Five top US women footballers sue for better pay

[daib0]

BBC Sport

Five senior members of the World Cup-winning US football team have filed a lawsuit against the national federation for wage discrimination

Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and Hope Solo say they are paid less than half of what the male USA players receive. "The numbers speak for themselves," said goalkeeper Solo in a statement.

The US Soccer Federation said it was disappointed, given the work it had done in building the women's game. American women's football has dominated the international game in recent decades, with a string of titles.

"We are the best in the world, have three World Cup Championships, four Olympic Championships, and the USMNT [men's team] get paid more just to show up than we get paid to win major championships," said Solo. Her team-mate Lloyd, who was named the best player at last year's World Cup, said they had been patient over the years in waiting for action to deliver fair pay.

Former Everton and LA Galaxy winger Landon Donovan - who won 157 caps for the US men's team - tweeted his support for the women's team's cause. "#USWNT absolutely deserve to be treated fairly in all ways," he said. "Important to remember that these issues are/can be collectively bargained."

The lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday morning. One of the lawyers representing the players, Jeffrey Kessler, said the women's game generated more income for US Soccer than the men's and it was time to address the "discriminatory and unfair treatment'' they have endured for years. The five players were acting on behalf of all the players, he said.

There has been an ongoing legal battle between the federation and the players' union over collective bargaining. A statement from US Soccer said it had not yet seen the complaint. But it added: "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."

My questions are:

Should women be paid the same for the 'same job'? - for example, in a symphony orchestra it would be inconceivable to have a difference

If not, due to publicity, popularity, and 'skill' levels, what proportion of the men's average pay should women receive? 50% / 66% / 75% / 80% etc. 

Should the topic even be touched upon? One might argue that it is for each club or organization to bargain how they see fit. But in  this case surely they will be open to far more law suits.

So ... in a nutshell, what is the solution to all this??
 

[Srg]

What a load of rubbish. 

Yes women should absolutely have the exact same pay as men when doing the exact same role in the exact same organisation - bin cleaner, waiter/waitress, middle manager or CEO. 

Sport is completely different. 

Cold hard facts are that the men's game brings in exponentially greater amounts of cash, which trickles down to everything from the price the public pay to watch, the transfer fees and the sponsorship deals involved. 

When all of that is on a level playing field with the male game, then absolutely. 

I guess this is all affected by the salary cap roster building in the US. 

[Posh Ram]

This is completely fair enough, in my opinion. It's not like women's football here - where you do hear rumblings of an unfair pay gap but it would quite obviously be financially unfeasible. The US women are more successful than the men, both get paid by the wealthy U.S. Soccer and they should at very least be paid the same; I actually suspect the women's team bring in more advertising revenue than the men which means you could even wager the argument that they should be paid more.

I am often slightly sceptical about women's sport equal pay campaigns, because sometimes they don't make financial sense at all. Here I think they're completely spot on though.

[Joe.]

19 minutes ago, daib0 said:

My questions are:

Should women be paid the same for the 'same job'? - for example, in a symphony orchestra it would be inconceivable to have a difference

Not really a comparable answer because football is split to men's and women's, whereas I don't think symphony orchestras are.

On the whole sponsors, broadcasters etc pay more for the rights to men's football hence why they are paid more ie there is more demand for it, if the revenue generated between men's and women's football is the same then they should be paid equally.

[daib0]

 

 

I just feel this is a very difficult one to call ... that's why it's interesting reading your replies!

 

If it’s the MONEY … then:

The USA ladies should be paid the same or actually more than their male counterparts.

The USWNT Generates $8million more than the men each year. And that figure will grow again next year.

The ladies play more games than the men’s national team. And are at the top unlike the rather poor men’s team, who lost to Guatemala 2-0 on Saturday and were very close to not qualifying for the next world cup. Let alone win it.

 

[Srg]

43 minutes ago, daib0 said:

 

 

I just feel this is a very difficult one to call ... that's why it's interesting reading your replies!

 

If it’s the MONEY … then:

The USA ladies should be paid the same or actually more than their male counterparts.

The USWNT Generates $8million more than the men each year. And that figure will grow again next year.

The ladies play more games than the men’s national team. And are at the top unlike the rather poor men’s team, who lost to Guatemala 2-0 on Saturday and were very close to not qualifying for the next world cup. Let alone win it.

 

But who are they arguing pays them?

are they centrally contracted by US Soccer? 

If not, again, not sure on relevance?

[daib0]

 

A few other points to consider: The women, unlike the men, also draw a full-time salary from the federation of up to $72,000 per year regardless of their tournament performance or the hundreds of thousands in bonuses they typically collect, a baseline guarantee the men don't enjoy. They are also compensated by the federation for participating in the National Women's Soccer League. It is not quite as clear-cut as it might appear at first reading. If the women elect to drop those additional compensations so that each group of players are paid the performance bonuses only, then equal bonuses seem appropriate. Otherwise, you're speculating a bit on the value of a salary (and an additional income for participating in the NWSL) that the players are certain to get compared to the value of bonuses that are not guaranteed.

Part of the issue is that the men can make top salaries playing overseas, but the women have not been able to make nearly as much from 'regular' matches and leagues, so those salaries were created to let the women become full-time soccer players, independent of the bonus money. Even with the relative popularity of the women's team and their success, very few have been able to make much from endorsements (Alex Morgan and Hope Solo are exceptions, and I doubt they make as much as Landon Donovan).

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

Yep, fascinating.

 

I think this is going to be a big topic of 21st century football ...

 

[Srg]

Sounds to me that plenty has already been done to help them from what you are saying. 

[Anon]

The quote from Solo is absolute batshit insanity. It's a bit rich to have a pop at the US men's team getting paid "just for showing up" when the quality of the opposition they face is so much higher. However, football is about entertainment and the players that people are willing to pay most, most often to see should be the highest paid. The case ought to hinge on whether the prosecution can prove that the US women's team generates more revenue than the men's. If that is the case, then they should be paid more.

[Srg]

40 minutes ago, Anon said:

The quote from Solo is absolute batshit insanity. It's a bit rich to have a pop at the US men's team getting paid "just for showing up" when the quality of the opposition they face is so much higher. However, football is about entertainment and the players that people are willing to pay most, most often to see should be the highest paid. The case ought to hinge on whether the prosecution can prove that the US women's team generates more revenue than the men's. If that is the case, then they should be paid more.

I could be way off the mark, but surely the men aren't centrally paid like the US Women are? To me, it looks like the women have a central contract, similar to what cricket do.

[Anon]

27 minutes ago, Srg said:

I could be way off the mark, but surely the men aren't centrally paid like the US Women are? To me, it looks like the women have a central contract, similar to what cricket do.

According to daib0 a central contract with the US women's team is worth up to $72,000 per year. From the other figures I've seen being bandied about, $72,000 doesn't cover the disparity between what the men and women are paid per match or in bonuses.

[Shang]

There could be negative implications with this I feel. I'm all for gender pay parity, but if the top end of the football tier (the players who get into the national team) start getting a paid a lot of money, which could be invested into bringing more women into the game or growing attendances, this will create less disparity between genders but will create more of a distance between people at the bottom to the top.

I guess this incentivises women who are thinking about joining the game but at the same time could potentially keep them down for longer.

[SaintRam]

I don't know how big the US women's team is in the states, but I'd say the difference in 'draw' would be an important comparison on taking sides in this.

Do as many people watch the women's US as the men's? Do as many go to the games? Buy the shirts? etc. 

[ramsbottom]

Thanks to The Fappening I can't hear the words "US Women's Soccer Team" without an image of Hope Solo's anal cavity popping into my head!!!  I'm forever stuck with this curse...

[Anon]

8 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

I don't know how big the US women's team is in the states, but I'd say the difference in 'draw' would be an important comparison on taking sides in this.

Do as many people watch the women's US as the men's? Do as many go to the games? Buy the shirts? etc.

It's difficult to find out as, rather predictably, most media outlets running the story prefer to concentrate on "battle of the sexes" bullshit rather than actually publishing figures and taking a logical and rational view of the situation. All sources I've been able to find state that the US women's team runs at a higher profit than the men's, although that of course doesn't neccessariy tell us anything about revenues. Don't forget that "soccer" is thought of as a sport exclusively for girls and pansys in many areas of the US, so it's quite plausible that the women's national team is better supported. American's also like winning and will literally watch any old crap if they can wave their flags and collect a trophy for just turning up, see baseball for example.

[daib0]

 

The issue with women's football is that it has been at such a disadvantage until the world realised how ridiculous the idea that women shouldn't play football was. If we consider that the FA only took responsibility for it fully in 1993, that's over a hundred years behind the men's game. Before that, women were even banned from playing on football league grounds for 50 years (1921-1971).

 

Last year was a big year for women's football in England (FA Cup final staged at Wembley, 3rd at world cup) but it also highlighted how far behind it still is. Of course the quality isn't as good. Even now girls who are very talented at football haven't pursued football as a career because it's not the best option for them. Until you had exactly the same opportunity from the grassroots ages up to professional status, we can't know whether women's football isn't as good as mens. It's the fastest growing game ... but will it continue to boom?

[SaintRam]

12 minutes ago, daib0 said:

 

The issue with women's football is that it has been at such a disadvantage until the world realised how ridiculous the idea that women shouldn't play football was. If we consider that the FA only took responsibility for it fully in 1993, that's over a hundred years behind the men's game. Before that, women were even banned from playing on football league grounds for 50 years (1921-1971).

 

Last year was a big year for women's football in England (FA Cup final staged at Wembley, 3rd at world cup) but it also highlighted how far behind it still is. Of course the quality isn't as good. Even now girls who are very talented at football haven't pursued football as a career because it's not the best option for them. Until you had exactly the same opportunity from the grassroots ages up to professional status, we can't know whether women's football isn't as good as mens. It's the fastest growing game ... but will it continue to boom?

Best footballer at my school (St.Benedicts) was a girl. Think she plays for Forest now lol. 

The quality is much lower, but I was still entertained by the tournament. As you say, big year.

 

I just have a cynical view of this story, really. 

If they legitimately are as financially valuable to whoever pays the wages as the men, then they should be earning the same amount. If they're not, and the difference is by some margin, then they shouldn't (I know it's not usually the done thing to approach these debates logically but whatever). If, from an entirely financial angle the women are not deserving of the higher pay - regardless of whether or not the reason they're not deserving is their fault or not (which it isn't) - I don't think they should be automatically entitled to equal pay.

HOWEVER, if equal pay in those circumstances is granted and that encourages those paying the wages to put more effort into increase the level on multiple fronts then in the long term that would also be a great thing.

[Dimmu]

If "pay as you play" would include playing ability, there wouldn't be many women footballers earning money. I rather watch Finnish 4th division (and to suprise you, it's not far from pub level) than Women European Championships. Even then the difference in ability is enourmous. Which is pretty odd as women national teams are tactically very, very good.

[McRamFan]

In this case the US women should be paid more than the men, they have achieved more and have generated more revenue.

[ladyram]

On 02/04/2016 at 12:08, McRamFan said:

In this case the US women should be paid more than the men, they have achieved more and have generated more revenue.

If this is the case, then they should be paid the same, not necessarily more.

But in another sport - tennis - women players want equal prize money for a tournament like Wimbledon. I say play the best of 5 sets instead of 3 like the men do, then ask for equal prize money, until then, no, you shouldn't have it. 

Just my opinion.