Legal papers on WNT lawsuit from USSF

By Sean McCaffery, March 13, 2020

First one must understand that this is not a nice thing, it is a lawsuit, the truth matters not, winning does, whoever puts on the best show wins. The fact that it states things that may be hurtful, does not make them wrong or right, each side puts out things they want to help them win. This is totally one sided as it is from one side of the lawsuit, the US Soccer side.  I revieweed all 30+ pages of it and these are the nuggets that I took from it, some interesting things, all with the bent to help their side.

Members of the USWNT claim that their wages are below those of the opposite sex, yet of the 38 women invovled in the lawsuit, they were unable to name one man making more.

The women state that they are doing equal work, key to a sexism lawsuit.

Evidence of who makes more or less:

-wnt paid lower per game, wins and ties, for most friendlies.

-wnt less money in wins for World Cup Qualifiers, making it to the WC and making that roster.

USSF claims:

1 wnt are looking only at select aspects of the CBA, not the whole of it.

2 wnt offered up no mnt player to compare pay to.

3 cba:100K min. to those on wnt roster, Morgan will still get 75% of that money although out pregnant, Brian let go in Dec., will still get 25% of her money (severance) through March. While the MNT       are only paid when called in.

4 wnt get a 10k signing bonus, mnt 0.

5 wnt VIctory Tour is 5 games, the wnt get 80k per player.

6 wnt: more money from attendance, better tv ratings & sponsorship monies. 

7 if the mnt had the same CBA as the wnt, they would also make more money.

The above #'s 3-8 are considered to be wages by the Federation.

Do they work for the same establishment. This includes a few things do they interchange players as say a custodial crew and locations of work. There are many considerations here, the varying locations are at times a function of geography, both are in Concacaf, but the players play for the men or the women not both. The work you do that is elsewhere is for a short time, 90 minutes plus warm ups etc. in a bad environment in an away game or home, moreso for the men than the women being at home as they are far more successful. Different coaches & GM's ( a new position) decide locales of games and team administrators decide travel and lodging as per legal filliings. Budgets, marketing, IP, etc varies, further not same establishment according to USSF.

It is not the same job & working conditions:

-skill is measured by : experience, ability, education and job training.

-men have more skill, Lloyd stated 16-17 year old boys are the oldest the wnt are competitve with.

-if equal, but men are thought to be 10-12% faster and stronger by a valued study out of Duke.

-an example of prison guards was brought up often here, women do guard the men but men do not guard the women, not fair as there are sure to be far more issues with men & women than vice          versa.

-the mnt requires more skill than does the wnt as they play against stronger oppponents

-mnt will play in games with up to $40 mil. in prize money while the wnt plays in such games 1 of every 4 years with 1/10 of the money available.

-mnt millions more watch on tv, 5x without a World Cup game, last WC for mnt they had 3x the views despite bowing out far earlier than the wnt.

-non W.C games, Olympics, SBC, Tournament of Nations , wnt is mnt is not paid for olympics. MNT, Gold Cup, Confederations Cup, etc. are official games set by the Federations, more games and pay    out of over a million to victors. As per O'Hara WC is more important as it is once ever 4 years compared to SBC & TON.

-for friendlies the mnt get more if they beat a top 25 team or any tie, the wnt get more money to beat a non top 25 team, bear in mind the wnt get 100k per player per year extra.

-wc: the mnt CBA pays them more to win it (no time soon), than does that of the WNT, but the Men's WC is far more popular, pays out $34 million more and the qualification process is longer and          harder.

-more wc money to men+more $$ to players. not more bounuses as the smaller payouts on the wnt win would "Break" the USSF.

-wnt want more than the men for friendlies but the men generate 200k more per game, the wnt has more benefits while getting less $.

-in CBA negotiating, some of the same players are still on the wnt, they did not ask for equal pay on pay for friendlies.

-wnt get a bigger % of monies, wnt has more $ paid out than the mnt, some make more than if under the mnt cba, mnt would make more under the wnt CBA.

-wnt claim they get "less than the mnt for substantially equal work".

-there would be no "claw back" as neither job has changed much from past to present.

-new items were presented by the wnt, then was not the time for new things. 

-wnt is unable to show the only reason for issues is due to gender to a sensible juror.

-current CBA has wnt & union geting 2.5x the money as mnt and their union as USSF refuses to pay mnt for Olympics.

-a labor economist explained that all 4 classes participate, wnt out earned mnt, USSF has fought to raise the profile of wnt, paying 2 different salaries, & benefits, $ help to NWSL was to the benefit        of the players.

-claims that Cordiero, past USSF pres. stating the wnt not equal or due equal pay was less $ from the WC, less from mnt, no money from tournies, not USSF decision but that of the tournies, SBC and       USSF pushing for more money in WC shows how USSF was helping.

-previous past USSF pres. Gulati made comment on strength, were not tied to $ but rather to show they do different jobs.

-USSF atty, Sauer has denied remarks and Rapinoe is no sure if he made them of "market realities" being revenue, attendance & tv ratings as proof.

Do I agree to any of the above, no idea, it is the view of one side of this battle. Do they work for different establishments?, in my limited understanding of the term, NO. That the MNT will play before hostile crowds at home is I feel a function of their lack of success, causing more who support the visitors to come out, the last CCL game was a great example of a hostile crowd, 2/3 of the fans were for Tigres. I think one issue with the money is that the two teams are often marketed and sold to firms as a package, which is more valuable, who is to say? Which has been more successful, that is a no brainer. Who brings in more money is key to this, as is the % of what they get. Should more be paid out the more successful you are yes, what if the money is not there, clearly, it cannot then be paid out. If FIFA pays out 10's of millions more to the Men's game why should the USSF be on the hook to make up the difference, if an equal % is to be paid out, I would negotiate with the men giving them a higher cut to give them less in other aspects as they are not going to win the World Cup in the foreseeable future, saving the Federation money. The women advance further in tournies, few if any outside of the WC pay so if no prize money is given what is to be given to them for winning? The federation does get them into these games so they should be paid more as they advance in representing the USSF. Math is simple what goes out must be less than what comes in, the more successful should be paid more, but success is both on the field and in the ledger book.