Five top US women footballers sue for better pay

[daib0]

BBC Sport


Five senior members of the World Cup-winning US football team have filed a lawsuit against the national federation for wage discrimination


Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and Hope Solo say they are paid less than half of what the male USA players receive. "The numbers speak for themselves," said goalkeeper Solo in a statement.

The US Soccer Federation said it was disappointed, given the work it had done in building the women's game. American women's football has dominated the international game in recent decades, with a string of titles.

"We are the best in the world, have three World Cup Championships, four Olympic Championships, and the USMNT [men's team] get paid more just to show up than we get paid to win major championships," said Solo. Her team-mate Lloyd, who was named the best player at last year's World Cup, said they had been patient over the years in waiting for action to deliver fair pay.

Former Everton and LA Galaxy winger Landon Donovan - who won 157 caps for the US men's team - tweeted his support for the women's team's cause. "#USWNT absolutely deserve to be treated fairly in all ways," he said. "Important to remember that these issues are/can be collectively bargained."

The lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday morning. One of the lawyers representing the players, Jeffrey Kessler, said the women's game generated more income for US Soccer than the men's and it was time to address the "discriminatory and unfair treatment'' they have endured for years. The five players were acting on behalf of all the players, he said.

There has been an ongoing legal battle between the federation and the players' union over collective bargaining. A statement from US Soccer said it had not yet seen the complaint. But it added: "We have been a world leader in women's soccer and are proud of the commitment we have made to building the women's game in the United States over the past 30 years."



My questions are:

Should women be paid the same for the 'same job'? - for example, in a symphony orchestra it would be inconceivable to have a difference

If not, due to publicity, popularity, and 'skill' levels, what proportion of the men's average pay should women receive? 50% / 66% / 75% / 80% etc.

Should the topic even be touched upon? One might argue that it is for each club or organization to bargain how they see fit. But in this case surely they will be open to far more law suits.

So ... in a nutshell, what is the solution to all this??

 

[Alan]

Can't conceive of any way anyone could defend the status quo in this case.

Frankly, your second question here is appalling.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The US is a bit of a special case, it is literally the only nation where women's football has any serious credence.

You couldn't have global parity as objectively, women's football is appalling and hardly anyone is interested. What the US do with their own national contracts is up to them I suppose, if they want to recognise that internally - out of kilter with the rest of the world - there isn't really much of a gender gap as such then that's up to them. Wouldn't work in the UK where the best women's domestic sides play in front of crowds of 250 and where a team like Stourbridge would beat the England women's team by at least five goals.

 

[Alan]

Obviously you can't pay the women money that doesn't exist. But in general the standard of the game will never improve without an increase in investment globally. Not sure I'm buying that the US is the only country in the world that pays its women a decent amount of lip service.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The women's game won't ever improve to a point where it's anywhere near comparable with the men's game or where one might view them equally. Doesn't matter how much money you chuck at it.

 

[Alan]

It can be better than it is, though, and the women put in the same work that the men do.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

When we're talking about revenue sharing then it's a commercial product in that respect. You can believe it or not but I can guarantee you that women's football has zero value or credibility anywhere in Europe. It's simply not a very good spectacle, won't ever be and to distil it into a question of equality is spectacularly missing the point IMO.

If there were two matches being shown concurrently on free to air TV here, let's say York vs Dagenham (the current bottom two teams in the Football League) and England Women vs Germany Women, there is no way the latter would get anywhere near the same audience. It's a seriously poor product. The difference is equatable to a high budget HBO series compared with the local am-dram production.

Gender pay in sport is a fair issue to raise in tennis, athletics, cycling etc where you could legitimately argue that the product offers similar quality and entertainment values irrespective of whether it's a male or female contest. Where it manifestly isn't, for example football, cricket, golf, rugby, then you just can't make the same argument.

 

[Johnny75]

It can be better than it is, though, and the women put in the same work that the men do.

You can't polish a turd. If the players are average, coaches are average and the entertainment woeful then broadcasters and fans will not pay for it. The women's game is incomparable to the men's game right now and probably for the next 20 years.

You can only pay players what people are willing to pay to watch and that's low because of the reasons I have stated. Asking for more money isn't going to make the women's game better.

As for your putting the same work in argument, this is utter nonsense, Conference footballers will put the same work in as Prem players given the chance, it is ability that holds them back and that's what footballers get paid for.

 

[Tony Towner]

There have been similar discussions in the last week or so with the women and men's T20 going on at the same time. The English women flew cattle, the men first. Some say sexist, others realistic based on the revenue their respective teams bring in. I'm in the latter camp

 

[daib0]

I just feel this is a very difficult one to call ... that's why it's interesting reading your replies!



If it’s the MONEY … then:

The USA ladies should be paid the same or actually more than their male counterparts.

The USWNT Generates $8million more than the men each year. And that figure will grow again next year.

The ladies play more games than the men’s national team. And are at the top unlike the rather poor men’s team, who lost to Guatemala 2-0 on Saturday and were very close to not qualifying for the next world cup. Let alone win it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The USWNT Generates $8million more than the men each year. And that figure will grow again next year.

Isn't that figure extrapolated from last year where the women had a World Cup and the men played no games of any major importance?

The ladies play more games than the men’s national team. And are at the top unlike the rather poor men’s team, who lost to Guatemala 2-0 on Saturday and were very close to not qualifying for the next world cup. Let alone win it.

Hardly comparing apples with apples is it, the calibre of opposition the men's team face even in CONCACAF qualifiers (let alone the main tournament) is exponentially obscenely higher than anything the women would face at any stage of their World Cup. If they both drew Spain, Ghana and Ukraine in the group stages for the next World Cup which one do you think would have the harder task?

 

[Alan]

You can't polish a turd. If the players are average, coaches are average and the entertainment woeful then broadcasters and fans will not pay for it. The women's game is incomparable to the men's game right now and probably for the next 20 years.

You can only pay players what people are willing to pay to watch and that's low because of the reasons I have stated. Asking for more money isn't going to make the women's game better.

As for your putting the same work in argument, this is utter nonsense, Conference footballers will put the same work in as Prem players given the chance, it is ability that holds them back and that's what footballers get paid for.

You could equally, however, make the argument that the women's game misses out on quality players and coaches from the off because the prospect of a successful future in that medium simply isn't there. The coaching side especially would benefit from funding to both train and pay more highly qualified managers to get into the women's game.

The work argument holds water when you consider that these women are at the peak of their particular game, conference footballers on the men's side are very clearly not.

Thinking about it further, however, I don't find the "proportional pay" argument to be quite so appalling as I first said; as Dan rightly points out, in areas such as sport you cannot pay people in money that does not exist. However I do not think that the discrepancies in public interest are just down to perceived difference in the level of play between women and men.

The NBA vs. WNBA argument shows this to some degree; no sporting journalist will argue that the women in the WNBA have weaker tactical understanding or fundamental strength than the men in the NBA, and yet the men draw massively more money and eyes. It seems a bit obtuse to say that this difference is down to a lack of dunking. I think that in these cases we are getting into deeper societal values about men and women, but this is delving into the theoretical and isn't something that we can solve here.

 

[daib0]

Yep, fascinating.

I think this is going to be a big topic of 21st century football ...

 

[Penk Wolf]

Every professional footballer should be paid the same on this basis, regardless of skill level.

 

[Alan]

Every professional footballer should be paid the same on this basis, regardless of skill level.

That's not the argument, though. Variance within genders is fine, variance between genders much less so. The key is the level at which they play within their gender. IE, Premier League men should be paid about the same as Premier League women. Lower pay for lower play within each gender is fine.

Truncating things a bit, obviously, but that's the ideal basis.

 

[daib0]

An American on my Reading forum writes;


A few other points to consider: The women, unlike the men, also draw a full-time salary from the federation of up to $72,000 per year regardless of their tournament performance or the hundreds of thousands in bonuses they typically collect, a baseline guarantee the men don't enjoy. They are also compensated by the federation for participating in the National Women's Soccer League. It is not quite as clear-cut as it might appear at first reading. If the women elect to drop those additional compensations so that each group of players are paid the performance bonuses only, then equal bonuses seem appropriate. Otherwise, you're speculating a bit on the value of a salary (and an additional income for participating in the NWSL) that the players are certain to get compared to the value of bonuses that are not guaranteed.

Part of the issue is that the men can make top salaries playing overseas, but the women have not been able to make nearly as much from 'regular' matches and leagues, so those salaries were created to let the women become full-time soccer players, independent of the bonus money. Even with the relative popularity of the women's team and their success, very few have been able to make much from endorsements (Alex Morgan and Hope Solo are exceptions, and I doubt they make as much as Landon Donovan).

 

[Penk Wolf]

That's not the argument, though. Variance within genders is fine, variance between genders much less so. The key is the level at which they play within their gender. IE, Premier League men should be paid about the same as Premier League women. Lower pay for lower play within each gender is fine.

Truncating things a bit, obviously, but that's the ideal basis.

So all Premier League men should be paid about the same?

I find the whole gender pay gap argument bullshit anyway.

 

[Johnny75]

That's not the argument, though. Variance within genders is fine, variance between genders much less so. The key is the level at which they play within their gender. IE, Premier League men should be paid about the same as Premier League women. Lower pay for lower play within each gender is fine.

Truncating things a bit, obviously, but that's the ideal basis.

You can't have it both ways though. You have equal pay for equal performance and the women's game isn't anywhere near that of the men's in terms of absolute performance. no woman would be able to play in the PL or even any of the four top divisions, and they get paid accordingly. Women are paid roughly the same as Conference players even though they are nowhere near that standard, however you do need incentives so I understand the higher pay even though audiences are lower than that of the conference.

As Penk says, it's all bullshit, a jobs a job, you get paid for that job, if you can't do it you are let go.

You're work argument is rendered nonsense purely on performance basis not work basis as football isn't based on work as stated above.

 

[YoungWolf]

I find the whole gender pay gap argument bullshit anyway.

Really? There are women who have exactly the same job (not talking in terms of football) as a man and get paid less, how is that right?

The issue with women's football is that it has been at such a disadvantage until the world realised how ridiculous the idea that women shouldn't play football was. If we consider that the FA only took responsibility for it fully in 1993, that's over a hundred years behind the men's game. Before that, women were banned from playing on football league grounds for 50 years (1921-1971). Last year was a big year for women's football in England (FA Cup final staged at Wembley, 3rd at world cup) but it also highlighted how far behind it still is. Of course the quality isn't as good. Even now I know girls who are very talented at football who haven't pursued football as a career because it's not the best option for them.

Until you had exactly the same opportunity from the grassroots ages up to professional status, we can't know whether women's football isn't as good as mens. It's the fastest growing game but it's going to hit a block soon. It's fantastic that there is more coverage and some teams are going full time but there's going to be a point when the funding stops I worry. And when the people in positions of power are generally white middle class men it's not exactly going to serve their interests either is it.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I've always wondered how the research is conducted when you hear the headlines about women earning X% less than men, it's all irrelevant unless you're taking a direct comparison, like if you did an average of male wage/female wage at our work the male wage would be massively higher as there are very few women in construction specific roles, they're mainly admin/support staff and so obviously on a lower wage.