|
Post by Phaedrus on Nov 12, 2019 11:27:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 12, 2019 13:35:38 GMT -5
I support the notion of equal pay. don't know if punitive damages really makes sense. did the USWNT agree to contracts to the previous matches, and did the soccer federation fulfill those contracts? if so, I don't see how punitive damages come into play.
But then, I'm trying to apply logic to legal matters, and logic doesn't always apply it seems.
|
|
|
Post by ilikewaffles on May 1, 2020 22:04:45 GMT -5
It's looking less like a winner.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 1, 2020 22:38:55 GMT -5
Good.
I absolutely support fair pay, but the women negotiated a very different structure (more steady salaries) than the men (per match pay). These athletes wanted desperately to paint themselves as victims. They weren't.
That being said, their campaign still increased their fame, popularity, and marketability so the stars definitely profited from this. But at least the courts acted sanely.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 1, 2020 23:49:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on May 2, 2020 0:02:00 GMT -5
Read the release about this...was surprised to see the WNT negotiated a higher guarantee pay rather than pay for play like the men’s team. Dunno, maybe their prize money isn’t as big as the men’s tournament so they opted for the higher guarantee?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 2, 2020 0:11:08 GMT -5
Read the release about this...was surprised to see the WNT negotiated a higher guarantee pay rather than pay for play like the men’s team. Dunno, maybe their prize money isn’t as big as the men’s tournament so they opted for the higher guarantee? Moreso that the men all have lucrative professional contracts. They could leave the national team and still have plenty of job security. Professional women's soccer is nowhere near that level so they preferred salaried, guaranteed contracts with benefits.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on May 2, 2020 14:20:19 GMT -5
Doesn't feel like a good like for the WNT... court judgment says they were offered the same CBA as the men but rejected it to negotiate a different agreement. I'd be curious to hear more about why they feel they've been wronged?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 2, 2020 17:37:17 GMT -5
Doesn't feel like a good like for the WNT... court judgment says they were offered the same CBA as the men but rejected it to negotiate a different agreement. I'd be curious to hear more about why they feel they've been wronged? So the match related bonuses were less (which was their choosing because they wanted guaranteed incomes and benefits). And they would've made more under the men's CBA. Reading the ruling, it seemed like the judge would've ruled the same way even if the women DID make somewhat less. He points out that there is value in guaranteed contracts. So when that part was true AND the women made more total and made more on a per-match basis, I really don't see any case there. My opinion? Playing victim has been a profitable way to increase their celebrity.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 2, 2020 18:37:22 GMT -5
Doesn't feel like a good like for the WNT... court judgment says they were offered the same CBA as the men but rejected it to negotiate a different agreement. I'd be curious to hear more about why they feel they've been wronged? So the match related bonuses were less. (Which was their choosing because they wanted guaranteed incomes and benefits And they would've made more under the men's CBA. Reading the ruling, it seemed like the judge would've ruled the same way even if the women DID make somewhat less. He points out that there is value in guaranteed contracts. So when that part was true AND the women made more total and made more on a per-match basis, I really don't see any case there. My opinion? Playing victim has been a profitable way to increase their celebrity. Yes, this is correct. What the USWNT was doing was kind of like trying to buy insurance after you've already wrecked your car (they figured out that they would have made more if they had taken the USMNT's deal instead and wanted to get it retroactively). Moreover, since they had a CBA in place, this was always going to be kind of hard for them to win. Courts tend to enforce contracts absent fraud or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Confucius on May 2, 2020 22:35:57 GMT -5
The only downside is a number of people aren't even gonna bother to read the article and will continue to push the idea that they are not fairly paid. But hey, if the women's national team wants to continue to waste money fighting a losing battle, be my guest. They made more per a game and could've had the same deal as the men... I guess they picked wrong. Maybe next time, bet on yourselves if you are so confident and don't take the guarantee. Also, if you want to eliminate any doubt from people who are truly dumb and think women's sports are just a joke... losing 5-2 to a 15U FC Dallas team isn't exactly gonna help ya regardless of whether it was a tune up and you weren't trying allegedly. www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on May 3, 2020 4:42:54 GMT -5
Doesn't feel like a good like for the WNT... court judgment says they were offered the same CBA as the men but rejected it to negotiate a different agreement. I'd be curious to hear more about why they feel they've been wronged? So the match related bonuses were less (which was their choosing because they wanted guaranteed incomes and benefits). And they would've made more under the men's CBA. Reading the ruling, it seemed like the judge would've ruled the same way even if the women DID make somewhat less. He points out that there is value in guaranteed contracts. So when that part was true AND the women made more total and made more on a per-match basis, I really don't see any case there. My opinion? Playing victim has been a profitable way to increase their celebrity. Could also just be a deeper negotiation tactic. If the went to USA Soccer at some point and said, “we’re outearning what we’re getting paid and want to renegotiate,” and USA Soccer wouldn’t listen... I could see the motivation for a tactic like this. I think of situations like rookie contracts in baseball. MLB players get paid very low salaries for their first 3-4 years in the league. An MLB team is within their rights to have that player at the base right for a while, but refusing to negotiate at all is going to make it very expensive after their arbitration is up or just make it so that player will leave for sure. So it may be that USA Soccer may have been a little short-sighted in their negotiations with the WNT and now the WNT is preparing to really play hardball for the next round. And PR is part of any celebrity negotiation tactic.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 3, 2020 5:05:15 GMT -5
It's clear from the document that US Soccer had no intention of offering them the same victory bonuses for World Cup wins that they would have paid the men. The payment structure for the rest of the quad might have been available to them as a choice that they turned down, but not the victory bonus payments for the World Cup.
And none of that would explain the other issues that are still in play, like the men getting better travel arrangements than the women. It is very strange to argue that the MNT should have charter flights because they had more need for the competitive advantage they could get from a more convenient flight.
It also doesn't justify the incredibly insulting language used by US Soccer's lawyers in their arguments. (It was the PR backlash from that language that forced former USSF president Carlos Cordeiro to resign.)
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on May 3, 2020 11:19:39 GMT -5
It's clear from the document that US Soccer had no intention of offering them the same victory bonuses for World Cup wins that they would have paid the men. The payment structure for the rest of the quad might have been available to them as a choice that they turned down, but not the victory bonus payments for the World Cup. And none of that would explain the other issues that are still in play, like the men getting better travel arrangements than the women. It is very strange to argue that the MNT should have charter flights because they had more need for the competitive advantage they could get from a more convenient flight. It also doesn't justify the incredibly insulting language used by US Soccer's lawyers in their arguments. (It was the PR backlash from that language that forced former USSF president Carlos Cordeiro to resign.)
It seems to me that the WNT case is essentially, "if we had the same deal as the MNT, we would have made more money." But they do appear to have in fact, been paid more money. And interestingly, if the MNT had the same CBA as the WNT, they would have made more than they did. WNT and MNT should have just swapped CBAs and everybody would be happy.
They made more money both overall and per-game than the MNT did. So it's just hard for me to square that their claim that they weren't paid equally.
It's also interesting that they specifically don't ask for "equal," pay or that the men and women have the same CBA. Their language requests to be paid, "as much or more," than the men, indicating to me that this is less about equality and more about negotiating for as much as they can get.
Which, I don't blame them for one bit. They are a more successful team and a higher earner (when you consider a "value over replacement," concept, because it appears that most MNT earnings are just spillover from FIFA money) than the MNT, so I think it's totally fine for them to be paid significantly more than the MNT. At the end of the day, they've been the successful team, so USA Soccer would be wise to keep them happy.
The charter jet thing seems weird and definitely a legitimate case in the WNT's corner (and indeed, the court seems to be learning that way). I have trouble sympathizing with anybody that merely flying international business class is discriminatory, but... if USA Soccer is going to give it to the MNT, they should give it to the WNT as well. And it seems like they do now and I'm sure will going forward.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 3, 2020 15:16:09 GMT -5
It's clear from the document that US Soccer had no intention of offering them the same victory bonuses for World Cup wins that they would have paid the men. The payment structure for the rest of the quad might have been available to them as a choice that they turned down, but not the victory bonus payments for the World Cup. I don't think it's up to the USSF to correct an imbalanced FIFA pay structure. FIFA World Cup Bonuses: 2018 Men's World Cup - $400 million total prize pool, $38 million to the winner 2019 Women's World Cup - $30 million total prize pool, $4 million to the winner
|
|