Legally, you can use past performance to justify higher base pay? No kidding. So why did it take so long for the past performance of the women, which has exceeded that of the men for literally the entire existence of women’s soccer, to catch up to the men?
Because their past performance has not exceeded the men if you are looking at the relevant performance, which is revenue. The women have barely outearned the men in a cycle where they performed well in the World Cup and the men failed to qualify.
Why does a team that didn’t even make the World Cup get a much higher pay ceiling based on “past performance”?
The ceiling for their pay is much higher because the ceiling on the revenue they can generate is much, much higher. Basically, if they qualify for the World Cup, they generate more revenue than a woman's team that wins the World Cup.
There are arguments to be made there. And going back 4-5 years to say those financial figures are what sets the current market rate is not likely to hold water.
The women negotiated their current deal in 2017. What years do you think the federation and woman's players should have looked at when they negotiated?
You have to do quite a bit of gerrymandering of both on-field performance and revenue numbers to create a scenario where the men deserve almost 3 times as much (on a per-game basis) than the women prior to the latest women’s contract, and still more now although the gap has closed.
No, you don't. You don't even have to look at revenue. You can look at what the men can earn from other soccer employers versus what the women can earn.
Overall, the number of organizations in the country that have common employees with different union agreements based strictly on sex is microscopically small, so acting like this is just some open and shut discrimination case with all sorts of prior precedent is categorically false.
I didn't argue that is was some open and shut case. I pointed out that it is a stupid and terrible argument to claim that you can not pay employees based on the revenue they generate because you think the clients/customers paying the revenue are discriminating because of sex. That is just unworkable.
Should have stopped at “just a guess”, because you have no idea. 3+ years of higher game sales revenue indicates that TV and sponsor revenue is quite possibly (and perhaps even likely) pretty equal between the men’s and women’s teams over that period. Saying that the men come out way ahead in how much they generate is purely speculation, based on no facts whatsoever. This is especially true of the sponsorships, which are only going to be even more through the roof for the women after another title.
Your and idiot. Yes, I made a guess based on the fact that the women are just now crowing about ticket sales outpacing mens. Which is a pretty good indication that in the past, it did not. Meaning it was more advantageous to the women for ad revenue and sponsorship revenue to be treated as a single product. And again, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that they just redid the woman's deal in 2017. So exactly what should have happened, happened. As the women came to have a good argument that they were generating close to as much revenue as the men, they received a pay package that paid them close to as much money as the men.
Maybe it wasn't exactly fair, but it's not obviously unfair. Seems like it was in the ballpark and now it looks worse because the men failed to qualify for the world cup while the women won the world cup.
Again, they only favor the men if you go back 4-5 years and ignore the most recent data, which is a preposterous way to set the going rate for any salaried position. Completely ignoring revenue growth over the most recent time period.....try buying a stock or completing any business deal whatsoever with that mindset. You’ll get laughed out of the room. But if USSF wants to make that argument, they are free to do so, I suppose.
If you have a clear 4 year revenue cycle, why would you not look at the entire cycle? But ignoring that, you are basically wanting the federation to be all knowing and to base pay in a 2017 deal on the men failing to qualify for the 2018 world cup, while the women win in 2019.
USSF is the defendant in the suit. Should it go to trial, they will be asked, under oath, to provide the revenue and performance basis for the men’s compensation figures. If they have solid data showing sound judgment used in setting the compensation, the suit will likely get dismissed. If they can’t justify it, there is a good chance the WNT wins the suit. If they choose not to answer any questions about it, that’s gonna be a real bad look when all the recent data shows the women can financially hold their own in the measurable areas. If they know they are on shaky ground here from the get go, they will likely settle and everyone walks away. But there is zero chance they don’t get that question in a trial. Therefore, they absolutely have that burden on them IF it goes to trial.
Again, you do not understand who has the burden or what it is. The woman players have a burden of proving that they were discriminated against based on sex, and they only have to prove it by a more likely than not standard. They don't have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nor does the federation have to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
