Something I heard about female soccer players

[laughing dog]

That's the complaint.
They are negotiating this now, aren't they. Apparently talking in person didn't do anything, so now they are negotiating in court.
Good negotiators!

No, they are suing. They want to use the government to force the USSF to pay them a certain amount even they freely agreed to another.
Negotiating would be: I want this much money, or I walk. Not: I want this much money and here's the government to take it from you.

However, despite your objections, contracts must conform to the laws of the land, and discrimination by gender is not permitted. Since the USSF will not agree to amend the contract, the women are within their rights under the US Constitution to seek remedies through the civil court system. To oppose such an exercise of rights is anti-America. So, why do you hate America?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Another factor would be the competition from the players. If a highly skilled male US soccer player has the option of going to play for a European club for a much higher salary and the female players don't have that option, then the men's teams would need to have higher salaries to account for that competition, regardless of the revenue specific to the US sport.

 

[Derec]

Sexism in soccer is obvious. For example, the last Women's world cup was played on astroturf - something FIFA will not permit for men's soccer.

Don't blame sexism, blame Canada. Or even better, blame it on nobody else bidding for the World Cup.
Myself, I don't understand why the women's World Cup is not simply held whereever men's Cup is held the year before. World class facilities are already built which would help control costs.

Even though the women complained that was unfair (which it is), it didn't matter.

It's Hobson's choice - either you play on turf or not at all.

 

[Derec]

However, despite your objections, contracts must conform to the laws of the land, and discrimination by gender is not permitted.

So WNBA players make as much as Lebron or Kobe? Male porn stars make as much as female ones?

Since the USSF will not agree to amend the contract, the women are within their rights under the US Constitution to seek remedies through the civil court system.

Which amendment in particular guarantees female athletes to be paid as much as male ones?

To oppose such an exercise of rights is anti-America. So, why do you hate America?

I oppose frivolous lawsuits.

 

[dismal]

Yes, though data that actually demonstrate this have been scarce and there could be other factors involved.

I fully support any woman refusing to play if they don't think they are being paid enough.

But this does not belong in courts and "equality" has nothing to do with it. If they generate more revenue they may be able to negotiate more money than the men.

Ah, yes, the famous other unnamed factors involved. But you are correct, there are other factors involved.

Playing for your country is a privilege. It is not done for money. What ever they are paid it is only token, a small fraction of what they are paid by their club teams. This is another factor involved that doesn't have to remain unnamed.

One factor that can be named: to some extent the revenue generated by the national team is about the laundry not the player. Would the US team generate as much revenue if Hope "the Domestic Violator" Solo didn't play? Yeah, probably about the same. Our 20th best goal keeper is probably good enough to beat a team full of school teachers and shop clerks from the Dominican Republic.

Another factor that can be named: These women need the national team more than the national team needs them. This is their only path to fame celebrity and endorsements. To the extent we know who any of these women are, it's because they play for the national team. With men it tends to be the opposite. They become known in their leagues, at their real jobs. They play for the national team for pride and duty. The national team needs LeBron James more than LeBron James needs the national team. Hope Solo needs the national team more than the national team needs Hope Solo.

Factors like this influence how much of the sport's revenue you can command in a negotiation.

 

[laughing dog]

So WNBA players make as much as Lebron or Kobe? Male porn stars make as much as female ones?

Why are you babbling about basketball? Did the WNBA have a 20 million dollar profit than the NBA?

Which amendment in particular guarantees female athletes to be paid as much as male ones?

Nothing, but you missed the point. The women are entitled to use the court system in an attempt to redress any civil wrongs.

I oppose frivolous lawsuits.

That is up to the courts to decide, once they have all the facts in front of them.

 

[ronburgundy]

The US women's team only make about $75k per season, which is little enough to make this a legit issue.

The problem is that the Women's US national team is more popular and makes more revenue than the men's national team, but their professional league makes almost nothing, with the top players getting less than $30k per season. Thus, the women are desperate for the extra paycheck from the US national team, and agreed via their Union to play for less than the men who make 5-10 times the salary from their professional league. It is an odd situation where the same lack of competition in the women's game makes the sport less popular and thus devalued in general, but then also is what allows the US team to be so successful internationally, which make that team in particular very popular and profitable.

Basically, the US soccer Federation is taking advantage of the desperation of female players who generate more revenue for the Federation than the men, but make so little in their other (not very popular) professional leagues that they are willing to work for less.

There are not that many elite women players. They could just go on strike and refuse to play, and the Federation would likely give in because the women are the only thing keeping them afloat. Unfortunately, their timing is bad. They should have done this last year before the World Cup.

From what I hear, Europe is paying their women more than we are, despite not being as good as the US. This will make those team better over time and the US team will lose its current status. A better wage on which they can make a living will attract far more talent into the sport and make those teams better. If the US paid its women more it would not only increase US dominance but would improve the quality of play and popularity in their professional leagues as well.

 

[SimpleDon]

Ah, yes, the famous other unnamed factors involved. But you are correct, there are other factors involved.

Playing for your country is a privilege. It is not done for money. What ever they are paid it is only token, a small fraction of what they are paid by their club teams. This is another factor involved that doesn't have to remain unnamed.

One factor that can be named: to some extent the revenue generated by the national team is about the laundry not the player. Would the US team generate as much revenue if Hope "the Domestic Violator" Solo didn't play? Yeah, probably about the same. Our 20th best goal keeper is probably good enough to beat a team full of school teachers and shop clerks from the Dominican Republic.

Another factor that can be named: These women need the national team more than the national team needs them. This is their only path to fame celebrity and endorsements. To the extent we know who any of these women are, it's because they play for the national team. With men it tends to be the opposite. They become known in their leagues, at their real jobs. They play for the national team for pride and duty. The national team needs LeBron James more than LeBron James needs the national team. Hope Solo needs the national team more than the national team needs Hope Solo.

Factors like this influence how much of the sport's revenue you can command in a negotiation.

Yes, you are right. The money paid to the men is a token, it possibly isn't for the women. But both gain considerable prestige from playing for their country. To the point that they are considered to be a lesser player if they aren't on their national team. The prestige is reflected not in the pay from the national team but in the negotiation for your wages from your club team. Most men have a bonus clause in their contract that pays if they are selected for their national team, that dwarfs the token payment from the national team.

For all of these reasons it is not advisable for the American women to sue for more pay from the national team. Except, perhaps, for the amateurs who can only be paid for their expenses.

 

[Rhea]

Unfortunately, their timing is bad. They should have done this last year before the World Cup.

The olympics are coming up...

 

[Thomas II]

Unfortunately, their timing is bad. They should have done this last year before the World Cup.

The olympics are coming up...

...in Brazil......

 

[SimpleDon]

So WNBA players make as much as Lebron or Kobe? Male porn stars make as much as female ones?

Since the USSF will not agree to amend the contract, the women are within their rights under the US Constitution to seek remedies through the civil court system.

Which amendment in particular guarantees female athletes to be paid as much as male ones?

To oppose such an exercise of rights is anti-America. So, why do you hate America?

I oppose frivolous lawsuits.

And you reserve the right to determine what is frivolous? Do you think that these women consider their suit to be frivolous?

Do you realize that there is a huge number of deluded people in the US who want to replace government regulations with a geometrically increasing number of lawsuits? What would you say to these poor souls? There are many of them here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Lingerie soccer is the answer.

With pillow-fights as penalties.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why should they be entitled to any sort of pay?

The basic entitlement comes from fairness which pretty much all primates (not just humans) recognize. If you give primate X something but you fail to give primate Y something when they're both pretty much the same, you'll be seen as engaging in favoritism. However, this thread really isn't even about that. It's about a very narrow specific issue of technical explanation I read in one thread that now we have more information seems to not actually fit the data. So, I made the thread to see if it could be commented on further.

 

[ronburgundy]

The olympics are coming up...

...in Brazil......

Good point. Then, they should go on strike rather than to court. Given that they agreed to the current pay via Union contract and play in a qualitatively different and far far easier league than the men, they don't have a good legal case. The quantity of work they do is equal, and relative to their respective tasks, they do higher quality work. But their respective tasks are non-commensurable.

In the other thread on this, I argued against those claiming the women deserved lower pay because they weren't as skilled at soccer. That is invalid, because their jobs are to beat their assigned competition and raise revenue, not to beat teams they never play (men vs. women). Here I'm arguing that while you can't claim they deserve less and in an ethical sense they arguably deserve more, it doesn't seem a violation of law for them to be paid less, given the different difficultly level of the job they are assigned.

However, if their claims about revenue they raise are valid, then they do have a strong economic bargaining position.

Gendered sports create a situation where people try to apply a "separate but equal" policy, but it is as bullshit there as it is in trying to apply it to education.
IF they are separate, then they will not be equal, and that is more inherently true of sporting competitions than schools. With sports, if they are not equivalent competitions, then you cannot claim that unequal compensation for winning them is a form of illegal prejudice. But if those in the easier competition wind up generating more revenue, then you can claim that they "deserve" more pay and should and could bargain for more pay.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We'll have to see what the courts say because skill is one item Soccer organization can use. It will be interesting to see what the court says about the CBA.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These professionals are in short supply and in high-demand, higher demand even than the men. Why do you want laws, courts, and judicial activists to disrupt the free market?

 

[coloradoatheist]

These professionals are in short supply and in high-demand, higher demand even than the men. Why do you want laws, courts, and judicial activists to disrupt the free market?

But they aren't. the reason they get paid less is that the market is less for female players. If you want to blame people, blame people for not watching female soccer outside the world cup.

 

[laughing dog]

These professionals are in short supply and in high-demand, higher demand even than the men. Why do you want laws, courts, and judicial activists to disrupt the free market?

But they aren't. the reason they get paid less is that the market is less for female players. If you want to blame people, blame people for not watching female soccer outside the world cup.

That is completely irrelevant to the women soccer players argument that even though their efforts they generate a profit of $20 million while the men do not generate a profit, they are paid less.

In addition, in the USA, one can make a strong case that the growing USA interest in soccer has much more to do with the success of the women's team in World Cup play than the men's.

In essence, the women are arguing that the market is "smaller" because of irrelevant non-market factors (i.e. gender).

 

[coloradoatheist]

But they aren't. the reason they get paid less is that the market is less for female players. If you want to blame people, blame people for not watching female soccer outside the world cup.

That is completely irrelevant to the women soccer players argument that even though their efforts they generate a profit of $20 million while the men do not generate a profit, they are paid less.

In addition, in the USA, one can make a strong case that the growing USA interest in soccer has much more to do with the success of the women's team in World Cup play than the men's.

In essence, the women are arguing that the market is "smaller" because of irrelevant non-market factors (i.e. gender).

A free market will say we'll pay people whatever they are willing to accept to be paid. If that's $100 an hour or $5 an hour. The law from the 60s said that women can't be paid less than men if they are doing the same job with the same skill and a few other factors.

 

[Rhea]

That is completely irrelevant to the women soccer players argument that even though their efforts they generate a profit of $20 million while the men do not generate a profit, they are paid less.

In addition, in the USA, one can make a strong case that the growing USA interest in soccer has much more to do with the success of the women's team in World Cup play than the men's.

In essence, the women are arguing that the market is "smaller" because of irrelevant non-market factors (i.e. gender).

A free market will say we'll pay people whatever they are willing to accept to be paid. If that's $100 an hour or $5 an hour. The law from the 60s said that women can't be paid less than men if they are doing the same job with the same skill and a few other factors.

Do you think a free market exists? And no one's thumb on the scale?