Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A good example on why the USWNT lawsuit is bogus

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Clearly not as much as conservative / the real nazi supporters!

    Get over yourself! If you're married I feel bad for your wife being married to such a chauvinist. I'm glad that they have been losing their lawsuits but I respect them as human beings and females just like I respect my friends and family that vote Democrat even though I have voted Republican for a good 20 years.

    Can't stand people like you that feel the need to inject politics into every response they make because your mind is incapable of having real meaningful thoughts or any real critique to hold an actual discussion. Pea brains can hold that much knowledge I suppose.

    I hope the women don't get anything that they are looking for but I don't have to refer to them like you do because I'm a better person then that. You're not worth a spit off the bottom of my shoes with your response.
    You are a better person by referring to conservatives as "the real nazi supporters" and "pea brains"? You are as vile as any nazi supporter. Worse. You don't think you are.

    I happen to be a conservative. I don't believe in violence. I believe in equality in pay if deserved (not saying I agree with the current suit in particular since the wnt's decision to hold themselves above NWSL which keeps them and the game relevant).

    I would never support the nazi's and my father fought against them. There is a better wsy to say you disagree instead of name calling. It really does diminish your message.

    Be better. We all need to be better.

    Comment


      #47
      Finally, this whole thing shows how ass-backward soccer is in this country. Women carry the soccer torch here and are 10x more successful than the men internationally, but get the short end of the stick

      Unfortunately, national teams don't exist in a vacuum. Should the WNT get paid because they have been for the most part the big fish in a very small pond (revenue wise) compared to the men who are a small fish in a very BIG pond?

      Recall U.S. Soccer released an independently audited fact sheet including ten years of company financials and found, that from 2010 through 2018, “U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million — not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.”

      Both teams negotiated their contracts - neither were forced to sign. The contracts are different, but reflect more the basic point the women - with a small pool to fish in (not their fault but not the men's fault either) - opted for a more risk averse, guaranteed structure while the men have a more risky, but higher upside (fishing in a much bigger pool) potential. The most recent filing for 2018 saw only USWNT players among the federation's top-paid employees because the MNT didn't make the World Cup, which have been a big earner for them. High risk, high reward -- or big failure.

      Maybe there's buyers' remorse from the women, but to hide behind the point the men's and women's game is "equal" under the legal discrimination standard defies both basic logic that everyone sees - and Carly LLoyd admitted under testimony! - and reality of the different markets under which they operate.

      Perhaps the women should focus on measurable metrics in the US market - USSF surely benefits from more women playing soccer - put in a clause they get some money if female participation increases - that's something both the men and women's teams can indirectly (through their play and success) and directly (through their outreach, appearances, marketing, etc). I don't know.

      But please - you are grown adults, intelligent, skilled athletes who want to be treated as such - stop hiding like spoiled children behind the "We're great and they aren't" so it must be sexism ploy. Take ownership of the decision(s) you and your predecessors made and negotiate a better deal or become less-risk averse. The judge said it best in the initial ruling:

      the women's players knowingly and willingly sacrificed potential earning power in their CBA negotiations in exchange for the security of compensation like guaranteed annual salaries from the federation.

      Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure"

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Finally, this whole thing shows how ass-backward soccer is in this country. Women carry the soccer torch here and are 10x more successful than the men internationally, but get the short end of the stick

        Unfortunately, national teams don't exist in a vacuum. Should the WNT get paid because they have been for the most part the big fish in a very small pond (revenue wise) compared to the men who are a small fish in a very BIG pond?

        Recall U.S. Soccer released an independently audited fact sheet including ten years of company financials and found, that from 2010 through 2018, “U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million — not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.”

        Both teams negotiated their contracts - neither were forced to sign. The contracts are different, but reflect more the basic point the women - with a small pool to fish in (not their fault but not the men's fault either) - opted for a more risk averse, guaranteed structure while the men have a more risky, but higher upside (fishing in a much bigger pool) potential. The most recent filing for 2018 saw only USWNT players among the federation's top-paid employees because the MNT didn't make the World Cup, which have been a big earner for them. High risk, high reward -- or big failure.

        Maybe there's buyers' remorse from the women, but to hide behind the point the men's and women's game is "equal" under the legal discrimination standard defies both basic logic that everyone sees - and Carly LLoyd admitted under testimony! - and reality of the different markets under which they operate.

        Perhaps the women should focus on measurable metrics in the US market - USSF surely benefits from more women playing soccer - put in a clause they get some money if female participation increases - that's something both the men and women's teams can indirectly (through their play and success) and directly (through their outreach, appearances, marketing, etc). I don't know.

        But please - you are grown adults, intelligent, skilled athletes who want to be treated as such - stop hiding like spoiled children behind the "We're great and they aren't" so it must be sexism ploy. Take ownership of the decision(s) you and your predecessors made and negotiate a better deal or become less-risk averse. The judge said it best in the initial ruling:

        the women's players knowingly and willingly sacrificed potential earning power in their CBA negotiations in exchange for the security of compensation like guaranteed annual salaries from the federation.

        Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure"
        Trying to understand why you are picking apart these womens’ attempt to get what they consider to be a fair contract? Do you comment like this when male players negotiate or sue to get better contracts?

        US Soccer wraps themselves in the flag (literally) and acts like they manage themselves in a way that we as Americans can feel proud of when it comes to treating both the men’s and women’s national teams. Since they are the ones who control getting on these teams, they naturally hold a lot more cards than the players in any negotiation. Most Americans expect US Soccer to provide a fair deal and one that provides enough compensation for the sacrifices these players make so they can continue to be professional athletes without going homeless.

        I doubt knowing that their association with the national team is at stake that these women are making it up that their contract doesn’t work for them. Everything in the public domain shows they are getting paid peanuts overall compared to their male counterparts, which sadly includes their NWSL pay outside of national team service because the millionaire private owners of those teams worked some sweetheart deal with US Soccer where they don’t need to pay them. It’s their right to demand a better contract and as a fan of American soccer (both men’s and women’s) I support them.

        Comment


          #49
          You may not have read the first paragraph, before all the legalese talk. That was supportive of women's soccer, but as so many people now find it hard to debate they regress into categorizing some other viewpoint as "you're picking on women" in this instance.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            You may not have read the first paragraph, before all the legalese talk. That was supportive of women's soccer, but as so many people now find it hard to debate they regress into categorizing some other viewpoint as "you're picking on women" in this instance.
            But you seem really invested in it. Do you get this upset when a male player wants to renegotiate a contract and holds out? Or when an entire league goes on strike to try and get a new CBA? This is common place in men’s sports to try and use your visibility and recent success to get a better deal, been going on since people started paying athletes.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              But you seem really invested in it. Do you get this upset when a male player wants to renegotiate a contract and holds out? Or when an entire league goes on strike to try and get a new CBA? This is common place in men’s sports to try and use your visibility and recent success to get a better deal, been going on since people started paying athletes.
              Male of female, you sign a contract and it should be your word and so often people realize they got taken by their contract. So complain and get a new one - that has no gender, neither males nor females (or owners) really care about their "word" when it comes to negotiations - bottom line is that the WSWNT are no better than anyone else trying to renege on their CBA. The thread did not ask about other CBA's - but sadly we know from our own leaders what our word and the truth mean.

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Male of female, you sign a contract and it should be your word and so often people realize they got taken by their contract. So complain and get a new one - that has no gender, neither males nor females (or owners) really care about their "word" when it comes to negotiations - bottom line is that the WSWNT are no better than anyone else trying to renege on their CBA. The thread did not ask about other CBA's - but sadly we know from our own leaders what our word and the truth mean.
                Renegotiating deals has been around as long as sports. Happens in business every day, including using litigation. If you have a moral issue with how contract negotiations are handled in the US, including using leverage to get a new deal, that’s a fair opinion. Just don’t act like what the USWNT did was somehow unique, men have been using the tactic in both business and sports for centuries.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Renegotiating deals has been around as long as sports. Happens in business every day, including using litigation. If you have a moral issue with how contract negotiations are handled in the US, including using leverage to get a new deal, that’s a fair opinion. Just don’t act like what the USWNT did was somehow unique, men have been using the tactic in both business and sports for centuries.
                  Can you list all the times the players of a "male" sport litigated a signed contract in the middle of the term?

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Can you list all the times the players of a "male" sport litigated a signed contract in the middle of the term?
                    It’s a gender discrimination suit. The claim is that they were discriminated against as women so that they could not receive equivalent pay agreements and treatment as the men’s team. Obviously, you won’t find similar discrimination suits for male sports.

                    You’ve got to remember that male players have been fighting for pay and benefits for decades whereas women’s sports didn’t even have unions until the past 20 years. NFL players sued the owners for the right to unionize back in the 1950/60’s; same for NBA, NHL, etc; there have been MLB, NHL, etc. strikes and lockouts over pay disputes in the 1980/90’s. In fact, the USWNT was playing without a contract for several years about 5-10 years ago because US Soccer was dragging out negotiations. This is what happens in sports, not just limited to women except for the gender discrimination aspect.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      It’s a gender discrimination suit. The claim is that they were discriminated against as women so that they could not receive equivalent pay agreements and treatment as the men’s team. Obviously, you won’t find similar discrimination suits for male sports.

                      You’ve got to remember that male players have been fighting for pay and benefits for decades whereas women’s sports didn’t even have unions until the past 20 years. NFL players sued the owners for the right to unionize back in the 1950/60’s; same for NBA, NHL, etc; there have been MLB, NHL, etc. strikes and lockouts over pay disputes in the 1980/90’s. In fact, the USWNT was playing without a contract for several years about 5-10 years ago because US Soccer was dragging out negotiations. This is what happens in sports, not just limited to women except for the gender discrimination aspect.
                      Yes but there's that sticky issue of the contract they agreed to.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Yes but there's that sticky issue of the contract they agreed to.
                        1) Having a signed contract means little; it’s the strength of that contract and the circumstances under which it was reached that matter. In this instance, if USSF gave 2 different contract offers depending on whether it was the men’s or women’s team; or if the women had less bargaining power than the men and USSF exploited that, then there would be a legal basis to challenge the contract in court.

                        2) I’m not sure what experience you have in life, but the reason there is this thing called the legal system is because people disagree even when there are laws and contracts. You sound naive to think because there is a piece of paper that everyone acted ethically/legally when it was negotiated and that you need to be a sheepie once it’s signed.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          1) Having a signed contract means little; it’s the strength of that contract and the circumstances under which it was reached that matter. In this instance, if USSF gave 2 different contract offers depending on whether it was the men’s or women’s team; or if the women had less bargaining power than the men and USSF exploited that, then there would be a legal basis to challenge the contract in court.

                          2) I’m not sure what experience you have in life, but the reason there is this thing called the legal system is because people disagree even when there are laws and contracts. You sound naive to think because there is a piece of paper that everyone acted ethically/legally when it was negotiated and that you need to be a sheepie once it’s signed.
                          A judge - yes, a judge, not you Mr Legal Eagle - disagreed

                          "In dismissing the women's claim that they are paid less for the same work, Klausner pointed to differences in the structure of the men's and women's contracts — contracts to which they agreed in collective bargaining.

                          "The WNT [Women's National Team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [Men's National Team] and ... the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," Klausner wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."
                          https://www.npr.org/2020/05/02/84949...qual-pay-claim

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            A judge - yes, a judge, not you Mr Legal Eagle - disagreed

                            "In dismissing the women's claim that they are paid less for the same work, Klausner pointed to differences in the structure of the men's and women's contracts — contracts to which they agreed in collective bargaining.

                            "The WNT [Women's National Team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [Men's National Team] and ... the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," Klausner wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."
                            https://www.npr.org/2020/05/02/84949...qual-pay-claim
                            Yes, know all about that so let me break it down for you:

                            1) First, one judge’s opinion means squat. You can go to a different judge and get an entirely different answer.
                            2) This was yet another preliminary review for cause prior to preceding to trial; it was not a final judgement and so again means squat. The judge’s comment was based on summary arguments of the case submitting in writing by each party’s attorneys; not a trial based on a presentation of the facts and evidence.
                            3) The same judge let other arguments of the case move forward related to discrimination in travel, training, and playing conditions.
                            4) Since this is all preliminary, USWNT attorneys have time to tweak their argument and supply additional evidence to convince the judge to move forward on the dismissed points.
                            5) Finally, this can be on for awhile and USWNT attorneys can seek a different venue or judge to hear the case. They might even just go forward planning an appeal. This is why these cases go on for a long time. Most times it’s just to force the other side to fold as the legal costs mount.

                            And here is the kicker (wait for it)...the current CBA expires in 2021. I think after June when the Olympics start, although they can drag the negotiations out until afterwards either way. At that point, the players may push for an entirely different contract and given that some older players may retire while others join the USWNT, there may be a totally different approach (or new set of plaintiffs). The fun will never stop for USSF until they reach some middle ground.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Yes they will simply renegotiate a new deal next year. Pretty straightforward. Going back and changing the actual old contract won't happen. They can hold out for their demands if they aren't satisfied. Would they boycott the Olympics? Unlikely. Winning medals helps with public pressure and improves their position.

                              Comment


                                #60
                                If you stop the average American on the street today and ask them about US Soccer, even if they don’t know a soccer ball from a volleyball, they’ll tell you two things:

                                1) the USMNT always loses when it counts
                                2) the USWNT always wins, but is paid unfairly

                                It doesn’t matter if those two things aren’t entirely true (although I think it is), that’s the “brand” that USSF has. They could spend millions $ trying to market themselves differently, but that’s the stain they can’t rub out.

                                Now after decades of poor management, USSF has a whole new management team. CEO is a former sports agent and marketing guy. They’ve already taken the shocking step of ending the DA (which gets a lot of play from ECNL for GDA, but was 100x more important in boys‘ development), which was purely a refocusing and money decision. This shows pragmatism and a new willingness to make big decisions when faced with a crisis like the current Covid-19 situation. If they can amicably resolve this situation with the USWNT that would be another step in the right direction. They don’t need an ongoing marketing crisis that costs them money.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X