Something I heard about female soccer players

[dismal]

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?

Whose thumb is on the scale more for women soccer players than men soccer players?

 

[Rhea]

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

Whose thumb is on the scale more for women soccer players than men soccer players?

No one's.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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?

During the day I can turn on the different ESPN channels and see a wide variety of soccer games being played. There is the english leagues, spanish leagues, MLS, plus a variety of other leagues that I can't name. Go ask a soccer fan. But for the women there aren't as many leagues. The places where it's been tried there is little fanfare for them.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Not just skill of the US players themselves, but the fact that they play in completely separate and qualitatively different leagues that require different skill levels, even more separate and different in skill than the minor and major leagues in baseball.

The fact that the sport is "soccer" in both cases even seems a meaningless abstraction. If the same Federation had a men's soccer league and a women's horseshoe league where the amount of play time was the same, would they have to pay men and women the same? If not, then there is no good rationale to have to pay them the same for playing a sport that is only "the same" in a superficial sense.

 

[TSwizzle]

Lingerie soccer is the answer.

And in the event of a tie, a cat fight in the center circle !

 

[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.

Not just skill of the US players themselves, but the fact that they play in completely separate and qualitatively different leagues that require different skill levels, even more separate and different in skill than the minor and major leagues in baseball.

The fact that the sport is "soccer" in both cases even seems a meaningless abstraction. If the same Federation had a men's soccer league and a women's horseshoe league where the amount of play time was the same, would they have to pay men and women the same? If not, then there is no good rationale to have to pay them the same for playing a sport that is only "the same" in a superficial sense.

that's dismal's argument. The law says you can't pay male and females differently for the same job that's the same skill and same responsibility. So a business or in this case the Soccer federation has to say one of those three is different so they can pay different.

Somebody that has followed EEOC cases would have to describe simiar cases where the two parties were catering to different market but still said they were the same.

 

[ronburgundy]

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).

They are wrong in that argument. The market of the domestic professional (non-World Cup) leagues in the US overlaps and intersects the market of the US national team and international leagues. Female soccer players have no market value in their domestic professional leagues because no one outside Portland in interested in watching their games (attendance in massive soccer stadiums is 2-4 thousand for most teams, even with almost giving the tickets away).
Men's domestic professional leagues earn far more revenue and thus their player get far higher salaries (about 10 times the women in their leagues).

This market values influences what the top male players will agree to play for on the national team. The women agree to play for far less because that less is still 3 times what they make in their failing professional league. They could use the revenue they make for the USSF as market leverage, but that means refusing to play unless they get more (just like the men do). But they have chosen to play and agreed to less money. It is entirely about market factors and choices. Yes, the USSF are being immoral pricks IMO by taking advantage and not rewarding the people who bring in most of the revenue for them (the women). But negotiators being pricks and not giving anything up unless forced to by the other party is not illegal, and cannot be made so without basically eliminating the market system altogether.

 

[dismal]

Not just skill of the US players themselves, but the fact that they play in completely separate and qualitatively different leagues that require different skill levels, even more separate and different in skill than the minor and major leagues in baseball.

The fact that the sport is "soccer" in both cases even seems a meaningless abstraction. If the same Federation had a men's soccer league and a women's horseshoe league where the amount of play time was the same, would they have to pay men and women the same? If not, then there is no good rationale to have to pay them the same for playing a sport that is only "the same" in a superficial sense.

that's dismal's argument. The law says you can't pay male and females differently for the same job that's the same skill and same responsibility. So a business or in this case the Soccer federation has to say one of those three is different so they can pay different.

Somebody that has followed EEOC cases would have to describe simiar cases where the two parties were catering to different market but still said they were the same.

My argument would be it's not even really a job. It's an entertainment venture. I don't think male and female actors are entitled to equal pay for equal screen time either. If you want to make a movie and pay Robert Downey junior $20 mil and Louise Cherbotnik $20,000 even though they are on the screen 15 minutes each that's a decision you should be free to make. Or Vice Versa if Louise Cherbotnik can command more.

There is not discrimination based on gender going on there, there is discrimination based on drawing power or ego or something else.

It's batshit ludicrous to treat competitive sports as if it's twisting the same wrench on an assembly line the same number of times per day.

But yes, if you look at the text of the law it's not going to be possible to claim women have equal skill at soccer.

I believe this is the operative law?

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ . . . . ] [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

 

[ronburgundy]

Not just skill of the US players themselves, but the fact that they play in completely separate and qualitatively different leagues that require different skill levels, even more separate and different in skill than the minor and major leagues in baseball.

The fact that the sport is "soccer" in both cases even seems a meaningless abstraction. If the same Federation had a men's soccer league and a women's horseshoe league where the amount of play time was the same, would they have to pay men and women the same? If not, then there is no good rationale to have to pay them the same for playing a sport that is only "the same" in a superficial sense.

that's dismal's argument. The law says you can't pay male and females differently for the same job that's the same skill and same responsibility. So a business or in this case the Soccer federation has to say one of those three is different so they can pay different.

Somebody that has followed EEOC cases would have to describe simiar cases where the two parties were catering to different market but still said they were the same.

The reason separate gender leagues exist is because of the vast difference in skill level, so vast that the distributions likely have near zero overlap.
If the court were to rule that there is no meaningful difference between the leagues, it seems they would then also have to rule that it is sexist discrimination for either league to be gender specific and they must hire players on demonstrated skill. That would result in two men's leagues, maybe with 1-2 women.
There is no way to say that without it smacking of misogyny, but dem's the facts.

I support a women's league, watch the national team more than the men, and think they should fight for and get more pay via the top players refusing to play. I just don't think they have a legal case and can't see the court siding with them on any principled grounds.

 

[coloradoatheist]

that's dismal's argument. The law says you can't pay male and females differently for the same job that's the same skill and same responsibility. So a business or in this case the Soccer federation has to say one of those three is different so they can pay different.

Somebody that has followed EEOC cases would have to describe simiar cases where the two parties were catering to different market but still said they were the same.

The reason separate gender leagues exist is because of the vast difference in skill level, so vast that the distributions likely have near zero overlap.
If the court were to rule that there is no meaningful difference between the leagues, it seems they would then also have to rule that it is sexist discrimination for either league to be gender specific and they must hire players on demonstrated skill. That would result in two men's leagues, maybe with 1-2 women.
There is no way to say that without it smacking of misogyny, but dem's the facts.

I support a women's league, watch the national team more than the men, and think they should fight for and get more pay via the top players refusing to play. I just don't think they have a legal case and can't see the court siding with them on any principled grounds.

It depends on the EEOC and what they have used in the past. Paying differently at different leagues is easier, paying different for the national team I don't know. It depends on the makeup of the court.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

A free market without competition is not a competitive market. This is not a competitive market (the USSF is the only employer for US World Cup teams).

 

[Metaphor]

If the women's national team generated more revenue than the men's national team, then it does indeed seem to be the case that the women's national team should be paid in line with that.

I also have a serious question: do the men's professional leagues discriminate by gender when recruiting talent? What I mean is, is there a rule that says only men can try out for the professional leagues and only men can be on the team itself.

I suspect it does not have that rule codified but I'm curious to know.

 

[ronburgundy]

that's dismal's argument. The law says you can't pay male and females differently for the same job that's the same skill and same responsibility. So a business or in this case the Soccer federation has to say one of those three is different so they can pay different.

Somebody that has followed EEOC cases would have to describe simiar cases where the two parties were catering to different market but still said they were the same.

My argument would be it's not even really a job. It's an entertainment venture. I don't think male and female actors are entitled to equal pay for equal screen time either. If you want to make a movie and pay Robert Downey junior $20 mil and Louise Cherbotnik $20,000 even though they are on the screen 15 minutes each that's a decision you should be free to make. Or Vice Versa if Louise Cherbotnik can command more.

There is not discrimination based on gender going on there, there is discrimination based on drawing power or ego or something else.

It's batshit ludicrous to treat competitive sports as if it's twisting the same wrench on an assembly line the same number of times per day.

But yes, if you look at the text of the law it's not going to be possible to claim women have equal skill at soccer.

I believe this is the operative law?

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ . . . . ] [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

Clearly it is a job, and all entertaining done for pay is a job, and no less a job from any legal or economic standpoint than a doctor or anything else.

Acting is a poor analogy, because plenty of women make way more than most male actors (no women soccer player makes even half of what the lowest paid male gets), so their is no clear differential pay tied to gender. Also, the pay is based on box office draw, and if that were applied to soccer, the US women's team would get more than the men. Should a technically more skilled actor who no one likes get paid more than a lousey actor that draw billions in box office? No, and neither should technically more skilled male soccer players that can't win or draw revenue get paid more than less skilled but winning and money making women players.
(this goes back to our disagreement in the other thread).

The issue with US soccer is that they are qualitatively different jobs for which different skill levels are required to even attempt them, and the most qualified people to do the men's team job demand more pay due to what they make at other jobs. The top women could demand more pay because they excel at the job the USSF hires them for and the USSF needs them to make most of its revenue, and would be shit if it lost the top female players. But the top women choose not to demand more pay and now want the court to demand it for them.

We agree that the USSF is not afoul of the law, but I guess not on why they aren't, and we don't seem to agree that if the USSF were decent people, they wouldn't take advantage of financially desperate people and would pay them in accord with the revenue that their actions generate for the USSF.

 

[dismal]

If the women's national team generated more revenue than the men's national team, then it does indeed seem to be the case that the women's national team should be paid in line with that.

I also have a serious question: do the men's professional leagues discriminate by gender when recruiting talent? What I mean is, is there a rule that says only men can try out for the professional leagues and only men can be on the team itself.

I suspect it does not have that rule codified but I'm curious to know.

I don't think anyone has said that if they can get equal or more in a negotiation then more power to them.

I don't know for a fact that the men's teams won't accept women but as a practical matter it makes no difference the women are nowhere near good enough to play. As a follower of both, I have zero respect for the soccer knowledge of anyone who suggests they do. They could start accepting women tryouts and have just a national team as a settlement and it would cost them nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know for a fact that the men's teams won't accept women but as a practical matter it makes no difference the women are nowhere near good enough to play. As a follower of both, I have zero respect for the soccer knowledge of anyone who suggests they do. They could start accepting women tryouts and have just a national team as a settlement and it would cost them nothing.

I'm not suggesting any woman would actually be good enough for the men's professional leagues but it would surely decisively settle the idea that men and women are doing the same job with the same skill.

But if a woman were able to compete with male players and would be accepted on the men's team, I reckon she ought to be able to choose her destiny: be a low-ranked player on the men's team, or the superstar #1 on the women's.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

A free market without competition is not a competitive market. This is not a competitive market (the USSF is the only employer for US World Cup teams).

competition means that there are opportunities for the person to do that job elsewhere, not one specific company or team. It's like saying Competition doesn't exist because there is only one Apple. The question is how much competition there is world wide for women's soccer.

 

[dismal]

I don't know for a fact that the men's teams won't accept women but as a practical matter it makes no difference the women are nowhere near good enough to play. As a follower of both, I have zero respect for the soccer knowledge of anyone who suggests they do. They could start accepting women tryouts and have just a national team as a settlement and it would cost them nothing.

I'm not suggesting any woman would actually be good enough for the men's professional leagues but it would surely decisively settle the idea that men and women are doing the same job with the same skill.

But if a woman were able to compete with male players and would be accepted on the men's team, I reckon she ought to be able to choose her destiny: be a low-ranked player on the men's team, or the superstar #1 on the women's.

Yes, I understand and yes, I don't think anyone is arguing they have the same skill so apparently the people who think there should be equal pay seem to think that does not matter.

I'm not even sure it's "the same job". The men play in tournaments against the best other countries have to offer. The women do not.

US soccer actually has 8 men's teams and 8 women's teams: the Senior team, the under 23 team (U-23), U-20, U-19, U-18, U-17, U-16, and U-15 for each gender.

If the senior USMNT and the USWNT are doing the same job (that is, "playing soccer") then so are the Boys U-15s and Girls U-15s as they play before crowds of dozens of parents.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dear, coloradoatheist, here's you and dismal talking in the other thread:

If indeed the women are raising more revenue and getting paid less they may have an excellent gripe they could raise with the USTA. But "equality" has noting to do with it. Professional athletes are not entitled to equality.

Correct. Are people upset if Lebron James makes more than his fellow teammates?

I'm not saying you're contradicting yourself yet. I just want to point out that you're all on record...

...which means I need some answers to the op.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

more from the article:
So yeah, this is a good example of how negotiation can work and the data seems to suggest back pay in in order.

"In early January, the Women's National Team Players Association submitted a reasonable proposal for a new CBA that had equal pay for equal work as its guiding principle," Kessler said in the statement. "U.S. Soccer responded by suing the players in an effort to keep in place the discriminatory and unfair treatment they have endured for years."

Wrong yardstick.

While an athlete is paid for playing in reality they are in the business of entertaining. Pay should be based on eyeballs, not on minutes on the playing field.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Dear, coloradoatheist, here's you and dismal talking in the other thread:

Correct. Are people upset if Lebron James makes more than his fellow teammates?

I'm not saying you're contradicting yourself yet. I just want to point out that you're all on record...

...which means I need some answers to the op.

The value for your activity is what someone is willing to pay you for that activity. So the person paying determines it whether they do it based on X, Y, Z reasons. So the women can say hey I am not going to play the money that they are offering and not play for the women's team. And then the soccer federation will have ot say okay we will pay more or we will go find the next woman and accept a lower quality team.