Tag Archives: wage

Closer look: Women’s soccer wage complaint

Five stars with the World Cup-winning U.S. women’s national team have filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing the U.S. Soccer Federation of wage discrimination.

Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn allege that they are paid far less than their counterparts on the less-successful U.S. men’s team.

The team saw a surge in popularity following last year’s 5-2 World Cup victory over Japan and the group generated more revenue than the men’s team. The U.S. women have won three total World Cup titles and four Olympic gold medals, while the men have not won either event.

The players and their union are currently embroiled in a legal dispute with U.S. Soccer over the status of their collective bargaining agreement.

The federation filed a lawsuit earlier this year seeking to clarify that its contract with the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Players Association runs through the Rio Olympics until Dec. 31. The union maintains the memorandum of understanding from March 2013 can be terminated at any time. That case is pending.

Here are the answers to some of the questions surrounding the issue:

 

DOES THE WOMEN’S TEAM GENERATE MORE REVENUE THAN THE MEN?

U.S. Soccer released financial details at its last general meeting that projects the women will generate $17.6 million in the 2017 fiscal year, while the men bring in an estimated $9 million.

The women’s team has already qualified for the Rio Olympics; the men’s team failed to qualify. For the 2016 fiscal year, the national teams were expected to operate at a deficit of $420,929 but instead generated revenues of $17.7 million, thanks in part to the women’s World Cup victory and subsequent tour.

The women were far more visible because it was a World Cup year for them.

But U.S. Soccer maintains that the short window does not provide the total revenue picture, because it does not include a men’s World Cup in the time frame. The USSF pointed to attendance figures for men’s and women’s matches from 2011-2015 and an example of one revenue stream: The men averaged 29,751 fans, while the women averaged 16,229.

 

DIDN’T THE WOMEN’S TEAM MAKE BONUSES FOR WINNING THE WORLD CUP?

The Women’s World Cup prize money for the women’s team was $2 million distributed among the players.

In contrast, the Germany’s men’s team won $35 million from the 2014 World Cup. The U.S. men’s team earned $9 million for their appearance in the tournament. The men were knocked out in the round of 16.

World Cup prize money is allocated by FIFA, soccer’s governing body.

As far as U.S. Soccer is concerned, USWNT players are paid $30,000 for making the World Cup team, while the men are paid $68,750 apiece, according to documents in the EEOC complaint.

The men’s team gets a $2.5 million bonus for making the World Cup field, while the women don’t get a bonus.

 

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN SALARY BETWEEN THE MEN’S AND WOMEN’S TEAMS?

The top players on the women’s team are paid a salary of about $72,000 a year by U.S. Soccer, along with bonuses, to play in a minimum of 20 exhibitions per year. They are awarded bonuses if they win those games, with the potential to earn $99,000, the complaint said.

USMNT players are also required to play at least 20 exhibitions a year, earning a minimum of $5,000 for each appearance. Compensation varies with the level of opponent, based on FIFA ranking. Players can earn up to $263,320 if they win all of their games, according to the EEOC complaint.

The male players are typically offered greater compensation as incentive to appear in the exhibition games, one attorney explained, because many have demanding schedules with their club teams.

Members of the USWNT are allocated across the National Women’s Soccer League, and U.S. Soccer pays their club salaries.

The USSF maintains that the women set up a guaranteed salary model in the last collective bargaining agreement, rather than the pay-for-play model that the men have. The women also have certain benefits that the men don’t, including severance and health care.

 

WHAT ABOUT TELEVISION REVENUE?

U.S. Soccer sells television rights collectively, so there’s no breakdown between men and women.

In terms of ratings, the women’s 5-2 victory over Japan in Canada last July was seen by 26.7 million viewers on Fox and NBC’s Telemundo network — making it the most-viewed soccer game in the history of American television.

That topped the previous American record of 26.5 million set when Germany beat Argentina in the 2014 men’s World Cup final. That was seen by 17.3 million on ABC and 9.2 million on Spanish-language Univision.

Cost of a 30-second commercial on Fox during the Women’s World Cup final was $210,760. The cost for an equivalent spot on ABC during the men’s final was $465,140.

Elizabeth Warren addresses AFL-CIO wage summit

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren this week hammered Washington’s leaders — Republicans and Democrats alike — for failing to help middle-class workers since the 1980s.

Warren delivered her speech at a summit on raising wages sponsored by the AFL-CIO.

“Pretty much the whole Republican Party – and if we’re going to be honest, too many Democrats – have talked about the evils of `big government’ and called for deregulation,” Warren said, arguing the policies turned loose “big banks and giant international corporations” and “juiced short-term profits even if it came at the expense of working families.”

That sort of rhetoric has some liberals hoping for Warren will enter the Democratic presidential contest, a move that would likely pit her against Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s leading contender should she enter the campaign as is widely expected.

Warren, in her remarks, didn’t mention Clinton by name. Neither did panelist Jennifer Epps-Addison of Wisconsin Jobs Now, who won applause from the audience when she suggested the party was hurting itself by appearing ready to simply anoint the apparent favorite as its next presidential nominee.

“I don’t want to get in trouble, but I’ll say it anyway,” Epps-Addison said. “It starts with this idea that we have a presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, because if we don’t accept that … if we say that we demand somebody to actually meet our needs before we’re going to give them a candidate for the presidency, then that can make a difference.”

Clinton, the former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady, has dominated early polls, but is being pushed by many Democrats to take a more populist stance on economic issues. Warren has resisted calls to enter the campaign, but her appearance before labor leaders served notice that she intends to influence the agenda this year.

“For more than 30 years, Washington has far too often advanced policies that hammer America’s middle class even harder,” she said.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called Warren “an inspiration” and said the labor organization would hold similar summits this year in the first four presidential primary states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina – to advocate for policies aimed at boosting wages.

During last year’s midterm elections, Clinton touted the 1990s economic growth during her husband’s administration, noting that it helped bring prosperity to many middle-class families. She voiced support for raising the federal minimum wage and promoting paid family leave policies to help working families, particularly mothers.

Bolstering wages and household income remains at the top of the agenda for many Democrats, who acknowledge that while the labor market has begun to recover from the deep recession that began in 2008, wages have barely kept up with inflation. President Barack Obama unsuccessfully sought to increase the federal minimum wage last year but several states and big cities have taken steps to boost their minimum wages.

Warren said the economy had made strides – a soaring stock market, rising corporate profits and economic growth – but that progress had failed to translate into higher wages for workers. She said Washington leaders too often had chosen to shackle the “financial cops,” bail out Wall Street banks, sign trade deals that hurt workers and cut taxes for the wealthy.

Neera Tanden, a former Hillary Clinton policy adviser who leads the Center for American Progress, said Warren was “absolutely right,” adding the country shouldn’t be “fatalistic” about its ability to overcome economic challenges.

“So many people in Washington and in the country are pessimistic about our country’s chances and believe this kind of story out there that stagnating wages in the United States are just the way it is. That is false,” Tanden said.