Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
As has been said MANY times, that is what they agreed to for the current contract. Since the women less money professionally compared to the men then maybe not worrying about expensive healthcare was important to them. Want a new contract? Negotiate for one. I agree the women should be treated equally when it comes to things like benefits, travel (women fly commercial, men private) and they shouldn't have games on turf (men are almost always on grass). They can negotiate on that. But USSF's position is that their actual compensation should be revenue based and that is what the current contract has. If the two sides can't negotiate a new contract then they'll have to bring in arbitration. -
again the lawsuit predates the current CBA so it's not re-negotiating that directly, but rather litigating the premised inequity of unequal pay for equal work.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
also, i don't think u r correct regarding revenue-based contracts. in fact, iirc, in their CBA negotiation the women offered to take the risk of a revenue-based model but USSF rejected that... precisely because the women would have to be paid more as others have shown in the wsj article.
and really, ussf is sitting on $166.7 million of net assets as of 3/31/18, the bulk of which are in cash or liquid investments, so the nickel and diming of the women generally feels even more egregious given the marginal increased cost could clearly be paid out of current assets (if not cashflow).Comment
-
yeah, well, we know they don't give 2 shi**s about the women other than what they bring in and the hardware they bring home. They never did GDA until they had little choice and they haven't even done that right.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Equal pay
perhaps the USWNT should strike the next WC?....put your _ss where your mouth is...back US Soccer into a corner till you get what you think you deserve....the message will be talked about for a 100 years!!!!Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
That's why they filed before the WC - to get public support on their side. If they win (likely) the pressure is on USSF to renegotiate. Dragging this out in court longer makes USSF look bad but they probably have a better case.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Can we please stop talking about the women winning? Wins & losses have almost nothing to do with compensation. The men may lose but they get more viewers, command higher ratings, attract more sponsors, etc. Companies like Nike may like to publicly say that their sponsorship of US Soccer is about women as much as it is about men but that is BS. They sponsor in order to sell more jerseys, t-shirts, shoes, and other assorted swag. While there may be plenty of girls walking around wearing Alex Morgan kit, the fact is mens gear outsells womens gear by a factor of 2X. I can't speak for WC, but for a regular US game on Fox, the CPM for men is around $22 while women command $9. By comparison, NFL on Fox has CPMs north of $60. Women may win that game but should they be paid the same despite delivering 1/5 the audience and 1/2 the ad revenue?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Athletes in all sports are entertainers... just like singers, musicians, and clowns. There is a value exchange between the entertainment and what the marketplace (consumers, advertisers, venues, etc.) perceive the entertainment is worth. Winning helps the value but it's one variable in a complex equation. Other variables... revenue generation, audience size, etc., are more important. Congrats to the women for winning but even with all the wins they deliver less economic value than the men. Period.
BTW: The data point about women selling more tix is a red herring. The women played many more games... including doing post WC and post Olympics tours across US cities. In aggregate they may have sold tix but on a per event basis, they command smaller audiences. The audiences they do get come out of patriotism and curiosity more than out of the love of the sport. Womens soccer is hard to watch for anyone who truly loves and understands the game.Comment
-
OP here and that is part of their strategy. Followers of the sport know all of that but the US public hasn't a clue. They see the women as champions and the men as losers. Legally does it matter? Not if the contracts weren't structured that way. But the women hope public pressure will give them more negotiating might for their next contract. You are also correct that many WC watchers only watch during the WC to support the US, but they're not soccer fans. No one watches women's soccer otherwise (Lifetime cancelled their contract to carry NWSL games). Easy enough for the WNT to fill stadiums when they don't play that often. Yet when they hosted CONCACAF this year small stadiums were half filled. There isn't even a men's soccer culture in the US, let alone one for women's. If the WNT weren't champions you'd see viewership numbers 1/4 the size and few Americans traveling to FranceOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
and yet, despite the insight of the last 2 posters, the USSF agrees to mediation:
https://news.yahoo.com/u-soccer-agre...163405778.html
seems like USSF knows they are not holding a strong hand and want to settle. good job by the core four.Comment
-
Or they know that they can win at a tremendous cost of looking bad .... especially in the eyes of women and girls as they try to launch their next big money maker for the men's side ... GDA!Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Of course they agreed. They had little choice from a PR standpoint. The lawsuit was perfectly timed. It will be interesting to see where it all plays out, however.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
They agreed to mediation. Nothing more.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
It will be interesting to see how a mediator views other compensation that the women receive like propping up their pro league, guaranteed salaries, benefits, etc
Look to the mediator to give easy and deserved wins like similar game conditions (grass fields), flying conditions, game pay, etc
In my opinion if the women agree once again to what mediator proposes then they need to abide and stop complainingComment
-
Totally agree - those are easy gives and are justified. They could bump up the bonus for title wins a bit as well. But the rest there really isn't much justification for.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
yes, if they agree, it is because this is a mediation, not an arbitration, of the lawsuit. so almost by definition it's a result they themselves approve. if they can't come to a mediated result, then they will just progress with the lawsuit.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
very interested to see what comes out of this now. congrats to the USWNT.Comment
-
Not as cut and dry as it sounds. This article sheds some light:
https://www.boston.com/sports/soccer...-men-world-cup
"The bottom line: When it comes to revenue from games, the women’s national soccer team has held its own against the men’s team since the 2015 World Cup win. But games account for only one-quarter of USSF revenue. Sponsorships make up half, and it’s hard to determine what the women’s team contributed to USSF without more data."
=================================
The biggest thing is they aren't paid in the same manner, not necessarily at the same rate. Women draw a salary, men only get bonuses. I think their gripe has more validity with FIFA, not USSoccer. The discrepancy for winning the WC is like 10X for men. THAT's the problem. Unknowledgeable politicians weighing in that they women are getting the shaft (not literally in some cases) frankly is outside their purview. It's not a United States problem they can fix with legislation.Comment
Comment