HowdyTexasAggies said:jeffk said:
We paid Hayes because we needed to to get her to take the job. She's literally one of the best in the world. As far as I know, equal pay between coaches isn't something that's mandated or even formalized by any contractual documentation. I don't think we even know the exact figure Hayes is receiving yet. (Happy to be proven wrong on any of this.)
That to say, there's nothing to the "we can't afford a good, proven men's head coach." We have plenty of money. We're not getting our money's worth currently with GB. We don't have to immediately give Emma Hayes a raise if we sign a men's coach for $2 mil or more. We're way way way ahead of the curve internationally when it comes to more equal compensation for women's coaches and players. There may be a little push back for over-spending on a men's coach, but if that's what has to be done, then that's what needs to happen.
So you think all the pandering of paying the men's and women's coach the same was just political bs? I don't think so. They have proven to make poor decisions (Iike Gregg) based on everything but the business of being great.
I think providing equal player pay was the main objective being discussed at the time, but also we needed an upgrade at the position of WNT HC. Luring Hayes over was a huge coup but getting her was going to take a good chunk of change. USSF scored some nice points by making the two HCs pay equivalent. But like I said, I've never seen that formalized as some sort of institutional requirement, so if we need to pay more to get a better MNT coach, I don't think giving Hayes a raise is something that has to happen. She signed a contract. If she feels slighted and wants to renegotiate when it's up, more power to her.