USSF Responds to Women’s Equal Pay Demand

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,166
10,011
113
LOL, where'd you read that, Gramps, Reader's Digest? Senior Living? Do you have anything even resembling facts to back that up? Look at the most popular celebrities with millennials (roughly the demographic you mention), you're not seeing people in the "Rapinoe Lane".
Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and Grandpa Huffy was your age, the single highest paid entertainer and most recognizable sex symbol on Earth was a bisexual woman named Madonna.
 

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Why You Want to Reach Them: If the sheer size of the market isn’t enough to convince you, consider this: More than 54% of millennials who participated in an August 2014 Google Consumer Survey said they would choose an LGBT-friendly brand over a competitor that wasn’t “equality focused.” By including the LGBT audience in your marketing efforts, you’re also encouraging engagement with a substantial number of non-LGBT consumers.

https://www.chiefmarketer.com/marketers-most-wanted-lgbt/

There are literally dozens of similar articles that turn up from simple google searches. You need to stop arguing with two guys who have spent twenty plus years arguing for money in the highest courts in the country.
Wait, I thought she was marketable because of her purple hair? Now it's because she's gay? You can be gay without having purple hair and vice versa. And there are lots of ways to express yourself as a person, either as a gay person or otherwise. Some are more "family friendly" than others. When I think of Rapinoe, it's not just that she's generically lesbian but she's lesbian in a specific way, which is what I assumed you meant by her "lane". I think Rapinoe would be more marketable as a more "family friendly" lesbian. But that's not who she is. If she wanted to maximize her marketing potential, she would tone it down - but maximizing $$ isn't worth that to her. Or even better, be straight, there's a ton more $$ available for straight progressive types than LGBT people. Most companies don't use LGBT stars, there are lots of way safer ways to be equitable, like the maybe-maybe not gay Tobin Heath and her gender neutral lifestyle brand with Rapinoe and others. I'm not saying she doesn't want to cash in - who wouldn't? But I think your claim that she'd pretend to be someone else for more $$ is preposterous and completely unfounded, and contradicted by the facts.
 
Last edited:

chito_and_leon

I.T.S. Offensive Coordinator
Dec 5, 2003
5,398
1,685
113
Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and Grandpa Huffy was your age, the single highest paid entertainer and most recognizable sex symbol on Earth was a bisexual woman named Madonna.
LOL, Madonna is straight. But a good example of how a company could use a straight celeb to project an image of openness and acceptance. And definitely a good example of someone who played with boundaries for $$ and fame, a much better example in fact than Rapinoe
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,432
5,736
113
Looks like the women loss. From my brief reading...the women were offered the same pay structure as the men and declined the same. Turned out to have been a smart move as they’ve made more $$ than the men over the past two years due to their success. However, in terms of the lawsuit, the decision and subsequent results were a loser. Correct ?
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,040
8,795
113
Looks like the women loss. From my brief reading...the women were offered the same pay structure as the men and declined the same. Turned out to have been a smart move as they’ve made more $$ than the men over the past two years due to their success. However, in terms of the lawsuit, the decision and subsequent results were a loser. Correct ?
I bet they feel kinda silly fighting for equal pay. Seeing as how they pretty much had to admit they make more.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,166
10,011
113
Looks like the women loss. From my brief reading...the women were offered the same pay structure as the men and declined the same. Turned out to have been a smart move as they’ve made more $$ than the men over the past two years due to their success. However, in terms of the lawsuit, the decision and subsequent results were a loser. Correct ?
It just re-states what I was telling everyone over the last few years. The equal pay argument is at best disingenuous if not bordering on an extortion racket designed to generate publicity fees for high profile players and trickle down interest in the sport amongst women and girls. People that follow the sport closely behind the scenes know this has been the case since the mid-90s when Mia was making more than all the male players combined off the pitch and more than everyone save a hand full on it.

Important points for non-lawyers: Each side hired the best legal talent available. Some of the best labor lawyers in the world. Both sides filed what is called a motion for summary judgment. That means the material facts are not in dispute and the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the other party disputes the facts , then the case must go to trial for the jury to resolve the dispute about what is fact and what isn’t (and inevitably hear the pleas to their emotions and prejudices).

What that means is that an army of lawyers working for the women, some making more than $1,000 an hour, Ivy League educated, with decades of experience, looked at all the accounting, all the evidence, and could not locate a single material fact that they could dispute about how much the men and women were actually paid. Such motions are routine and they are routinely denied because (common sense alert) if the parties can’t dispute the facts, they wouldn’t be filing law suits in the first place. The women couldn’t. This was a junk lawsuit in the first place.

So the women thought they could file the lawsuit and embarrass USSF into an unfavorable labor agreement in exchange for dropping the lawsuit. They have done that before, this time they actually filed the suit. And they thought they could bully USSF was the threat of a jury trial if that didn’t work. Well they didn’t get their agreement and they aren’t going to get their trial on the important issues. Good for USSF’s long time lawyer, who is female.

It was only partial summary judgment. They may still get their trial on first class airfare and per diem, but those issues were solved going forward before the suit was filed and the jury, if there is one, will hear that. They will also hear that the women were losing money during that period and the disparate treatment wasn’t for all players, just the millionaire men in Europe who were given first class airfare in part to entice them to come back from Europe and no women were playing in Europe at the time. I don’t know what a jury would do about a lawsuit that says women on the Wheatie’s box were discriminated against because the failing business they were employed by wouldn’t fly them first class from Florida to Chicago, but that same business did fly a millionaire player nobody on the jury recognizes named Landon Donovan from England to LA for a game because he sold tickets and the TV folks demanded him and he wouldn’t come without the first class fare. So my sense is they will settle that claim.

The only other claim is the complaint about per diem: that not only were men paid more but they got more per diem. Nobody wants to try a case over $100.00 a day. And the reason the per diem was lower was because the union agreed to it because the women wanted catered meals and practice fuel in the locker room and the men didn’t. So good luck winning a lawsuit over whether you are treated unfairly because you demanded catering.

So no winners here except the lawyers. The women will appeal to save face. I doubt it will ever make it to an appellate decision. Even if it does, at best the only thing that can happen is that the court will say there a facts in disputes and send it down. But there’s no way this case goes to trial.

So it’s over. And you the fan lost. And all that money that could have been used to build the game is wasted. It’s a lesson I learned 25 years ago. I’ve tuned out the rhetoric then. You should now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: quincy101

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,166
10,011
113
Thanks.

Fun fact: the judge in this case is the same one who decided that Stairway to Heaven was a rip off of another song.

It will be interesting to see what happens with SI soccer coverage with Grant gone. It will certainly be more even handed. Grant’s been on the road with the teams and the fans for too long. He’s an acquaintance from those trips and I’ve drank my share of beer with him. He’s a good writer but his biases are baked in and not always obvious to the reader. For instance, his wife is an infectious disease specialist who has treated Hope Solo. They’ve socialized with her outside their professional roles. Wahl repeatedly gave favorable coverage to the circus that is Solo without disclosing that. My sense is both SI and Grant and soccer will be better off with him doing other things. Whether it is getting fired or running for FIFA President, he does seem to be a little too eager to make the story about him, a quirky middle aged white guy that never played the game.
 
Last edited:

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,166
10,011
113
US Soccer just dropped its girls’ youth program btw.
Mostly. Happened about two weeks ago. U15, U16, U18, and U19 programs dropped on both sides. U23 for women dropped. U17 and U20 remain for both plus the U23 boys Olympic team. Been coming for a while. CoVid is the excuse. It’s really all they needed and a little more in line with Europe. We shall see if MLS is up to footing the development and sale task. I don’t think anyone can say the old format was developing players. Though we did ID a few from the U18. Whether guys like Sargent will fly under the radar now is an open question and whether that is a good thing is also debatable. We won more, on both sides, without it, so I’m not sad to see it go.
 

Latest posts