The U.S. Soccer Federation "defended itself vigorously" Thursday against charges in a gender discrimination complaint members of the women's national team's filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to Leander Schaerlaeckens of YAHOO SPORTS. Hours after the players' filing, the USSF "asserted essentially that the wage inequality complaint has no merit." It argued that the players signed a CBA "stipulating terms and receive non-monetary benefits the men's national team doesn't get." It added that, "counter to the women's claim, the men drive revenue that's 'almost twice' as high as that of the women's team." USSF outside counsel Russell Sauer argued that the USWNT players "willingly agreed" to the terms in the CBA and had "prioritized the security of a fixed baseline salary over a riskier but more lucrative all-bonus structure, such as the men's." Sauer pointed out that in addition to salary, the women "get benefits the men don't receive, like severance pay when they are cut from the team, health insurance, vision, dental, pregnancy leave" -- with 50% pay -- and a "guaranteed salary when they are injured." USSF President Sunil Gulati "admitted that the filing caught him by surprise, but he strongly refuted several of the claims made by the women" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 4/1). ESPN FC's Jeff Carlisle noted the USSF in its most recent annual report "was projecting a loss for the combined national teams" for FY '16, but "as a result of the success of the women's team, it is now projecting" $17.7M in profit. This "disparity continues" in '17, when the women's team is expected to net $5M in profit, whereas the men's team will be $1M "in the red." The periods encompassing FYs '16 and '17 "will see the U.S. women's national team play two major tournaments" -- the '15 Women's World Cup and the Rio Games. Sauer and Gulati yesterday "stopped short of saying the women deserved to be paid the same as the men." Gulati said revenues are "absolutely part of the equation." A USSF spokesperson said that the revenues associated with the U.S. men's national team are "nearly twice that of the women" (ESPNFC.com, 3/31).
DEAL OR NO DEAL? Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who is repping the five named players, said that the timing of the complaint was "due to U.S. Soccer communicating in CBA negotiations that the women would not get as much as the men in their new CBA." Sauer denied that claim, saying, "I can tell you categorically along with the other U.S. Soccer participants that statement or anything even remotely along those lines was never said." He added that he has "been at all three meetings in November, February and March." Sauer reiterated the USSF's position that the women’s CBA is "in place until December 31, 2016, based on the memorandum of understanding" signed in '13. SI.com's Grant Wahl noted the U.S. players "maintain the CBA is no longer in place," and a court in Chicago is "expected to rule on the existence of the CBA in early June" (SI.com, 3/31). In N.Y., Andrew Das in a front-page piece notes the USSF has CBAs "with both teams, but the financial terms differ widely." A men’s player "receives $5,000 for a loss in a friendly match but as much as $17,625 for a win against a top opponent." A women’s player "receives $1,350 for a similar match, but only if the United States wins; women’s players receive no bonuses for losses or ties." It has been argued that men’s sports, and their players, "deserve a financial edge because they draw bigger crowds and generate far more money in ticket sales and corporate sponsorships." The USSF said that this "is the case for U.S. Soccer’s national teams" (N.Y. TIMES, 4/1).
MERIT PAY: YAHOO SPORTS' Eric Adelson wrote while pay is a "primary concern, this is clearly about more than that." Players on a conference call brought up "coverage of women's sports on ESPN," and there have been "issues with hotel accommodations." There also is the "lingering concern over artificial turf, which was used in the Women's World Cup last summer even though the men have never had to play on the surface in World Cup play." Thursday's complaint "not only puts pressure on U.S. Soccer, it also will add a spotlight to the men's team." There will be questions for the men "about whether they deserve to be paid more than the women" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 3/31). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Matthew Futterman writes members of the USWNT know they will "never have more leverage than they have now." The USSF is "banking on the world champs to win a fourth consecutive gold medal in Rio and then go on a victory tour that will bring in" a projected $8M. A strike by the women also would be a "huge black eye for U.S. Soccer as it prepares to bid" for the '26 World Cup (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4/1).
COULD OLYMPIC BOYCOTT BE NEXT? CBS' Jim Axelrod noted one thing to watch in the dispute is the possibility the USWNT "would strike before the Olympics in August." That threat "could possibly give them some leverage as the negotiations continue” (“Evening News,” CBS, 3/31). ESPN's Jemele Hill said the women's players "need to seriously engage in work stoppage." Hill: "We may never see the men win a World Cup in our lifetime, and (the women's players) have more than earned their place and their right for equal pay. It's just silly and stupid that the U.S. Soccer Federation continues to treat them like this" ("His & Hers," ESPN2, 3/31). ESPN's Michelle Beadle urged the USWNT to strike before the Olympics, saying, "What you really need is the men need to stand up and do the right thing as well" ("SportsNation," ESPN2, 3/31). But the L.A. Times' Bill Plaschke said he would "worry about a work stoppage." Plaschke: "The public will turn on you in a minute if they think you're putting this ahead of your country" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 3/31).
LISTEN UP: USWNT D Becky Sauerbrunn, one of the five players who filed the complaint, said, "We feel we are fighting the right fight. We're on the right side of history here. So we have nothing to be too frightened about. But the whole idea of filing a complaint against your employer is a little ... daunting." Asked about the timing of the complaint, Sauerbrunn said, "We kind of exhausted every other avenue. This was the next logical step for us. We were forced to do something that brings all this to light, that makes U.S. Soccer justify why they pay us less than the men" (ESPNW.com, 4/1). USA TODAY's Christine Brennan in a front-page piece writes of "all the memorable moments in the glorious history" of U.S. women's soccer, the "most important might have happened Thursday." Brennan: "Years from now, we’ll remember the glory and the triumphs on the field. ... We just might remember their powerful statement off the field even more" (USA TODAY, 4/1). In New Jersey, Tara Sullivan in a front-page piece writes it is USWNT MF Carli Lloyd's "courageous decision to be included among the plaintiffs in a startling lawsuit filed Thursday that should etch her into the history books just as permanently as those amazing three goals she scored in the World Cup final" (Bergen RECORD, 4/1). In Boston, Shirley Leung in a front-page piece writes when some of the "most popular and decorated female athletes in US history come together to say we have a problem, it forces everyone to lean in and listen." Sports are "one of the great unifiers in this country -- and by taking a stand, these female soccer stars are fighting for much more than their own paychecks" (BOSTON GLOBE, 4/1).
YOU GO, GIRLS: In Miami, Linda Robertson notes women's players are "allotted a per diem of $60 while the men get $75." She asks, "What is the justification? Are men hungrier than women?" What is "irrational is that U.S. Soccer undermines its greatest asset" (MIAMI HERALD, 4/1). In DC, Sally Jenkins writes retired USWNT player Abby Wambach was "paid a fraction for winning gold" what USMNT player Clint Dempsey "gets paid for losing in a first round." It is the "direct comparison that stings," as money is "a measure of respect" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/1). In S.F., Bruce Jenkins writes the USSF's disparity between pay for the men's and women's teams "borders on the pathetic, leaving the strong suggestion" that U.S. Soccer "is run by idiots." The equal-pay fight "should have been won" in the '90s, "when the team featuring Mia Hamm, Kristine Lilly, Michelle Akers and many other star-quality players captured the world’s attention." The names change, "but not the appeal" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 4/1). A DALLAS MORNING NEWS editorial runs under the header, "No More Unequal Pay For World Cup Champs" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 4/1). In Orlando, Mike Bianchi writes the women's players "absolutely should NOT be demanding equal pay." Instead, they should "be demanding better pay." The U.S. women's soccer team "has done much more to promote and popularize soccer in this country than their male counterparts" (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 4/1).
