Commentary
USWNT players vs. U.S. Soccer: Breaking down the gender discrimination suit
- by Paul Kennedy @pkedit, Mar 8, 2019
U.S. women's national team players and U.S.
Soccer are back in court, though this time it's the entire national team -- 28 players -- suing the federation, and they have moved from the EEOC, where they began in 2016, to U.S. district court in
Los Angeles.
The case. The players are suing the federation for:
-- Violation of the Equal Pay Act;
-- Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act:
The players charge U.S. Soccer has engaged in gender discrimination by:
-- Paying them less than members of the men's national team for substantially
equal work;
-- Denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their games; and other terms and conditions
of employment equal to what the men receive.
The players seek:
-- An injunction to an end to the discriminatory practices;
-- An award of liquidated and punitive
damages; and
-- Adjustment of their pay and benefits to a level that would not be discriminatory.
USWNT vs. U.S. Soccer: Complaint
The trigger. In 2016, five women's national team players -- Hope Solo, Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Becky Sauerbrunn and Megan Rapinoe -- filed a
pay-discrimination complaint with the EEOC. The issuance of a right-to-sue letter last month allowed the players to move into federal court. If the EEOC investigating agent found no evidence of
unlawful discrimination, the EEOC would have issued a letter of dismissal.
The rationale. Rapinoe, one of the USA's captains at
the SheBelieves Cup that ended on Tuesday, told the Associated Press that the expanded
suit underscores the team's unity and support for each other.
"It puts a face and a name to each one of these claims of discrimination," she said. "But it also shows incredible unity and
togetherness from our team that is really important in this time. Just that idea of women supporting women and backing each other, creating something together that is much larger and more impactful
than they could on their own."
Since the EEOC was filed, the U.S. Women's National Team Players Association engaged in protracted negotiations with the federation to reach a new
collective bargaining agreement. That agreement was reached in 2017, but not before the union changed executive directors. The parties to a collective bargaining agreement can't bargain away
their rights, so the CBA, which goes through 2021, shouldn't hinder the ability of the players to sue the federation for its discrimination practices.
"At the heart of this whole issue we
believe that it's the right thing," said Rapinoe. "We believe that there has been discrimination against us. And while we have fought very hard and for a long time, whether that be through our CBA or
through our players association, putting ourselves in the best possible position that we can to get the best deal that we can, we still feel that we don't have what we're trying to achieve, which is
equality in the workplace."
The complexities. The lawsuit highlights the complexities of the federation's relationship with its
national team players and the national team programs themselves:
-- The federation has separate collective bargaining agreements with its men's and women's national team players
associations. (And different time frames to the agreements, which exacerbated some of the terms of the working conditions.)
-- The women have standard employment agreements with the federation,
which subsidizes a maximum of 24 U.S. players for playing in the NWSL, on top of their pay for playing international matches while the men are only paid for playing international matches.
-- The
number of games the federation organizes and controls the revenue streams for varies in a four-year cycle. (U.S. Soccer hosts eight World Cup qualifiers in a typical men's cycle; Concacaf organizes
Women's World Cup qualifying.)
-- The number of games the women and men play each year varies on where the teams are in their cycles and what competitions are offered. (Despite the variables,
the players in their complaint state the federation rejected a risk-and-reward model of compensation.)
-- Women's World Cup participation payments to federations are only a fraction of what they
are for the Men's World Cup. (In their suit, the players state they received only $1,725,000 from U.S. Soccer for winning the 2015 Women's World Cup while the men shared $5,375,000 for losing in
the round of 16 a year earlier).
-- Commercial rights (television and sponsorship) are bundled in the deal U.S. Soccer has with Soccer United Marketing.
The timing. The suit, filed on International Women's Day, comes three months before the Women's World Cup begins in France, where the USA will be defending champion,
and nine months after the World Cup in Russia, which took place without the USA.
What they said. In their complaint, the players use
the words of former SUM president Kathy Carter against the federation, stating that she acknowledged during her run for U.S. Soccer president (and on leave from SUM) that the women's national
team has been under-marketed and the federation has “taken the WNT for granted” and agreed that there was a need for the USSF to invest equally in both programs.
The same goes
for the campaign words of current U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro, who was vice president when he defeated Carter in 2018: “Our women’s teams should be respected and valued as
much as our men’s teams, but our female players have not been treated equally.”
Photo: Matthew Maxey/Icon Sportswire
Good article. I was wondering if SA would cover the story.
Good for them. People don't realize how bigoted our culture is. Like fish swimming in the ocean don't notice the water.
Some quick examples of our still colonial culture. We still call some people "Native Americans" and they are treated like second class citizens. We make treaties with them like Colonial powers did with local natives. According to the US Government "black" and "white" are races. They are most definitely are not races. They are skin colors. Culturally it is still 1775 A.D., even if some of our laws have progressed beyond that. It is relatively easy to change a law, but much more difficult to change a culture.
The fact that the women agreed to the terms of their lesser pay is not a defense to discrimination. The fact that USSF holds the women's contracts for club play as well as national team play gives USSF more leverage than it has with the MNT players.
USSF lately has used the WNT as a cash cow with tours of friendlies following the world cup finals. Perhaps they will not this year if they fear it will provide more evidence to the court that the women are being exploited for increased revenue.
Bob, the way I look at it, from a layman's perpective, is that the women are entitled to more if the Womens WC generates the same revenue as the men's WC. I don't know what the bottom line revenue figures are in comparing the women's WC'15 to the men's WC'14 and if they are close to the same than, I think , the women have a good case, but otherwise to bring up the word "bigot' and "discrimination" is a little farfetched.
The women signed a contract, certainly not under duress, and if they are unhappy with it then they should have a talk with their sport lawyers, who ,I think, probably are the same lawyers that work with the men as well.
Frank, the women's revenues in normal cycles is roughly the same as the men's. Just that they are on different cycles. The finals year is of course the peak revenue year, but this cycle the men didn't attend the finals. I expect this cycle the women's revenues will greatly exceed the men's instead of being roughly equivilent.
In truth, equal pay is required for equal work. The amount of profit from the work is not an excuse. The clearest evidence of discrimination is on things like per diem and travel. Hotel rooms, airline tickets, and meals are not separately priced by gender.
Bob, "equal pay for equal work" sounds fine. But You can't apply this to everything, especially when it comes to entertainment. If I have 2 employees, who do the exact same work and one brings in a lot more revenue than the other than I can't possibly have them earn the same salary, to be fair....
As far as cycles goes. And as far as cycles, you get paid according to what you done in past for there is no other metric to go by. So again, if the women did comparable well in WC'15 as compared to the man WC'15, then go for it.....
Frank, you have touched on all the issues raised by this case. USSF's problem is that facts don't appear to support their arguments on the issues. In simplest terms, USSF has been exploiting the women as cash cows. USSF and FIFA exploits the men's clubs. Keep in mind that the men are only part time employees of USSF, while the women are full time employees. So you have to factor in the men's club salaries to get a realistic comparison.
Also generally speaking to get a better view you look at the typical salaries and compare them, not the star player's salaries. Looking at the compensation on the bottom does not favor USSF's case.
Bob, it doesnt' matter if the women are full time workers and the men only part time. The bottom line is, how much attendance, advertising, etc. revenue does each team bring in. If it's the same, then they should be paid the same, if the women bring in more total profit, they should make more, if the men earn more total margins, as I suspect, they should make more.
And, you DON'T have to factor in player's club salaries. That is a ridiculous statement. That is completely different that national team duty. Men's club salaries are much higher because men's leagues bring in much, MUCH bigger revenue than women's leagues. In fact, women's leagues struggle to survive. The day that women's leagues bring in equal profits than do men's leagues, women's club teams should pay the women as much as the men's clubs pay them.
Bob - Do you believe that WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players? They are all professional athletes playing the same game, and they even share the same ownership.
Don, No I don't, but your question doesn't make sense. The law's restriction is on the employer of women and men, not on industries. And I don't believe MLS players should be paid the same as NWSL players. Same reason. Different employers. USSF, however, is in fact the employer of the National Team players in the NWSL. It controls the pay, the allocation, and reimburses the club for the pay.
Don, I thought I better explain myself. My understanding is that MLS is the only single entity league in the country. So ownership of the league is irrelevant except perhaps to employees of the leagues. I would, however, be very surprised if the leagues were not separate persons (corporations are persons). So you may think you asked a relevant question, but it wasn't.
This is not a communist country where everyone gets exactly the same compensation, and feels entitled, no matter the amount of work they do. In a free country like ours, people are compensated by the amount of money they bring in to their respective organization.
The amount of money men & women make, should be proportional to how much money they bring in to the federation. Although women do well with crowds at some event like the World Cup, if one took average attendance at men's versus women's national team matches, of ALL events, I'm certain men would have higher attendance numbers and, hence, bring in more revenue for the federation.
Only the day that women bring equal amount of money into the USSF, should they be compensated equally to men. And, the day women bring in more money, they should make more money than men. But, to push for equal pay when they don't bring in the same amount of monies is ridiculous and part of the "entitled" thinking of which we must get rid in our American society in order to become a more successful country.
Derek, you are wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion as to how you think things ought to be, but equal pay for equal work is the law in the US. The women are not working on commission. They are employees paid wages.
The argument is that women have the same intrinsic value as men. The actual negotiations are complicated by the fact that USSF foots the bill for the NWSL and there is leverage on our women to play there in order to get caps--I don't like that dynamic but it seems a necessary evil at this point. I don't like the political baggage and talking head blowhards that use this issue for their own political advantage, but the concept has been largely supported across the board in this country.
On the revenue issue, I don't think the facts help USSF there either. I haven't done the math, but I expect if you analyse the revenues versus the compensation the men are provided a higher percent of compensation.
The variance in bonuses FIFA pays for the men's world cup finals compared to the women's is irrelevant to complaint's of USSF discrimination. I wouldn't bother looking at how USSF shares the money earned from FIFA for final's participation.
It is you who is wrong, Bob. This B.S. that you write, "but equal pay for equal work is the law in the US" is so wrong, I don't know if you got that from some socialist or communist manifesto, or what. If two salesmen in the U.S, working for the same company,. put in the same amount of work (ie, equal work, in your nomenclature), but salesman #1 makes the company $1 million in profit and salesman #2 makes the company $100 in profit, there is absolutely no freakin' way salesman #2 will be paid the same salary as saleman #1 even if he put in the same amount of work. This equal pay for equal work is the law in the U.S. is a big pile of steamy you-know-what.
To that end, if the USWT brings in the same amount of profit to the USSF, they should make the same amount of money, if they bring is less, they should make less, if they earn more monies for the USSF than the men, they should make more than the men.
Obviously, there will be peaks and valleys for both teams, which is why one most take the average of, say, the last 8 years, or so, when calculating salaries, etc.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
like wine and beer, politics and soccer shouldn’t be mixed.
I agree, but in many other countries soccer is politics.
...except when it is:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-42725229/who-is-george-weah-liberia-s-new-president
Of course I agree. Historically dictators have used soccer as popular distractions ensuring that the capital club always were champions. Spain, the Soviet Union and some Latin American countries come to mind.
U.S. Soccer is an increasingly embarrassing govenerning body. Equal pay regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. is not a new concept in the U.S. and these great ladies represent our great country just as proudly and competently as the men have. Time for U.S. soccer to get their head our of their you know what and do the only right thing here. While I'm at it I also need to mention what an embarrassment Carlos Cordeiro and the whole management structure is in terms of not filling key coaching vacancies (Berhalter has great promise but over a year to fill this, c'mon?) for both the womens and men's national teams. We deserve much better.
Not sure about how much money the women bring in or the men for that matter. But where does the quality of the play enter in to this? I have an out of court solution to this. The WNT plays the MNT and the winner takes all. I can hear people now, "that is ridiculous". Of course it is because men are that much better.
With an M. D. a Lawyer or anything where women and men can compete equally there should be equal pay. But here it's not even close.
Where are the leagues for women shown on TV like the EPL LaLiga Bundesliga etc. They are not there because they are not good enough.
Was Title 9 a good thing. Of course. But college soccer and soccer played elsewhere are not National Teams.
I am not saying get back in to the kitchen. I am saying this is an instance where women are not equal and shouldn't be treated as such.
Interesting point of view. The law is clear though. Equal pay for equal work. Women cannot be denied less money because they are seen as the weaker sex or someone less qualified for the job because they are women. The actual job is what is looked at.
Rather than argue that women are weaker or less qualified, USSF has to argue that the work is significantly different. Generally speaking the women are paid the base salary for their time, not for the result.
I thought of an example that might help. A male player does a set of squats in the weight room and 30 minutes on an exercise bike. A female player does a set of squats in the weight room and 30 minutes on an exercise bike. They are doing the same job, even if the male player lifts heavier weights and pedals faster than the women.
Gentlemen, most of your excuses for continuing the unequal treatment of women in soccer are the same ones that were trotted out prior to “equal opportunity” in the United States workplace becoming law. I’ve been hearing it all for years. It was painful then, just as it is now. You’ve forgotten that the US WNT won the first women’s World Cup in 1991. I know some of you were around at that time. So, you can remember how our nation was enthralled, and a lot of people became interested in soccer (besides those of us already involved in and dedicated to the sport). Then the US announced we’d be holding the men’s World Cup in 1994. With astute publicity, interest (here in the USA) in the sport was sustained. And then promise of the formation of MLS gained interest ... especially after the World Cup was immensely successful. Remember how the USMNT was composed mostly of college players? All along, the women continued to win, stoking the public’s belief in being the best team in the world. You can’t tell me that the success of the women was not a major factor in the positive anticipation of MLS. So, thank the women for laying the initial groundwork for MLS today. After many years, the rest of the world has begun catching up to our women’s teams as more nations create teams and take them seriously. As long as men are convinced that women are NOT deserving of the same rewards bestowed upon men for equal effort, this discrepancy will continue. I worked in civil engineering for 30 years. It’s mostly a man’s world. Even with so-called “equal opportunity” I’ve worked for companies where some of my coworkers said women didn’t belong in the workplace or where a male coworker was making $2/hour more than I was, even though I had many more years of experience, was much more familiar with the software required and had much more responsibility. A lot of your arguments are not based on fact. I also remember, years ago, when lots of people really believed a black man was “not smart enough” to be a quarterback in football! At one time, people believed that the world was flat. Open your eyes, guys!
Ginger, you are conflating 'equal opportunity' with 'equal pay' - Those are two different subjects. Please don't confuse them. No matter of gender, race, etc., EVERYONE should have the same opportunity to compete for a job. AND the best person, no matter what race, gender, etc. they are, should be hired.
But, equal opportunity does not mean equal pay. For example, if one gender or race can bring in more revenue than another, they shoudl be compensated better. To use your engineering example. If the female engineer is just a successful in earning her company money as the male engineer, she should earn the same amount. If that's not happening, that's gender discrimination. In fact, if she is more successful in earning her company revenue than the male engineer, she should make more.
The USWT winning the WC is nice and gives a warm fuzzy feeling, but the bottom line for any organization, including the USSF, is how much profit is brought in. I'd be willing to bet if one looked at the profits, say, in the past 10 or 20 years that the USMNT and USWT earned the USSF, the former would be a much greater earner than the latter. The day the latter earns more revenue (not just one year, but year-in, year-out), I'd be in agreement that the women should earn more than the men.
The idea that the women winning the WC had any influence on MLS getting a chance to kick-off is ridiculous. FIFA had wanted the USMNT to qualify for a WC, which they did (1990 WC) before they'd award the WC to the US. One would think that women winning the WC would have more of an influence on the success of a U.S. women's, not men's, league. Unfortunately, several women's leagues that have tried to succeed in the U.S. since the women's first WC win have struggled significantly. That's why, to say the USWNT's WC win influenced MLS's launch, since that championship couldn't even keep several women's leagues alive, is silly.
Gentlemen, most of your excuses for continuing the unequal treatment of women in soccer are the same ones that were trotted out prior to “equal opportunity” in the United States workplace becoming law. I’ve been hearing it all for years. It was painful then, just as it is now. You’ve forgotten that the US WNT won the first women’s World Cup in 1991. I know some of you were around at that time. So, you can remember how our nation was enthralled, and a lot of people became interested in soccer (besides those of us already involved in and dedicated to the sport). Then the US announced we’d be holding the men’s World Cup in 1994. With astute publicity, interest (here in the USA) in the sport was sustained. And then promise of the formation of MLS gained interest ... especially after the World Cup was immensely successful. Remember how the USMNT was composed mostly of college players? All along, the women continued to win, stoking the public’s belief in being the best team in the world. You can’t tell me that the success of the women was not a major factor in the positive anticipation of MLS. So, thank the women for laying the initial groundwork for MLS today. After many years, the rest of the world has begun catching up to our women’s teams as more nations create teams and take them seriously. As long as men are convinced that women are NOT deserving of the same rewards bestowed upon men for equal effort, this discrepancy will continue. I worked in civil engineering for 30 years. It’s mostly a man’s world. Even with so-called “equal opportunity” I’ve worked for companies where some of my coworkers said women didn’t belong in the workplace or where a male coworker was making $2/hour more than I was, even though I had many more years of experience, was much more familiar with the software required and had much more responsibility. A lot of your arguments are not based on fact. I also remember, years ago, when lots of people really believed a black man was “not smart enough” to be a quarterback in football! At one time, people believed that the world was flat. Open your eyes, guys!
Ginger, that was well worth repeating. :) Well said.
I agree Bob. Thanks Ginger for providing much needed perspective here and articulating the point very clearly. The USWNT has done just as much as the USMNT to create soccer excitement here in the U.S. over the last 20-30 years.
I thought I would try one more time to articulate a lawyer's perspective. Some of you are focusing on the differences in the "women's game". You are not looking at what is the same about the job. The field is the same. The ball is the same. The rules of the game are the same.
Yes women's matches are different, but not in significant ways pertaining to the nature of the job. Even for regular starters, the vast amount of work is training to play, not actually playing in matches. For nonstarters, virtually all of the work is preparing to play. Training and preparing to play is exactly the same job for professional women as it is for professional men. It would be very difficult for a judge to support a different finding.
Bob, I am NOT focusing on the difference in the women's game. I'm focusing on how much profit the USWNT brings in versus the USMNT. I enjoy watching both the men's AND the women's game and I cheer for both the USMNT AND the USWNT. But that has nothing to do with compensation. That should be based on how much money they make for the USSF. In short, their value.
You incorrectly focus on how exactly the same is the field, the rules, etc., but that's not what compensation is based on in the real world. To your example, what if two CEO's were each given the exact same type of company. Same product produced, same number of salespeople, same exact plant, etc. So, if both CEO's put in the same exact amount work but CEO #1's company generated $5 million and CEO #2's company generated $5 thousand, should I compensate both of them because they put in equal time? That's how silly your equal pay for equal time mantra is. People need to be compensated by how much they bring in - Their value.
Look, I love watching and cheering the USWNT and, if they brought in more money to the USSF than the USMNT, I'd vote that the women should be compensated more. However, I don't think that's the case at the moment.
Derek, I didn’t conflate equal opportunity with equal pay. It’s just common sense that you’ll be paid more if your work is obviously superior to a fellow worker’s in your same position. Instead of $2/hour less than my fellow worker was making, I should have been receiving MORE than he was, as you implied. But the realities of the workplace are that, depending on your field of work, as a woman, you may be laid off if you try to talk to your supervisor about it. The last place I worked, the Human Resources person was laid off during the recession. That left a type “A” personality engineer in charge. NOBODY tried to “talk” to him. You’re ignoring the multitude of men’s soccer leagues (prior to the 1994 World Cup) that folded until MLS ... and even they did cut it pretty close for several years before they finally took hold. So what if the first women’s league folded and the newer league is struggling? How many times have we seen men’s leagues fold prior to MLS? To deny the influence the USWMNT had on men’s soccer in the United States is to ignore history. The USMNT has never had the success on the field that the women have. Yet the women have accomplished this success despite the lack of support from US Soccer. Give the women the same facilities that the men have enjoyed, per diem, and monetary rewards for winning/placing in international tournaments. Give them at least the same publicity per their schedules. I doubt they’re expecting to be paid the same blockbuster salaries as some of the men. Yet their salaries should take their many accomplishments into consideration, at the very least. It’s past time that they’re recognized for their accomplishment and then rewarded with monetary recognition.
First kudos to Bob Ashpole & Ginger Peeler as their respective comments are spot on .... Second, there is more to this then the pure salaried and/or bonus compensation factor such as playing conditions, travel, facilities, etc. Also do not understatate the lack of marketing, marcommss, & promotion which is emphasized in the law suit. Trust me SUM's Kathy Carter's and Cordeiro's words will come back to haunt them. Pretty clear as well that revenue attribution is not as cut and dry as was stated by those who use that argument to justify the status quo. The recent release of those numbers paints a different picture.
I must also point out that many here have cited the USA advantage in WoSo soccer by the fact of Title IX. And yes I agree with them that that the world is catching up. Be that as it may, many of the arguments stated today regarding this law suit are very similar to those who were stated against Title IX back in the day. So step back for a moment and think about what we would have missed from a pure sporting enjoyment had we limited women from having that equal opportunity. Moreover, recognize how different the quality of women's sports would be at the professional level if they did not receive a competitive, let alone a "living", salary and benefits.
Finally, this is a labor dispute above everything else. The women in their last labor negotiations suggested a different compensation structure which is essence meant "shared risk & reward". At the time the Federation outrightly rejected it. This week we learned that the men's player association, in their supporting statement of the current action by the women, echoed that very suggestion. Indeed, it is one of a number of player's associations in all sports have sought and received following negotiations. It is time for change.