|
|
Post by mynameisinuse on May 2, 2020 13:49:25 GMT -5
However, Judge R. Gary Klausner wrote in his decision that members of the USWNT did not prove wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the women's team played more games and made more money than the men's team. The women's team also rejected a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where they would have the same pay structure as the men's team in favor of a different CBA, Klausner wrote. The women's CBA guarantees that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not, while the men's CBA calls for players to be paid if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match, according to the summary judgment. Klausner wrote that the women were asking for a court to conclude that the women were paid less than men because had the women been paid under the men's CBA, they would have earned more than they did under their own CBA. "This approach — merely comparing what each team would have made under the other team's CBA — is untenable in this case because it ignores the reality that the MNT and WNT bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the WNT explicitly rejected the terms they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves," Klausner wrote. www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/29125363/judge-sides-us-soccer-uswnt-equal-pay-lawsuit |
|
|
|
Post by jash on May 3, 2020 21:48:09 GMT -5
Now that there is a summary judgment (which is a pretty strong statement from the judge) it's clear that there was essentially no legal merit to the USWNT's claims, as many people said all along. The case was based on an emotional argument, not a legal one.
It really bothers me that they probably knew this and tried to use the court of public opinion to leverage their case -- not with honesty but with a politically popular position to try to make the situation appear to be discrimination.
They COULD have made a valid claim that they should make MORE in their next CBA because of their success and popularity, and I'd have given that argument serious credence. Instead they tried to claim they were victims and even rejected a settlement to improve their position.
Now after being a huge USWNT team I'm a bit sour on them. And it took something this insane to actually make me feel a little bit sympathetic towards USSF.
|
|
|
|
Post by atv on May 4, 2020 7:49:44 GMT -5
This lawsuit was a distraction from all the real issues with US Soccer.
**********
“The WNT did not make more money than the MNT solely because they played more games. Rather, the WNT both played more games and made more money than the MNT per game."
“On the women's argument that they would have earned more under the terms of the men's collective bargaining agreement because of the men's higher bonuses, it "discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed benefits they receive under their agreement, which they opted for."
The women's collective bargaining agreement reached in 2017 included full-time contracts and severance, something the men don't receive.
“The history of negotiations," the court wrote, "between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players.
"Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to-play terms structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."
The court added that not only was the women's players' argument wrong to compare their pay under their agreement and under the terms of the men's CBA but it ignored the economic value of the "insurance" benefit of their agreement.
********
The WNT case was poorly presented and baseless. This was a distraction from real issues with the federation. It was a money drain and a waste of time. US Soccer in all honesty should be entitled to recover their attorney fees.
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on May 4, 2020 8:15:40 GMT -5
The entire suit was not judged. The judge felt that he could not dismiss the part about unequal treatment with regards to travel, staff, and other issues.
The pay portion was always going to be difficult IMO because they elected to sign a CBA agreeing to those terms. There is still inequity in their situations but it is mainly due to NWSL, not USSF.
Interestingly, he also dismissed the playing on turf portion. There was a lot less said about this, but I would think that most of the posters on this forum would agree that turf is not the ideal surface and the women and men should play on equal playing surfaces. I don't understand why this part of the ruling was done.
|
|
|
|
Post by fridge on May 4, 2020 8:55:07 GMT -5
If I recall, oraclefriend predicted this exact outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on May 4, 2020 17:13:18 GMT -5
So Biden came out in support of the WNT, telling them to appeal.
So here's an interesting question...based on part of the reasoning for throwing out the equal-pay case, the USMNT failed to qualify for the WC, and because of this they didn't make as much as the women per game over the time period in question. So will the WNT sign their next CBA on terms that dictate equal compensation? So lets say that FIFA keeps increasing what the women make for qualifying and winning the WWC. And lets say the men continue to NOT make the WC...the men could be drawing from the USWNT's world-cup appearances and winnings...would the WNT be okay with that?
Because in the end what they want is to earn a hypothetical evenness with what the MNT would earn should they qualify for the and WIN the WC...but in the end that is not an argument with USSF, but FIFA.
|
|
