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

So wonder what they mean by Lydia Wahlke being on leave - does that mean she is fired? Is this a disciplinary leave or is she out for stress and embarrassment. Pretty bad for a woman to be giving her stamp of approval on such a terrible and insulting legal argument against other women. I think it is worse coming from another female. She should have known better just from her own experience of being a female attorney working in the professional sports world.
 
Soccer43 said:
So wonder what they mean by Lydia Wahlke being on leave - does that mean she is fired? Is this a disciplinary leave or is she out for stress and embarrassment. Pretty bad for a woman to be giving her stamp of approval on such a terrible and insulting legal argument against other women. I think it is worse coming from another female. She should have known better just from her own experience of being a female attorney working in the professional sports world.
Click to expand...
Blame it all on Lydia just makes the men look lame. The men behind the masks told her to it is my guess. However, maybe Lydia got the job at lead attorney because of this legal argument? If so, her career is over and she seems smarter than that imo. I told all of you 98% of lawsuits settle. I said it was 98% in favor of Alex Morgan and the ladies. Now it's 99.1% in favor of the plaintiffs. Again, any good attorney will tell you no case is a 100%. This one is real close.
 
Ellejustus said:
Blame it all on Lydia just makes the men look lame. The men behind the masks told her to it is my guess. However, maybe Lydia got the job at lead attorney because of this legal argument? If so, her career is over and she seems smarter than that imo. I told all of you 98% of lawsuits settle. I said it was 98% in favor of Alex Morgan and the ladies. Now it's 99.1% in favor of the plaintiffs. Again, any good attorney will tell you no case is a 100%. This one is real close.
Click to expand...
Lydia is in the hot seat because it was her job to retain and manage outside counsel.

I think Parlow-Cone is in a difficult position. If I was representing the USWNT I would advise them to only accept an offer that granted all requested damages.

USSF and Biglaw needed to win this case during pre-trial motions. They didn’t win and their facts suck. The guys at Biglaw tend to be paper pushers that are scared of court because most of them suck at it. I’m not sure what laws the case was filed under but there may also be potential punitive damages as well for fraud or deceit.

USSF has no choice but to give the USWNT what they ask for. They should do it sooner rather than later.
 
MacDre said:
Lydia is in the hot seat because it was her job to retain and manage outside counsel.

I think Parlow-Cone is in a difficult position. If I was representing the USWNT I would advise them to only accept an offer that granted all requested damages.

USSF and Biglaw needed to win this case during pre-trial motions. They didn’t win and their facts suck. The guys at Biglaw tend to be paper pushers that are scared of court because most of them suck at it. I’m not sure what laws the case was filed under but there may also be potential punitive damages as well for fraud or deceit.

USSF has no choice but to give the USWNT what they ask for. They should do it sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Excellent perspective. Pre-trial motions is the most incredible process of trying to see who is being most honest and who is a scammer or a cheat. It goes both ways. One side has their damage claims and it's what they think is the truth all the while the other side has been telling them to "F" Off for a few years and they owe you squat. "Go away and stop complaining" they say. Attorneys get in the action all day. Non emotional folks they are. I got to meet a Mediator one day and I must say he has one of the best jobs in America. I hear they make $8K for a days work and some legal preview time and write up his conclusions and let both sides know his legal opinion, which is always this: "No case is 100%. You could win and never see a dime. You could win and wait forever to get paid as most will appeal. You could win and the defendants file for BK and no money to give. Or, you could lose because one lone juror hates your ass. So the mediator will usually tell you to take deal and your attorneys will agree. I hear this is after 10 hours holed up in some office building in LA to help two sides stop whining and get a deal done before 7pm. Nice life and it saves America major hate and war for a long trial. I hear it all come at a head at mediation day. I wonder if they have started with depositions? My buddy, who plays lawyer all day, told me he knows he has a really good value case is when folks who delay or try to get out of their depo.
 
I might add, I've been a little harsh towards attorneys at times. It's a love hate relationship, like the dentist. I love America because we have a legal system. Although not perfect, when one get's hurt or does something stupid and or illegal, they can make a call and get real HELP!!!. Attorney's and I are opposites emotionally wise. I have so much respect for them though. They have to take all of our sh*t (Demons) out of each others toilets and then separate the truth somehow. Basically, clean it up so we don;t kill each other with the "Carl" Demon of murder. I'm dead serious you guys. TY to all attorneys for saving lives and destruction and protecting the innocent and getting justice for the oppressed. Help people through nasty divorces. Help woman have a voice. Thank you thank you :)
 
Soccer43 said:
So wonder what they mean by Lydia Wahlke being on leave - does that mean she is fired? Is this a disciplinary leave or is she out for stress and embarrassment. Pretty bad for a woman to be giving her stamp of approval on such a terrible and insulting legal argument against other women. I think it is worse coming from another female. She should have known better just from her own experience of being a female attorney working in the professional sports world.
Click to expand...

Being placed on administrative leave almost always means you’re about to get fired if, as is the case here, there’s no dispute over the reason you are on leave. The interesting thing, though, is that Cordiero initially tried to save his own job by throwing her under the bus when he recommended that USSF fire and replace her with Latham & Watkins. Typical misogynistic USSF douche.

Does anyone really think Cone will turn anything around? USSF will have her settle the case to save their own asses, pat her on the head like a good little lady, and then come down hard on her a year later because she couldn’t turn around the financial woes caused by a bunch of misogynistic dudes and a female lawyer whom they used for cover. They’ll also probably blame Cone for GDA’s final downfall because, you know, she’s a woman. It couldn’t possibly be the result of a bunch of dumb men in a room making dumb rules that doomed GDA from the start.
 
EOTL said:
Being placed on administrative leave almost always means you’re about to get fired if, as is the case here, there’s no dispute over the reason you are on leave. The interesting thing, though, is that Cordiero initially tried to save his own job by throwing her under the bus when he recommended that USSF fire and replace her with Latham & Watkins. Typical misogynistic USSF douche.

Does anyone really think Cone will turn anything around? USSF will have her settle the case to save their own asses, pat her on the head like a good little lady, and then come down hard on her a year later because she couldn’t turn around the financial woes caused by a bunch of misogynistic dudes and a female lawyer whom they used for cover. They’ll also probably blame Cone for GDA’s final downfall because, you know, she’s a woman. It couldn’t possibly be the result of a bunch of dumb men in a room making dumb rules that doomed GDA from the start.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Blame it on the rain too and the virus............

 
MWN said:
The first step is to understand the current differences in pay. The women are paid "guaranteed" amounts, whereas the men are not paid any guaranteed amounts. As a result, the men get paid more for meeting certain milestones, whereas the women are paid less.

MEN (Per Collective Bargain)WOMEN (Per Collective Bargain)
SALARY (National Team Contract) 17 Players (16 in 2021)$0.00 (No US Soccer Salary)$100,000
MLS/NWSL Bonus by US Soccer$0.00 (No US Soccer Bonus)$67,500 (Tier 1)
$62,500 (Tier 2)
Call Ups - Non Contract Players$3,500 - $4,000 per call-up (8+ Camps)$3,500 - $4,000 per call-up (8+ Camps)
World Cup Roster Bonus$68,750.00$37,500
Win Against Non Top Teams$9,375 (Outside Top 25)$5,250 (Outside Top 8)
Loss Against Non Top Team$5,000$0.00
Game Attendance $ per ticket$1.50 to Union$1.50 + 7.5% to Union above 17,000 txs.
Game Sold OutNo BonusBonus
Viewership BonusNo BonusBonus (if increase 10+%)

Source: https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...ing-the-pay-gapswhats-at-stake-for-both-sides

It is absolutely true that the USWNT players not paid equally. This is because they negotiated a guaranteed deal, which guarantees pay of $167,500 for 17 of them, and $62,500 for the remaining 7, whereas the USMNT soccer players receive $0 in guaranteed pay.

My question to all of you is based on the fact that the Women negotiated guaranteed pay and the men don't get any, why do you believe that US Soccer is treating them unfairly?
Click to expand...

Looks like the judge got it right (or is reading my posts ... which would mean he would always be right). The USWNT lawsuit claiming unequal pay rested on a fiction and falsehood that went against hundreds of years of case law ... "competent adults are free to make bad deals."

The remaining claims will be settled because its simply not worth pursuing for either party. US Soccer will likely throw the USWNT a bone equal to the nuisance value of the remaining claims so the USWNT can save face, but the fact will always remain that the lawsuit was doomed from the start.
 
Last edited:
Soccer43 said:
So wonder what they mean by Lydia Wahlke being on leave - does that mean she is fired? Is this a disciplinary leave or is she out for stress and embarrassment. Pretty bad for a woman to be giving her stamp of approval on such a terrible and insulting legal argument against other women. I think it is worse coming from another female. She should have known better just from her own experience of being a female attorney working in the professional sports world.
Click to expand...

At her level she is being put on leave to give her an opportunity to find something else (another job). She screwed up by not protecting the Federation from outside counsel's aggressive arguments. It was her job to manage outside counsel and she didn't do it in a way that would prevent a PR problem.
 
MWN said:
Looks like the judge got it right (or is reading my posts ... which would mean he would always be right). The USWNT lawsuit claiming unequal pay rested on a fiction and falsehood that went against hundreds of years of case law ... "competent adults are free to make bad deals."

The remaining claims will be settled because its simply not worth pursuing for either party. US Soccer will likely throw the USWNT a bone equal to the nuisance value of the remaining claims so the USWNT can save face, but the fact will always remain that the lawsuit was doomed from the start.
Click to expand...
I thought common sense would drive USWNT to sell high (when Cordeiro resigned) and settle for a decent amount when public support was at the highest. Why would they let the case go to a summary judgment when the facts of the case were not on their side?
 
Messi>CR7 said:
I thought common sense would drive USWNT to sell high (when Cordeiro resigned) and settle for a decent amount when public support was at the highest. Why would they let the case go to a summary judgment when the facts of the case were not on their side?
Click to expand...

Two reasons: (1) their legal counsel are not that smart; and (2) its a political ploy that was working well and because their counsel wasn't that smart, they rode the horse way too far.

The USWNT's argument of unequal pay was predicated on ignoring the "guaranteed" nature of their negotiated contract. Because the USWNT compensation and NWSL salaries are tied to the Collective Bargaining Agreement the judge properly rejected that position. This paragraph sums up the nature of why the USWNT could never prevail:

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 benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of
contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the
MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to play
structure when they themselves rejected such a structure. This method of comparison not only fails
to account for the choices made during collective bargaining, it also ignores the economic value of the
"insurance" that WNT players receive under their CBA. One of the defining features of the WNT CBA
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 CBA, under which players are only compensated if they are called
into camp to play and then participate in a match. It is difficult to attach a dollar· value to this
"insurance" benefit, and neither party attempts to do so here. However, there is indisputably economic
value to this type of "fixed pay" contract, as compared to a "performance pay" contract. 13 (See generally
McCray Decl., Ex. 2.) Indeed, the WNT clearly attached significant economic value to this contractual
arrangement because it was willing to agree to lower bonuses in exchange for higher fixed payments in
its 2017 CBA. Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they
would have received under the MNT CBA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed
benefits they receive under their agreement, which they opted for at the expense of higher performance based
bonuses. Order, Page 19-20
Click to expand...

MacDre said:
I think there’s still hope.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
Click to expand...

No hope, just a politician with no basic understanding of the facts of the case doing what politicians do ... talking out of his ass.
 
Keepermom2 said:
Yeah I don't see how they have a leg to stand on with FIFA bonuses and asking US to make up the difference. Doesn't make sense to me but would it make sense to a jury?

Speaking of the entertainment factor...the women's US ticket sales exceeded the men's ticket sales for games played in the US and;

"On Sunday, a crowd of nearly 60,000 people gathered at France’s Parc Olympique Lyonnais to watch as the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) defeated the Netherlands 2-0 in the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final. Back in the U.S., millions more were watching. According to a statement from Fox Sports, citing data from Nielsen, approximately 14.3 million U.S. viewers tuned in to the final match on television, compared to 11.4 million for the 2018 Men’s World Cup Final, a 22% U.S. viewership boost. Fox Sports’ statement reports that total viewership, including online streaming, peaked at roughly 20 million, making it the most-watched soccer match on English-language television, men’s or women’s, in the U.S. since the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup final, which delivered 25.4 million viewers."

I guess people find them more entertaining. I am pretty sure the above information is why the women's team didn't feel their original employment agreement was appropriate.

As I previously posted, FIFA and US Soccer are non profit organizations with their purpose being to grow the game and viewership not maximize profits.

So your arguments/examples are not only trying to match apples to oranges but, equate to men deserve more money than the women because women are the weaker sex. The 60's must have been good years for you. LOL Insert my theme song by Helen Reddy. hahaha
Click to expand...

Wrong!!!..get your facts straight before you text stupidity.

Football: 2018 World Cup watched by record 3.5 billion people, says Fifa. (REUTERS) - A record audience of more than 3.5 billion people watched this year's World Cup in Russia, with the final between France and Croatia attracting 1.12 billion viewers, football's world governing body said on Friday (Dec 21).Dec 21, 2018

FIFA announced on Friday that a combined 1.12 billion viewers tuned into official broadcast coverage of the 2019 Women's World Cup held in France. The final match between the United States and the Netherlands drew an average live audience of 82.18 million and reached a total of 263.62 million unique viewers.
 
MWN said:
Two reasons: (1) their legal counsel are not that smart; and (2) its a political ploy that was working well and because their counsel wasn't that smart, they rode the horse way too far.

The USWNT's argument of unequal pay was predicated on ignoring the "guaranteed" nature of their negotiated contract. Because the USWNT compensation and NWSL salaries are tied to the Collective Bargaining Agreement the judge properly rejected that position. This paragraph sums up the nature of why the USWNT could never prevail:





No hope, just a politician with no basic understanding of the facts of the case doing what politicians do ... talking out of his ass.
Click to expand...

When I read this part the other day all bets were off...I can no longer defend them:

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 benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of
contracted players.

I have no idea why they think they stand a chance in appeal. While women have often negotiated contracts less than what they deserved because it was either that or no job, obviously that is not the situation here so I don't see how they have any basis for taking this portion of the case further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWN
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top