A FEDERAL JUDGE dismissed the United States women’s soccer team’s bid for equal pay last night, rejecting claims the players had been underpaid in a crushing defeat for the reigning world champions.
In a 32-page ruling, Judge Gary Klausner of the US District Court for Central California in Los Angeles tossed the women’s claim of pay discrimination, ruling in favour of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF).
Klausner did allow the women’s case for unfair treatment in areas such as travel, housing and medical support to proceed to trial, set for 16 June in Los Angeles.
But the judge said the equal pay claims — the central plank of the case — had been dismissed because there was evidence the women had previously turned down an offer in the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations to be paid along the lines of the US men’s team.
‘Shocked and disappointed’
The US women were left stunned by their defeat on the pay issue. The women had been seeking back pay of $66 million under the Equal Pay Act.
Prominent US women’s team star Megan Rapinoe said after learning of the court’s decision that the battle is not over.
“We will never stop fighting for EQUALITY,” she wrote on Twitter.
A spokeswoman for the players reacted with dismay following Friday’s ruling.
“We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up our hard work for equal pay,” spokeswoman Molly Levinson said.
“We are confident in our case and steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that girls and women who play this sport will not be valued as lesser just because of their gender.
“We have learned that there are tremendous obstacles to change; we know that it takes bravery and courage and perseverance to stand up to them.”
USSF said Friday night it would continue to work with the women’s program to grow the game in the United States.
“We look forward to working with the Women’s National Team to chart a positive path forward and to grow the game both here at home and around the world,” it said.
“We are committed to continuing that work to ensure our Women’s National Team remains the best in the world.”
The increasingly acrimonious lawsuit had taken a dramatic turn in March, when a filing by lawyers for the federation argued that US men’s team players required a “higher level of skill based on speed and strength” than the women.
The filing triggered outrage amongst the women’s players while influential sponsors such as Coca-Cola voiced disgust at the remarks.
USSF President Carlos Cordeiro later resigned following the uproar, with Rapinoe accusing the USSF of “blatant sexism” in its legal filings.
The US women, who clinched back-to-back World Cup wins with victory at last year’s finals in France, had based their claim for back pay in the disparities between prize money distributed by FIFA at the men’s and women’s World Cups.
Originally published at 10.00
Unsurprising..You can’t dictate what you feel the market owes you based on emotion…. grow the game at grassroots level, improve quality and it will become more valuable…just calling anyone who disagrees with you sexist is not helping anyone
@Padjo Mulk: thing is people will say women’s football doesn’t deserve more money until it gets more popular but at the same time how can it grow without investment at youth level. I’d say there’s some amount of money wasted getting us lads to kick a ball.
@Padjo Mulk: “grow the game at grassroots” – girls soccer has the highest female participation of any team sport in the US, I think it has higher participation rates than male, worth checking, it’s a huge team-game for girls.
“Improve quality”? They’re the twice World Champions, so what higher benchmark you looking for?
Regardless, seems their case stumbled in a negotiating technicality rather than on merit.
@Daithi Hakaman: the issue with quality relates to the overall quality of women’s soccer.. they aren’t as skilful as their male couterparts..
They may be world champions but the last men’s World Cup generated 4 billion dollars and the women’s generated 73 million. 54x lower.. different ball park.
There needs to be an attempt to grasp basic economics before trying to swindle a federation out 60 million dollars.
@Daithi Hakaman: 4 times World Champions actually!
@Padjo Mulk: those facts are sexist, you can’t use reason to make an argument that is sexist, it doesn’t fit the narrative.
@ThatLJD: There’s nothing sexist about that. Let me put it this way: would you pay to see dolphins in a circus to swing off branches? And monkeys swim?
Why then that team is sexist and doesn’t play with other than women’s teams? We’re not talking rugby here, in soccer players drop at the slightest touch. Especially in Spain.
When they will beat all soccer teams then they will get the pay they seek.
@Daithi Hakaman: the quality of the actual football and players ability. There’s really no comparison at the higher levels of the game.
@Daithi Hakaman: the reason the us women’s team has won the world cup back to back is because the quality of the women’s game around the world is not as good as the male game. Did u not see that when the women’s senior team played an under 15 boys team in a friendly they got hammered. And besides the quality does not dictate the market. Its supply and demand if alot of people want to watch women’s soccer there would be more money in the game. Who knows maybe in the future if more women are playing the game worldwide the quality might improve. But to be honest I watched some of the women’s world cup and some of the teams were atrocious.
@Rory Devlin: they could be 10 times world champs & it won’t change a thing…..in professional sport, far more male sport is watched than female sport…
@Padjo Mulk: the US women’s team brings in more money than the men’s. Is it fair that they’re subsidising the men’s team or do you not think they should grow the game for boys at grassroots level to make it more valuable?
@EillieEs: in a World Cup year perhaps where most of interest is down to nationalism.. in between there is very little interest.. any attempts to start a domestic league have been a disaster… there are very few genuine female soccer fans.
The us men’s team is awful but still will get paid lucratively at their clubs so doubt they will need to be subsidised!
@EillieEs: https://youtu.be/1E5D-J3EFRI
This explains very well
Only one solution. Get rid of gender separation. Only have one team. We’ll see how many of them make it. Then they can be paid equally because they’re doing the same job in the same circumstances
@Rocky: seeing as they got beat 5-2 by a Dallas under 15 team of lads, I couldn’t see too many of them making it. Quality and consumer demand will determine your worth. The sooner that Rapinoe realises this, the sooner we wont have to listen to her nonsensical Bull$hit.
@Rocky: really? That’s your best suggestion?
@Hector Son: you got a better one? Away you go. They want the same money to not compete at the same level. Seems unfair doesn’t it
@Rocky: pay both the same low base pay and then add on a % of the commercial revenue generated from games, tv and sponsors based on what each team generates.
@Rocky: agree 100%. If they want equality let them have it. Women will catch up in 100 years or so. They’d be doing it for the greater good, because that’s what they care about isn’t it?
In the meantime the current US women’s team will be playing in amateur leagues all over the US and not earning a dime. Same for tennis, golf etc. They’d struggle to get onto the professional circuit!
@Joe: women will catch up in 100 years or so? Women’s soccer in the US generates more money than the men’s so why are they earning less?
@EillieEs: I’m talking about quality. If they played with no segregation women would probably eventually catch up and become as good and as strong. If these women want true equality then they should take the hit now for future generations and demand that sexist segregation is gotten rid of.
Ah but that doesn’t suit their agenda and they don’t believe in true equality just the type that suits them.
They also don’t earn as much from clubs so can’t demand as high a wage at international level (by the way for which I don’t think any player of any sec or nationality should be paid for!).
@EillieEs: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/federal-judge-slaps-down-megan-rapinoe-uswnts-sham-equal-pay-lawsuit
This is a common sense judgment I think. Comparing ladies football to regular football is mad. Night and day. Men and women are physically different. If ladies are capable of playing in top leagues (not ladies leagues) then by all means let them, and then they can earn as much as the boys do. It’s great to see young girls in particular playing sport, it’s just terrible TV, so they aren’t going to be paid the same as in sports with higher viewer numbers.
@Finn Ruari: i think womens darts players should earn the same as the men.
@Kingshu: That’s a given considering the similar body shapes.
@Kingshu: they do already don’t they? The World Chamionship, Premier League etc prize money is not based on gender but on finishing position.
@Kingshu: there are female darts players, they don’t ask for special treatment.
@ThatLJD: yet they get special treatment. They get their own qualifiers for the World Championship to make sure 2 women qualify instead of making them qualify in the standard qualifiers.
@Paddy Cullen AIWS: stop it with your facts and reason, they have no place in a rebuttal to such a comment
@John Buckley: That’s more about marketing the game than anything else. Getting more women playing & watching is a win win for darts
@Kingshu: pmsl
A sensible decision
@James O’ Connor: complaing about inequality rapinoe backed by Nike. Not exactly a flagship for workers rights. Total hypocrite.
Theres a mens game and a womens game because it would be unfair to compete together.
In terms of revenues generated the mens game is by far the biggest generator (the outlier would be one year when the womens team won the world cup and the men didnt qualify)
This doesnt really seem to be about equality but greed, however i would be open to having my mind changed if there was a better argument than the one Rapinoe is putting forward.
@Michael Anthony Murray: yeah they were looking for rights that the men’s team do not receive and looking to be paid more despite rejecting the wage structure the men are under.
@Michael Anthony Murray: no, the women have been generating more money each year since 2016.
@EillieEs: The national team might generate more money in a (World Cup year) no doubt about it. but overall no one is watching the NWSL womens professional soccor league week in week out .The Average attendance per game is 7000 spectators and some of the games are as low as 1300 . This is their bread and butter income . 7000 people pay $30 dollars each that’s $210,000 dived by a squad of 20 players plus supporting staff, grounds staff, lighting, insurance, and any other expenses all the while trying to be profitable . Tell me where in all that can these players ask for the crazy money their looking for . If that’s the case why aren’t league of Ireland players demanding the same money as their counterparts in the English Premier league . Simple answer no one wants to watch the LOI .
@EillieEs: That’s not true Ellie. They have only generated more in a world cup year. Not in any 4 year works cup cycle. Overall the men’s game generates more revenue in the US.
Don’t want to get into law/politics etc and don’t know much about it either but but equal pay in a workplace regardless of gender is if you are doing the same or equal job?The men’s and women’s teams are not playing on the same team or at an equal standard.Thats not downplaying the women’s game,in fact I thought the last World Cup was unreal,but if you take for example the massive score lines and gap between the teams in international football in the women’s vs the men’s game it’s not equal unfortunately.However you could argue that from the stance of US federation,maybe they should be paying the women more giving their achievements compared to the men who have never come close to winning a World Cup,but then that’s not equal either!
@Nic Antonio: the US women’s soccer team generates more money than the men’s so why should they be paid less?
@EillieEs: because the men’s leagues pay higher wages because that generates more revenue. If they want the men to play they have to make it worth their while relative to what they get paid by their clubs. Otherwise they’ll take the summers off.
@EillieEs: Where did you here that…
@Joe: no, since 2016 women’s soccer has generated more income than the men’s.
@Tony Doyle: I didn’t ‘here’ it, it’s been public knowledge for some time. “U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years.
That’s according to audited financial statements from the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) obtained by The Wall Street Journal. In 2016, women’s games generated $1.9 million more in revenue than men’s games. From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
@EillieEs: sorry, but you don’t understand football economics. The tv deals are where it’s at. The actual matchday income is only a small proportion of the overall income. For example, should Ireland qualify for the Euros (men’s team ) that’s worth a minimum of 20 million to the fai. If the ladies qualify , it’s worth buttons because the major sponsors and the tv audience are not there at the moment. Generally speaking , playing for your country is not about money. The expenses payment is a token gesture from the FA. that’s why I like international football . Having said that, I think it’s important that both senior teams are treated equally in terms of kit, training facilities, flights etc and sponsorship deals should include both teams
@EillieEs: women’s international soccer, not the domestic league where the players play the rest of the time.
@Joe: this is true I read an article on this a few months ago I’d need to do some digging to find it . In order for the USF to get Men to play for their county their wages need to be compensated while on international duty . Men’s domestic soccor generates more money then their female counterparts hence why men get more money .
The women were offered the same deal as the men but they turned it down because they would loose the security they had on their old contract . Men only get paid when they represent their country no play no pay . Women get paid regardless a proportion of their base salary and bonus if the win a game . https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html
@EillieEs: They’re disputing their pay as members of the national team, not how much they are paid by their clubs. So you have to compare how much revenue the women’s national team generates compares to the men’s national team. Over any 4 year world cup cycle the women’s team generates less revenue.
The article left out the part where the judge said that the women were paid more per game than the men.
@Derek Goulding: interesting. Do ya play F all games orbwhats the story.
Good
It’s like watching paint dry
“looking for equality” – then why does €84m sound like greed? Equally greedy?
Can someone provide context here, according to the article the main portion of their case failed because they were previously offered the same deal and pay as the men’s team, turned it down (why?), and have now gone to court looking for pay equality. Was that not pay deal they turned down?
@D Mems: The women’s argument is that the men get more money from playing in tournaments than the women. The US association will get Prize Money from FIFA for qualification and tournament performance. All of that Prize Money doesn’t go to the players, they will usually negotiate a percentage before a tournament and the association will use the rest for developing the game. The women’s team get a higher percentage of the prize money. Their argument should be with FIFA, not the US Association who basically just distribute the prize money.
Crazy case. Will never succeed. These sports have to fund themselves. People vote with their listenership.
Cold hard reality is you cannot expect equal pay without the gates and advertising revenue to do it. I am all for equal pay and rights but, the reality is football is a business and 90%+ who watch and participate are male with no interest in womens soccer and most revenue comes from the male game. That is without the question of standard. Participation rates may be high but, that needs to transfer into the business side i.e. merchandising, tv revenue and so on.
The mens game took 100+ years to get to where it is. You can’t just expect the same. This is not tennis where the appeal transcends gender and is finally reflected in earning power. You cant cheat your way there
Smaller goals and lighter footballs would make the womans game to improve what’s on the pitch. Will it happen? Hell no due to equality
@Trevor: using the same sized goals is the stupidest thing I think. Even if we ignore that men are significantly taller than women in general, the lads that go in goals in football are not normal lads, they’re huge! Women do not grow to the size of Edwin Van Der Sar unless they have underlying health conditions. Making the goals smaller in the women’s game seems a no brainer.
@Gordon Comstock: yeah agree that along with free kicks really brings the women’s game down. It’s like watching an U12s game. If you can lift the ball as high as the top corner it’s a goal. As for free kicks making it over the wall is an achievement!
@Gordon Comstock: I think (could be wrong) the average score / game was roughly the same in the last men’s & women’s World Cups. Smaller goals for the womens game would surely lead to less goals?
@Willie Murphy: weight of the ball, unable to header (due to weight of ball) lack of fitness all lead to low scoring games
@Trevor: A woman can’t header a ball into the goal from 12/15 yards?? I beg to differ. Smaller goals would make it even worse?
I watched some of the last women’s world cup I stopped watching after the USA won a game something like 12-0 I was amazed that the team continued to celebrate after each goal, running half the length of the pitch after 10 goals to dance in the dugout To me this was way OTT As part of watching the world cup for me is the fallout after a match I went online to see what was being said about the celebrations What I read turned me off watching the rest of the matches I can’t remember who wrote the piece but basically it set out to make the point that if you were questioning the way the USA team celebrated you were sexist as you were telling women how to act I feel stupid now for having let this piece ruin the games I am not sexist I am just a football fan with an opinion like all fans
“But the judge said the equal pay claims — the central plank of the case — had been dismissed because there was evidence the women had previously turned down an offer in the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations to be paid along the lines of the US men’s team”
They regret not taking that deal now.
I d be interested in a woman’s comment on this…. seems that all comments thus far are from males… maybe women aren’t interested in this judgement
That’s because most women, not all, dont really care about Football. And that’s why women’s Football is poor.
@Kevin50: I agree with that, however – should the gender of the person forming the opinion matter? Are we not equal?
Additionally the vast majority of the viewership of womens football is men…
@Kevin50: women only show interest when they are morally outraged!! 99% of the time they couldn’t care less about their female counterparts in sports . Female sports doesn’t appeal to the vast majority of them . But if you look at the comments section of love island or some tv drama it’s full of concerned women regarding who slept with who, who said this, who said that . Until the day comes when women stop buying makeup and fashion items and stop watching fake TV and start attending female sports events . The women’s game will lag behind the men’s game . Men will undoubtedly choose men’s Sports over women’s . women will scream sexism at every opportunity but won’t make the changes themselves to change things .
Sport is valued not by success but with the revenue it generates.
Now in what way could they decide if greater skill speed and strength was required in the men’s game. Hmm answers on a postcard please thethruth is in the build up for the world cup the us women played and list to several boys U15 teams
Why don’t they play for free like the GAA if they love it so much , I was all for them getting equal pay going forward but not back dating their pay, plus they turn down a good offer so they just like the rest of us, Greedy Ducks
PS . It’s business if you don’t like the contract put in front of you don’t sign it in the first place, love how no one ever complains in the beginning when their poor but soon as they get the few million in the bank they start getting all mouthy,
A stupid case to take. It’s like saying Halifax Town players should be paid the same as Manchester United players.
@ThatLJD: There’s nothing sexist about that. Let me put it this way: would you pay to see dolphins in a circus to swing off branches? And monkeys swim?
Why then that team is sexist and doesn’t play with other than women’s teams? We’re not talking rugby here, in soccer players drop at the slightest touch. Especially in Spain.
When they will beat all soccer teams then they will get the pay they seek.