T O P
Laraujo31

Could not find it but if the US federation is offering mental health, child care, and other benefits to the women, it is only fair that the men have access to the same benefits as well. We can argue the fairness of the men taking a paycut to subsidize the women, but the men voted for it. The women not having guaranteed salaries anymore is very fair.


tuh_ren_ton

They weren't given a choice, they had to concede the world cup bonuses before negotiations even started....


Laraujo31

Zimmerman had to convince a few players so they had a choice. However, i do agree with you that any player who voted no would have been made into a villain


Sproded

It sounds like the alternative choice would be a strike and somehow attempt to convince the public opinion that the men’s team isn’t getting paid fairly. Not exactly a true choice.


drakanx

it's not like they had a choice


y10nerd

That's probably from the fact that USMNT players likely have those side benefits through their club, unlike the USWNT players. The benefits are likely not completely free.


FrankBascombe45

Interesting, so the women did give up the guaranteed money.


wallnumber8675309

The USWNT and USMNT will have identical performance-based bonuses for all games and competitions. The USWNT will no longer have quaranteed salarles and will instead have the same pav-to-plav structure as the USMNT.


NaranjaEclipse

How long until they repeat history and sue for the guaranteed pay structure they agreed to give up again lol.


backup_kicker

I think that's why the USSF insisted on making everything exactly equal here, in the literal sense. There's literally no way for them to sue, and I'm sure USSF's lawyers made sure of that when writing the CBAs.


CalligrapherNext3164

The men could sue USSF in 2026 when they make a gazillion more in price money, bonus, and sponsorship. Which the women will be rubbing their palms to collect. The mens team is on track to earn more then the women for the considerable future.


klako8196

Idk if they'll ever attempt to sue, but I wouldn't be surprised if USWNT makes a huge fuss if there comes a point where they bring in more prize money than USMNT, and are forced to share their excess with USMNT. Even though that's exactly what they pushed for, it'll be a problem for them the moment they're on the giving end rather than the receiving end.


RandomNameofGuy9

That's literally never going to happen. There's just too much of a gulf in revenue.


choicemeats

not to mention the health coverage which i would hate to pay out of pocket for, especially as an athlete.


muchlifestyle

If you read the release there is a group of women’s players who will be designated “benefits players” who get compensation for injury, insurance, mental health and maternity leave. Sounds like they still have something very much akin to the old contracts and I suspect the “benefits players” are the ones who had contracts before.


hairlikegoats1

I don't think it'll matter too much. They'll still earn more money especially with the WC Bonus in the new deal. So it was a no brainer for them if this was something they had to give up.


tmack99

Unless they’re hurt during the WC or don’t make the roster. The whole point of the previous CBA was to protect those players with guaranteed contracts. Now, some of them could end up making their NWSL contracts of 30k/year or whatever if they have a bad spell of form.


CalligrapherNext3164

Or get dropped from the USWNT picture. But it will incentivize a quicker rotation of players in the pool. Gone are the days or seeing peripheral players clinking to USWNT fame if they’re not performing for club and country. Before players would be hurt for 2 years and getting salaries and then coming back to the national team because it was forbidden to get rid of them due to contractual agreements. With the vastness and depth of our pool we didn’t utilize a number of players throughout the years and allowed ‘superstar’ players to stay longer past their prime.


muchlifestyle

I hate to break it to you but nothing will change. Those star players get called in because of marketing and sponsor pressure , it had nothing to do with their contract status.


muchlifestyle

Uswnt “Benefits players” under the new cba get injury compensation and health insurance, which is basically what the old contracts were. Contracts didn’t mean players had to make major tournament rosters. Casey short was a USA federation player and didn’t go to the World Cup. It basically just meant that a core group got paid regardless of injury status.


muchlifestyle

If you read the release there is a group of women’s players who will be designated “benefits players” who get compensation for injury, insurance, mental health and maternity leave. Sounds like they still have something very much akin to the old contracts and I suspect the “benefits players” are the ones who had contracts before.


ajhahn

Comments are locked in the big thread, so I'll put this here. It sounds like the USSF sort of forced the USMNT into the deal. From the Washington Post story: "The USSF, which had been under substantial public and legal pressure, had said it would not agree to a deal with the men that did not equalize the World Cup bonuses." That excerpt plus the part from the NYT story (Zimmerman coming to the realization that equalization had to happen for a deal to get done and then it wasn't easy to convince his teammates to ratify the deal) makes it sound like the men's team wasn't given much of an option, and Zimmerman basically tried to sell/smooth the whole situation out with the rest of the team.


[deleted]

[удалено]


circa285

That's sort of the way that this stuff happens though. The men make more money because the men's game is more popular. The women are the better team and it's not even close. I see no reason why the women who are better at their craft within their competitions should be paid less than their male counterparts who are demonstrably worse.


J_Petermann

I’d say the women are more successful but not a better team.


circa285

If the men and women play head to head the women are going to lose, there's not doubt there. This doesn't matter though. Similarly, there's no doubt that the women have won the world cup multiple times and are clearly the better team within their competition.


StrikaNTX

We'll see how long that lasts as other countries actually field professional teams


anckentucky

Because half the countries they play in the tournament don’t have professional leagues. On the mens side that is the opposite case.


RandomNameofGuy9

It's basic economics that the women should not be paid as much because they don't bring in anywhere near the same revenue. The men are giving away a lot of money here and should be applauded for it because they didn't have to do it.


baequon

This is an odd take even from a sporting perspective, considering they're completely different levels of competition. The women's world cup is a significantly less competitive tournament than the men's world cup. Many teams they face are essentially semi professional, leading to results like 13-0 vs Thailand. Aside from that though, prize pools are a result of the revenue the competition brings in. The money involved in the men's world cup is immense, so the money being paid out reflects that. It's strange to suggest you would be paid more on your performance in a different playing field than who you're comparing yourself against.


KypAstar

> I see no reason why the women who are better at their craft within their competitions should be paid less than their male counterparts who are demonstrably worse. Because the USWT being at the top of their craft is quantifiably less valuable than the USMT being mediocre at their craft. And lets be real, the women aren't some magic force of nature; the rest of the world just doesn't care as much about women's soccer so their is less overall competition. The USWT has spent years beating up on countries with a tiny fraction of the investment the US puts into women's sports. If the rest of the world put a proportional amount of time and investment into their women's soccer leagues, the USWT would not be near as dominate. The men's team contends with nations that put far, far *more* emphasis on their nations soccer programs (not necessarily monetarily, but in coverage, farming, and development) than the US does for men's soccer, while also losing the best American athletes to Football and Baseball at young ages. They're not paid equal because they are incomparable equations.


csbsju_guyyy

>Comments are locked in the big thread, so I'll put this here. Just commenting on this - mods the original thread was up for just a few hours during the morning - there are many people who missed and would like to contribute to the discussion. Why was the thread locked??


sirdixalot69

Preach. Mods definitely jumped the gun in this one. I'd say 99% of the people commenting against the deal aren't doing so for misogynistic purposes, but because of the facts that clearly point to this being an absolute scam by the USWNT.


ajhahn

Yep. Seems like they locked the thread really quickly. I'm sure some posts had to be removed this morning (and admittedly, I didn't read every post in the locked thread), but the comments I did scan across didn't seem out of bounds. Were some of them dumb? Sure. But, I didn't see anything in my scroll through that warranted locking it down.


Laraujo31

i saw some of the deleted comments and they were pretty wild. Think they anticipated a rush of similar comments so they locked it to be safe.


cpmullen

The settlement reached between USSF and USWNT put the USMNT in a no-win situation. If they refuse to equalize payment for respective tournaments (World Cup and Gold Cup starting in 2024), thus making a new combined CBA unreachable, the entire settlement falls through and USSF and USWNT go back to court. If they want a new combined CBA, they have to equalize payments for respective tournaments, losing a fair amount of money. Thus Zimmerman's realization about equalized prize money and having to do some convincing. It's unsaid, but I imagine part of the convincing was we have to do this or we become the bad guys.


sammyboyg

Yeah, but also I think it's also worth bearing in mind the the men's player's union publicly supported the equal pay initiative way back when this first started years ago. I understand why the USSF asked the men put their money where their mouth is (knowing that a lot of current MNTers were not a part of the team when that first statement was made). I also think it's important to acknowledge that US Soccer money makes up a smaller proportion of the men's total earnings as an athlete than the women's, so while the men were technically giving up some earnings, they were in a sense giving up less than the women were gaining. Edit: Here's another Zimmerman quote from the Athletic that was left out of the NYT article about what happened when they actually sat down with USSF and the USWNT at the negotiating table: >"I would say that’s when the reality hit,” he said. “Like, ‘Yeah, this is what we need to do, this is what has to happen to grow the game beyond just the men’s team and the women’s team, but to grow it at the grassroots level.’ … We came together and said this is what is right, this can be historic, this could change the landscape of international football and what it looks like with federations having equal pay for the men’s and women’s sides. I think that’s kind of what sold it at the end of the day, is that this is what’s right and that this is an opportunity to do what no other national team has done." It really doesn't seem that this was pushed on the men that hard. Plus there's another quote from Cone in the Athletic that's not in the NYT article that gives the men credit for being willing to do this


CalligrapherNext3164

Now it’s in the best interest for the USWNT players and their fans to stop the agenda against the mens because it’s in their best interest to see the game promoted across the board but something tells me they will not stop. USMNT performances in World Cup will greatly benefit the womens so long Fifa keeps the pay structure as it is.


johnniewelker

The men still voted for it. Negotiations are not necessarily easy but you have to agree with the outcome of sign for it. If the men didn’t like it, they didn’t have to vote for it. What would happen if they didn’t accept? I think this deal favors the women now but if we blow another gasket in 2030 and don’t go, the men would be the one benefiting from the women winning the WC.


ajhahn

I'm not opining on whether or not the deal is good or bad or right or wrong. I just wanted to be clear about that. You can absolutely be cornered into voting or going along with things you don't want to, especially as a group. Leverage is a real thing, and if the USSF essentially said "agree to split the winnings 50/50 or there will be no deal" there's not a lot you can do. They lose in the court of public opinion if they refuse. They would have had to continue under the current CBA which was also costing them money. There's a host of reasons why the men would go along with the split, even if quite a few of them didn't want to. Perhaps they did want to. We don't know. It just appears from what we've heard that the USSF put them in a position where they couldn't really refuse.


johnniewelker

This is real life though. All these things are true stuff that influence negotiations. I always found it fascinating how the men side essentially caved in to public pressure early on. Because the NYT, WaPo, and all other publications are hamming on something doesn’t mean they are right. In fact, I’d dare to say that most of the public understood why the men made more money. They simply didn’t need to sign this unless they themselves believe it’s a good deal for them. Moving forward their only option is to not sign a new deal whenever it’s due. Right now, they simply have to accept they sign this whether they truly believe it’s good for them or not


tefftlon

I wonder how much the World Cup money would matter to the men. I know a lot of players (not USA-specific) have talked about donating the winnings due to it being so low compared to club contracts and other incomes they have.


justalittleahead

The key here is that the Men's team has reached a point where their club careers are lucrative enough that it is okay for them to sacrifice the World Cup bonus. As that number would most likely be in the mid-six figures range (maybe $200K-$400K) unless the US overperforms in Qatar, the loss is likely bearable for the Men's team. Even for any career MLS players who would make a World Cup squad, their club level salaries have generally become substantial enough so that a World Cup bonus wouldn't be life-changing. The only exceptions might be a player like the 3rd goalkeeper (sorry Sean Johnson). And I'll add that I'm fine with the idea of the USMNT subsidizing the USWNT.


backup_kicker

This decision probably made the most sense for the star USMNT players. If you're Pulisic, the 300k in prize money (assuming RO16 finish) that you give up is only a few weeks' wages. In return, you now get income from USMNT Pulisic jersey sales.


sirdixalot69

Don't think players get a cut of jersey sales


Sermokala

Got take third gk should be gaga. He was broken by the loons but he's too much of a prospect to not take to Qatar.


PhillyThrowaway1908

I wonder how the accounting on this works. Since it's prize money nobody knows what the total pool would be until after the women's tournament. But lets say the men have a RO16 finish and each player would get 300k, but the women have a semifinal finish and each player would get 100k (no idea how close these are to the real numbers). Does that mean all players get 200k, or would the women get more than 200k since their finish was better than the men's? It'll be interesting to see the details. EDIT: The details are available on the linked page if you just scroll down...prize money is split 50/50 between the teams.


CalligrapherNext3164

After USSF take out 10% of the total prize money the remaining 90% will be share 50-50.


ChiefWatchesYouPee

US soccer not paying for NWSL anymore, I don’t follow NWSL at all, how badly will that hurt the league?


GrayEyedAthena

I don't think it's clear what the impact will be yet, but USSF already stopped paying for NWSL play for the 2022 season.


lsutyger05

I was wondering this too. I would think losing the guaranteed salaries will pretty much kill that league


soflahokie

Does this mean we don't have to watch the over the hill players on the WNT hang on to roster spots for dear life? Would be nice to see a youth movement in that side like we see with the men.


muchlifestyle

Contrary to the common belief here, contracts weren’t what was keeping certain players on the roster. They were reviewed semi-annually and players got dropped all the time. Marketing is what keeps big name older players on the roster and that won’t change. Attendance was really poor for the games earlier this year that didn’t feature the big name vets. Players like Morgan, Press, Heath and Rapinoe are responsible for a lot of ticket sales. Marketing individual stars is a big part of the USWNT and the team can still win most of the time with mid-late thirties players because of the talent gap between the US and most other nations


noUsername563

At least now we can finally buy the men's jerseys with their actual name and number and not have to customize it with some wacky number


imfromelpaso

Genuinely curious, but do we know what happens when a team doesn't even qualify for the WC? Like which players from the men's team would have received benefits from the pooled money in that scenario (which in this particular case, would have all been generated by the women)? Each player who participated in WC qualifying pro rated based on the percentage of games played in the campaign?


backup_kicker

Realistically I would guess that they just receive nothing and that the WNT prize money won't be shared, but strictly adhering to the new CBAs logic would require something like the scheme your describing.


[deleted]

Why create a better product that results in more revenue when they can just steal money from the established mens side? Makes sense. On top of that, they add additional benefits the women get but not the men? Ridiculous shit these days. This is also ignoring all of the dual nationality players that the US will lose out on now.


Primarycolors1

I would imagine most of the men make way more on their club teams.


wallnumber8675309

In my opinion, a realistic goal for the men is to make the round of 16 and a realistic goal for the women is to win the cup. For the 2018/19 cups: Winning the women’s - $4m Men’s round of 16 - $12m So while there is a huge gap in the overall prize money between the tournaments, the gap in expected payouts for the 2 teams isn’t much. Also note that actual payout for the men in 2019 was $0 but that shouldn’t be an issue during the current contract period.


notallwonderarelost

$8 million is a lot of money, even divided by 23.


wallnumber8675309

Yes. Around $350k. It’s not nothing but it’s not as much as I assumed until I checked the numbers. Also it depends on which players were talking about. That’s like 2 weeks base salary for Pulisic but about 1/3 of Zimmerman’s total compensation. So for some players it’s more impactful. The other thing to keep in mind is that from a players perspective what matters is the total package, not an individual line. Maybe the men were able to keep their total comp about the same or maybe not.


backup_kicker

In the new CBA, MNT players get revenue from Jersey sales. For the star players, that probably makes up for a large chunk of the 300k. If they don't agree to this new CBA, they're still stuck playing on the expired one, with no named jersey sales.


CalligrapherNext3164

Also they get game tickets revenue, jersey sales, media revenue etc. all of that could equal or be close when you factor in the World Cup bonus.


y10nerd

It's more like 4 million. The USMNT goes from 12 to 8 mil. So it's closer to 175k, which for the men is relatively little but for the women, that's substantial.


Bruce_Hale

And I believe the women got all of the $4m (or close to it) in 2019 and the men received a smaller percentage of the $12m in 2014.


egrfree2rhyme

So if the women win the World Cup and the men (god forbid) don't get out of the group, could the women actually earn more prize money and take a hit by having to share with the men? Or do the men earn more even if they don't make it out of the group and the women win the WC?


muchlifestyle

The men make more money going out in the group than the women do for wining their tournament, so the women make more money under this arrangement regardless of outcome. I also wouldn’t be surprised if some of these guys don’t even want the women’s bonuses and just waive them, since it’s presumably coming as a separate check next year after the wwc. Lot of players donate their World Cup earnings anyway. I could see a situation where the women’s World Cup money effectively isn’t even part of the sharing arrangement jist because of the awkwardness in how it’s presumably going to be paid to the men. Its not a relevant sum of money to most of these players


bobbasher08

Is the full CBA somewhere


SnooPies3316

This seems like bad news for the NWSL - or is USSoccer still going to subsidize the league in some other way?


muchlifestyle

The men did this to themselves by not qualifying in 2017. The whole reason the women sued was because they could use those years between 2015 and 2019 to show they made more revenue even if it is never the case again.