Even before they left for France, one of the biggest stories surrounding the U.S. Women's National Team at the World Cup was their lawsuit seeking equal pay. At the final, there were just as many chants of "Equal Pay" as there were of "U-S-A!," and it was the same thing again today at the parade.
And politicians, of course, have decided to insert themselves into the conversation, as always happens with the hot-button sports issue of the moment. A Senator from West Virginia introduced a bill yesterday that said unless US Soccer agrees to equal pay for the women's team, no federal funds will be provided for the men's World Cup in 2026. I'm pretty sure they'll get enough sponsorship money to cover it even if this bill ever does make it to a vote, but that's not even what it was about. It was taking the women's players' fight and making it a political issue.
Here's the thing, though, it's not nearly as simple as it's being made out to be. And that really isn't fair to US Soccer. They're being made out to be the bad guys in this situation, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. Which is why they can't simply say "we'll give you equal compensation." These things have to be negotiated, and I'm sure they will be.
What exactly do they mean by "equal pay" anyway? Are they looking for the dollar-to-dollar amount they make to be the same as the players on the men's team get? Because with endorsements and everything else, that's impossible to judge. And, endorsement dollars and club contracts result in a range of salaries even among the members of the men's team.
The men don't get most of their money from the National Team, either. The biggest reason for the pay gap is because of the professional contracts. Christian Pulisic is getting paid $73 million by Chelsea, not US Soccer. It's silly and unreasonable to think the National Federation should or is able to compensate players nearly as well as those European club teams.
Another thing that makes a comparison difficult is the fact that the men only get paid by US Soccer for their National Team service. The women's team, meanwhile, is full-time employees of US Soccer. The Federation pays their salaries for both the National Team and the NWSL, in addition to giving them health benefits year-round. So, in that area, the women are compensated better than their male counterparts, who only get those services while on National Team duty.
Are a lot of the points the women have made absolutely right? Of course they are! They're the two-time defending World Cup Champions, while the men didn't even make it last year. They're more popular than the men, as the TV ratings and jersey sales suggest (and would be obvious anyway).
If it were based on those factors alone, the women would have an argument that they should be paid more than the men. But, it's more than that. Which is why you can't simply turn it into "the men make more."
Now, don't get me wrong. I 100 percent agree that they deserve equal compensation. But what exactly is that equal compensation? The per-game salaries should be the same. No question. So should the per diems and travel conditions. If the men are taking a private charter and staying in a four-star hotel, the women should, too. Same with the support staff. The number of coaches and trainers and everyone else behind the scenes should be equal for both squads.
For the most part, US Soccer is pretty good in that regard. Where the disparity lies is in the extra compensation. I don't remember what the numbers are, but the amount that would've been distributed among the men for winning the World Cup (which obviously wasn't going to happen) is significantly more than the bonus the women are gonna get. And that's wrong. If it's based on a percentage of the funds that the Federation receives, that percentage, whatever it is, should be the same (which, it should be noted, can result in two different dollar amounts).
I'm assuming that gap comes from a difference in sponsorship dollars, which is an area where both US Soccer and FIFA can improve. Although, even there, I think some of the criticism is unwarranted. Men's World Cup money is distributed between the 32 participating teams, just as the Women's World Cup funds are divided equally between 24 nations. It's up to the federations to decide how their share gets spent.
US Soccer funds and supports its women's program better than any other National Federation. It's part of the reason why the team is--and will continue to be--so successful. The problem is the women who are responsible for that success feel disrespected. And, frankly, it's not unreasonable to want to reap some of the benefits that you helped secure.
That's really what's at the heart of the issue here. "Equal Pay" makes for a catchy chant, but that's only a part of it. Because, again, it's not a black-and-white situation. It's just as much about equitable compensation as it is about respect. The women are looking to be paid what they feel they're worth. And they don't think they are, especially when compared to the men.
When the U.S. women's hockey team went on strike a few years ago, many of their demands were similar to what the women's soccer team wants now. That was resolved through arbitration, as I'm sure this will be. Because both sides have incentive to get it done. Especially because US Soccer knows the women have a point. They're the two-time reigning World Cup champions. They deserve to be compensated as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment