I hate the timing of this...but I think the timing is exactly why it's happening.
So normally, I'd look at it like the NBA/WNBA. Want to earn more?...make yourself worth more (or pick a different line of work). But since they did generate more than the men in the past, that changes the conversation.
But is 2015 an anomaly? It looks to be a pretty large anomaly, based on the 2015 Women's World Cup and victory tour. And in that year, after expenses, the women's profit was only 6 million for US Soccer. The US Men's team made 2 million that year (without a World Cup to boost their bottom line like the women's team).
It's also worth noting that the previous time the ladies sued, it was to push for a new CBA...and they had a huge amount leverage after winning the WC. Seems like this might be a case of, 'it worked last time, let's do it again'.
Below is an article from 2016, where it broke down the pay scale. The top woman made 1.2mm, the top man made 1.4mm...and in some cases, the women made more than their male counterpart. But as you go down the list to #25-50, the disparity is large. But shouldn't that be expected? I've turned on the TV to see if someone down the player pool list was going to play for the UMNT, but how many people do that for the USWNT?
The article does a good job of explaining the complicated revenue/pay situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html
It's also interesting to note, that the 2017 numbers from the US showed a huge revenue jump, due to the Copa America tournament...which is due to the Mens side. Then you have the Men's WC, where they get paid a Lot more, the Gold Cup, etc...
All this to say....it's going to be an interesting battle. The Men have the capability to generate more, and often do...but when they dont, should that be considered? Is it already based on the top pay scale for both?
Quote:
Three months before kickoff for the Women's World Cup, players for the U.S. women's national team filed a gender discrimination lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Soccer Federation.
All 28 members of the team were named as plaintiffs in the case filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles, and they are seeking class-action status over "institutionalized gender discrimination" toward the team. The lawsuit was filed under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
"Despite the fact that these female and male players are called upon to perform the same job responsibilities on their teams and participate in international competitions for their single common employer, the USSF, the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts," the lawsuit said. "This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players -- with the female players, in contrast to male players, becoming world champions."
Quote:
In 2016, five members of the U.S. women's national soccer team filed a similar complaint against the U.S. Soccer Federation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
That filing noted that, despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue in 2015 than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn. No action was taken on that complaint, and Friday's filing will effectively end the EEOC's involvement.
The team took the fight into contract negotiations and struck a collective bargaining agreement in 2017 that runs through 2021.
So normally, I'd look at it like the NBA/WNBA. Want to earn more?...make yourself worth more (or pick a different line of work). But since they did generate more than the men in the past, that changes the conversation.
But is 2015 an anomaly? It looks to be a pretty large anomaly, based on the 2015 Women's World Cup and victory tour. And in that year, after expenses, the women's profit was only 6 million for US Soccer. The US Men's team made 2 million that year (without a World Cup to boost their bottom line like the women's team).
It's also worth noting that the previous time the ladies sued, it was to push for a new CBA...and they had a huge amount leverage after winning the WC. Seems like this might be a case of, 'it worked last time, let's do it again'.
Below is an article from 2016, where it broke down the pay scale. The top woman made 1.2mm, the top man made 1.4mm...and in some cases, the women made more than their male counterpart. But as you go down the list to #25-50, the disparity is large. But shouldn't that be expected? I've turned on the TV to see if someone down the player pool list was going to play for the UMNT, but how many people do that for the USWNT?
The article does a good job of explaining the complicated revenue/pay situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html
It's also interesting to note, that the 2017 numbers from the US showed a huge revenue jump, due to the Copa America tournament...which is due to the Mens side. Then you have the Men's WC, where they get paid a Lot more, the Gold Cup, etc...
All this to say....it's going to be an interesting battle. The Men have the capability to generate more, and often do...but when they dont, should that be considered? Is it already based on the top pay scale for both?
