U.S. women soccer players charge pay discrimination

[dismal]

Is the US Soccer federation just selling teams to play at the International level or does it do other things?

It's hard to explain. They are basically the US FIFA member and run many of the soccer programs in the US.

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

Most professionals play for their club teams most of the season and a few scheduled weeks out of the year the clubs have an "international break" where select players are called up to the national team and play other national teams. These can be friendly matches, or qualifiers for various competitions like the world cup, or the north american cup (the CONCACAF gold cup.) It is considered an honor to be called up to the national team.

For women it's a bit different as there are far fewer professional clubs and they don't make much money. US women players are generally going to be full time club professionals, but some of the teams they play have teachers and store clerks playing too.

 

[ronburgundy]

I do not find myself swayed by your declarations of what is true and relevant.

Ah, so your economic theory is that what consumers are willing to pay for a product has zero relevance to the value of that product, and whether the product meets the prescribed goals and criteria (winning) set out by the employer has no relevance to the quality of work done.
Instead, what you think is relevant to the quality of work is whether the produced product can perform a task that it will never be used for and that neither the employer nor any customer is paying to have it perform.

I'll be sure never to invest in any of your business models.

 

[dismal]

I do not find myself swayed by your declarations of what is true and relevant.

Ah, so your economic theory is that what consumers are willing to pay for a product has zero relevance to the value of that product, and whether the product meets the prescribed goals and criteria (winning) set out by the employer has no relevance to the quality of work done.
Instead, what you think is relevant to the quality of work is whether the produced product can perform a task that it will never be used for and that neither the employer nor any customer is paying to have it perform.

I'll be sure never to invest in any of your business models.

You should try reading my posts in this and the other thread about women's tennis if you want to accurately describe my position. Because your declarations about what I believe are also wildly incorrect.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the US Soccer federation just selling teams to play at the International level or does it do other things?

It's hard to explain. They are basically the US FIFA member and run many of the soccer programs in the US.

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

Most professionals play for their club teams most of the season and a few scheduled weeks out of the year the clubs have an "international break" where select players are called up to the national team and play other national teams. These can be friendly matches, or qualifiers for various competitions like the world cup, or the north american cup (the CONCACAF gold cup.) It is considered an honor to be called up to the national team.

For women it's a bit different as there are far fewer professional clubs and they don't make much money. US women players are generally going to be full time club professionals, but some of the teams they play have teachers and store clerks playing too.

So is the mission to promote soccer at all levels or just the International team. If they are paying their professionals to represent all their soccer interests and not just their International matches then women are paid less because they don't drive the crowds to all their soccer matches, just a few.

 

[dismal]

It's hard to explain. They are basically the US FIFA member and run many of the soccer programs in the US.

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

Most professionals play for their club teams most of the season and a few scheduled weeks out of the year the clubs have an "international break" where select players are called up to the national team and play other national teams. These can be friendly matches, or qualifiers for various competitions like the world cup, or the north american cup (the CONCACAF gold cup.) It is considered an honor to be called up to the national team.

For women it's a bit different as there are far fewer professional clubs and they don't make much money. US women players are generally going to be full time club professionals, but some of the teams they play have teachers and store clerks playing too.

So is the mission to promote soccer at all levels or just the International team. If they are paying their professionals to represent all their soccer interests and not just their International matches then women are paid less because they don't drive the crowds to all their soccer matches, just a few.

I think it's more complicated than that. When Clint Dempsey plays for Seattle Sounders he's getting paid by Seattle. Some of these guys make 6 million a year playing in the MLS. Clubs make money and they play players big money based on the money they generate. MLS money is tiny compared to what international stars like Messi and Ronaldo make, but they play for their countries too because there is pride and honor in it.

When Dempsey plays for the USMNT he apparently gets paid by US Soccer. I would have thought of this more as a stipend or a bonus than a salary because he has another full-time job playing soccer. But FIFA rakes in huge money from international matches, and they must have some process to trickle some back to US Soccer, and US Soccer trickles some back to the players. I don't know exactly how that all works.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So is the mission to promote soccer at all levels or just the International team. If they are paying their professionals to represent all their soccer interests and not just their International matches then women are paid less because they don't drive the crowds to all their soccer matches, just a few.

I think it's more complicated than that. When Clint Dempsey plays for Seattle Sounders he's getting paid by Seattle. Some of these guys make 6 million a year playing in the MLS. Clubs make money and they play players big money based on the money they generate. MLS money is tiny compared to what international stars like Messi and Ronaldo make, but they play for their countries too because there is pride and honor in it.

When Dempsey plays for the USMNT he apparently gets paid by US Soccer. I would have thought of this more as a stipend or a bonus than a salary because he has another full-time job playing soccer. But FIFA rakes in huge money from international matches, and they must have some process to trickle some back to US Soccer, and US Soccer trickles some back to the players. I don't know exactly how that all works.

But then you do get into a little bit of a problem of how the US Soccer will define their work and if it's equal. We'll see what the EEOC says and what US Soccer comes back with.

 

[Toni]

The women's team does the identical work as the men's team

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

You don't follow US men's soccer , do you? I mean, why would you?

 

[rousseau]

Yea, given 'who generates more revenue' seems to be the winning argument in these conversations, and the women seem to actually be generating more revenue, this lawsuit appears to make sense.

The only counter-argument I can think of is that it's a supply/demand issue, there's more demand for quality men's players hence their higher pay.

At that point it's really someone's moral judgement call as to whether employers have the right to pay people as little as they possibly can while maximizing profit. The global consensus in this era seems to be that they do. If you're willing to work for [x] amount of dollars, then employers don't need to pay you more than that.

I'm all for improving payment schemes, but I can't think of an alternative that makes sense, and as someone working in this type of economy I do appreciate the fact that people pay me more because there is more demand for what I do.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, given 'who generates more revenue' seems to be the winning argument in these conversations, and the women seem to actually be generating more revenue, this lawsuit appears to make sense.

The only counter-argument I can think of is that it's a supply/demand issue, there's more demand for quality men's players hence their higher pay.

At that point it's really someone's moral judgement call as to whether employers have the right to pay people as little as they possibly can while maximizing profit. The global consensus in this era seems to be that they do. If you're willing to work for [x] amount of dollars, then employers don't need to pay you more than that.

I'm all for improving payment schemes, but I can't think of an alternative that makes sense, and as someone working in this type of economy I do appreciate the fact that people pay me more because there is more demand for what I do.

You answered your own question in your post! Wages are driven by supply and demand, not revenue. Fair or not, male professional athletes simply have far more options than women.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I'm not convinced they have to pay to get the men either.

If you are a USMNT quality player you can make a good living playing club soccer and stay decently fit and ready outside of the national team breaks.

Then they should cut the mens pay to equal the women.

When profits are made, then who would keep the profits?
What is wrong with people earning high wages?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I scribbled on a piece of paper yesterday. since I do the IDENTICAL WORK as the artist Bansky, I expect to sell that piece of paper for $1,000,000... or else I am being treated unfairly.

The women generated interest in their efforts which attracted income why not? If someone was willing to pay £1000,000 for your work, why not?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yea, given 'who generates more revenue' seems to be the winning argument in these conversations, and the women seem to actually be generating more revenue, this lawsuit appears to make sense.

The only counter-argument I can think of is that it's a supply/demand issue, there's more demand for quality men's players hence their higher pay.

At that point it's really someone's moral judgement call as to whether employers have the right to pay people as little as they possibly can while maximizing profit. The global consensus in this era seems to be that they do. If you're willing to work for [x] amount of dollars, then employers don't need to pay you more than that.

I'm all for improving payment schemes, but I can't think of an alternative that makes sense, and as someone working in this type of economy I do appreciate the fact that people pay me more because there is more demand for what I do.

You answered your own question in your post! Wages are driven by supply and demand, not revenue. Fair or not, male professional athletes simply have far more options than women.

While I agree with you, the EEOC doesn't take that definition to work and labor. Based on my understanding of the EEOC that doesn't apply.

 

[dismal]

Yea, given 'who generates more revenue' seems to be the winning argument in these conversations, and the women seem to actually be generating more revenue, this lawsuit appears to make sense.

1) The facts presented are not complete. However, you may be right.
2) The way you get more of the money is negotiating, not suing using silly equal pay arguments. There are other factors that influence the strength of your bargaining position and what share of the revenue you can command.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yea, given 'who generates more revenue' seems to be the winning argument in these conversations, and the women seem to actually be generating more revenue, this lawsuit appears to make sense.

1) The facts presented are not complete. However, you may be right.
2) The way you get more of the money is negotiating, not suing using silly equal pay arguments. There are other factors that influence the strength of your bargaining position and what share of the revenue you can command.

Is that also based on the bluffing position by the team and willing of the US soccer federation to use substitute players?

 

[dismal]

1) The facts presented are not complete. However, you may be right.
2) The way you get more of the money is negotiating, not suing using silly equal pay arguments. There are other factors that influence the strength of your bargaining position and what share of the revenue you can command.

Is that also based on the bluffing position by the team and willing of the US soccer federation to use substitute players?

I'm not sure what you mean "substitute players" there is no permanent US national team. Basically for every match or tournament they call up a different group of players. No one is obligated to play for them if they don't want to. If Clint Dempsey gets called up I suppose he could say he's not coming to play unless they pay him X, they can either pay him X or they'll call up someone else. I imagine there are 100 million or so people they could call up. If they get to me I'll take $17,000 to go play a soccer game. But I may be like the 50,000,000th choice.

If you follow basketball you see something similar with the NBA players playing for the US team in the Olympics and other international tournaments. It is not their main job to play for the US team. They do it for national pride, or fun, or whatever. Some NBA players choose to play, some don't. If LeBron James decides not to play for the US, they call up the next best guy who will.