes them more valuable to their clubs because they can sell more tickets and merchandise, etc.

        “sponsorships and broadcast rights … are a function of the federations efforts in selling their product, not the work of the players on the field”
        Yes, but when you have a popular product like the USWNT, it’s easier to sell sponsorships and broadcast rights.

        In a free market, people are rewarded when they do well, and giving players part of the revenue they generate would do this.

        • jmclarke

          Yeah, I get all that; the basic economic theory. But I’ve never been a big believer in the inherent virtues of free markets. Markets are human constructions, and humans have always been nothing if not fallible.

          Anyway, I think the simple thought experiment remains. For US Soccer to conceive of the two teams as being in competition with each other for revenue seems wrong. That’s “Big Business” thinking, not “Non-Profit” thinking. Even if ALL revenue came from only one side of the game, and it were only enough to keep both teams running, the pressure from the federation should be in the direction of equal compensation for all players, not in the direction of preserving the asymmetry.

          • ARED

            So your solution to the free market problem of human fallibility is to build a human-constructed intervention to “fix” it? ; )

            Again, this is why I say it’s tough, and is all subjective. But with your second point I agree that it should be more of a “we’re all in this together” approach. But, I believe US Soccer would say they try to do this. They have a long track record of supporting/subsidizing WoSo when there were even fewer nations who even considered it legitimate, let alone viable.

            And that brings us to: what if the revenue didn’t pay for 2 teams but only 1? It’s hard to argue both should shut down because only one makes money. The other choice is to subsidize it -which again, US Soccer has done. So, now they have a product of value. I have many things to say against US Soccer -but there is no denying they have invested strongly in the women’s game, even if not always wisely or as much as some would like.

          • jmclarke

            I don’t have any solution at all for market fallibility — I prefer that term, because I think human fallibility is a universally accepted given, whereas there is a poisonous idea out there that markets are somehow better — I was just pointing out that find a lot of the reasoning that compensation for players who play soccer for our country should be based on the revenue they bring in to way off base. US Soccer is merely the national governing body for a sport. They are not a (pick your favorite industrial sector) company with shareholders to please and competitor trying to drive them out of business. They’re a mission driven organization first. I think that’s got a lot to do with why it’s so jarring to me to hear them frame their responses in terms clearly designed to justify a financial focus on only one half of the team.

            I like the mind game of “what if the revenue only covered 1 team”? Makes me want to raise my eyebrows and say “but are we not ‘One Nation, One Team’?” Because I believe that to be an irreducible fact, true long before the Federation ever felt the pressure to dream up the slogan.

          • ARED

            I agree market fallibility can leave many unideal and undesired scenarios and realities. I just am not sure that human minds and hearts seem capable of improving that, instead of more often worsening it under the intention or lie of trying to improve it….lol. Life is tough, as they say….

            I see your point on revenue vs. mission, and it’s fair enough. But I think the response to that is that any money they get is beyond the real mission, is it not? The (first) mission is to send teams to international competition, not to pay comfortable salaries, no? However we know as a bonus they make plenty of money, so we expect them to compensate the players “fairly”. But who decides what fair is, and what measure is better or more “fair” than revenue? While we all probably want the best for the USA players, would most other WoSo players not be thrilled to have the deal they have? What about most people in the world period? So again, it’s difficult and subjective to say that these players “deserve” $100,000+ salaries, when teachers, nurses, social workers, etc. do not get the same -unless we can base it off some kind of known value. Like, perhaps revenue…. ; ). Still some subjectivity and not a perfect answer, but, I have not found a better suggestion to this point. Revenue shouldn’t be the only factor, but ignoring it seems even more unfair and irresponsible (when it comes to growing the game in a real and sustainable way).

            Why should Shannon Boxx have out-earned Allie Long by a huge margin over the past 4 years? Did Long not work just as hard or harder, arguably at a notably higher level? The reason is b/c she wasn’t on the team that brought in the big money -however fairly or unfairly. Similarly, that is why Clint Dempsey has likely made more from US Soccer than Shannon Boxx over the same period -because he plays on the team that brought in the big money. Now, we will see how the numbers back up the claim that the women are closing or have closed that revenue gap. And if US Soccer reveals more about it’s financial dealings in general.

      • ARED

        1) “What if there were no revenue to speak of?”

        I’d say no pay is equal, isn’t it? The USSF is first and foremost giving the players the privilege of wearing the jersey of their nation in international competition, are they not? Any spoiling of this by money seems secondary, and up for interpretation as to who “deserves” what. So again I say, it seems you have to build a case as to who is “worth” what if you bring money into it.

        2) I do not personally believe that 99% of the sponsorships/endorsements/etc. are “worthy” in my estimation. But it only matters what those offering the deals believe, whether it’s the Kardashians or athletes. Are they “earning” that money, or just lucky to have “star power” or the public’s interest? I don’t know….

        Based on the numbers (and perhaps some amount of blind tradition, sexism, or personal preferences), there is far more money invested in the men’s game from outside sponsors/advertisers, and from what I understand this is true even of the USA national teams, although it seems that 2015 may have closed the gap substantially. So again, it comes down to numbers, and using them to prove your worth to the people with the money.

        Are you aware of the USWNT TV ratings compared to the men’s team? You say that is only because they aren’t being promoted well enough, and has nothing to do with fan base, public interest, or drawing power?

  • HOFCToDi

    Wage Discrimination: 3/31/16

    player.fm/series/espn-fc/wage-discrimination-33116

  • john

    I’d be alot more on board with this if I read (and believed) that the players determined among themselves that this was the way to go. My concern is that there is too much of what the lawyer wants and needs involved here. I have the gray hair to remember when the NFLPA used the male soccer players in this country. They helped them unionize and then challenged labor laws the NFLPA opposed by having the NASLPA file suit as test cases. The cost/benefit to the soccer players was secondary to establishing case law for the suits at the NFLPA. I want to know more about the chicken and the egg in this instance.

  • Guest

    Is the USWNT’s job truly equal to that of the USMNT’s? According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. Job content (not job titles) determines whether jobs are substantially equal.” The USWNT and USMNT do not work in the same place (training, tournaments, etc.). Are their jobs substantially equal? Could USWNT players substitute for USMNT players, and vice versa?
    I think the EEOC will be asking these questions.

    • guest

      “The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work” Does this mean that WNBA players should earn the same as their counterparts in the NBA?

      • Guest

        Exactly. This is precisely why the EEOC’s decision on the USWNT’s allegation is so important. A decision by the EEOC to enforce the EPA in this situation will have enormous repercussions for the U.S. professional sports world.

        • guest

          R U saying WNBA should be paid the same as NBA players?

          • Guest

            R U looking for an argument? Sorry to disappoint. I’m simply highlighting the importance of the EEOC’s decision in this case. If they agree with the USWNT players, then other professional sports organizations employing both female and male athletes would be in violation as well. I’m not sure this would apply to the WNBA (now that I think about it more), since they are independent of the NBA.

          • guest

            Nothing wrong with a good friendly argument. You could make the argument that the USWNT should earn the same as the USMNT for equivalent work because they’re representing our country in international competitions. But equal pay per game may not work out well financially for the USWNT. From my understanding the women are currently paid a salary, while the men earn a fee per game played. Somebody has to crunch the numbers and figure out if this is a better deal for the USWNT or not. Personally, I’m still in favor of them receiving a percentage of the revenue generated, because it provides an incentive by rewarding the team when it does well. Paying them a flat fee per game doesn’t offer any incentive to improve their game. I would bet the Swedish NT men and women receive equal pay and look where they are.

          • guest

            very doubtful it will be very good for the uswnt backups on the bench that could be replaced by a new call-up for any games. no more veterans like christie rampone sitting on the bench or being injured for close to two years collecting 3/4 of a million dollars.

          • guest

            it’s time to break the monopoly. the uswnt coach should be able to call-up any player they want at anytime like every other national team. this is a national team not a girls club protecting their turf.

          • Steglitz49

            Sweden has a population roughly that of NJ or MA. In the modern men’s soccer, their men’s teams are poor. One reason why they do not want to have women’s sections.

            The WoSo teams in Sweden have even less money. The clubs are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy and Tyresö bankrupted themselves.

            Nevertheless, both on the men’s as well as the ladies’s sides, Sweden has continued to develop top rate players. There just is not the strength in depth and width to create a competitive NT any more. That is much more obvious on the men’s side than the ladies but applies to both.

            The same goes for both Norway and Denmark (populations of ca 5 million each).

          • guest

            Okay, I got that Sweden has the population of Delaware, err Massachusetts. My question is, do they pay the WNT and the MNT the same?

          • Steglitz49

            I addressed your final conclusion — “… and look where they are” — which seemed to be the nucleus of you argument.

            I don’t know if the NT players are paid the same. I know that Pia has been paid about half or even less of what Hamrén has been paid.

            As far as I know the skiers get the same basic pay but those who win more races earn more but that has to do with the prize money, not the federations.

            Your question is difficult to tease out because I presume that someone like Zlatan may well pass on his NT pay and so on.

          • Steglitz49

            Both the NBA and WNBA earn their money within the US, not through playing for a USNT.

            Granted WNBA players often have a second job playing in Russia but the big money in basket is domestic, from within the US, not through the world stage. The same applies in reality to the other 3 of the big four except there is no true international component to Grid-Iron and the Stanley Cup earns players more than the world cup in hockey.

            Soccer is different and WoSo even more so because there is an international component and the players of the WNT earn their big money playing internationals.

            The earnings of WNT players from being allocated to the NWSL is much less than their NT earnings, notwithstanding that their allocation salary is considerably higher than the max salary for the NWSL in the salary cap.

        • MrTemecula

          There would be none. This issue will only apply to national teams that bring in equal amount of revenue for a single organization.

          • Guest

            The repercussions would be that professional sports organizations in the U.S. wanting to support both men’s and women’s teams would have to think twice about it. And national team organizations (like USSF) would have to consider splitting into separate entities, one for women and one for men to maintain pay structure and not violate EPA.
            My guess would be that NBA and MLS teams that “support” female teams (WNBA and NWSL, etc.) do not “employ” those players, in part because of the EPA.

          • HOFCToDi

            Apples to oranges.

            Please compare the revenues generated by the NWSL versus MLS.

            Please compare the revenues generated by USMNT versus USWNT.

          • HOFCToDi

            si.com/planet-futbol/2016/03/31/uswnt-eeoc-wage-discrimination-equal-pay

            “These athletes have probably the strongest case for pay discrimination against women that I have ever seen,” Kessler argued. “Because you have a situation where not only are their work requirements identical to the men’s requirements – the same number of minimum friendlies they have to play, the same requirements to prepare for their World Cups – but they have outperformed the men both economically and on the playing field in every possible way the last two years. So this isn’t a case where someone can come in and say the reason the men are paid more is because they are more economically successful or the men outperform the women or they’re not comparable in the same way.”

            Kessler’s argument includes the economic component which the WNBA and NWSL have no basis for comparison to the NBA and MLS, respectively.

      • Guest

        For a WNBA player in the 2015 season, the minimum salary was $38,913, the maximum salary was $109,500, and the team salary cap in 2012 was $878,000. For NBA players in the 2015-2016 season, the minimum salary is $525,093, the maximum salary is $16.407 million, and the team salary cap is an all-time high of $70 million. (https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/en/home/research/articles-and-reports/equity-issues/pay-inequity)

        • HOFCToDi

          Compare the revenues generated by the WNBA and NBA.

      • Paul Klee

        A better example would be professional tennis players. For the most part the women’s pay is equal to that of the male players. But it would be interesting to see if men and women in tennis generate the same amount of revenue. Because of tennis at least in the majors, women do less work. Best two out of three sets versus the man’s 3 out of 5 sets.

  • Dom

    But the USSF still doesn’t make nearly as much profit with the Women’s National Team as they do with the Men’s National Team.

    • Lorehead

      That’s incorrect, according to the USSF itself.

    • Michelle LoweSolis

      The facts…the US Soccer Federation released its latest annual report and while they projected that both national teams would lose money in FY16, the women actually made a profit of over $17M. In FY17, the USSF still projects the men’s team will lose money, but they’re projecting the women to make a profit of over $5M. Any way you cut it…World Cup championships, Olympic championships, or plain ol’ profitability, the women should make at least as much as the men…and the case can be made for the women making more. Two teams, one boss.

  • CED

    NEWSFLASH PEOPLE THE USWNT AND THEIR SUPPOSED GREAT LAWYER
    HAVE NO CLUE WHAT’S IN THEIR CBA/MOU.

    They had no idea about the additional compensation Ratio Clause when asked by a reporter. This clause which I have mentioned on here dozens of times and obviously the reporter unlike them, actually read the CBA/MOU.

    VIX. Additional Payment if Compensation Ratios Change

    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 US 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.

    • Lorehead

      That’s just revenue from games, not all revenue.

      • CED

        Actually it’s not but keep trying to make excuses why they are clueless. Hint, they know the case is frivilous in a dozen ways factually. They went on tv telling purposeful lies and distortions to prey on an ignorant public sentiment. Kessler is known as a world class scumbag and the WNT are now liars just like him. Beyond that the case has zero merit, no employer has to pay a salaried employee with benefits(WNT), the same as a per diem employee(MNT). The case is bogus, millions of companies in the US pay salaried and per diem people different. Those millions of employers would be shocked to know they somehow have to pay them all the same, of course they don’t .

        • guest

          “employers would be shocked to know they somehow have to pay them all the same” Okay, not everyone has to pay the same, but wouldn’t a public, non-profit corporation with a “social responsibility” like US Soccer have to? If they’re doing substantially the same work, shouldn’t they be paid the same?

          • CED

            What part of this is beyond you people’s understanding…2 different classes of employees. Btw, mom profits have salaried employees and use temps, per assignment workers and don’t pay them the same. I know people that have run them. If you want to be honest it’s not the same work…USWNT plays games against the supposed #25 Colombia who hasn’t played a game in 9 months…real tough to beat a team completely unfit and no games to be good.

        • Lorehead

          Your argument appears to be that an employer can hire all women and only women as salaried employees, pay all men and only men through bonuses, and that would make it legal to have unequal pay through equal work. You aren’t a very good lawyer.

          • CED

            LOL..IF you got that from the statement..you’re as dumb as you’re 100’s of post prove. The EEOC case is bogus, they know it. It worked to rile up ignirant people like you who avoid actual facts and want to make themselves feel important by yelling “equal pay”.