U.S. women’s soccer equal pay fight: What’s the latest, and what’s next?
The U.S. women’s soccer team has had a well-publicized fight for equal pay since winning this summer’s World Cup. But the battle with U.S. Soccer and FIFA started well before fans broke out in chants of “Equal pay!” at the team’s ticker-tape parade in New York City in July.
What is the story behind the USWNT’s fight for equal pay? How do other sports match up? And what has been happening since the World Cup? Here is a primer on one of the biggest topics in sports right now — which we will continue to update as more news happens:
Mediation talks broke down between the USSF and the women’s soccer team, with a spokesperson for the players saying they “eagerly look forward to a jury trial.”
The two sides had met in New York for several days but could not reach any formal agreement.
Spokesperson Molly Levinson released a statement on behalf of the U.S. players after mediation ended Wednesday night: “We entered this week’s mediation with representatives of USSF full of hope. Today we must conclude these meetings sorely disappointed in the Federation’s determination to perpetuate fundamentally discriminatory workplace conditions and behavior.”
U.S. Soccer also released a statement in which it said: “We have said numerous times that our goal is to find a resolution, and during mediation we had hoped we would be able to address the issues in a respectful manner and reach an agreement. Unfortunately, instead of allowing mediation to proceed in a considerate manner, plaintiffs’ counsel took an aggressive and ultimately unproductive approach that follows months of presenting misleading information to the public in an effort to perpetuate confusion.”
Levinson claimed the USSF “fully intend to continue to compensate women players less than men. They will not succeed.”
Things have continued to be contentious between the two sides since the conclusion of the World Cup. In July, U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro released a letter that claimed the federation has actually paid the female players more than the men in recent years. Cordeiro’s letter details analysis — which he says was conducted by his staff and reviewed by an accounting firm — that shows that U.S. Soccer paid female players $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses in 2010-18, and men were paid $26.4 million in the same period.
But there was some murkiness because of the differences in compensation structures between the men’s and women’s teams. What’s more, salaries in the National Women’s Soccer League were factored in to the calculations. Levinson called the letter, “a sad attempt by USSF to quell the overwhelming tide of support the USWNT has received from everyone from fans to sponsors to the United States Congress.”
The U.S. men’s team issued a statement in support of the USWNT as well, saying, “The members of the United States National Soccer Team Players Association once again stands with the members of the world champion Women’s National Team in their pursuit of fair compensation for their work as professional soccer players. The USMNT players were not impressed with US Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro’s letter made public on Monday. The Federation downplays contributions to the sport when it suits them. This is more of the same … “
The equal pay battle didn’t begin around the World Cup; it was heightened because of the event. The U.S. women have been fighting for equality for some time. In 2016, five high-profile members of the USWNT — Carli Lloyd, Hope Solo, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn — filed a complaint against the United States Soccer Federation (commonly referred to as U.S. Soccer) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC never issued a decision on the case, and in the meantime, the women signed a new collective bargaining agreement with the USSF. In August last year, Solo filed her own case against U.S. Soccer — with similar complaints — in a personal lawsuit, which remains pending in California.
Things really ramped up this year. On March 8 — not coincidentally, International Women’s Day — 28 members of the USWNT filed a lawsuit against U.S. Soccer accusing it of gender discrimination. The complaint was filed in California district court and argued that U.S. Soccer “has a policy and practice of discriminating” against members of the women’s national team on the basis of gender. The lawsuit contends that the USSF is in violation of two federal laws: the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The U.S. women’s team has been far more successful on the international stage than the men’s team. This World Cup win was the women’s fourth. The men’s best finish came in 1930, when the team placed third. The men didn’t qualify for the 2018 World Cup. And yet their compensations don’t reflect each team’s success.
The U.S. women’s current lawsuit contends if the men’s and women’s teams won each of the 20 non-tournament games they are contractually required to play, women’s team players would each earn a maximum of $99,000 ($4,950 per game), and men’s team players would earn $263,320 ($13,166 per game). The suit also states that from 2013 to 2016, women players earned $15,000 for making the national team and the men earned $55,000 in 2014 and $68,750 in 2018. (In response to this, U.S. Soccer told ESPN that these figures were pulled from the old collective bargaining agreement, and that a new one was signed in 2017.)
They were most likely directed both at U.S. Soccer and at FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, which puts on the World Cup.
FIFA awarded $30 million in prize money for this year’s women’s tournament. The 2018 men’s tournament had $400 million in prize money. And while FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said he wanted to double the prize money for the women’s tournament by 2023, the gap between the genders could actually grow with FIFA expected to award $440 million for the men’s tournament in 2022.
FIFA’s position on prize money is that it’s tied to revenue. Simply: the men’s tournament brings in much more than the women’s. Some projections of what the tournaments rake in via revenue has been made public, but not all of the numbers. (The New York Times reported projections of $6.1 billion for the 2018 men’s tournament, while FIFA projected the Women’s World Cup would bring in $131 million over the four-year cycle.) It raises the question of whether it’s even fair to cut prize money proportionately. FIFA does have the funds after all to close the gap; the organization’s cash reserves hit a record $2.74 billion in 2018.
Many women’s players have also expressed frustrations about institutional favoritism toward men. One example they point to: FIFA’s decision to schedule two men’s tournament finals (the Copa America men’s final and the CONCACAF Gold Cup men’s final) on the same day as the Women’s World Cup final. Said Megan Rapinoe on the eve of the title game: “If you really care are you letting the gap grow? Are you scheduling three finals on the same day? No, you’re not. Are you letting federations have their teams play two games in the four years between each tournament? No, you’re not. That’s what I mean about the level of care, you need attention and detail and the best minds that we have in the women’s game, helping it grow every single day.”
Yes. The USWNT has also fought for better conditions. The women had lesser accommodations while traveling and had to routinely play on artificial turf instead of natural grass, which is kinder to the body.
According to the complaint, between Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2017, the USWNT played 62 domestic matches, 13 (21%) of which were played on artificial surfaces. During that same period of time, the USMNT played 49 domestic matches, only one (2%) of which was played on an artificial surface. (Since the lawsuit was filed, U.S. Soccer has scheduled all of the women’s games on natural grass.)
As for travel, the lawsuit states that in 2017, the men’s team flew on chartered flights on at least 17 occasions and the women never had a chartered flight that year. (In response, U.S. Soccer told ESPN that 2017 was the final year of qualifying for the men’s team prior to the 2018 World Cup, and therefore most of the flights were chartered for a competitive advantage. The organization also says it has consistently offered the same travel accommodations for the men’s and women’s teams.)
It’s a bit complicated. The men and women both have negotiated separate collective bargaining agreements with the USSF. (The women’s current contract runs through 2021.) The biggest difference is pay structure. The men receive much higher bonuses when they play for the national team. The women receive guaranteed salaries (about $100,000 a year) but their bonuses are much smaller. The women haven’t necessarily complained about their pay structure — after all, this is what they negotiated for — but they do want their fair share of the money that’s being doled out. The lawsuit contends “the USSF has never offered female WNT players pay at least equal to the pay afforded to male MNT players.”
The USSF’s formal response to the lawsuit claimed that any differences in pay are “based on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex.”
But let’s talk about that money. Where does it come from? The biggest revenue streams are TV deals, sponsorship deals and ticket sales. It’s tricky to decipher how much the men are bringing in with TV deals and sponsorship deals versus the women because those deals are often sold in bundles. When it comes to ticket sales though, the women have actually raked in more money over the past three years, according to audited financial statements obtained by The Wall Street Journal.
From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated approximately $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games. Here’s the sneaky caveat: The men actually average higher attendance. Meanwhile, the women have played in more games, which leads to more revenue. The women have also done more promotional and media tours than the men have in that span.
There is one outlined in the lawsuit: The WNTPA proposed a revenue-sharing model to “test the USSF’s ‘market realities’ theory.” In that model, player compensation would directly be linked to how much revenue each team generates.
The U.S. men’s team issued a statement in support of the women’s lawsuit, as well as the revenue-sharing model.
It reads: “The United States National Soccer Team Players Association fully supports the efforts of the US Women’s National Team Players to achieve equal pay. Specifically, we are committed to the concept of a revenue-sharing model to address the US Soccer Federation’s ‘market realities’ and find a way towards fair compensation.”
In short, no. In July, 2014 World Cup team member Jermaine Jones ignited controversy when he said in a video interview posted on the website TooFab, “The girls, I appreciate everything they’re doing, they’re doing an amazing job, but of course, as men we know it’s tougher to win a World Cup than the girls.” He later went on to say, “I think they have to be careful too, because you have players [like] Alex Morgan, they are making more than some of the guys, but then they scream out and say, ‘We need more money.’ … It can backfire real quick.”
Then, in an interview with The Guardian published Tuesday, Atlanta United manager Frank de Boer said he does not believe in equal pay.
“I think for me, it’s ridiculous,” he said. “It’s the same like tennis. If there are watching, for the World Cup final, 500 million people or something like that, and 100 million for a women’s final, that’s a difference. So it’s not the same. And of course they have to be paid what they deserve to [earn] and not less, just what they really deserve. If it’s just as popular as the men, they will get it, because the income and the advertising will go into that. But it’s not like that, so why do they have to earn the same? I think it’s ridiculous. I don’t understand that.”
Some politicians are trying. U.S. Sens. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wrote a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee in July calling for a hearing “on the significant issue of pay disparity between men’s and women’s sports in the United States.”
The letter states: “As you know, this Committee has previously held hearings on issues within its jurisdiction over sports matters, including hearings on combating sexual abuse in Olympic sports and preventing opioid abuse among athletes in the previous Congress.
“Following the USWNT’s latest World Cup victory, a hearing would afford a timely opportunity for the Committee to recognize the importance of protecting and empowering athletes — while also examining the troubling pay disparities that have been highlighted in recent weeks.”
Yes. Hockey is perhaps the best recent example. Ahead of the 2017 IIHF World Championships, the U.S. women’s national team threatened to boycott as a protest against USA Hockey, citing stalled negotiations for “fair wages and equitable support” from its governing body.
The players and USA Hockey ended up agreeing to a landmark four-year agreement just before the tournament, ending the holdout (and the chance that USA Hockey would put out a replacement squad for the tournament). The team’s annual compensation improved to roughly $70,000 per player, plus performance bonuses that could push their income over six figures if they won the Olympics or world championships. USA Hockey also agreed to other player asks, such as establishing a committee to look into how the federation could improve its marketing, scheduling, public relations efforts and promotion of the women’s game plus fundraising and other efforts for girls’ developmental teams.
While men can earn millions of dollars in the NBA, NHL or soccer leagues, few will be surprised to hear that the same opportunities don’t exist in women’s professional sports. Differences in sponsorships, ticket sales and TV rights, among other things, contribute to big disparities in pay between men’s and women’s pro leagues.
Though the NWSL — the longest-running professional women’s soccer league in North America — increased its roster size and salary cap for this upcoming season (a positive sign), its salaries still pale in comparison to figures we see in men’s soccer — even MLS. The 2019 NWSL salary cap is $421,500, with the minimum player salary being $16,538 and the maximum player salary being $46,200. The MLS Players Association lists salaries on its website: The lowest-paid players for 2019 make $56,250 and the highest-paid player is Zlatan Ibrahimovic at $7.2 million.
Frustration over salaries and quality of life concerns were principal reasons WNBA players opted out of their collective bargaining agreement last year. (That means the current agreement will end after the 2019 season and both sides will have to negotiate a new one.) The current rookie minimum is $41,965 and veteran maximum is $117,500 — a fraction of their NBA counterparts’ salaries. Players say they aren’t expecting to make NBA salaries, but also that they don’t feel they’re being paid what they’re worth. Some players supplement their income by playing abroad in the offseason, though that carries inherent risks. Look no further than the costly injuries to Indiana Fever guard Victoria Vivians (torn ACL while playing in Israel) and reigning WNBA Finals MVP Breanna Stewart (ruptured Achilles while playing with her Russian club), who are both out for this WNBA season.
The women’s professional hockey landscape is in even more upheaval. After the Canadian Women’s Hockey League (CWHL) made the stunning decision to shutter after the 2018-19 season — citing an “unsustainable business model” — more than 200 women’s hockey players announced they would not play in any league until there was a more viable option that included better benefits and more money.
There’s still an existing league, the NWHL. Even though the NWHL promised a 50-50 cut from league sponsorship and media deals, salaries trickling out for those intending to play in 2019-20 range from about $5,000 to $12,000.
Adidas announced in March it would be paying its athletes on the winning World Cup team the same performance bonus payments as their male counterparts. (Adidas does not disclose the amount of its bonuses, however.)
In April, LUNA Bar made a $718,750 donation to the USWNT Players Association with the stipulation that the money would be used to pay the 23 members of the 2019 World Cup team — to make up the $31,250 per player difference in bonuses given to men versus women for making the World Cup roster.
Secret Deodorant (through parent company Procter & Gamble) did something similar after the World Cup, announcing (via a full-page ad in The New York Times) it would be donating $529,000 — $23,000 for each of the 23 players to help close the gender pay gap.
There are plenty of other examples. However, experts in the industry say that while the boost and exposure is nice, brand involvement historically hasn’t leveled the playing field.
Jayna Hefford, who served as commissioner of the CWHL last season before it folded, said that while it shows a “sound corporate responsibility that might resonate with consumers,” she learned to understand that “company mandates are to make money and run a business” so it has to be a partnership that makes sense. And while Hefford stressed that women’s hockey players aren’t expecting NHL salaries — echoing the WNBA players — it was difficult to count on sponsors to keep the league afloat.
Val Ackerman, the first president of the WNBA, said that traditionally, sponsors don’t dictate how that money is spent — for instance, a sponsor isn’t saying: “Here’s $500,000, but it must be allocated to player salaries.” Rather, the money goes into a general revenue pot, and the owner or commissioner can view at as an additional revenue stream from which to draw. Running a league costs tens of millions of dollars — more than brands are usually willing to spend. What’s more, it’s not sponsorships that are pulling in the big bucks, but rather TV deals that have raised the profiles of leagues such as the NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB.
We’ll wait and see. No new mediation is currently scheduled, but a letter to U.S. Soccer officials dated Aug. 12 and signed by the 28 players involved in the suit says in part:
“While we are prepared to take our equal pay fight through a trial if necessary, we believe that both sides would benefit from an equal pay and equal working conditions settlement now.”
It’s also to be determined if politicians in Washington step up with hearings and what might come from that. What is clear: This conversation isn’t going away.
“All players, I’m saying every player at this World Cup, put on the most incredible show that you could ever ask for,” Rapinoe said. “We can’t do anything more to impress, to be better ambassadors, to take on more, to play better, to do anything. It’s time to move that conversation forward to the next step.”