This isn't related exactly to the post at hand, but it's a great way to agree with the ruling and still help out the WNT and the League.
Considering the NWSL operates on a shoestring budget and could likely play less than half their projected games, supporting and attending any of the games they do play this year could give a lifeline to women's soccer in this country.
Most players are right out of college and earn much less than a bad bartending job would pay, but they choose to play soccer nonetheless. If these leagues collapse or the league minimum players say F-it and new women don't choose to play soccer after college, women's soccer here and around the world will go back into the Stone Age.
Go watch at game if you can, and buy a club team jersey if you can't!
"women's soccer here and around the world will go back into the Stone Age."
I disagree with the bolded part. The viable options for women outside the US have grown, and may have already surpassed the NWSL. The European women's club teams will continue to exist, regardless of what's going on here. Given the resources and investment at those clubs in women's soccer, it's not going to be long until the best and brightest play in Europe for Arsenal, Chelsea, City, PSG, Lyon, Barca, etc, who all have excellent women's programs, and have more money to invest in them than anyone in the US.
I don't think the fate of women's soccer is tied to the US anymore.
I 100% agree with you that European women's football doesn't need the US or NWSL anymore. That's true, but those leagues are on a shoestring budget as well.
Arsenal, Chelsea, and PSG have women's clubs and perhaps the men's players on those big squads may help by donating wages to help support the women's organizations. But their Womens Super League competition needs to survive too and Birmingham City and Brighton women's teams may face stiffer challenges. Their men's teams will need revenue and perhaps at the expense of their ladies clubs.
Hell, if anyone is a European club fan and their club has a women's team, buy that jersey to support your club too! = D
There are tons of differences in the minutiae, but when you look at total comp, it was a bad argument for them.
Here's the problem, unless the collectively bargain together, the men and women will always be paid "differently". And bonuses will be different, and there will be differences in the contract, but total comp will still be better for the women (unless they lose their status as the world's dominant team).
They offered to collectively bargain with the women back in the 90s. They were told no - and told no again in the early 2000s.
I have sympathy with them in regards to both travel accommodations and the surfaces they play on. That should be improved.
They have room for improvement, but they need to bargain for it. And by not doing it with the men, if the men bargain something different, we're going to be in the same place.
The women, and please understand, I have a daughter who plays and so I have total empathy here, on this current team - actually, let's say the women on Jill's team - have a certain social justice worldview. They were capitalizing on the timing of #MeToo and the fact that the men's side was in a shambles.
Let's say the men were compensated in 5 ways. The women were compensated in 6 ways. Item 1 of those was the only one they singled out for "equality".
I think we are about to see the USWNT lose their dominance and I think the ladies saw this as their best time to try to get a better deal. The NWPSL is losing players to the allure of Barca, PSG, Arsenal and ManU as the European ladies sides ramp up. No longer is America the only game in town for a professional league. And as international sides go, the rest of the world is catching up.
I'm going to guess that this next World Cup will be the highwater mark for the American ladies. Once they are "one of the best teams in the world" instead of "the most dominant team in the sport", they'll get a lot less sympathy from the general public that likes to cry "yeah, equality". So, I get what they did and why and I'm a HUGE fan of them holding the USSF to the fire and I hope they get a ton of money, but this lawsuit was bad from the get-go.
And only the USSF could take a slam dunk situation and botch it so badly that they look like jerks when they win and the President needed to go down because of stupid and unnecessary deposition questions. Typical federation.
The argument from the social justice worldview is that it was an unfair society that forced the women into their current contract. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with that sentiment, I think we can all agree that it holds little water legally.
How is his situation different than Jordan's. Maybe not having 12 kids could make a difference. Pippen was the youngest or 2nd youngest. What were his other siblings doing?
Lastly, and the article doesn't mention this. Scottie Pippen made more money from the NBA than Jordan did. Pippen made over $100 million. Because he signed a bad deal isn't the vault of anyone but his own.
Jordan made $93M over the course of his career from his playing contracts, including $60M his final two years in Chicago.
Pippen indeed made $110M over the course of his career.
From 1987 through 1998, the Chicago Bulls paid Scottie Pippen, a total of $22M, or roughly $8M less than Jordan made during the singular 1998 season (their last before the team was broken up).
Pippen was notoriously underpaid, until he left after 98, signing a big money deal with the Rockets, and getting paid by the Rockets, and Trailblazers, which accounted for $77M of that $110M in career earnings.
I don't think anyone is saying we should weep for Scottie Pippen, he's doing fine.
But he signed a terrible contract in Chicago for 7 years and $19M following the 91 season.
Why he did that, was because to him, he didn't want to risk not getting paid, he took the long term security of a 7 year guaranteed deal and millions of dollars, versus a shorter deal and a chance at big money.
Unfortunately for Pippen, NBA salaries exploded after he signed that deal in 1991, so that by the time the 1998 season rolled around, while arguably being the second best player in the league, his salary ranked around 100th.
He got paid by other teams later, but the Bulls absolutely benefited from his deal, which he took, because he wanted to take care of his family.
So again, no one is weeping for Scottie Pippen. He did fine, his family did fine. But the reality is, he was wildly underpaid during his peak years in the NBA, and everyone knew it, including Pippen. It was a bad choice, but a logical one given Pippen's background and risk aversion.
PS - Scottie didn't have 12 kids, he was one of 12 kids, including a father who was permanently wheelchair bound following a stroke, and a brother, who was also wheelchair bound, because of an accident.
Linked article about the racism associated with Pippens contract.
The gender pay issue in women;s sports is a real land mine (that Biden just stepped into). I sympathize with the USWNT that had to deal with the instability and weakness of the professional women's league when this contract was signed. A guaranteed salary probably looked like a good deal when this was signed. The whole revenue issue for men's sports versus women's sports makes a desired goal impossible.
Wonder if it's possible to have a separate women's US soccer to deal with possibility/accusation of favoritism by men to men's team.
I didn’t know they had basically already turned down when the men were getting.
The whole thing looks incredibly foolish now.