US Soccer: "Our Proposal for Equal Pay for Women & Men"

outside! said:
Why does the men's game produce more revenue? Is it solely because it is more entertaining? Prior to the 1921 ban on women's football by the FA, some women's matches sold more tickets than men's matches with one drawing 53,000 spectators. The FA ban did not end until 1971. Many other countries banned women's football. Germany's ban did not end until 1980. Without these historical ban's on women's football it is very likely that women's football would generate much more revenue than it does now. So given that the women's game has been discriminated against by many of the core countries of FIFA, your solution is still to do nothing to right these wrongs?
Click to expand...

Revenue has a direct relationship to the popularity of the exhibition match to spectators. It all comes down to the spectators and their motivations to spend money. Without appreciating the motivations of the spectators, its easy to make some illogical assumptions.

Hopefully we call all agree that most "Spectators" are primarily motivated to:
  1. Watch "National" teams out of patriotism and pride for the flag.
  2. Watch "College Sports" because of collegiate allegiance.
  3. Watch "Professional Sports" because of team allegiance AND entertainment value.
  4. Watch "Charitable" Sports because of the charitable purposes.
The problem with pointing to Dick, Kerr Ladies FC, and women's soccer in England after WW-I, is that the team's purpose was to raise money for wounded war veterans. Whether good football or not, the ticket's sold were all for charity and those that attended were motivated primarily to support the charitable purpose. This wasn't professional women's football, rather, charitable exhibition matches.

Once we hit the "Professional" level ... paid athletes to entertain, the standard for spectators is raised. If the player's do not represent the highest standard in that sport, few if any spectators attend (USL Champions, USL-1, USL-2, NWSL, WNBA, WNHL, etc.)
 
outside! said:
The only thing I would change about your post is that all soccer in the US, men's and women's needs better stewardship than US soccer can provide.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. It is a pattern -- US Soccer tried to copy the boy's development model for the girls, ignoring the differences. They try to copy the European development model for the boys/men, again not understanding the shortcomings of that approach in a very different US sports/education/employment market.

I reached out and tried get more involved a while ago, until I realized how little they wanted any outside involvement. The behavior and statements from US Soccer usually remind me of one of those cliche posters from my childhood -- they are so far behind, they think they are ahead.
MWN said:
It would be highly unlikely that the legal filings were vetted by US Soccer Executives or their PR Team. In litigation of this nature, those with advanced notice of legal strategy tends to be a very small circle. Because these legal filings were made by an outside firm, the normal practice is for outside counsel to share the filings with "in house counsel" before filing. In house counsel would not share the filings with anybody not on the "closed" legal committee and then its rare to do so for a summary judgment motion. What US Soccer's lawyer's argue is based on existing law, thus, legal strategies and not PR strategies, so "assuming" or "presuming significant vettings from US Soccer" would be highly unlikely. Also note that this are responsive pleadings (Opposition or Reply Papers), which means they needed to be filed and served 21 days before the hearing date.

Here is a link to the Opposition papers:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

The arguments made by counsel that are the inflammatory arguments start on page 11 (Sub.Section C - WNT and MNT Players Do Not Perform Equal Work Requiring Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Under Similar Working Conditions."

However, reading the full context of the argument is much less to not inflammatory (IMHO).
Click to expand...
A few observations:

1) Having read the legal memorandum, I find several responses offensive and inflammatory (as a man) and cannot begin to comprehend how the women feel. From a management and PR standpoint, taking their position on unequal skill and responsibility might be legally sound and defensible, but it is not the moral high ground. Even if US Soccer wins, in the long run, women's soccer loses. They should realize that. They are in a fight they cannot win with a scorched earth approach.

1) Given the nature and sensitivity of this lawsuit, there is no excuse for US Soccer senior management to not be part of every response, and fully understand (and own) the arguments and responses being made. For them to possibly delegate this to only the legal team (outside and inside) is just as abhorrent as coming up with the arguments themselves. The Cordeiro apology was an admission of this.

3) On the "equal responsibility" argument, US Soccer actually takes the position that one of the reasons the US Women do not face the same level of responsibility is that they do not play for the same amount of tournament money (page 13). Really? That is one heck of a circular argument. Your lack of pay and opportunity results in you having less responsibility?

I could go on with parts of the document that most would find offensive but, as I said, winning the legal argument this way is a loss for everyone involved, including US Soccer.
 
MWN said:
The problem with pointing to Dick, Kerr Ladies FC, and women's soccer in England after WW-I, is that the team's purpose was to raise money for wounded war veterans. Whether good football or not, the ticket's sold were all for charity and those that attended were motivated primarily to support the charitable purpose. This wasn't professional women's football, rather, charitable exhibition matches.
Click to expand...
If that is the case and it was all just a flash in the pan, then why did the FA ban women's football? They did it because the women were taking away some of their spectators and revenue. Quotes from the time show that many of the spectators found the games to be very good.

For a number of reasons, the time has come to pay the USWNT the same as the USMNT, including the FIFA bonuses. I believe that doing so will benefit both teams in the long run.
 
MWN said:
It would be highly unlikely that the legal filings were vetted by US Soccer Executives or their PR Team. In litigation of this nature, those with advanced notice of legal strategy tends to be a very small circle. Because these legal filings were made by an outside firm, the normal practice is for outside counsel to share the filings with "in house counsel" before filing. In house counsel would not share the filings with anybody not on the "closed" legal committee and then its rare to do so for a summary judgment motion. What US Soccer's lawyer's argue is based on existing law, thus, legal strategies and not PR strategies, so "assuming" or "presuming significant vettings from US Soccer" would be highly unlikely. Also note that this are responsive pleadings (Opposition or Reply Papers), which means they needed to be filed and served 21 days before the hearing date.
Click to expand...

With all do respect that is so misleading. If the executive(s) of US Soccer didn't review the filings that is gross negligence, at a minimum, on their part. Executive's should never just give their counsel free reign to say and file what they want. Furthermore, If the attorney's didn't consider the PR impact of their filings IMO they're guilty of malpractice. It's also the height of arrogance for an attorney not to get a blessing from the company's executive(s) on legal filings. This is what happens when you use "legal" attorneys instead of "business" attorneys. Legal attorneys get bogged down in the minutia of the law and only see things through the eye of the law, whereas, "business" attorneys can balance both the business considerations with legal considerations.

As I mentioned before, the facts are going to be very convoluted in this case and both sides will present very convincing and qualified experts that will completely contradict each other. PR is going to be critical in this matter and likely have a very persuasive impact on a settlement or on a jury. The fact that Carlos and US Soccer don't recognize that is just another example of their mind-numbing incompetence.

Dos Equis said:
It should be the end of US Soccer as we know it.

As someone who was conflicted on this issue, given the obvious differences in the two games and global markets, US Soccer's legal filings have put me firmly in the player's camp. US Soccer's current leadership has once again failed, and the obvious bias and sexism in their legal documents warrants radical change in how this team and our sport is managed at the National level. I was even agreeing with Megan Rapinoe yesterday, who showed more class in her post-game response than US Soccer. Watching Julie Foudy react to the disclosure and apology in real time was devastating.

At this point, silence is not acceptable, and I would call on the men's players to express their outrage at US Soccer's legal claims, and support the women's team through not just public statements, but even boycotts of playing for US Soccer under its current leadership. If you are going to be offended by people who look the other way when they know they are working for awful people/organizations, I put agreeing to be part of the USMNT without demanding a change in leadership in the same category.
Click to expand...

100%. Very well said.
 
watfly said:
With all do respect that is so misleading. If the executive(s) of US Soccer didn't review the filings that is gross negligence, at a minimum, on their part. Executive's should never just give their counsel free reign to say and file what they want. Furthermore, If the attorney's didn't consider the PR impact of their filings IMO they're guilty of malpractice. It's also the height of arrogance for an attorney not to get a blessing from the company's executive(s) on legal filings. This is what happens when you use "legal" attorneys instead of "business" attorneys. Legal attorneys get bogged down in the minutia of the law and only see things through the eye of the law, whereas, "business" attorneys can balance both the business considerations with legal considerations.

As I mentioned before, the facts are going to be very convoluted in this case and both sides will present very convincing and qualified experts that will completely contradict each other. PR is going to be critical in this matter and likely have a very persuasive impact on a settlement or on a jury. The fact that Carlos and US Soccer don't recognize that is just another example of their mind-numbing incompetence.

100%. Very well said.
Click to expand...

Having been an attorney and having litigated for non-profits, I can tell you that its not misleading. This is how it works. Outside Counsel reports to In-House Counsel. If In-House Counsel gives the green light that is all that matters. Rarely, if ever does In-House counsel involve the "Executive Team" to review legal filings because the Executive Team generally are not lawyers and do not have the education to evaluate legal filings through the correct lens.

We disagree and my experience tells me its highly unlikely these pleadings were vetted by anybody in US Soccer, except for In-House Counsel.
 
MWN said:
Having been an attorney and having litigated for non-profits, I can tell you that its not misleading. This is how it works. Outside Counsel reports to In-House Counsel. If In-House Counsel gives the green light that is all that matters. Rarely, if ever does In-House counsel involve the "Executive Team" to review legal filings because the Executive Team generally are not lawyers and do not have the education to evaluate legal filings through the correct lens.

We disagree and my experience tells me its highly unlikely these pleadings were vetted by anybody in US Soccer, except for In-House Counsel.
Click to expand...

That's really unfortunate that they handled their litigation in that manner, I can't think of any reason why counsel would want to preserve "plausible deniability" for the Executive Director. It's one thing to rely on the guidance of your general counsel, it's a whole other thing to give general counsel unfettered authority. It's very poor corporate governance and bad policy, both legally and operationally. Just because other non-profits handle their business that way doesn't excuse Carlos and US Soccer. What did our parents say when we mimicked the bad behavior of another kid, "So if Johnny jumped off the cliff, you'd do it too?" My experience tells me it should absolutely vetted by executives and shame on inside and outside counsel for not considering the "non-legal" aspects of the litigation.
 
I told you guys before. Woman have been treated bad since I got on this planet 53 years ago. I know the guys who have been treating woman like sh*t too! I see some improvement but way more needs to be done. Harvey treated woman like poop and now has to walk with a roller and now he has chest pains.
 
MWN said:
Having been an attorney and having litigated for non-profits, I can tell you that its not misleading. This is how it works. Outside Counsel reports to In-House Counsel. If In-House Counsel gives the green light that is all that matters. Rarely, if ever does In-House counsel involve the "Executive Team" to review legal filings because the Executive Team generally are not lawyers and do not have the education to evaluate legal filings through the correct lens.

We disagree and my experience tells me its highly unlikely these pleadings were vetted by anybody in US Soccer, except for In-House Counsel.
Click to expand...

My experience with high profile litigation that is likely to be subject to public scrutiny, as a member of the "Executive Team", is all legal filings are reviewed by more than just the lawyers. With any litigation, at a minimum, we had to understand the claims against us, and our defense strategy. If the bucked stopped with me, I read everything. I was also looking through the lens of a person who had to defend our position in the court of public/customer/employee opinion.

I will not say lawyers did not have "the education" to evaluate how the legal filings might negatively impact management, the organization/company and the employees. The best lawyers always took that into account in their counsel, and gave us warning of the risks.

Carlos Cordeiro's apology is an admission that he mismanaged this case as President of US Soccer.
 
Dos Equis said:
My experience with high profile litigation that is likely to be subject to public scrutiny, as a member of the "Executive Team", is all legal filings are reviewed by more than just the lawyers. With any litigation, at a minimum, we had to understand the claims against us, and our defense strategy. If the bucked stopped with me, I read everything. I was also looking through the lens of a person who had to defend our position in the court of public/customer/employee opinion.

I will not say lawyers did not have "the education" to evaluate how the legal filings might negatively impact management, the organization/company and the employees. The best lawyers always took that into account in their counsel, and gave us warning of the risks.

Carlos Cordeiro's apology is an admission that he mismanaged this case as President of US Soccer.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. The Board meetings that I have been in for publicly held companies include discussions of draft legal agreements that were received by the Board members and executive committees at least 3 days prior to the meeting. Whether this occurred or not at US Soccer is irrelevant because either way, the leadership proved they are not qualified to lead an organization such as US Soccer.

To not consider the impact on current and future sponsorship is just beyond ridiculous. That is management's responsibility. Look how Coke spoke up immediately.
 
Last edited:
FYI The original four plaintiffs had filed separately and prior to the negotiated contract and the negotiated contract did not have any impact on their charge of discrimination filed in 2016 related to the discrimination that occurred in the prior years.

NPR March 2019 "The issue of unequal pay has been a highly contentious matter in recent years, and the U.S. women's team has kept the pressure on U.S. Soccer. The women's team reached a new collective bargaining agreement with the federation in 2017."

"Four of the plaintiffs — Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn — filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2016, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated players. But no progress was made, and last month, the EEOC issued letters giving the four the right to sue."
 
@watfly & @Dos Equis,

We need to remember that these statements were made in "Opposition" to a Summary Judgment Motion filed by the players. The role of counsel in litigation is to preserve their clients rights by contesting all of the items, unless instructed not too. When the players filed their motion for Summary Judgment they claimed all of the elements of to allow judgment in their favor where met. US Soccer was then required to oppose the motion claiming the elements were not met. Both the Players and US Soccer have summary judgement motions pending.

In this instance, the Motion by the women was filed on 2/20/2020 and the response was due a few weeks later (9th of March). Counsel had less than 3 weeks to research and formulate a response to the motion. The draft of the response was probably only finished on the 4th or 5th of March and US Soccer likely had very little time to review and/or change anything if they could. There simply was not weeks to sit on this response and have upper management and the PR people debate squat.

Element 2 requires Plaintiffs (USWNT establish they are paid less “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions”). US Soccer's ultimate position is that by law the focus is on "job requirements" and to this end because there are far fewer Women's National Teams and many more Men's National Team its harder for the USMNT to meet the job requirements. "The point is that the job of MNT player (competing against senior men’s national teams) requires a higher level of skill based on speed and strength than does the job of WNT player (competing against senior women’s national teams)" (Opposition p.12:16-19).

Absent US Soccer expressly advising the lawyers to concede a critical element (namely element (2) of the EPA statute (29 USC 206(d)). The lawyers did what they should have done and the fact that some lawyers litigating and contesting every point doesn't mean those points are how US Soccer really feels.
 
Bottom line this lawsuit ultimately will cause US Soccer to raise the pay for the USWNT players and defund the pay for NWSL participation. The argument the USWNT players are making is the court should ignore pay to these same players for their participation in the NWSL. The NWSL pay was part of the collective bargaining agreement and now the women want to ignore it and have the Court turn a blind eye.

The stars will receive about the same at the end of the day (more than the men) as long as they continue to win.
 
pulguita said:
Please tell me how the current deal with US Soccer discriminates against women? They made the deal. So are you telling me FIFA should pay the women the same amount as the men even though they don't produce the same revenue.
Click to expand...

Hey buddies! It’s been a while...

I am happy to answer your question. When an employer says your options are either less money or no money and calls that “negotiation”, that is gender discrimination. Even if an employer pays women similar money - although they provide more value and generate more profit doing the same job - that is gender discrimInation. When USSF rationalizes paying Michael Bradley (an embarrassment to all Americans) more than Julie Ertz (a national hero) because Lionel Messi generates revenue for a completely different company (FIFA), that is gender discrimination. What requires USSF to spend the money it receives from FIFA on the men who did absolutely nothing to justify the amount of the prize money anyway? Shoot, the MNT probably reduces the size of the FIFA prize money given that viewership was up in the most recent WC for which the MNT failed to qualify.

If USSF wants compensate the teams based on the revenue they bring in, it needs to actually compensate them based on the revenue they bring in, rather than attributing a revenue stream to the men that they did nothing to generate while simultaneously excluding by far the biggest source of revenue and profit - advertising dollars - that the women generate. Nike recently said the WNT jersey is its best selling jersey of all time - more than Barcelona and Brazil. That’s a polite way of saying the MNT doesn’t even move the needle. Alex Morgan alone sells more jerseys than the entire MNT. Nike also noted that it recently became the largest seller of bras in North America and that sales of women’s gear was up double digits in 2019. The women are responsible for the size of the Nike contract without question. The women also drive USSF’s other eight figure deal with VW for reasons previously stated before I moved to an acronym.

The long and the short of it is the women deserve far more money than the men because they are responsible for the bulk of USSF’s profit. To the extent any men raise revenue for USSF, it is Messi, Ronaldo and the Mexican national team who are raising it. The MNT could put any 11 stooges on the pitch instead of the current 10 plus Pulisic without any impact on its bottom line. If it tries that with the women, USSF goes bankrupt.
 
MWN said:
Bottom line this lawsuit ultimately will cause US Soccer to raise the pay for the USWNT players and defund the pay for NWSL participation. The argument the USWNT players are making is the court should ignore pay to these same players for their participation in the NWSL. The NWSL pay was part of the collective bargaining agreement and now the women want to ignore it and have the Court turn a blind eye.

The stars will receive about the same at the end of the day (more than the men) as long as they continue to win.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don’t think so. USSF knows the NWSL’s continued existence is critical to the continued success of the WNT which, in turn, is critical to inking future fat advertising deals. It is essentially paying those women the extra $100k to play an extra 20+ games a season, not to provide the same effort, or less as it offensively claims in the motion. It doesn’t need to pay the men that money to play those extra games because, for some reason I do not understand, someone else is willing to pay the likes of DeAndre Yedlin to play them or at least have front row seat. USSF should not look that gift horse in the mouth. If it defunds what it puts toward the NWSL, the WNT falls apart when the women get real jobs instead, the WNT starts to lose, and the bulk of USSF’s advertising dollars go away.
 
Leave it to USSF to make deeply offensive and misogynistic comments just as every sporting event in the world has been cancelled, leaving ESPN with nothing else to talk about.
 
www.espn.com

Cordeiro resigns from USSF amid equal pay row

U.S. Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro resigned Thursday amid the fallout from a gender-discrimination lawsuit filed by U.S. women.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Don't let the door hit you in ass on the way out. His tenure at US Soccer will be a case-study at MBA schools for centuries on how not to run a non-profit. Hopefully the first move by the acting president will be to terminate inside and outside counsel.
 
watfly said:
www.espn.com

Cordeiro resigns from USSF amid equal pay row

U.S. Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro resigned Thursday amid the fallout from a gender-discrimination lawsuit filed by U.S. women.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Don't let the door hit you in ass on the way out. His tenure at US Soccer will be a case-study at MBA schools for centuries on how not to run a non-profit. Hopefully the first move by the acting president will be to terminate inside and outside counsel.
Click to expand...
I am sure Coke, Visa, and Nike among others helped US soccer with that decision. I am not sure that just blaming the President and his resignation will be enough to correct this PR nightmare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top