U.S. Women's Soccer: Equal Pay for Equal Play?
Short on time?
We consolidate every article and add some fun visuals for our email subscribers. Click below to get this article delivered to your inbox and get signed up for fresh content every week!
KEY THEMES
Sports
Gender Equality
location
United States
KEY SOURCES
Economic Policy Institute
Wharton University Pennsylvania
MLS Soccer
Urban Institute
Journal of the Philosophy of Sport
U.S. Soccer Open Letter via ESPN
Foundation for Economic Education
CATO Institute
Hoover Institution
Alex Morgan Ex al. v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Civil Minutes
WHY THIS QUESTION MATTERS:
In the midst of COVID-19 updates and adjusting to a new normal, it would have been easy to miss a significant update in the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) lawsuit that occurred earlier this month.
As a reminder, the team filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation in March 2019. The suit gained international attention when the team claimed another dominant victory in the 2019 Women’s World Cup. The crowd chanted “Equal Pay!” as the U.S. team celebrated their 4th World Cup victory on July 7th, 2019.
On May 1st, 2020 a federal judge rejected the women’s team’s argument against receiving lower pay than the U.S. men’s team. Is the USWNT experiencing gender-based pay discrimination? We’ll walk through the research behind both sides' arguments.
BACKGROUND:
Tension between the USWNT and the Federation is longstanding.
In 1999, the Federation took a financial risk to increase the scale of the Women's World Cup despite a lack of action from FIFA. However, the relationship between the two parties has remained strained. In the latest lawsuit, the USWNT alleges that the federation engages in “institutionalized gender discrimination.”
Here’s a quick timeline of the current lawsuit according to reporting by ESPN:
March 2019: The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
July 2019: USSF president Carlos Cordeiro released an open letter, citing what he described as extensive analysis of 10 years of financial data. He said the data showed that from 2010 to 2018, the women's players were paid $34.1 million in salary and game bonuses by U.S. Soccer, compared to $26.4 million given to the men during the same time period. The men's and women's teams operate with separate collective bargaining agreements and pay structures.
Nov 2019: federal judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the USWNT's motion to give its lawsuit class certification. The early win for the women meant the lawsuit could include players who appeared for the national team dating back to Feb. 4, 2015. U.S. Soccer had opposed the motion for certification.
Feb 2020: In February, the two sides filed very different motions in district court. Lawyers for the USWNT filed for partial summary judgment seeking back pay of at least $66.7 million in addition to punitive damages. USSF asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit "based on the actual facts in the record and the governing law."
March 2020: he federation reversed course on the most contentious of its arguments. Cordeiro resigned on March 12 amid backlash from fans and sponsors to language in court filings attempting to show women's players did not perform work of equal skill, effort and responsibility. Both Cordeiro and new USSF president Cindy Parlow Cone apologized for the language widely viewed as demeaning women's players and women's sports generally.
May 2020: The trial was originally slated to begin on May 5 but was pushed back to June 16 after both sides sought guidance from the court in light of the coronavirus outbreak. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has issued a stay-at-home order in his state because of the global pandemic. U.S. Soccer publicly apologized for and legally walked back its most hard-line arguments. Indeed, it earned a fairly resounding win on the motion for summary judgment by focusing not on the idea that the women's players didn't perform equal work but that the differences in CBAs did not constitute discrimination but fair trade-offs willingly negotiated.
So where does that leave us? Let’s take a look at both sides of the argument.
THE COMMON THREAD:
Athletes should receive fair compensation for their performance.
FIND YOUR THREAD:
Supporters of the lawsuit say the women's team has actually been paid more than the men's team in the last decade when analyzing total compensation and tournament payouts are dictated by viewership and popularity. Opponents say the women's team has actually been paid more than the men's team in the last decade when analyzing total compensation and tournament payouts are dictated by viewership and popularity.
What do you think?
YES, A PAY GAP EXISTS AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
Reason 01
The U.S. men’s soccer team is paid more when looking at bonuses and tournament payouts.
Non-Tournament Play: Due to the fact that the men's and women's contracts were negotiated separately, it makes them hard to compare directly, analysis demonstrates that a men’s U.S. soccer player can earn as much as $8,166 extra for a win at an exhibition game—a women’s player, meanwhile, receives as little as $1,350 extra for winning a similar match. Economic Policy Institute
Tournament Play: Prize money for men’s tournaments is significantly higher than women's. Winners of the 2019 Women’s World Cup earned $30 million compared to the 2018 Men’s World Cup $400 million. Meaning the men’s payout was roughly 12x higher than the women’s payout. Wharton University Pennsylvania
Reason 02
The women’s team has consistently outperformed the men’s team in recent years.
Better Performance: In recent years, the women’s team has outperformed the men’s team. While the women’s team won the most recent World Cup, the men’s team failed to qualify for the tournament for the first time in 30 years. MLS Soccer
More Revenue: Because of this performance, United States Soccer Federation (USSF) projects the women’s team will generate $17.6 million in gross revenues in fiscal year 2017 compared with the men’s $9.1 million. Urban Institute
Reason 03
Women’s soccer is growing in popularity and has untested commercial viability.
Untested Commercial Viability: Television rights for the Women’s World Cup are always bundled with the Men’s World Cup, so we’ve never separated those and we don’t know their value independent from one another. There is unrealized commercial potential in the women's game, and it is quite possible that we might see revenues increase in the future. Women's pay should reflect this commercial market potential. Wharton University of Pennsylvania
Moral Obligation: Looking through the lens of ‘historical injustice’ - many associations not only have moral reasons to pay their men’s and women’s teams equally, but they also have a moral obligation and a political responsibility to do so. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport
NO, PAY IS EQUITABLE BASED ON VIEWERSHIP AND NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS.
Reason 01
Over the last decade, the women’s national team earned more than the men’s national team.
Women earned more: In an open letter, U.S. Soccer said that women's players were paid $34.1 million by the federation from 2010 to 2018 in salaries and bonuses (2018 is the most recent fiscal year for which information was available). That also includes the National Women's Soccer League salaries paid by U.S. Soccer for national team-contracted players. Members of the men's national team were paid $26.4 million by the federation over the same period, the analysis concluded. U.S. Soccer Open Letter via ESPN
Reason 02
Pay is equitable to popularity and viewership on the international stage.
Advertisers control Funding: A lot of sports are funded by private sponsorship. In 2017-18, for example, the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) sourced over half of its revenue from sponsorship, TV licensing, and royalties. So the more popular a sport is, the more advertisers and broadcasters are willing to pay. Foundation for Economic Education
Internationally, men’s soccer is more popular: The often cited difference in payouts for men’s v. women’s World Cup is a byproduct of popularity. The 2011 Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million in revenue. The 2010 Men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion. The men’s players got $348 million, or 9 percent of the total revenue. The women’s team got a higher percentage with 13 percent. CATO Institute
It’s about viewership and contracts: To create a more equitable payout for international tournaments, advertisers must be equally willing to pay for women’s and men’s sponsorship. On the other hand, the national salaries paid to the men’s and women’s team are a direct byproduct of contract negotiations (see next reason). CATO Institute and Alex Morgan Ex al. v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Civil Minutes
Reason 03
Nationally, pay is determined by contracts not gender preferences.
Guaranteed Salary v. Bonuses: The women’s and men’s teams ended up with substantially different agreements based on separate collective bargaining. The women's team "explicitly rejected the [contract] terms that they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves…In May 2016, USSF offered the WNT (women's national team) a pay-to-play proposal similar to the MNT (men's national team), but the WNT rejected it preferring an agreement that involved some element of guaranteed compensation.” Alex Morgan Ex al. v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Civil Minutes
It's about contracts - not sexism: Under the current contracts, women are guaranteed a salary with less bonuses and men receive no salary but may receive more bonuses based on performance. Alex Morgan Ex al. v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Civil Minutes
Subscribe to our weekly email to cast your vote on a fresh topic every week.