jeffk said:

---

There's some pretty obvious inequalities that I think *should* get solved in arbitration. Per diem is the example that comes to mind this morning.

But "equal pay" isn't feasible as long as the two teams are operating under such different agreements. If the women want equal game checks, they'll most likely have to lose some of their NWSL salary subsidies. I guess we'll see what they value more.

---

Well said. Per diem, travel accommodations and other non-salary expenses should be equal. I get the same per diem when traveling for company as my female co-workers.

Like yousaid, if they truly want to get equal pay from USSF, then they need to get off salary model and get paid by their NWSL club and get bonuses only when on the roster for friendlies and tournaments.

As a raging libtard, I'd like to separate this from #metoo, because one issue is highly concerning and legitimate and the other is a complete farce.

USSF and FIFA are already subsidizing women's soccer because the market is not developed enough to support it. And if we were discussing something critical to the function of our society, as a libtard, you'd better believe I'd be all in favor of swimming against the market. But this is entertainment. All hail the market.

This would be like if the female actors of Good Girls sued NBC for making less than Al Michaels on Sunday Night Football.

Quote:

---

Why did the lawsuit use numbers from old CBA when there is a new one out?

---

That part of the lawsuit was probably just for the "other court"

littlebitofhifi said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

So aren't they really mad at FIFA for having a significantly smaller prize pool for the women vs the men (because of the money generated by the events) and are just trying to use the #metoo movement and court of public opinion to get US Soccer to pay them even more?

I hope the arbitrator sees it for what it is, but that's doubtful

---

1) it's about much more than the FIFA prize money. The teams have different pay structures but it's also about pay per game, per diems, win bonuses (for all competitions, not just WC), etc.
2) Please don't lump this in with #metoo. The USWNT has been fighting this battle since the 90s (I recommend Caitlin Murphy's recent book if you want more history & context). They have made great strides by fighting this fight and whether or not you believe they already have or deserve equal pay, this has nothing to do with sexual harassment/assault and all gender issues should not be labeled as such.

---

Fair enough on the #metoo movement, no need to bring that up...but as others have mentioned, when they negotiated a contract via the CBA that has guaranteed pay, I don't see why they are arguing about it, especially when the contract that the men play under is completely different (as they negotiated).

WE'LL SEE YOU IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!

I said this on Politics a few weeks ago. The women are going to cut off their nose to spite their face.

If they get what they say they want, they're going to kill the NWSL. The NWSL players who aren't on the national team should be livid.

Im not sure per diem should be the same. Pulisic's club salary is much higher than, say, rapione's salary. Economiclly speaking, the value of pulisic's time is is higher than rapione's. Its pretty much down the line that usmnt players have higher club salaries/monetary value than women's members.

That's not a sexist statement, it is reality. Clearly, the real time spent training, prepping, investing and so on in their game is pretty much equal.

Not to mention, the insurance cost for someone like pulisic to play for the national team must be astronomical. I remember dirk nowitski's had insurance costs so high on one ankle that he couldnt play for Germany's national basketball team because the Mavericks wouldnt cover it.

The whole point is that it isnt so black and white and that there is a lot of nuance to this debate. Simply saying pay them the same isn't probably the most equitable solution for all parties.

Men's players union response - they don't appear to be big fans of Cordiero either.

Quote:

---

Im not sure per diem should be the same. Pulisic's club salary is much higher than, say, rapione's salary. Economiclly speaking, the value of pulisic's time is is higher than rapione's. Its pretty much down the line that usmnt players have higher club salaries/monetary value than women's members.

---

I think we may not be talking about the same thing. My per diem is more about food allowance and etc. for being called in to the camps and matches. I don't believe there should be any difference between the teams. It is not the match pay and bonus associated with results.

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Im not sure per diem should be the same. Pulisic's club salary is much higher than, say, rapione's salary. Economiclly speaking, the value of pulisic's time is is higher than rapione's. Its pretty much down the line that usmnt players have higher club salaries/monetary value than women's members.

---

I think we may not be talking about the same thing. My per diem is more about food allowance and etc. for being called in to the camps and matches. I don't believe there should be any difference between the teams. It is not the match pay and bonus associated with results.

---

I agree with you there.

Food allowances, hotel accommodations, field conditions and anything else of separate value not attached to an individual should be the same.

Yeah, meal allotments, accommodations, etc. That's what I was referring to as per diem.

Game checks are where the real squabbles are taking place.

Not related to any of this but Jill Ellis is stepping down.

https://equalizersoccer.com/2019/07/30/jill-ellis-steps-down-uswnt-coach-world-cup-champion-victory-tour/

Does the fact that the USSF is a non-profit affect any of this?

AgRyan04 said:

---

Does the fact that the USSF is a non-profit affect any of this?

---

Nope it shouldn't. They supposedly have a significant surplus of 100M+ in their coffers as recently as LY.

drwong said:

---

Not related to any of this but Jill Ellis is stepping down.

https://equalizersoccer.com/2019/07/30/jill-ellis-steps-down-uswnt-coach-world-cup-champion-victory-tour/

---

I guess my question has been answered.

Will Jill Ellis coach the Olympic Team? I guess not!

I was thinking more in terms of whether being a non-profit obligates them to do more.

I could see if it was a regular company and keeping men's compensation tied to men's revenue and women's compensation tied to women's revenue....I wasn't sure if being a non-profit there were different rules they had to follow.

The whole thing is a bit of a mess. The way they're each set up now, it's simply not comparing apples to apples.

The business side of this is going to be all ****ed up especially regarding TV rights if it gets delved into because by and large it is Soccer United Marketing, which is a joint venture between the owners of MLS and the movers and shakers within the USSF that is the actual entity that makes fistfuls of cash and not MLS nor the USSF.

I think this is an often overlooked point. USSF is not required to tie men's and women's player compensation directly to revenue earned by gender, although they can if that's their operating model.
USSF is a non-profit organization created to represent US soccer's interests in global competitions with a mission "to make soccer, in all its forms, a preeminent sport in the United States and to continue the development of soccer at all recreational and competitive levels".
They can choose how to spend funds on marketing, players comp, coaches, DAs, professional leagues, etc as they see fit to achieve that mission, regardless of where those funds are sourced (Fifa, sponsorships, endowments, etc). Some federations give zero funds to women, despite FIFA "requirements". Some federations have taken funds from men's commercial activities and reallocated to women's in order to develop their historically underdeveloped teams. It's a choice the federations can make to meet their objectives.

Sorry women, but I'll trade 100 Women's World Cups for 1 Men's title. The effort and money should flow likewise.

It doesn't have to be an either/or. It's ok to support both the USWNT and the USMNT...we can win both but USSF has to get their house in order for both teams.

It really needs to be brought up that the USMNT plays a tougher schedule when it comes to qualifying for the world cup. I remember the complaints the USWNT made about poor field conditions at the Canada World Cup - uh let's compare the conditions the USMNT had to play in vs. what the USWNT had to play in. And the length of time it takes.

I mean has USWNT ever played against Mexico at Estadio Azteca on a hot summer's day?

TheMasterplan said:

---

It really needs to be brought up that the USMNT plays a tougher schedule when it comes to qualifying for the world cup. I remember the complaints the USWNT made about poor field conditions at the Canada World Cup - uh let's compare the conditions the USMNT had to play in vs. what the USWNT had to play in. And the length of time it takes.

I mean has USWNT ever played against Mexico at Estadio Azteca on a hot summer's day?

---

No the women play 5 games over two weeks to qualify. All but one of the last 5 qualifying tournaments were held in the US. qualification for 2011 was held in Cancun.

Essentially they are making the same mistake that always seems to get made in these situations. They have plenty of facts and logic to make their case for more money. Instead, they try to twist numbers and logic to imply the men unfairly get paid more and that makes a lot of us no longer want to support your cause.
If you truly are just, just present the facts as is, and your case based on those facts.

They don't bring in the money the me s team does AND they get paid a salary that the men don't...they have a dumb argument.

The per diem stuff could be changed if they agreed to what the men agreed to but they opted for a higher salary...so there's less money for per diem, travel allowances, etc. feelings and emotions don't show up on a balance sheet but these idiots don't understand that.

WWC expansion for 2023 is official!

Quote:

---

but this will incentivize new countries to invest in the women's game

---

But will it?

I (and most pundits) say yes. It opens up a realistic chance for many nations who wouldn't otherwise qualify to make the tournament and tourney exposure + FIFA funds for qualifying are huge incentives. We've seen this growth with both the 1999 and 2015 expanded fields.

And while some are hesitant about the potential for more group stage blowouts, it will also mean group stage means so much more. No more 3rd place qualifiers so every match matters.

littlebitofhifi said:

---

I (and most pundits) say yes. It opens up a realistic chance for many nations who wouldn't otherwise qualify to make the tournament and tourney exposure + FIFA funds for qualifying are huge incentives. We've seen this growth with both the 1999 and 2015 expanded fields.

And while some are hesitant about the potential for more group stage blowouts, it will also mean group stage means so much more. No more 3rd place qualifiers so every match matters.

---

Expanded field have helped but even the Jamaican WC team needed to be subsidized by donations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/sports/womens-world-cup-jamaica.html

The cost of training grounds, proper coaches, physios, gear, equipment, flights across the world all adds up. I get it that TV ads and large international consumer goods companies are basically footing the the bills, but imo, adding more teams to the WC may help but adding more money to current pool of less teams would help even more.

How do you add more money to existing teams without expanding a tournament, therefore more games, and more tv coverage?

(Aside from the obvious enforcement of federations to actually spend money allocated to female football on female football instead of all on the men).

Cant FIFA simply allocate more $$ to payouts for women's game? There's obviously plenty of money for the men. Take $5 million out of the men's pool of cash and put it in the women;s pool. Seems pretty simple. FIFA can basically do what it wants accounting-wise.

What "new" countries are going to be investing significant amounts of money? Dont get me wrong, it will be great for Europe, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL but will this have any impact in Africa and the parts of Asia that really need more gender equality?

Yeah that's fair. They don't even have to take it out of the "men's pool" because technically their reserves aren't allocated by gender and they're sitting on something like $2.7B right now. They are adding $30M to the 2023 women's payout but they're adding $40M to the 2022 men's. They have cash to invest in women if they want, but they're choosing not to.

That said, I still think expansion is better for the game than just investing in the current top 24 teams (even though those ranked 10-24 are substantially underfunded vs the top 10). You need those bubble teams to be competitive and vie for qualification in order to improve the level of competition top to bottom.

And yes, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL are the big winners here because they'll get the funding with less of a cultural hurdle to overcome. Most of Africa unfortunately is still going to have massive cultural & corruption hurdles and Asia feels like a lost cause.

But Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, Colombia could all make huge strides. Even Haiti was able to field a decent team at last year's U-20 World Cup.