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

[texanincali]

You can’t even muster the “courage” to admit that women should be paid more even when they earn more.

You've gone off your rocker. Of course I/we can admit that. USSF admitted that. The financial statements admit that. The judge admitted that. The only ones that can seem to admit they were paid more when they earned more are the women's team. They were paid more during the period where they earned more. Are you disputing this? What am I missing here?

How about a labor union negotiating a contract that pays blacks at a lower rate? They agreed to it, are they stuck with the lower pay rate until the next collective bargaining cycle? Or is it just women who we can force to endure discriminatory CBAs?

You can turn this into whatever "ism" you want, because that is really all you can fall back on. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What part of lower % in exchange for guaranteed pay are you not understanding? There is no way you can possibly not understand how simple this is. No one forced them to endure anything. The CBA was ratified and executed by them and their representatives.

 

[EOTL]

You've gone off your rocker. Of course I/we can admit that. USSF admitted that. The financial statements admit that. The judge admitted that. The only ones that can seem to admit they were paid more when they earned more are the women's team. They were paid more during the period where they earned more. Are you disputing this? What am I missing here?


You can turn this into whatever "ism" you want, because that is really all you can fall back on. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What part of lower % in exchange for guaranteed pay are you not understanding? There is no way you can possibly not understand how simple this is. No one forced them to endure anything. The CBA was ratified and executed by them and their representatives.

So it’s ok for an employer to negotiate lower rates for blacks also then. How awesome. If they strike, we can really get what we wanted, which it to get rid of the entire protected class.

 

[texanincali]

So it’s ok for an employer to negotiate lower rates for blacks also then. How awesome. If they strike, we can really get what we wanted, which it to get rid of the entire protected class.

At this point, I am convinced you have no idea what you are even debating any longer. When did African Americans become part of this debate. Also, I find it extremely offensive that you are using the term "blacks." I don't think this is an area you want to wade into.

 

[texanincali]

@EOTL

Let me lay out the options as I see them for the USWNT moving forward. I am genuinely interested in which one you would think is best. It's the only way I think I can wrap my head around your mental gymnastics.

1. Negotiate a bigger % of revenue than current, negotiate travel as they want, hotels as they want, per diem as they want. Negotiate bigger bonuses for major tournaments, appearance bonuses, win bonuses. Basically the same exact structure the men have, but with higher percentages or bonuses. With this, they would have to give up their guaranteed salaries, benefits, maternity leave, etc. If they aren't in a matchday squad they don't get paid.
2. Keep guaranteed compensation and additional benefits, which essentially keeps the domestic pro league afloat in exchange for a lower % of profit sharing.
3. Agree with USSF that they will except the exact same pay structure as the men, true equality. With this comes the mandate that USSF separate the men and women into two entities. Each get the same % from TV, gate, sponsor and merchandise sales. A committee with a Fed member, USMNT member and USWNT member would be part of the negotiating team for each entity.

Which one is closest to your line of thinking? I don't see many other viable options.

 

[EOTL]

@EOTL

Let me lay out the options as I see them for the USWNT moving forward. I am genuinely interested in which one you would think is best. It's the only way I think I can wrap my head around your mental gymnastics.

1. Negotiate a bigger % of revenue than current, negotiate travel as they want, hotels as they want, per diem as they want. Negotiate bigger bonuses for major tournaments, appearance bonuses, win bonuses. Basically the same exact structure the men have, but with higher percentages or bonuses. With this, they would have to give up their guaranteed salaries, benefits, maternity leave, etc. If they aren't in a matchday squad they don't get paid.
2. Keep guaranteed compensation and additional benefits, which essentially keeps the domestic pro league afloat in exchange for a lower % of profit sharing.
3. Agree with USSF that they will except the exact same pay structure as the men, true equality. With this comes the mandate that USSF separate the men and women into two entities. Each get the same % from TV, gate, sponsor and merchandise sales. A committee with a Fed member, USMNT member and USWNT member would be part of the negotiating team for each entity.

Which one is closest to your line of thinking? I don't see many other viable options.

This is how it should be done. The MNT gets nothing. Zero. NBA and MLB players don’t get paid when they represent our country, because they don’t need the money. The little s**ts who can’t even beat T&T don’t deserve it because they don’t need it.

Furthermore, they also don’t deserve to get paid because, with the possible exception of Pulisic, every single one of them is completely replaceable by someone who would do it for free without any meaningful change in outcomes. There are 150 million men in the US, and any one of them can score zero goals just like Jozy Altidore. I concede that you would be hard-pressed to find someone in that 150 million who will turn over the ball at a higher rate than Michael Bradley or play less defense. You could field a team for free that will still lose to T&T. You could even make more money with the free team because they’re going to sell out the Rose Bowl when they play Mexico, instead of the current bunch doing that in a 24,000 seat stadium in Ohio because they’re too chicken to play in a real stadium.

And then pay the women at least twice what they currently make because, unlike the men, each of them individually is incredibly valuable. If you replace the best 18 with the next best, they don’t even make the WC finals and USSF’s advertising revenues completely collapse.

 

[texanincali]

This is how it should be done. The MNT gets nothing. Zero. NBA and MLB players don’t get paid when they represent our country, because they don’t need the money. The little s**ts who can’t even beat T&T don’t deserve it because they don’t need it.

Furthermore, they also don’t deserve to get paid because, with the possible exception of Pulisic, every single one of them is completely replaceable by someone who would do it for free without any meaningful change in outcomes. There are 150 million men in the US, and any one of them can score zero goals just like Jozy Altidore. I concede that you would be hard-pressed to find someone in that 150 million who will turn over the ball at a higher rate than Michael Bradley or play less defense. You could field a team for free that will still lose to T&T. You could even make more money with the free team because they’re going to sell out the Rose Bowl when they play Mexico, instead of the current bunch doing that in a 24,000 seat stadium in Ohio because they’re too chicken to play in a real stadium.

And then pay the women at least twice what they currently make because, unlike the men, each of them individually is incredibly valuable. If you replace the best 18 with the next best, they don’t even make the WC finals and USSF’s advertising revenues completely collapse.

Thanks for your honest response. I can now clearly see where you are coming from. I think the misandry, disingenuousness and whataboutism of your posts come through load and clear. I’ve enjoyed the debate.

 

[EOTL]

Thanks for your honest response. I can now clearly see where you are coming from. I think the misandry, disingenuousness and whataboutism of your posts come through load and clear. I’ve enjoyed the debate.

If you want an honest answer, read my prior posts. They are exhaustive if not exhausting.

 

[EOTL]

If you want an honest answer, read my prior posts. They are exhaustive if not exhausting.

And also answer my question about whether it’s ok to pay blacks less in a CBA...

 

[texanincali]

And also answer my question about whether it’s ok to pay blacks less in a CBA...

This is more exhausting than fighting with my 3 year old about eating her peas. In what world do African Americans, or blacks as you call them, collectively bargain as a race? Please give me one example of this. You need to come back to planet earth.

 

[EOTL]

You've gone off your rocker. Of course I/we can admit that. USSF admitted that. The financial statements admit that. The judge admitted that. The only ones that can seem to admit they were paid more when they earned more are the women's team. They were paid more during the period where they earned more. Are you disputing this? What am I missing here?


You can turn this into whatever "ism" you want, because that is really all you can fall back on. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What part of lower % in exchange for guaranteed pay are you not understanding? There is no way you can possibly not understand how simple this is. No one forced them to endure anything. The CBA was ratified and executed by them and their representatives.

One more thing. Labeling systemic discrimination as an “-ism” is offensive. It’s a pejorative term used to minimize the reality of discrimination and put down people who support civil rights. Any time someone discusses discrimination and says “whatever” tells me everything I need to know about your character.

 

[EOTL]

This is more exhausting than fighting with my 3 year old about eating her peas. In what world do African Americans, or blacks as you call them, collectively bargain as a race? Please give me one example of this. You need to come back to planet earth.

No, it is US companies that made them do this for many years. They were able to do this because their option was either take the lesser rate or be unemployed. Sound familiar?

Georgia Railroad is one that comes immediately to mind before they got slammed down by the NLRB. Answer the question.

 

[EOTL]

No, it is US companies that made them do this for many years. They were able to do this because their option was either take the lesser rate or be unemployed. Sound familiar?

Georgia Railroad is one that comes immediately to mind before they got slammed down by the NLRB. Answer the question.

And BTW, welcome to Cali cowboy.

 

[texanincali]

No, it is US companies that made them do this for many years. They were able to do this because their option was either take the lesser rate or be unemployed. Sound familiar?

Georgia Railroad is one that comes immediately to mind before they got slammed down by the NLRB. Answer the question.

Sorry for the delayed response. I had to have a quick debate with my other daughter who’s 9 to try and crack your code.

There is no question to answer. It’s purely and completely a hypothetical. I have no desire to debate Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Seriously, that little mouse in your head has to be tired of spinning that wheel. Let’s give her a rest and leave this alone. I wish the best for you and the USWNT and look forward to the upcoming protests that are sure to come.

 

[EOTL]

Sorry for the delayed response. I had to have a quick debate with my other daughter who’s 9 to try and crack your code.

There is no question to answer. It’s purely and completely a hypothetical. I have no desire to debate Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Seriously, that little mouse in your head has to be tired of spinning that wheel. Let’s give her a rest and leave this alone. I wish the best for you and the USWNT and look forward to the upcoming protests that are sure to come.

it’s not a hypothetical with the WNT, and it wasn’t if you were black and looking for a job at Georgia Railroad. You asked for an example and I gave
you one. Answer the question.

 

[EOTL]

it’s not a hypothetical with the WNT, and it wasn’t if you were black and looking for a job at Georgia Railroad. You asked for an example and I gave
you one. Answer the question.

Clearly you’re having trouble with the Hobson’s choice, but that’s the point. You’re either ok with racism or you need to concede that it’s not ok to make the WNT comply with a discriminatory CBA. It’s no wonder why you keep deflecting.

 

[Keepermom2]

Sorry for the delayed response. I had to have a quick debate with my other daughter who’s 9 to try and crack your code.

There is no question to answer. It’s purely and completely a hypothetical. I have no desire to debate Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Seriously, that little mouse in your head has to be tired of spinning that wheel. Let’s give her a rest and leave this alone. I wish the best for you and the USWNT and look forward to the upcoming protests that are sure to come.

The point is...you can't strictly look at this from the perspective of they signed a contract so they agreed to the pay they received. That isn't the way civil rights works.

 

[MWN]

@EOTL, @Keepermom2, @es_surf and @texanincali,

I don't think many would argue that the landscape facing women in sports is one of inequality. Inequality of revenue, pay, opportunity, etc.

We seem to be going around and round with the various arguments either accepting or not accepting an important fact, which is:

"Did the Federation and WNT attempt to address the inequality issue in 2011/12? If so, was it legally sufficient?"

I look at the facts and conclude that in 2011/12 the Federation and WNT worked together and attempted to craft an agreement that would balance the inequities of the women's game. Both parties recognized the inequities and concluded that if the WNT adopted the same pay structure as the MNT the women would have compensation swings that would be difficult to manage. This reality was due to the fact that the MNT players were solely under a performance for pay structure AND were being paid a living wage through their play in professional leagues. The women did not have a league (at the time) and wanted a different deal.

They received a different deal, the principal difference being they became salaried employees and in exchange for a $100k salary and benefits, agreed to take a lower amount of "bonus" compensation and received additional bonuses to if they played in the new NWSL.

Under the facts and circumstances facing both the USSF and WNT, I conclude the concessions and resulting CBA was legally sufficient to address the inequities facing the women's national team members, thus, the CBA did not violate the civil rights of the players. Moreover, this fact is borne out by the indisputable fact that during the period the WNT players brought their lawsuit, the WNT players were actually paid more than the MNT because the MNT failed to qualify for various bonuses due in large part to the MNT's failure to qualify for the World Cup.

There was not a prima facia "equal pay act" violation because the men were actually paid less. Moreover, I believe that even if the men were paid more, the Federation has an relatively air-tight affirmative defense under the "quality and quantity" exceptions to the Act.

Reasonable minds can look at the negotiations differently, but the fact the USWNT players were given a salary and NWSL bonus and health care, severance, child care, and many other benefits that the MNT did not receive makes me believe the Federation and WNT negotiated in good faith and there was no malice or intent to pay the women's less by taking advantage of an unequal bargaining position, rather, it was to pay them differently in an attempt to cure the inequities of the women's game versus the men's game.

"Did the Federation and WNT attempt to address the increasing "value" the WNT brought to the Federation in 2016/17? If so, was it legally sufficient?"

I conclude they did because the women successfully negotiated for the similar benefits they received in the 2011/12 CBA and negotiated for additional bonuses relating to ticket sales, viewership and exceeding revenue targets.

In short, the current CBA includes language that rewards the WNT for bringing in additional "quantities." The civil rights of the WNT was not violated by the Federation, and the parties have worked together in good faith to address the inequities through the guaranteed compensation and additional "value" bonuses.

 

[EOTL]

The point is...you can't strictly look at this from the perspective of they signed a contract so they agreed to the pay they received. That isn't the way civil rights works.

@EOTL, @Keepermom2, @es_surf and @texanincali,

I don't think many would argue that the landscape facing women in sports is one of inequality. Inequality of revenue, pay, opportunity, etc.

We seem to be going around and round with the various arguments either accepting or not accepting an important fact, which is:

"Did the Federation and WNT attempt to address the inequality issue in 2011/12? If so, was it legally sufficient?"

I look at the facts and conclude that in 2011/12 the Federation and WNT worked together and attempted to craft an agreement that would balance the inequities of the women's game. Both parties recognized the inequities and concluded that if the WNT adopted the same pay structure as the MNT the women would have compensation swings that would be difficult to manage. This reality was due to the fact that the MNT players were solely under a performance for pay structure AND were being paid a living wage through their play in professional leagues. The women did not have a league (at the time) and wanted a different deal.

They received a different deal, the principal difference being they became salaried employees and in exchange for a $100k salary and benefits, agreed to take a lower amount of "bonus" compensation and received additional bonuses to if they played in the new NWSL.

Under the facts and circumstances facing both the USSF and WNT, I conclude the concessions and resulting CBA was legally sufficient to address the inequities facing the women's national team members, thus, the CBA did not violate the civil rights of the players. Moreover, this fact is borne out by the indisputable fact that during the period the WNT players brought their lawsuit, the WNT players were actually paid more than the MNT because the MNT failed to qualify for various bonuses due in large part to the MNT's failure to qualify for the World Cup.

There was not a prima facia "equal pay act" violation because the men were actually paid less. Moreover, I believe that even if the men were paid more, the Federation has an relatively air-tight affirmative defense under the "quality and quantity" exceptions to the Act.

Reasonable minds can look at the negotiations differently, but the fact the USWNT players were given a salary and NWSL bonus and health care, severance, child care, and many other benefits that the MNT did not receive makes me believe the Federation and WNT negotiated in good faith and there was no malice or intent to pay the women's less by taking advantage of an unequal bargaining position, rather, it was to pay them differently in an attempt to cure the inequities of the women's game versus the men's game.

"Did the Federation and WNT attempt to address the increasing "value" the WNT brought to the Federation in 2016/17? If so, was it legally sufficient?"

I conclude they did because the women successfully negotiated for the similar benefits they received in the 2011/12 CBA and negotiated for additional bonuses relating to ticket sales, viewership and exceeding revenue targets.

In short, the current CBA includes language that rewards the WNT for bringing in additional "quantities." The civil rights of the WNT was not violated by the Federation, and the parties have worked together in good faith to address the inequities through the guaranteed compensation and additional "value" bonuses.

As I said earlier, the Equal Pay Act claim was always a weak one for the reasons you state. The elements of that claim do not fit well for their situation. That is not an argument I am making. The Title VII claim is the better one, although it doesn’t seem like the WNT lawyers understood that as early as they should have. It makes sense that they thought the EPA claim would be the better one because they certainly believed (as it turns out wrongly) that the women made less per game and that this would be a really simple and straightforward slam dunk because that would only require the adding up payments and then dividing it by games. You can see the mistake the WNT lawyers made very clearly when you look at their experts and the focus of their reports. But the Title VII claim requires a lot more detailed expert analysis and requires dragging in advertisers, which is often hard to do and risks killing the golden goose. They failed to do that work, and have at least temporarily paid the price for it.

Your conclusion that you believe the CBA did not violate their civil rights is certainly your opinion and you are entitled to that. But that does not mean the WNT are stuck with it because your opinion is that it’s fair enough. It seems that you are now saying you believe the CBA is fair, which is a point that merits legitimate discussion. But that is different than the argument you and others were making earlier, which is that it doesn’t matter whether the CBA discriminates against the WNT, they’re stuck with it because that’s what they agreed to. That latter argument is unequivocally b.s. and wrong. It’s just an excuse to avoid having to address the real issue, which is whether the terms are discriminatory and whether USSF was able to use its superior bargaining position over the WNT compared to the MNT to negotiate those deals by virtue of the fact that they are women. Because things start to go downhill fast for ya’ll when you do that. Even the court cited admissions by USSF in that regard that are very damaging.

Because reasonable minds may differ as you concede, that pretty much sums up why this case should go to a jury. Regardless, whether the WNT can fit their square facts into the round hole of an Equal Pay Act claim ignores the fundamental moral issue, which is whether the women should receive much more money than they currently do relative to the men, as it is undisputed that that they are responsible for far more of USSF’s profit.

 

[EOTL]

My favorite part of this discussion is how offended people get over the concept that not only do the WNT deserve “equal pay”, but they deserve a lot more pay. The concept that the WNT players are so much more valuable to USSF than the MNT players is something they assume cannot possibly be true.

The WNT lawyers completely screwed up by asserting the EPA claim at all, or at least leading off with it. By doing so, they framed the entire argument to their own detriment - which is that they are entitled to be paid the same amount - because an EPA claim focuses on whether they are paid the same amount, not whether they are paid for their actual value. Instead, the argument should have been that they should be paid based on the proportionate value they provide to USSF. the lawyers should have dismissed the EPA claim the minute it became clear that they were paid a little more overall.

Paying someone “equally” for either discrimination or moral purposes does not mean paying the same amount. It means paying people appropriately based on the value they provide. If, for example, a company pays a male and female sales person the same amount, but only because the man’s commission rate is higher, there is no EPA claim, but it is still problematic under Title VII. That’s the argument the WNT lawyers should have hammered home.

 

[Keepermom2]

As I said earlier, the Equal Pay Act claim was always a weak one for the reasons you state. The elements of that claim do not fit well for their situation. That is not an argument I am making. The Title VII claim is the better one, although it doesn’t seem like the WNT lawyers understood that as early as they should have. It makes sense that they thought the EPA claim would be the better one because they certainly believed (as it turns out wrongly) that the women made less per game and that this would be a really simple and straightforward slam dunk because that would only require the adding up payments and then dividing it by games. You can see the mistake the WNT lawyers made very clearly when you look at their experts and the focus of their reports. But the Title VII claim requires a lot more detailed expert analysis and requires dragging in advertisers, which is often hard to do and risks killing the golden goose. They failed to do that work, and have at least temporarily paid the price for it.

Your conclusion that you believe the CBA did not violate their civil rights is certainly your opinion and you are entitled to that. But that does not mean the WNT are stuck with it because your opinion is that it’s fair enough. It seems that you are now saying you believe the CBA is fair, which is a point that merits legitimate discussion. But that is different than the argument you and others were making earlier, which is that it doesn’t matter whether the CBA discriminates against the WNT, they’re stuck with it because that’s what they agreed to. That latter argument is unequivocally b.s. and wrong. It’s just an excuse to avoid having to address the real issue, which is whether the terms are discriminatory and whether USSF was able to use its superior bargaining position over the WNT compared to the MNT to negotiate those deals by virtue of the fact that they are women. Because things start to go downhill fast for ya’ll when you do that. Even the court cited admissions by USSF in that regard that are very damaging.

Because reasonable minds may differ as you concede, that pretty much sums up why this case should go to a jury. Regardless, whether the WNT can fit their square facts into the round hole of an Equal Pay Act claim ignores the fundamental moral issue, which is whether the women should receive much more money than they currently do relative to the men, as it is undisputed that that they are responsible for far more of USSF’s profit.

Like wasn't enough...."Bravo" is more appropriate.