In the years since the 1999 edition, the Women’s World Cup has continued to gain prominence, particularly the U.S. team. Yet tensions persist between FIFA, U.S. Soccer and the national team over pay and other inequities compared with the men’s game.
The 2015 tournament, held in Canada, set an attendance record, but the players were angered by FIFA’s insistence that some matches be played on artificial turf. Men’s World Cup games are always played on natural grass. After the U.S. team won its fourth title, players boycotted a friendly at the end of that year, refusing to play on artificial turf. This year FIFA announced it no longer will award World Cup matches to stadiums without grass fields.
In March, the U.S. women’s team sued U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination, citing lower pay than their male counterparts despite greater on-field success and matching job responsibilities. For example, U.S. Soccer reportedly paid the men’s team $5.4 million in bonuses in 2014 — it lost in the Round of 16 — while the women received $1.7 million for winning the World Cup the following year.
“We’re 80 cents to the dollar, that’s how we’re doing. That’s the bottom line,” said Brandi Chastain, the hero of the 1999 World Cup. “We are valued, but not valued to our potential. People say, what’s the difference? The difference is investment. Look how great the investment is for men’s sports. … The more you spend, the more return you’re going to get.”
Kyle Martino, current NBC Sports soccer analyst and a losing candidate in 2018 to become U.S. Soccer president, said things are moving in the right direction toward a more equitable situation for the women, but not quickly enough.
“The case is that they’re not given the share they deserve and it’s because of their gender,” Martino said. “I want us to be the type of country that goes over the line. Let’s be the first country to say our female players deserve a dollar for every dollar we pay the men when they represent our country.”
