U.S. Women’s Soccer and the question of equal pay
Jay wrote about the U.S. Women’s Soccer team, their World Cup success and the conversation kicked off by their recent lawsuit alleging unequal pay for equal work. I can’t say whether he should like or not like watching Women’s Soccer or whether the politicization of the conversation around their pay is their fault, materially affects the experience of watching the game, or if it makes them immune from any criticism (including but not limited to boastful cheering while running up the score). However, I do think there’s more left to be said, specifically, about the question of equal pay.
The complications around revenue and pay
At first blush, the question of equal pay is complicated by the question of unequal revenue. The U.S. Men’s team, historically, has brought in far greater revenue than the women’s team. However, starting in 2015, this gap has narrowed or flipped. A Wall Street Journal audit of U.S. Soccer’s self-reported revenue figures shows a remarkable closing of the revenue gap starting with the 2015 World Cup.
If U.S. Soccer were to peg pay to revenue, one could imagine women’s pay catching up to men’s pay very quickly. However, the financial make up of revenue depends on lots of factors like ticket sales, sponsorships, broadcast deals, and prize money from international competitions which are largely governed by FIFA. So some of the responsibility of closing the pay gap, one could imagine, would also falls on organizations outside the jurisdiction of U.S. Soccer.
This question also doesn’t account for a number of other ways in which the experience of being a professional men’s soccer player differs from a professional women’s soccer player in the U.S. Women have to play on non-grass fields more often, receive less per-diem than men, travel in commercial planes not chartered ones, and have less marketing money invested in developing the game than men. All while out-performing men on the world stage for years. And even selling more jerseys according to Nike.
The complications around collective bargaining
Jay also mentioned that there is no such thing as “unequal pay,” because USWNT has a collective bargaining agreement with U.S. Soccer, like the Men’s team, and agreed to be paid the amount they are paid. The latest contracts, obtained by the Washington Post, went into effect in 2017. However, because men and women negotiate under separate contracts, comparing them becomes quite difficult.
For example, under the USMNT bargaining agreement, players only earn bonuses. The USWNT, on the other hand, have a base salary, and earn bonuses for wins and qualifications. However, most male professional soccer players can fall back on money they make from clubs while most women’s soccer players have no such safety nets.
Comparing men’s and women’s pay is also complicated because of the make-up of total player’s pay. Top earning men, for example, earn just as much as top earning women. However, according to a 2016 NYT analysis, “at №50, the male player made 10 times as much as his female counterpart.” Men’s and women’s game rosters are also difficult to compare. To qualify for the World Cup, for example, women play five games in a two-week stretch. Men, in comparison, have to play 16-games across two years. But, overall, women play far more matches than men.
US Soccer is a non-profit, so is revenue even the right benchmark?
A recent NYTimes OpEd brought up an interesting point regarding the point of revenue and pay.
“[R]evenue is the wrong measuring stick. United States Soccer is a nonprofit, exempted from taxation because it serves a social purpose: “To make soccer, in all its forms, a pre-eminent sport in the United States.” It should be obvious to the people who run the federation that the women’s team is fulfilling that mission at least as well as the men’s team.”
What if U.S. Soccer rewarded the USWNT for out-performing the men, year after year, in achieving the mission it set out. Some of its own defenses against the lawsuit, and presumably what it will be saying again at the mediation table in response to this lawsuit, are grounded in differences in gross or net revenue. But I don’t think anyone could credibly argue that the USWNT is not more successful, in recent years, than the USMNT in “making soccer . . . a pre-eminent sports in the United States.”
Bringing attention to pay during the world cup as a collective bargaining tool
All this work, revenue, and pay comparison is enough to make a labor economist’s head spin. And the effects on a sports fan could range from excitement to see the USWNT dominate on the International stage and agitate for more money to, as Jay describes, a sense of diminished interest as yet another sport is politicized in ways that alienates some fans.
But, I could also see the argument that the women’s team is smartly using their dominance on the soccer pitch to level the playing field at the collective bargaining table with U.S. Soccer. Short of going on strike, the USWNT could not go further with U.S. Soccer in their last round of negotiations. Filing a lawsuit a couple of years before the World Cup, generating more revenue than the men’s team for a couple of consecutive years, and repeatedly bringing up the issue of equal pay as media attention was focused on them during this World Cup, puts U.S. Soccer in a tougher position. That’s not a bad strategy to change the dynamics of collective bargaining negotiations. And I don’t mean that cynically. I genuinely think it’s a smart way to take a social movement and turn it into an opportunity for material changes in your employment contract.
If the USWNT continues its recent success, and especially if in comparison, the men’s team cannot rise above its current level of play, U.S. Soccer leaders will have a hard time continuing to justify these pay gaps. There might be a lag between women out-performing men and being paid as much or more than men, but I don’t think it will be long before the gap in pay is closed. Thanks, in part, to chants on the soccer field.
