The U.S. Soccer Federation has reached a proposed settlement with the Women's National Team in a legal battle over working conditions but a dispute over equal pay with that of their male counterparts continues.
The agreement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Tuesday, is a partial victory for the World Cup champion U.S. women's soccer team, who will see an improvement in hotel accommodations, venues, travel and staffing that will put them on equal footing with players on the Men's National Team.
Among the most notable changes under the proposed settlement is a requirement that "matches be played on grass in almost all circumstances." The women's team has been fighting for years to put an end to matches played on artificial surfaces — a condition with which the men's team rarely contends.
The federation will also provide an equal number of chartered flights to the women's and men's teams, and it has agreed to offer comparable hotel accommodations for the teams. They will also have comparable staff, with 18 to 21 professional positions to provide support services to the respective teams.
"Coming to an agreement on the working conditions is just the first step," Parlow Cone added in a reference to ongoing compensation-related litigation."
_________________ Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013 DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 Age: 48 Gender: Male Posts: 3,998 Location: Melbourne, Australia
02 Dec 2020, 4:58 am
The "equal pay" issue on this one seems interesting, based on what I saw earlier in the year, and isn't a case of discrimination but rather the result of the choice of pay structure that the womens "player association" elected to be paid under.
It seems the pay difference comes from the way the respective "player associations" (unions) arranged for their members to be paid: * The mens team went with a "pay to play" structure where they only get paid if they play, with no guarantees on how many (if any) games individual players would be playing, potentially leaving players earning nothing, but with bonuses for better results. * The womens team, on the other hand, rejected the "pay to play" performance structure when it was offered and instead went with a "salary" based approach, where a certain number of players were guaranteed a fixed amount regardless of the games played or results achieved.
A couple of videos from May 1, where their "wage discrimination" case was denied on summary judgement, explaining the order from the judge:
Summary from video:
Quote:
US Women's soccer sued the US Soccer Federation for unequal pay, which is required by several different laws, such as the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They note that they have been massively successful, and had they been paid as the men were paid, would have been paid far more for this success.
As it turns out, they did have the option to be paid the same as the men, but the union representing Women's soccer turned that deal down. They instead bargained for the deal that they they now argue is unfair.
In today's legal analysis, we discuss the different contracts of the men and women in US soccer, and we take note that choices matter, and result in consequences.
Summary from video:
Quote:
From Case This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT (Women's National Team) rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT (Men's National Team), and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure.
The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team had their lawsuit thrown out by a Judge after being totally embarrassed.
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 Age: 48 Gender: Male Posts: 3,998 Location: Melbourne, Australia
13 Feb 2022, 5:59 am
It has certainly been an interesting case so far.
From memory: * The womans team were initially offered the same deal as the males, but turned that down in favour of negotiating something very different. * During trial, their contract expired, at which point they were offered the same deal as the males, but they declined that in favor of extending their existing contract. * During the trial, the mens team were found to have earned $0 the previous year (2019), while the womans team still had the guaranteed income from their contract. * It was found that had the womans team been on the mens contract prior to that, they would have erned more than they did on their contract... And had the men been on the woman's contract that same year, they would have earned more as well.
02 Dec 2020, 3:41 am
