Post by XAsstCoach on May 6, 2020 0:35:46 GMT -5
This is true. I probably oversimplified earlier in the thread by saying "same". But the judge in his ruling never said "same" either. Just said they rejected a similar pay-to-play structure.
In May 2016, USSF offered
the WNT a pay-to-play proposal similar to the MNT BA but the WNT rejected it, preferring an
agreement that involved some element of guaranteed compensation. The parties attempted to work out
such an agreement and, in February 2017, USSF made a proposal which included, (1) a commitment to
have 15 contracted players, (2) annual WNT salaries ranging from $70,000 to $90,000, and (3) bonuses
for friendlies of $9,000 per win and $2,000 per tie for teams ranked 1?4. In response, the WNT offered a
counterproposal which included lower bonuses for friendlies, but a higher munber of contracted players
with higher base salaries. Ultimately, the parties agreed to a compromise whereby there would be 20
contracted players in 2017, each of whom would receive a base salary of $100,000, with friendly
bonuses of $8,500 per win and $1,750 per tie against teams ranked 1?4. (2017 WNT CBA at 53.)
This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to
be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher
bonuses for other bene?ts, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher munber of
contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their BA worse than the
MNT BA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the pay-to-
play structure when they themselves rejected such a structru'e. This method of comparison not only fails
to accormt for the choices made during collective bargaining, it also ignores the economic value of the
?insurance? that WNT players receive under their BA. One of the de?ning features of the WNT BA
is its guarantee that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not. This
stands in stark contrast to the MNT BA, lmder which players are only compensated if they are called
into camp to play and then participate in a match. It is dif?cult to attach a dollar value to this
?insurance? bene?t, and neither party attempts to do so here.12 However, there is indisputably economic
value to this type of ??xed pay? contract, as compared to a ?performance pay? contract.l3 (See general/v
McCrary Decl., Ex. 2.) Indeed, the WNT clearly attached signi?cant economic value to this contractual
arrangement because it was willing to agree to lower bonuses in exchange for higher ?xed payments in
its 2017 CBA. Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they
would have received under the MNT BA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed
bene?ts they receive rmder their agreement, which they opted for at the expense of higher performance-
based bonuses.
the WNT a pay-to-play proposal similar to the MNT BA but the WNT rejected it, preferring an
agreement that involved some element of guaranteed compensation. The parties attempted to work out
such an agreement and, in February 2017, USSF made a proposal which included, (1) a commitment to
have 15 contracted players, (2) annual WNT salaries ranging from $70,000 to $90,000, and (3) bonuses
for friendlies of $9,000 per win and $2,000 per tie for teams ranked 1?4. In response, the WNT offered a
counterproposal which included lower bonuses for friendlies, but a higher munber of contracted players
with higher base salaries. Ultimately, the parties agreed to a compromise whereby there would be 20
contracted players in 2017, each of whom would receive a base salary of $100,000, with friendly
bonuses of $8,500 per win and $1,750 per tie against teams ranked 1?4. (2017 WNT CBA at 53.)
This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to
be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher
bonuses for other bene?ts, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher munber of
contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their BA worse than the
MNT BA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the pay-to-
play structure when they themselves rejected such a structru'e. This method of comparison not only fails
to accormt for the choices made during collective bargaining, it also ignores the economic value of the
?insurance? that WNT players receive under their BA. One of the de?ning features of the WNT BA
is its guarantee that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not. This
stands in stark contrast to the MNT BA, lmder which players are only compensated if they are called
into camp to play and then participate in a match. It is dif?cult to attach a dollar value to this
?insurance? bene?t, and neither party attempts to do so here.12 However, there is indisputably economic
value to this type of ??xed pay? contract, as compared to a ?performance pay? contract.l3 (See general/v
McCrary Decl., Ex. 2.) Indeed, the WNT clearly attached signi?cant economic value to this contractual
arrangement because it was willing to agree to lower bonuses in exchange for higher ?xed payments in
its 2017 CBA. Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they
would have received under the MNT BA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed
bene?ts they receive rmder their agreement, which they opted for at the expense of higher performance-
based bonuses.
Good thing you posted the summary, and it doesn't seem like they still get it:
www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usaw/story/4091797/alex-morgan-megan-rapinoe-vow-to-push-forward-after-uswnt-legal-setback
Last year's Ballon d'Or winner Rapinoe said she questioned the logic of the summary judgment.
"If I earn one dollar every time I play and a man earns three dollars, just because I win 10 games and he only wins three games -- and so I make 10 dollars and he made nine dollars -- I'm not sure how that's me making more money," she said.
"If I earn one dollar every time I play and a man earns three dollars, just because I win 10 games and he only wins three games -- and so I make 10 dollars and he made nine dollars -- I'm not sure how that's me making more money," she said.
I mean she never mentioned her guaranteed salary, just the pay for play scenario.