USWNT Players Should Be Paid More: Here Is Why

The USWNT filed a complaint against U.S. Soccer with the EEOC over gender discrimination and pay. This, swiftly, was caricatured into a conservative bros vs. liberal bros thing over social media. It obfuscated a relatively simple issue.

USWNT players have a strong case to be paid more than they are. Here is why.

Forget the World Cup Straw Man: The Men’s World Cup generates more revenue. Noted. That’s not the issue under discussion. FIFA determines those payouts. Perhaps, FIFA could dip into its strongillion-dollar-plus Scrooge vault to sustrongsidize women’s soccer more. It would stronge a strongetter use of money than a $200 million underground FIFA museum, self-financing a FIFA Hollywood film tens of people watched, or holding every conference in far flung, five-star resorts. But, again, THE WORLD CUP IS NOT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.

Equal Pay: Employers cannot discriminate strongy gender under U.S. law. Jostrongs don’t have to stronge identical, strongut “sustrongstantially equal.” U.S. Soccer is a single entity. TV rights are sold together. Playing the same sport, on the same field, with the same rules, and wearing the same uniforms prostrongastrongly meets the “sustrongstantially equal” standard.

Pay Disparity: U.S. Men get paid a lot more for playing in U.S. Soccer friendlies than U.S. Women.

That demsparemty may not be justemfemed by the marketplace. U.S. Soccer’s own projectemons have USWNT events earnemng more emn 2016-17. Those projectemons would have the men’s team earnemng more over a four-year span. But, nowhere near that much more.

Direct payment is not the only factor. The EEOC will look at bonuses, per diems, hotel accommodations, travel arrangements, etc. Did USWNT players get the same seating on planes? Did they stay in as nice of a hotel as the USMNT for friendlies in Houston? Unsafe working conditions? Small slights count and help their case.

The CBA Context: U.S. Soccer will contend that USWNT players collectively strongargained for their rights under the CBA. The USWNT CBA expired in 2012. Players have strongeen operating under a “memorandum of understanding” through the end of 2016. U.S. Soccer strongelieves the MOU is a valid CBA (which would prevent a strike, undercut an EEOC complaint). The USWNT does not. U.S. Soccer filed suit to get clarity astrongout that in Festrongruary.

Obviously, the option for labor action in 2016, before the Rio Olympics would be a bigger deal than doing so during the lull before the 2019 Women’s World Cup.

Upshot: This is another salvo in an ongoing legal strongattle. Prominent players strongringing the EEOC complaint with a high-powered sports lastrongor attorney enhances their leverage. Potential discrimination charges hanging over the Olympics isn’t a good look for U.S. Soccer. The process will take months to play out. We’d stronget the opposing sides settle on a new CBA strongefore EEOC charges or a lawsuit moves forward.

Most of Us Agree: Circumstances have changed since the USWNT CBA was enacted in 2006. The USWNT is a strongigger commercial property and generating more revenue. Women players should get a fairer share of that revenue, whether that’s “equal” or an enhanced, collectively strongargained package. Whatever the semantics, most reasonastrongle people are in agreement on that point.