US Men's Soccer Thinks Women's Team Deserves *More Than* 'Equal Pay,' Since They're Better

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.wonkette.com/us-men-s-soccer-thinks-women-s-team-deserves-more-than-equal-pay-since-they-re-better

In 2019, the 28 members of the United States women's national soccer team celebrated International Women's Day by suing the United States Soccer Federation for gender discrimination — demanding equal pay, and more importantly, equal pay structures with their male counterparts. Last year, Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed the case on the grounds that the women signed a contract agreeing to a differently structured payment agreement that "prioritized stability" and health care over per-game bonuses, as well as the fact that they actually ended up making more than the male players. However, had they been paid with the same structure as the male players, they would have earned a hell of a lot more.

Why? Because the US women's team is ranked first in the world and has won four World Cups, while the men's team is ranked 22nd and has won zero World Cups. In order to make as much as the male players do, the women have to win practically every one of their games.

The women are now appealing Judge Klausner's decision, and the men's team is standing by them, filing an amicus brief in support of their lawsuit on Friday.

Via Washington Post:

[T]he men's team called the ruling "flawed" and "oversimplified," saying that the court had wrongly ignored the fact that the women's pay relied on their performance, not just the number of games they played.

The men's team argued that, contrary to the judge's ruling, the women had been "pressured" to accept "an unfair and unequal" collective bargaining agreement.

When the women's agreement was negotiated, the brief claims, the men were "stunned" that US Soccer had not agreed to offer them equal pay, refusing to even meet the terms of the contract the men had negotiated six years earlier.

"The women deserved better from the Federation — and a lot more money," the men's team lawyers wrote in the brief.

*snip*

[SheltieLover]

1. Great point!

I saw our women's team win the gold in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Wow!

[zuul]

2. Exactly! They are far better!

[crickets]

3. K&R for visibility.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. The Dismissal Logic Seems Odd

Ok, they agreed to the contract at the time, but we don't know what alternatives were provided.
Were the other alternatives so bad as to be coercion? Maybe.
But, the idea that the suit lost some merit because they ended making as much money as the men's team is silly.
They had to be the best team in the world for years, and play more games each year, to make what the men made while being a mediocre at best product.
That makes no sense. Sports has always been, while indirect, pay for performance. They are clearly underpaid for their given degree of performance & success.