Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are allowed to renegotiate contracts.

Very true. However, you should always enter negotiations with realistic expectations. Sports players are paid what they are worth. What they are worth is directly affected by how much revenue a sport/players generate.

Now while I generally believe that they shouldn't be expecting to make what male soccer players make due to the revenue disparity, it is quite possible that they are being underpaid within their own sport and that could certainly be a point to contest.

SemperMortis wrote:
I hate Basketball so I don't watch NBA games often, but I tried watching a WNBA game the other week and .

And just think, if you actually read the rules for basketball, you'd realize that the WNBA is actually how it's supposed to be played. There's a reason why it is supposed to be considered a non-contact sport.

Also, totally off-topic, but basketball only exists because a rugby coach in the US wanted his athletes to be doing something "athletic" in the off-season.... it ain't even a real fething sport!! Basketball is the team game version of fething Crossfit!

 Breotan wrote:
Sports players are paid what they are worth. What they are worth is directly affected by how much revenue a sport/players generate.

This is their argument: they AREN'T being paid in proportion to what they are generating.

The filing, citing figures from the USSF's 2015 financial report, says that despite the women's team generating nearly $20 million more revenue last year than the U.S. men's team, the women are paid about a quarter of what the men earn.

It's right in the article.
Edit: Politifact has their own analysis, for a different spin.

Pedantic side-note: this isn't a lawsuit; it's an EEOC filing. Not actually the same thing. The only lawsuit in play is running the other way (US Soccer is suing the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team Players Association, in an effort to prove that the existing contract runs through the end of this year).

 dogma wrote:

I imagine several of the better players in the WNBA could take down NBA players in a game of 1-on-1.

Always makes me think of Futurama.

 dogma wrote:


I imagine several of the better players in the WNBA could take down NBA players in a game of 1-on-1.

Well this may be the funniest thing I'll read all month.

That's my second favorite episodes of Futurama after "The Why of Fry" (where my username comes from).

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

You're a fan of hockey, and you had to ask that?

Hockey isn't generally popular, and I could go on at length as to why, but that's another thread.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Oh, but we are talking popular sports. So, yeah, basketball.

I imagine several of the better players in the WNBA could take down NBA players in a game of 1-on-1.

Just thought I would slam this one shut before it gained any kind of traction

Geno Auriemma, unarguably the BEST women's basketball collegiate coach EVER, was quoted as saying

The fact that a woman could actually play right now in the NBA and compete successfully against the level of play that they have is absolutely ludicrous.”

Geno is of the opinion that even the best Women in the game can't make it at the professional MENS level.

Could they maybe win a 1 on 1, meh probably not, but they definitely couldn't make it at the NBA level.

I've seen female wrestlers quite handily win matches against talented men in the same weight class; and that's a sport which is predicated on strength, endurance, and quickness. I've also seen a talented NBA player (Tony Parker) lose a one on one game to a current WNBA player (Candace Parker); so I have no problem believing that elite WNBA players are better than mediocre NBA players. Speaking otherwise sounds a lot like defensive sexism to me.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are allowed to renegotiate contracts.

Very true. However, you should always enter negotiations with realistic expectations. Sports players are paid what they are worth. What they are worth is directly affected by how much revenue a sport/players generate.

Now while I generally believe that they shouldn't be expecting to make what male soccer players make due to the revenue disparity, it is quite possible that they are being underpaid within their own sport and that could certainly be a point to contest.

I don't see why women should only be allowed to contest salaries in comparison to other women.

It seems to me that that fundamentally would be a sexually discriminatory position.

 Skinnereal wrote:
If the women's competitions were televised like the men's are, how many people would pay to watch them (assuming the men's are pay-for, too)?

This is happening in more sports than just this, and the matches are reportedly better, too.

From what I've seen of women's football (and I admit it is not very much, mostly being limited to the Olympics), there is a lot less rolling around on the floor clutching your leg because an opposing player came within six feet of you.

 dogma wrote:
I've seen female wrestlers quite handily win matches against talented men in the same weight class; and that's a sport which is predicated on strength, endurance, and quickness. I've also seen a talented NBA player (Tony Parker) lose a one on one game to a current WNBA player (Candace Parker); so I have no problem believing that elite WNBA players are better than mediocre NBA players. Speaking otherwise sounds a lot like defensive sexism to me.

Not at any level past middle school you haven't.

A WNBA all pro would be lucky to score on a division 1 high school player heading to a D1 university.

The athleticism isn't particularly close.

Pick up teams of random, non-scholarship men are chosen to play against UCONN. And they routinely win. With limits on what they're allowed to do in game. And it's all been verified by Geno.

Called it sexist all you want. Doesn't make it less true.

Men are bigger and musclier than women. It's hardly surpriing they win at wrestling each other. But that isn't the slightest bit relevant to this case.

This case involves the viewer attraction power of the US women's soccer team versus the US men's soccer team. It appears that US women get higher viewing figures, but the players are paid less.

If they draw in the same amount or more of money as the mens sports, then they deserve to be paid the same or more as the men.

 cincydooley wrote:
Pick up teams of random, non-scholarship men are chosen to play against UCONN. And they routinely win. With limits on what they're allowed to do in game. And it's all been verified by Geno.

Called it sexist all you want. Doesn't make it less true.

I can't find any verification of the "And they routinely win" bit.

There's this article (2011: "Yes, the practice players have been known to win on occasion"), and this one (1997: "The men are there to serve, not to compete, although Auriemma recalled one day when it was five men against the women's varsity. ''Two years ago,'' he said, ''between the Big East tournament and the N.C.A.A.'s, we played a simulated game. At one point, Nykesha Sales scored 18 straight points, and those guys were pretty good''.") For that matter, the "random" bit looks pretty suspect, too.

But regardless, this is all off the topic; the original counter-argument to US Women's Soccer players asking for equal pay with the men was a revenue argument (one that, upon inspection, doesn't seem to hold up - the US Women's team creates more revenue than the Men's team).

Yes. Against NON SCHOLARSHIP PICK UP TEAMS. Not men at the apex of their sport. The UCONN team that just won four straight titles may not score 20 points on the Villanova team that just won.

Then they can collectively bargain for it when the deal is up. They collectively bargained for the deal they currently have. That's on them.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
If they draw in the same amount or more of money as the mens sports, then they deserve to be paid the same or more as the men.

If the female players instruct their players union representatives to negotiate for smaller match checks, higher salaries and health benefits instead of just having all of their compensation doled out in big match checks like the male players then they have no standing to claim discrimination. The women have the compensation that their union bargained for at the players' behest. If they wanted the same size match checks as the men they should have asked for it instead of what they chose to ask for. This has very little to do with discrimination and a lot to do with the women's players wanting more money in the next CBA that will negotiated soon.

It's a case of these women using all tactics at their disposal to ensure they receive the highest return on their investment. It's the American Dream.

Why do you hate America?

 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. Against NON SCHOLARSHIP PICK UP TEAMS. Not men at the apex of their sport. The UCONN team that just won four straight titles may not score 20 points on the Villanova team that just won.

Writing it in all caps doesn't make it so. Non-scholarship? Sure. "Pick up teams"? Not by any definition I'm familiar with. All the articles I've found suggest that this is a curated role, not something you can just walk in and do.

I do note that your "And they routinely win" seems to have dropped out of your argument.

Then they can collectively bargain for it when the deal is up. They collectively bargained for the deal they currently have. That's on them.

And, oddly enough, that's exactly what is happening. Their position seems to be that the deal is up (which is why US Soccer is suing them, arguing otherwise). Meanwhile, an EEOC petition is both in their interest and their right under US law.

 cincydooley wrote:

Not at any level past middle school you haven't.

High school, actually. Mary Kelly against a guy on my wrestling team who posted a 22-3 record that year.

 cincydooley wrote:

A WNBA all pro would be lucky to score on a division 1 high school player heading to a D1 university.

Again, I saw Tony Parker, a notable NBA player, lose a game of one on one to Candace Parker, a notable WNBA player.

 cincydooley wrote:

Called it sexist all you want. Doesn't make it less true.

I'm not saying that men aren't generally more athletic than women, I'm saying that the discrepancy isn't so great that women cannot be competitive against men and that sexist men like to overstate that discrepancy due to fear and insecurity.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. Against NON SCHOLARSHIP PICK UP TEAMS. Not men at the apex of their sport. The UCONN team that just won four straight titles may not score 20 points on the Villanova team that just won.

Then they can collectively bargain for it when the deal is up. They collectively bargained for the deal they currently have. That's on them.

You can only be at the peak of your game if you have a scholarship? Well that seems a little silly. I mean, the League of Legends e-sports league has college teams and I will be the first to tell you, those guys are far FAR from the Apex of their sport and I have yet to see any of the Pro players be picked up from a college team. Most of those guys are just players.

 dogma wrote:
I've seen female wrestlers quite handily win matches against talented men in the same weight class; and that's a sport which is predicated on strength, endurance, and quickness. I've also seen a talented NBA player (Tony Parker) lose a one on one game to a current WNBA player (Candace Parker); so I have no problem believing that elite WNBA players are better than mediocre NBA players. Speaking otherwise sounds a lot like defensive sexism to me.

Just out of curiosity where did you see Tony Parker losing to Candace Parker in a game of one on one? I can't seem to find it online.

SemperMortis wrote:
I can't seem to find it online.

Then it didn't happen. If something happens and there is no online element it never happened. Only the internet is real.

 Ahtman wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I can't seem to find it online.

Then it didn't happen. If something happens and there is no online element it never happened. Only the internet is real.

not really what I was saying, but realistically if anything of even remote importance happens then its online. I am just wondering where this happened and what not.

But even if this did happen, I would still take Geno's word over anyone else's opinion. Why? because he is unarguably the best female collegiate basketball coach ever.

Pat Summit had similar sentiments when she was coaching. And Kaye Fagan, a writer for ESPNW and former college basketball player, said the same.

I'm probably wrong, though.

Par for the course.

 Janthkin wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. Against NON SCHOLARSHIP PICK UP TEAMS. Not men at the apex of their sport. The UCONN team that just won four straight titles may not score 20 points on the Villanova team that just won.

Writing it in all caps doesn't make it so. Non-scholarship? Sure. "Pick up teams"? Not by any definition I'm familiar with. All the articles I've found suggest that this is a curated role, not something you can just walk in and do.

I do note that your "And they routinely win" seems to have dropped out of your argument.

Then they can collectively bargain for it when the deal is up. They collectively bargained for the deal they currently have. That's on them.

And, oddly enough, that's exactly what is happening. Their position seems to be that the deal is up (which is why US Soccer is suing them, arguing otherwise). Meanwhile, an EEOC petition is both in their interest and their right under US law.

I never said that they couldn't or shouldn't renegotiate their CBA. The women negotiated for smaller match checks with benefits and salaries whereas the men negotiated for big match checks and no benefits. The men get more money but no benefits because that's what was collectively bargained. When you bargain for a distinctly different pay system you can't then claim that you have a different pay system because of discrimination. The women bargained for smaller checks so that's what they get.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said that they couldn't or shouldn't renegotiate their CBA. The women negotiated for smaller match checks with benefits and salaries whereas the men negotiated for big match checks and no benefits. The men get more money but no benefits because that's what was collectively bargained. When you bargain for a distinctly different pay system you can't then claim that you have a different pay system because of discrimination. The women bargained for smaller checks so that's what they get.

I somehow doubt their union said "we'd like a total compensation package that is 25%-50% of what the men make, thanks."

That's the point of a gender discrimination complaint to the EEOC: the "market" is imposing a penalty on their earnings, even in situations where the underlying financials (in this case, the revenue generated by US men's vs. women's soccer) doesn't back it up.

 Janthkin wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said that they couldn't or shouldn't renegotiate their CBA. The women negotiated for smaller match checks with benefits and salaries whereas the men negotiated for big match checks and no benefits. The men get more money but no benefits because that's what was collectively bargained. When you bargain for a distinctly different pay system you can't then claim that you have a different pay system because of discrimination. The women bargained for smaller checks so that's what they get.

I somehow doubt their union said "we'd like a total compensation package that is 25%-50% of what the men make, thanks."

That's the point of a gender discrimination complaint to the EEOC: the "market" is imposing a penalty on their earnings, even in situations where the underlying financials (in this case, the revenue generated by US men's vs. women's soccer) doesn't back it up.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The salaries for the women's team were collectively bargained for by the women's players union. I think it's hard to claim that you aren't being compensated fairly when you collectively bargained for the exact pay structure that you're receiving. This probably has a lot more to do with the collective bargaining agreement coming up for renewal than it has to do with actually getting the same amount of money per match.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/892dc9711bb14ac0b7f53cbf2a6687cc/5-players-accuse-us-soccer-federation-wage-discrimination

The union representing the players is currently involved in a legal dispute with U.S. Soccer over the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. The federation filed a lawsuit this year seeking to clarify that its contract with the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team Players Association runs through the Rio Olympics until Dec. 31. The union maintains the memorandum of understanding agreed to in March 2013 can be terminated at any time. That case is pending.

The top players on the women's team are paid about $72,000 a year by U.S. Soccer, along with bonuses, to play in a minimum of 20 exhibitions per year, the EEOC complaint says. Conversely, the men are paid per match, with a minimum of $5,000 a game, and additional payments based on the opponents' rankings and results.

The women have a potential to earn $99,000 if they win all 20 exhibitions, while their male counterparts would earn $100,000 minimum for appearing in the 20 games before the opponents and outcomes are figured in, and possibly as much as $263,320 a year if they win all of their games.

Citing another example of disparity, the complaint says that the women are paid $30,000 for making the World Cup team, while the men are paid $68,750 each.

U.S. maintains that the women's team set up the compensation structure, including a guaranteed salary rather than a pay-for-play model like the men, in the last collective bargaining agreement. The women earn an additional salary because the federation pays their salaries in the National Women's Soccer League.

The women's national team players also receive other benefits, including health care paid for by the U.S. Olympic Committee, that the men don't receive, the federation maintains.

SemperMortis wrote:

Just out of curiosity where did you see Tony Parker losing to Candace Parker in a game of one on one? I can't seem to find it online.

Around 2004 or 2005, before the widespread use of digital cameras.

 dogma wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Just out of curiosity where did you see Tony Parker losing to Candace Parker in a game of one on one? I can't seem to find it online.

Around 2004 or 2005, before the widespread use of digital cameras.

So no news story, not coverage, you just happened to be nearby as these two professional caliber players were having a friendly game of one on one? Sorry for not placing and credibility to your story.

SemperMortis wrote:

 dogma wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Just out of curiosity where did you see Tony Parker losing to Candace Parker in a game of one on one? I can't seem to find it online.

Around 2004 or 2005, before the widespread use of digital cameras.

So no news story, not coverage, you just happened to be nearby as these two professional caliber players were having a friendly game of one on one? Sorry for not placing and credibility to your story.

It couldn't be that he frequents the same gym as them. I mean, it is not as unlikely as you are trying to make it out to be.