The USWNT's most recent settlement offer of $67M is most likely not happening nowGETTY IMAGES
It is in "everyone's best interest" for the U.S. Soccer Federation and the USWNT to get their equal pay lawsuit "settled before the trial that is scheduled to start next month" following Friday's ruling that rejected most of the team's claims, according to Nancy Armour of USA TODAY. U.S. District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner's ruling "cost the women some of their leverage, and they are unlikely to get the $67 million in back pay they were seeking." Additionally, any "'win' for U.S. Soccer will come at an exorbitant price with the public and corporate sponsors." Armour: "There will be no positive path forward until this fight is behind them. A fight everyone knows U.S. Soccer can never actually win" (USA TODAY, 5/3). In N.Y., Andrew Das wrote the ruling was "not a mere triumph over the players," but a "devastating rejection of the core argument of the women's case." While the USWNT's most recent settlement offer of $67M is "most likely just a dream now," a "negotiated settlement is not." The USSF in its statement "appeared to leave open the door to one." Das: "Privately, parties on both sides have long agreed that a negotiated peace is the best way out for U.S. Soccer and its women's team" (N.Y. TIMES, 5/3). YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote, "Essentially, a deal is a deal. So deal with it." Wetzel: "This was a loss for both sides. And it's why they need to get together to repair a partnership that has the potential to be lucrative for all parties" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 5/2).
SUCCESS USED AGAINST THEM: YAHOO SPORTS' Caitlin Murray wrote it "sure seems" that the USMNT's loss that kept them out of the '18 World Cup helped the USSF "win the equal pay lawsuit against the U.S. women's team" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 5/2). In S.F., Ann Killion writes perhaps the "most startling thing about the ruling was that the judge used the women's sustained success and the men's team's failures to make his decision." Killion: "The women's team's primary argument for years has been that it shouldn't have to be the top-ranked team in the world and maintain such a sustained level of excellence in order to be compensated even close to what the men’s team makes. But that seems to exactly what Judge Klausner is telling them. Once again, the women's own success is being used against them" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 5/4). In DC, Sally Jenkins wrote, "You realize that Klausner has not really ruled here. He has just stewed. For 32 pages he mulls with an ill-concealed agenda over the nerve these women had to ask for things. Things the men don't have. Things that have nothing to do with the case" (WASHINGTON POST, 5/3).
