Womens Soccer Championship.

[StillAWarrior]

Another issue is many of the men play overseas, and often the highest paid ones. For instance, Christian Pulisic was making $1.15M per year at Dortmund and will make significantly more at Chelsea, but none of that is factored in. His salary alone projected over 10 years would more than offset the disparity. While that's a one year sample size for one player, guys like Dempsey, Donovan, Bradley, Brooks, Howard, Guzan, Yedlin, and dozens others have been earning far more than the women both in MLS and abroad over that time period.

Honestly, those facts don't help the women's case against USA Soccer and could present one of the larger challenges for them in their lawsuit.

[brewcity77]

Honestly, those facts don't help the women's case against USA Soccer and could present one of the larger challenges for them in their lawsuit.

It will come down to the courts, but I disagree. Working for club and working for country are two completely separate jobs. In the men's game, the two take each other's schedules into account, but no one would confuse the work done for Chelsea FC, LA Galaxy, Hertha Berlin, or any other club side with the work done for the USA or any other country. It is not the same. Basically, it is like having a full-time job and part-time job on the side.

This is comparing the men's side gig to all of the women's full time and side jobs. It's apples and oranges. And how many NWSL players don't even make the NT yet have their salaries counted? Further, the NWSL max salary is more than $20,000/year less than the minimum full-time MLS salary.

The women also play more NT matches than the men (largely thanks to the Olympics being a full roster event for women and not men) so it's even more apples and oranges.

For this to be an honest comparison, they have to look at the equal comparables, which would be senior men's national team appearances only, comparing that to senior women's team national team appearances only, determining how success should factor in, and then adding additional pay for club and additional country work pay for the women on top of all that.

Essentially, the USSF argument is that Megan Rapinoe, who won the Golden Ball, Golden Boot, and will likely win the FIFA Women's Best Player Award, making $245,000 in total salary is more than Christian Pulisic, who made roughly $1,400,000 in total salary last year between Dortmund and the USMNT and won't come remotely close to the men's equivalent of any of those awards. That is hard context to ignore.

[StillAWarrior]

It will come down to the courts, but I disagree. Working for club and working for country are two completely separate jobs. In the men's game, the two take each other's schedules into account, but no one would confuse the work done for Chelsea FC, LA Galaxy, Hertha Berlin, or any other club side with the work done for the USA or any other country. It is not the same. Basically, it is like having a full-time job and part-time job on the side.

This is comparing the men's side gig to all of the women's full time and side jobs. It's apples and oranges. And how many NWSL players don't even make the NT yet have their salaries counted? Further, the NWSL max salary is more than $20,000/year less than the minimum full-time MLS salary.

The women also play more NT matches than the men (largely thanks to the Olympics being a full roster event for women and not men) so it's even more apples and oranges.

For this to be an honest comparison, they have to look at the equal comparables, which would be senior men's national team appearances only, comparing that to senior women's team national team appearances only, determining how success should factor in, and then adding additional pay for club and additional country work pay for the women on top of all that.

Essentially, the USSF argument is that Megan Rapinoe, who won the Golden Ball, Golden Boot, and will likely win the FIFA Women's Best Player Award, making $245,000 in total salary is more than Christian Pulisic, who made roughly $1,400,000 in total salary last year between Dortmund and the USMNT and won't come remotely close to the men's equivalent of any of those awards. That is hard context to ignore.

I agree completely that the comparison in that article are ridiculous...apples to oranges.  It's not a fair comparison.

But, the reason that the disparity between the men and women in their "regular jobs" is relevant is that it relates to opportunity cost -- which likely will be relevant in the lawsuit.  In the simplest of terms, it would be cheaper to get my son to wash your car than it would be to get me to do it; and it Mark Cuban would almost certainly charge you even more.  How much someone earns in their "regular job" will affect how much USA Soccer must pay them to get them to play on the national team.  In order to win a discrimination case, a plaintiff must establish that he/she is similarly situated to his/her comparitors.  The fact that the male soccer players make far more in their "regular jobs" will be hurdle that the women will have to get over to succeed in their lawsuit.  It gives USA Soccer an argument that the men and women are not similarly situated.

I'm not saying it's fair -- and it absolutely smacks of the systemic sexism that has been discussed at length in this thread -- but from a legal perspective it might make their lawsuit more difficult.

[Jay Bee]

The men should sue! Better players!

[Pakuni]

I agree completely that the comparison in that article are ridiculous...apples to oranges.  It's not a fair comparison.

But, the reason that the disparity between the men and women in their "regular jobs" is relevant is that it relates to opportunity cost -- which likely will be relevant in the lawsuit.  In the simplest of terms, it would be cheaper to get my son to wash your car than it would be to get me to do it; and it Mark Cuban would almost certainly charge you even more.  How much someone earns in their "regular job" will affect how much USA Soccer must pay them to get them to play on the national team.  In order to win a discrimination case, a plaintiff must establish that he/she is similarly situated to his/her comparitors.  The fact that the male soccer players make far more in their "regular jobs" will be hurdle that the women will have to get over to succeed in their lawsuit.  It gives USA Soccer an argument that the men and women are not similarly situated.

I'm not saying it's fair -- and it absolutely smacks of the systemic sexism that has been discussed at length in this thread -- but from a legal perspective it might make their lawsuit more difficult.

I think in 99 percent of instances you're 100 percent correct, but representing one's nation in something like a World Cup isn't analogous to 99+ percent of situations.
It's not as if USA soccer needs to compete with others for American players' services in international play (Jozy Altidore isn't suddenly becoming Panamanian if they offer him more money) nor is compensation really a determining factor in whether a player chooses to play for their national team.
And most professional men's soccer leagues (MLS an exception) take "international breaks" during national team competitions, so there's no opportunity cost for the player who chooses to miss time from his club team to play for country.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Scoop: Where futbol meets football.  Foosball on deck.

[StillAWarrior]

I think in 99 percent of instances you're 100 percent correct, but representing one's nation in something like a World Cup isn't analogous to 99+ percent of situations.
It's not as if USA soccer needs to compete with others for American players' services in international play (Jozy Altidore isn't suddenly becoming Panamanian if they offer him more money) nor is compensation really a determining factor in whether a player chooses to play for their national team.
And most professional men's soccer leagues (MLS an exception) take "international breaks" during national team competitions, so there's no opportunity cost for the player who chooses to miss time from his club team to play for country.

I think that you might very well be correct.  That's a great argument, and I'm sure the women will make it.  And it might actually carry the day.  But, the counter argument is also a valid argument -- from a legal perspective, anyway.

And of course there is opportunity cost.  Resting for a couple months (or recovering from nagging injuries) might be quite attractive to someone who makes a lot of money in a "regular job."  That is weighed against playing for the national team.  It's not the same as "I'll lose x dollars if I play..." but it's still opportunity cost.

[Pakuni]

Seems relevant:

Grant Wahl @GrantWahl
USWNT coach Jill Ellis is stepping down. First reported by @JeffKassouf, have confirmed independently.

[rocket surgeon]

Thanks rocket appreciate it

just making sure there is balance

[Cheeks]

The USSF is propping up the women’s pro league to a degree, they don’t have to with MLS, so of course their argument is they are paying.  Put another way, would the pro league exist without the USSF backing?  Probably not as these have failed before multiple times.  Same reason the WNBA doesn’t exist without the NBA.

 I am not surprised at all they are arguing this should be part of the equation because they are paying for those 22 players via a subsidy.  That money isn’t coming from somewhere else, so why wouldn’t it be counted.  Whether the courts agree...who knows.  If the USSF pulled the plug on NWSL since the money “shouldn’t count”, I’m guessing folks wouldn’t be too happy without either.

[Pakuni]

The USSF is propping up the women’s pro league to a degree, they don’t have to with MLS, so of course their argument is they are paying.  Put another way, would the pro league exist without the USSF backing?  Probably not as these have failed before multiple times.  Same reason the WNBA doesn’t exist without the NBA.

 I am not surprised at all they are arguing this should be part of the equation because they are paying for those 22 players via a subsidy.  That money isn’t coming from somewhere else, so why wouldn’t it be counted.  Whether the courts agree...who knows.  If the USSF pulled the plug on NWSL since the money “shouldn’t count”, I’m guessing folks wouldn’t be too happy without either.

Yeah, except this makes no sense.
Whatever money the NWSL players receive as compensation through the USSF is for their play in NWSL competitions. It is entirely separate from their compensation for national team events, which is the issue here.
Beyond that, it gives only total numbers, ignoring the fact that during the time frame cited, the women's team played 47 more matches than the men. I mean, yeah, a person getting minimum wage will earn more than someone making $50 an hour if he/she works 10 times as many hours, but that doesn't make the minimum wage employee better paid.

Including the club compensation is a clumsy and obvious sleight-of-hand that all sides  - including the men's team - are calling out for the nonsense that it is.

[Cheeks]

Yeah, except this makes no sense.
Whatever money the NWSL players receive as compensation through the USSF is for their play in NWSL competitions. It is entirely separate from their compensation for national team events, which is the issue here.
Beyond that, it gives only total numbers, ignoring the fact that during the time frame cited, the women's team played 47 more matches than the men. I mean, yeah, a person getting minimum wage will earn more than someone making $50 an hour if he/she works 10 times as many hours, but that doesn't make the minimum wage employee better paid.

Including the club compensation is a clumsy and obvious sleight-of-hand that all sides  - including the men's team - are calling out for the nonsense that it is.

Is a condition of their contract to play in the NWSL for which they are compensated?  If so, it should count.

No different than when I hire Patrick Mahomes to do a commercial for us, he is also doing appearances, interviews, etc and compensated for all of it, even if the lion share of the value is tied to the commercial.  Now, I don’t know if the contract requires they play in the NWSL, but if it does the yes it should count. 

[brewcity77]

Is a condition of their contract to play in the NWSL for which they are compensated?  If so, it should count.

No different than when I hire Patrick Mahomes to do a commercial for us, he is also doing appearances, interviews, etc and compensated for all of it, even if the lion share of the value is tied to the commercial.  Now, I don’t know if the contract requires they play in the NWSL, but if it does the yes it should count.

Are you working for the Chiefs now and paying his NFL salary? Because otherwise this is a stupid false equivalency.

[Cheeks]

Are you working for the Chiefs now and paying his NFL salary? Because otherwise this is a stupid false equivalency.

Nope, but athletes and celebs can get paid to do endorsements as professionals.  Nothing false or stupid about it at all, just reality of sports and celebrity advertising that happens every day in this world.

[Cheeks]

In each season, teams receive a salary cap that limits their total spending on players. The salaries of allocated players from the United States, Canadian, and (formerly) Mexican national teams are paid by their respective federations instead of their NWSL clubs, and do not count against their club's salary cap.

If this is true, per the CNET article, then why on earth would the USSF NOT be allowed to count it?  If the federation is paying their salaries and not the NWSL, they absolutely should be able to count it.  The money isn't growing on trees and coming out of thin air.  It's a win for the women to earn extra money, a chance to give the women's game more exposure here in the States, and a move by the USSF knowing that they need to prop it up (just like NBA with WNBA) in order for it to survive on its own. Until the women's game is self sustainable, that's the deal.  It seems like some are missing that overall point.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It shouldn’t be “allowed to count” because it isn’t an apples to apples comparison. It isn’t equal pay for equal work because the women are working MORE to earn their pay.

[StillAWarrior]

It shouldn’t be “allowed to count” because it isn’t an apples to apples comparison. It isn’t equal pay for equal work because the women are working MORE to earn their pay.

I'll argue for a slightly semantic difference from what you said.  Sure, go ahead and count it.  But, what he hell difference does it make?  You can't really get credit for equal pay when you're paying one group more...but it's for working two jobs.

And for the record, I'm still fairly neutral on the overall issue because I feel like I don't have enough information.  I've seen both sides' "talking points" and cherry-picked information.  This most recent information released that includes money paid for their league play in addition to the USWNT pay really doesn't help them much and makes them seem desperate.  From my perspective -- as someone who's not sure which side is right -- it hurt their credibility.

That said, as someone who is probably someone who is far more familiar with how discrimination litigation works than most...I can see this is a strategic move.  It muddies the water.  They are probably trying to actually make the case that men to women, overall, is an apples to oranges comparison.  That could be helpful to USA Soccer in the litigation.  The more people who support the women who start saying that it's apples to oranges, the better as far as USA Soccer is concerned.  Their response, "Exactly."

[Cheeks]

It shouldn’t be “allowed to count” because it isn’t an apples to apples comparison. It isn’t equal pay for equal work because the women are working MORE to earn their pay.

Define equal work.  This is where that argument always dies regardless of the profession or job.  Are the men not playing in leagues when not on the national team? So how is it extra work?

End of the day, the great irony here is the NWSL, on the heels of two failed leagues, was created to HELP grow the women’s game and to compensate women more then they were being compensated is now somehow a laborious thing that if the USSF wasn’t propping up there would be no women’s league, no extra money and the every 4 year cycle of “look how good we are” would run its course with no momentum.  The entire point of the NWSL is to build sustainment, and this BENEFITS the women’s players today and more importantly, for the future.

The women have to play anyway and train, etc, the fact that only the NWSL (aka USSF) is the only entity that is willing to do that should be counted and seen as a plus.  What’s the alternative?  No league, no extra pay, no games, no exposure?  Sure, great idea.  So it’s not extra work as the men are playing in MLS or overseas, just as the women are.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Define equal work.  This is where that argument always dies regardless of the profession or job.  Are the men not playing in leagues when not on the national team? So how is it extra work?

Because they are being paid more by a different organization to do that work.

[Pakuni]

Nope, but athletes and celebs can get paid to do endorsements as professionals.  Nothing false or stupid about it at all, just reality of sports and celebrity advertising that happens every day in this world.

So, do the Chiefs count what Mahomes earns via endorsements as part of the salary they're paying him? Should endorsement money earned by Megan Rapione count as compensation from the national team?
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to argue here, other than it's utterly specious.

[Cheeks]

Because they are being paid more by a different organization to do that work.

Key is different organization.  MLS or others are paying more because they generate more revenues and actually stay in business.  Two women’s leagues have already failed, and the current one (NWSL) exists only because of the USSF.  I’m sorry that economics keeps kicking into reality here.

Isn’t part of the equal work to bring in the crowds, create a product the public wants to buy consistently, not just once every four years, etc, etc?  This is why the equal work argument is often flawed....the production or output of work matters, which includes growing the game, fannies in the seats consistently, tv ratings consistently, etc.  Care to take a guess at NWSL attendance and ratings vs MLS?

[Cheeks]

So, do the Chiefs count what Mahomes earns via endorsements as part of the salary they're paying him? Should endorsement money earned by Megan Rapione count as compensation from the national team?
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to argue here, other than it's utterly specious.

Nope, they don’t directly, though indirectly sports teams do....it’s the pitch Anthony Davis got from Lebron to come to Lakers....Davis will be part of Space Jam2 and make way more money in endorsements in LA then elsewhere.

But that aside, as you know the Chiefs don’t count it, but the Chiefs also aren’t contractually requiring him to do it either.  If I am understanding correctly, the women’s US team need a place to pay when not on the US team, and that place is NWSL for which they are paid by USSF as a result of them being on the USWNT...that’s the difference.  I suppose the women could say they refuse to pay for NWSL...the what?  Where are they going to play?  What mechanism exists, especially in light of the current mechanism only exists because of the USSF propping up a league that isn’t able to stand up by itself?

[Pakuni]

I suppose the women could say they refuse to pay for NWSL...the what?  Where are they going to play?  What mechanism exists, especially in light of the current mechanism only exists because of the USSF propping up a league that isn’t able to stand up by itself?

There are professional women's leagues in Europe.

[Its DJOver]

There are professional women's leagues in Europe.

Not exactly solving the equal pay debate by going overseas.

https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/how-much-are-womens-super-league-footballers-paid-compared/p2h8oe98nzjh1a9bqr04pcuu5

"Some Premier League players earning more in one day than most WSL players earn in a year" 

The pay discrepancy in the US is far from ideal or fair, but its a lot closer to fair than some of the European systems, which are also attempting to reduce the number of foreign players in their Women's system in an attempt to boost their own countries international abilities (a system that I would be in favor of the MLS adopting).

[Pakuni]

Not exactly solving the equal pay debate by going overseas.

https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/how-much-are-womens-super-league-footballers-paid-compared/p2h8oe98nzjh1a9bqr04pcuu5

"Some Premier League players earning more in one day than most WSL players earn in a year" 

The pay discrepancy in the US is far from ideal or fair, but its a lot closer to fair than some of the European systems, which are also attempting to reduce the number of foreign players in their Women's system in an attempt to boost their own countries international abilities (a system that I would be in favor of the MLS adopting).

Nobody is having an "equal pay" debate over club compensation, though.
The issue is over national team compensation, and the ham-fisted attempts by the USSF to roll club compensation into national team compensation.