Wage and Gender Discrimination: An Analysis of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team - WorldatWork
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Wage and Gender Discrimination:
An Analysis of the U.S. Women’s
National Soccer Team
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibited pay discrimination on
the basis of sex. A year later, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
was enacted and it clearly states that, “It shall be an unlawful
employment practice for an employer … to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation,
Iman Hussain terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
Illinois State University such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”
(American Association of University Women 2019). The Civil
Rights Act applies to employers with 15 or more employees,
all levels of government, private and public universities,
employment agencies and labor organizations. Less than 10
years later, in 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendments
was passed. It states, “No person in the United States shall,
I.M. Jawahar, Ph.D. on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be
Illinois State University denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any education program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance” (U.S. Department of Education 2018).
T
he Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil
Thomas H. Stone, Ph.D. Rights Act were intended to level the playing
Oklahoma State University field between men and women. For instance,
the Equal Pay Act condemned pay-based discrimination
based on sex, Title VII prohibited pay-based discrimina-
tion based on protected characteristics including sex,
and Title IX enabled women equal access to participate
in educational activities, specifically sports. In the past
60 years, the wage gap between men and women has
narrowed considerably, but there is no question that
women are still disadvantaged relative to men.
14 The Journal of Total RewardsIn this article, we use the case of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team
(USWNT) to illustrate how pay inequity is institutionalized and perpetuated and
describe the challenges to restoring equity. We do this by: (i) detailing the condi-
tions that caused the players and their organization to resort to legal methods;
(ii) describing the history of the USWNT’s pay and gender discrimination battle
with the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF); and (iii) tracing the evolving nature of the
complaints against the USSF and its response to those charges.
The U.S. Soccer Federation is often referred to as U.S. Soccer, and the two terms
will be used interchangeably in this article.
OVERVIEW
The U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) has engaged in institutionalized gender and
wage discrimination as a result of industry standards. Its failure to accommodate
the demands of its female athletes and employees has resulted in widespread struc-
tural discrimination. This battle between players and their organization is unique
not only because of its high-profile nature, but because the USWNT players are
more accomplished and acclaimed than their male counterparts. Not only are they
three-time World Cup champions, they are also four-time Olympic Gold medal-
ists and three-time recipients of the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Team of the Year
award. The 2015 World Cup final achieved 25.4 million viewers and became the
most watched soccer game in American television history (Strauss 2019). The 2019
Women’s World Cup final received 22% more views in the United States compared
to the 2018 Men’s World Cup (Hess 2019).
As such, the success of the USWNT has been extremely lucrative for the USSF
although not for the actual players compared to their male counterparts. The like-
ness of the players is used for advertisements and merchandise, but the players
did not receive compensation or a portion of the profits because the USSF owned
the likeness almost completely. However, according to Paste magazine, “Under the
new CBA (collective bargaining agreement), most of these rights will be transferred
to the players association, giving individual players the freedom to negotiate their
own sponsorship deals in categories where U.S. Soccer doesn’t already have a
sponsor in place” (Gordon 2017).
The talents and success of the USWNT are praised by the USSF. However, one
could argue the athletes are not treated as the champions they are. The team’s
fight for equal pay is unique in many aspects, not least of which is that the team
is successful, generates revenue and is award-winning in comparison to its male
counterpart. The 2017 CBA between the USWNT and the USFF led to improved
compensation and benefits, but the players maintain that their demands, most
notably pay equity, have not been met. This is what led to a lawsuit being
filed in 2017.
First Quarter | 2020 15A HISTORY OF LOW PAY BEFORE THE 2017 COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Prior to the 2017 CBA, U.S. Soccer required 24 players to be under contract.
The contracts are divided into three tiers. Players are moved throughout the
tiers depending on performance. When there is a women’s professional league,
these are the allocations among the three tiers: Tier 1- $72,000, Tier 2 - $51,000,
Tier 3 - $36,000. If there is no professional league, WNT salaries increase to:
Tier 1 - $101,000, Tier 2 - $72,000, Tier 3 - $43,000. In comparison, from 2000 to
2004 players received either a $5,000/month or $3,500/month salary depending
on their presence in the 1999 residency camp. Furthermore, there is a separation
between national team and league salaries. From 2013 onward, there has been a
$2,000 increase per year for players receiving league salaries. In addition, players
are eligible for an annual bonus. (Yang 2016a.)
FIGURE 1 2013 - 2016 USWNT League Salaries
$60,000 $56,000
$52,000 $54,000
$50,000
$50,000 $46,000
$42,000 $44,000
$40,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$
2013 2014 2015 2016
n WNT “Founding Players” Salaries n WNT “Non-Founding Players” Salaries
Source: U.S. Soccer Federation
FIGURE 2 USWNT Bonuses Per Year
Team Bonus
Event Roster Bonus Player Bonus
(1st place/Gold)
2000 Olympics $10,000 N/A $700,000
2003 World Cup $10,000 N/A $720,000
$2,500 per
2004 Olympics $10,000 $720,000
group game
2007 World Cup $10,000 $50,000 $1,200,000
2008 Olympics $10,000 $50,000 $1,200,000
2011 World Cup $12,000 $60,000 $1,440,000
2012 Olympics $12,000 $60,000 $1,440,000
2015 World Cup $15,000 $75,000 $1,800,000
2016 Olympics $15,000 $75,000 $1,800,000
Source: U.S. Soccer Federation
16 The Journal of Total RewardsThe USSF does provide paid maternity leave to athletes on the USWNT. Pregnant
players receive 50% of salary while on leave and can return to the same tier they
were prior to leave at 100% of salary for three months. Furthermore, players are
provided with vision and dental insurance. The players are also paid $3,000 for
sponsor appearances. For road games, players travel premium economy/economy
and are assigned no middle seats. During Olympic travel, the players receive busi-
ness class or charter options.
It is also interesting to note that the athletes are not the only employees who
are subject to wage discrimination. According to the USSF’s 2017 990 tax form, the
head coach for the USWNT, Jill Ellis, received a salary of $291,029 per year (U.S.
Soccer 2019). In contrast, the head coach of the U.S. men’s national team (USMNT)
at that time, Bruce Arena, received $1,249,348, an almost-million dollar difference.
Even though coach Arena’s track record of wins is the highest in U.S. history, the
difference in pay between the coaches could be construed as wage discrimination.
2017 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Notably, male soccer players are paid by Major League Soccer, the United States’
top-tier professional league, and not by the USSF. In contrast, the USSF pays
the salaries of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team in order to support the
National Women’s Soccer League. This financial support is part of the USWNT’s
2017 collective bargaining agreement. However, there are disparities in the salary
and incentive structure administered by the USSF to male and female national
team soccer players.
The 2017 CBA between the USWNT players association and the USSF is in place
until 2021. Included in the CBA is, “A significant increase in direct compensation
and bonus compensation; enhanced ‘lifestyle’ benefits for the players with respect
to travel and hotels; per diems that are equal to those of the men’s team; and
greater financial support for players who are pregnant and players adopting a
child” (Wahl 2017). This agreement was reached while a separate wage discrimina-
tion complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
was still in place. The EEOC complaint accuses U.S. Soccer of wage discrimination
in relation to the compensation paid toward the USMNT players (discussed later).
The pay structures for the U.S. women’s and men’s soccer teams are very
different. The women have a so-called built-in safety net in place (i.e., they are
paid even if they don’t win), men are only compensated when their team wins.
This pay structure ignores the fact that the players on both teams not only play for
the national team but also for professional leagues. In this, the inequity is extreme.
The minimum salary afforded by Major League Soccer in 2019 was $60,000 per
year while there is no maximum salary. In comparison, the National Women’s
Soccer League pays a maximum of $46,200 with a minimum of $16,538. For female
athletes who play professionally but are not on the national team, the minimum
is just above the federal poverty line for a single adult.
First Quarter | 2020 17The U.S. players also receive bonuses for earning a spot on the World Cup roster. There is a disparity in the amount received as well, which has drawn widespread criticism. As a result of this disparity, LUNA Bar donated $718,750 directly to the U.S. team members ($31,250 per player) in 2019 to ensure that each member of the U.S. women’s national team received the same World Cup roster bonus awarded to their male counterparts (Clif Bar & Co. 2019). Although there were many compromises made through the 2017 CBA and improvements regarding overall compensation, the terms were not deemed equi- table by the women’s team as they still encountered many inequalities within their work such as poor playing conditions, disparate treatment in compensation, staffing, etc. (USWNT 2019). The debate over the USWNT’s Collective Bargaining Agreement received widespread criticism and support from varying sides as the dispute hit mainstream media. However, the widespread support for the women’s players has not been enough to sway USSF. 2019 COLLECTIVE ACTION LAWSUIT The 28 USWNT members jointly filed a collective action lawsuit against their employer in March 2019. Five high-profile players previously filed an EEOC complaint in March 2016. Those players—Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and Hope Solo—alleged the federation practiced wage discrimination. With no resolution achieved for three years, the complaint officially ended in March 2019 with the new lawsuit. The EEOC had sent “Notice of Right to Sue” to the players in February 2019, resulting in every member of the USWNT filing. The players stated that, “The United States Soccer Federation Inc. (“USSF”) is the single, common employer of female and male professional soccer players who play on the United States Senior Women’s National Soccer Team (“WNT”) and the United States Senior Men’s National Soccer Team (“MNT”). Despite the fact that these female and male players are called upon to perform the same job responsi- bilities on their teams and participate in international competitions for their single common employer, the USSF, the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts. This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players—with the female players, in contrast to male players, becoming world champions” (Morgan et al. p. 2, l. 2, a. 1, 2019). The USSF states that its mission is to “promote and govern soccer in the United States in order to make it the preeminent sport recognized for excellence in participation, spectator appeal, international competitions and gender equality” (U.S. Soccer 2019a). Yet according to the players’ lawsuit, “the USSF has utterly failed to promote gender equality. It has stubbornly refused to treat its female employees who are members of the WNT equally to its male employees who are members of the MNT. The USSF, in fact, has admitted that it pays its female player employees less than its male player employees and has gone so far as to claim that ‘market realities 18 The Journal of Total Rewards
are such that the women do not deserve to be paid equally to the men.’ The
USSF admits to such purposeful gender discrimination even during times when
the WNT earned more profit, played more games, won more games, earned more
championships, and/or garnered higher television audiences” (Morgan et al. p. 2,
l. 12, a. 2, 2019).
That position creates a difficult situation for the USSF when attempting to defend
its actions and claim its desire for a resolution. The players’ lawsuit goes on to
allege that, “The USSF discriminates against Plaintiffs, and the class that they seek
to represent, by paying them less than members of the MNT for substantially equal
work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel conditions;
equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their games;
and other terms and conditions of employment equal to the MNT” (Morgan et al.
p. 3, l. 9, a. 3, 2019). Furthermore, the complaint states that, “if each team played
20 friendlies (exhibition games) in a year and each team won all 20 friendlies,
female WNT players would earn a maximum of $99,000 or $4,950 per game,
while similarly situated male MNT players would earn an average of $263,320 or
$13,166 per game” (Morgan et al. 2019). A female player would earn only 38%
of the compensation that a similarly situated male player would receive for the
same kind of work. The suit also states that in 2014, the federation paid the men’s
team $5.375 million in bonuses as they lost in the World Cup round of 16 while
the women were paid $1.725 million in bonuses for winning the 2015 World Cup
(Bachman 2019).
U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION RESPONSE
In May 2019, the USSF filed a formal response to the lawsuit denying the pay
inequities. The federation also stated that the alleged pay differential is “based
on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/
or any other factor other than sex” (Bachman 2019). The federation emphasized
the differences between the teams in that they are, “physically and function-
ally separate organizations that perform services for U.S. Soccer in physically
separate spaces and compete in different competitions, venues, and countries at
different times; have different coaches, staff, and leadership; have separate collec-
tive bargaining agreements; and have separate budgets that take into account
the different revenue that the teams generate” (Bachman 2019). The USSF argues
that the players’ legal claims alleged in the filing are rendered invalid due to the
2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement, saying that the players willingly accepted
these conditions. Furthering this rationale is that all complaints related to dates
prior to 2017 are, for the most part, also under contract by a collective bargaining
agreement and a memorandum of understanding. The federation also says that
the wage calculations put forth by the USWNT are misleading due to market
realities. The USSF states that any disparity reflects those realities and consumer
preferences and not institutionalized discrimination. It argues that even though
First Quarter | 2020 19the women are without question more successful than the men, the market for
men’s soccer is more lucrative. However, while the men’s games used to generate
more than women’s games, the gap has all but disappeared in the past three years.
According to audited financial reports from the USSF from 2016 to 2018, women’s
games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for
the men (U.S. Soccer 2019b).
FIGURE 3 U.S. Women Catching Up
U.S. men’s soccer events once brought in much more revenue than U.S. women’s events,
but that gap is closing.
n Men’s national team event revenue n Women’s national team
$30 million
25
20
15
10
5
0
FY2010 '12 '14 '16 '18
Source: U.S. Soccer
THE TWO SIDES ENTER MEDIATION
In response to the USSF’s claims, the women pointed out that the USWNT Players
Association proposed a revenue-sharing model to test the market realities theory,
but the proposal was rejected. The model would have called for “increased USWNT
player compensation when USSF derived more revenue from USWNT activities
and decreased compensation when less revenue was derived. In other words, the
players were willing to accept market risk, but the USSF said no (McCann 2019).
It is also worth noting that the U.S. men’s team members have provided explicit
support for the women players in their pursuit of equitable pay and treatment
(Olmstead 2019).
On June 21, 2019, the players had agreed to participate in mediation after the
Women’s World Cup (McCann 2019). Mediation is done confidentially, with both
parties present, and does not demand a resolution. The mediator listens to the
arguments and recommends terms to consider for both parties. If terms are agreed
to, then litigation will not proceed.
The Women’s World Cup victory has led to continued widespread support
and a call to action for equality and equity for the team. Those mediation talks
broke down in August (Das 2019), increasing the chances for a federal court
showdown in 2020.
20 The Journal of Total RewardsBoth the women and the USSF have incentives to resolve this situation as soon
as possible. The women feel they are owed equitable pay, damages and assurance
of better treatment for themselves and future players. The USSF has a reputation
to maintain. This lawsuit does not help either side. The players sent a letter to the
federation stating that, “For both parties, the risk of not resolving our disagree-
ments over equal treatment that were not addressed either in bargaining or through
the EEOC is too high” (DelGallo 2019). U.S. Soccer’s reputation, sponsor relations,
fan support and federal funding for the 2026 World Cup tournament are all at risk,
and that risk continues should we not reach resolution. We have demonstrated
that we can perform at high levels on the field even while pursuing equality off
the field, but it is certainly not what we want to continue to go through with a
new coach and the upcoming Olympic Games if a resolution is possible. While we
are prepared to take our equal pay fight through a trial if necessary, we believe
that both sides would benefit from any equal pay and equal working conditions
settlement now.”
In response to the mediation breakdown, U.S. Soccer released the following
statement: “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, plaintiff’s counsel took an aggres-
sive and ultimately unproductive approach that follows months of presenting
misleading information to the public in an effort to perpetuate confusion. We
always know there is more we can do. We value our players, and have continu-
ally shown that, by providing them with compensation and support that exceeds
any other women’s team in the world. Despite inflammatory statements from their
spokesperson, which are intended to paint our actions inaccurately and unfairly,
we are undaunted in our efforts to continue discussions in good faith” (Das 2019b).
Each party has strong statements and is remaining steadfast in its positions.
Without compromise, there appears little chance of resolution.
The USWNT players have been utilizing the resources available to them in order
to engage their employer in agreeing to their requests for equity. It is the respon-
sibility of the organization to provide proper working conditions, and ethical and
equitable treatment to all of its employees. Additionally, USWNT Coach Jill Ellis’s
resignation after the post-World Cup Victory Tour affects the team and its structure
because 2020 is an Olympic year. All top-tier U.S. athletes will be expected to
compete at their best for these elite games. With a new coach and less than a year
to prepare, both the athletes and the USSF have a lot to consider.
INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE
The goal of this article is to review the gender pay gap between professional
men and women soccer players—and to determine whether there is institu-
tional discrimination demonstrated by the USSF. However, it would be remiss to
First Quarter | 2020 21not include international influences, including the Federation Internationale de
Football Association (International Federation of Association Football) (FIFA), the
international governing body of soccer. FIFA is responsible for a variety of activi-
ties, but we will focus on the men’s and women’s World Cups to offer insight to
our discussion.
FIFA established the FIFA World Cup (Men’s) in 1930 and the Women’s World
Cup (retroactively named) in 1991. The disparate prize money paid to the men’s
and women’s teams is one of the controversial topics plaguing FIFA. The 2019
Women’s World Cup paid out $30 million in prize money, a paltry sum compared
to the $400 million awarded at the 2018 Men’s World Cup (Wahl 2019).
Professional Footballers Australia, the union that that represents both the men’s
and women’s Australian national teams, urged FIFA to adjust the previously set
prize total for the 2019 women’s tournament in order to make it at least equitable
to that of the 2018 Men’s World Cup. Figure 4 displays the information presented
by their organization, Our Goal Is Now. The desired total value of $336 million
is identified as the goal value for men’s and women’s teams achieving the same
finishing position (Our Goal Is Now 2019).
Figure 4 details the allocations of prize money for each place in the World
Cup tournaments. The $366 million total request is less than the $400M for men
because the women’s tournament has fewer teams (24) than the men’s (36) (Our
Goal Is Now 2019).
FIGURE 4 Professional Footballers Australia’s Proposed Equity Goals
2019 FIFA Women’s
2019 FIFA Women’s
2018 FIFA Men's World World Cup
World Cup
Cup (Our Goal: Gender
(FIFA Proposed)
Equality)
Position Per Team Total Per Team Total Per Team Total
Champion $38m $38m $4m $4m $38m $38m
Runner-up $28m $28m $2.6m $2.6m $28m $28m
3rd $24m $24m $2m $2m $24m $24m
4th $22m $22m $1.6m $1.6m $22m $22m
5th - 8th $16m $64m $1.45m $5.8m $16m $64m
9th - 16th $12m $96m $1m $8m $12m $96m
17th - 24th $8m $64m $0.75m $6m $8m $64m
25th - 32nd $8m $64m
Total $400m $30m $336m
Source: Our Goal is Now (2019)
As it stands, the 2019 Women’s World Cup winners earned $4 million, which is
double the amount earned in 2015. However, it is still only 10.5% of the amount
awarded to the champions of the 2018 Men’s World Cup (Siregar 2019). The drastic
difference between prize money for the men’s and women’s World Cups could be
22 The Journal of Total Rewardsdue to greater interest in the men’s game. The 2015 Women’s World Cup brought in
$73 million, including $17 million from U.S. television commercials (Siregar 2019).
Although a high amount, the revenue is small compared to the $6 billion that
the 2018 World Cup brought in. This comparison cannot be made without under-
standing that the men’s teams around the world have benefited from sustained
FIFA financial support over a longer period in comparison to the women’s teams.
There have been eight women’s World Cups and 21 men’s World Cups.
FIFA does not govern the USSF and the USSF has no influence over FIFA.
However, as the international governing body, FIFA has power to set a precedent
for other organizations. If FIFA were to provide women’s prize money at least
closer to that of what the men receive, that would be a clear statement to the
expectations for the rest of the world. Instead it continues to increase the gap
between the men’s and women’s teams by consistently awarding the women far
less for the same work.
It’s also necessary to compare and contrast the disparities and allegations of the
USWNT with that of men’s and women’s teams around the world. Some national
teams have achieved pay equality while many others are facing a far worse disparity
compared to the United States. Norway has made great strides in the fight for wage
equality. In December 2017, the Norway men’s and women’s team captains, repre-
sentatives of the Norwegian Football Association and Norway’s players association
signed an agreement on equal pay that is widely believed to be the first of its kind
(Lewis 2017). The agreement allowed for a 2.5 million Norwegian kroner ($302,750)
increase in 2018 for the women’s team. It also included a pay raise for both teams
the following year amounting to $726,900 each. Equal pay was achieved when the
men’s team transferred the 550,000 kroner ($60,000) that they each received from
commercials and advertisements to the women’s team.
In contrast, the German women’s national soccer team released a promotional
video prior to the 2019 World Cup in which they stated that, “[w]e play for a
nation that doesn’t even know our name” (Rollenhagen 2019). The team has won
the World Cup twice and the Eurocup eight times. However, there is an extreme
lack of support for the women’s team in comparison to the men’s, particularly
in a country that strongly heralds its men’s team. There are pay discrepancies as
well. If the German men’s team had won the 2018 World Cup, each player would
have received a bonus of 350,000 Euros (about $390,200). The women would
have each received 75,000 Euros (about $83,700). Not only is there a pay discrep-
ancy, attempting to watch women’s soccer on television is difficult because the
Bundesliga, the German professional soccer association, requires a private provider
and only one in three games are televised.
Australian footballers have also fought for pay equity in their domestic profes-
sional leagues. It was announced in June 2019 that players in Australia’s women’s
professional league would have their annual salary increased 33%, “with their base
hourly rate matching the men’s A-League” (Ransom 2019). The existing collective
First Quarter | 2020 23bargaining agreement for the players was extended an additional year to allow the increase. Although this reduces the gender pay gap in some ways, male players will still earn more because their season is double the length. Despite such equity efforts, gender pay inequity in soccer remains throughout the world. For example, Brazilian men’s star Neymar earned more in 2017 ($43.8 million) than the players in the top seven international women’s professional leagues ($42.6 million) (McCarthy 2017). There are many professional players who make very little or no money playing soccer. Prior to the 2019 World Cup, the New York Times asked dozens of women’s players how much they earned from soccer in the course of a year, and several players from Jamaica gave answers ranging from $0 to a few hundred dollars. Other players, from Thailand, South Africa, Nigeria and Argentina, said they made less than $5,000 annually from soccer” (Tuttle 2019). FUTURE IMPLICATIONS The U.S. women’s national soccer team players have utilized many of their resources in order to bring their allegations to the media, their sponsors and the global community. They have engaged in multiple collective bargaining agreements, media appearances and social media campaigns, such as #equalplayequalpay, in which the players hoped to usher in a wave of change and support for their team. If a compromise cannot be reached, then likely more drastic measures, such as a player strike, will have to be taken. The USWNT has had a strike in its history already; perhaps another one would further incite change within the organization. There is one other organization that has influence over the USSF – the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC). Because USOC oversees the management of U.S. athletes in Olympic events, it may have the ability to influence the USSF to work with the athletes. The disagreements between employer and employee can be resolved if a compromise is reached or if one side is willing to accommo- date the other. The USWNT has been accommodating and compromising for many years. The players’ current actions are not a result of a single event but of years and years of gender and wage inequity. A simple and uncomplicated solution would be to pay the players on the USWNT equitably in comparison to the men’s team. U.S. Soccer apparently has the funds, carrying a surplus of $150 million (Gordon 2019). U.S. women’s soccer experiences a cyclical popularity. Every four years, “the USWNT enjoys wider public exposure in the run-up to the World Cup, the players are held up as inspirational figures for women and girls, there are scattered think pieces on systemic inequalities and sexism, and then the tournament ends. Barring some controversy everyone moves on. Female soccer players, both in the national team pool and out, are left to fight for their careers and livelihoods in relative silence. After a few years, there’s another World Cup” and the cycle repeats (Gordon 2019). 24 The Journal of Total Rewards
The fact that the nature of these disagreements has, in effect, been occurring
from the very beginning should be a cause for concern for both the employer and
employee. There is no doubt that the USSF has made great strides in women’s
soccer. The question is when and how USSF can create equitable terms for the
female players. It is an investment not only in the talent of the current team but
also into the future of women’s soccer. Given the recent success of the women’s
team, one could argue this is an auspicious time for USSF to support the team.
Understanding the need to continue to move forward will help establish USSF
as a model for other organizations. Doing so sets a precedent for other similarly
situated organizations to act in the same manner. z
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Iman Hussain (izhussa@ilstu.edu) is an MBA student at Illinois State University. She received her bachelor’s
degree in political science with a focus on international relations and a minor in Spanish from the University
of California, Los Angeles in 2016. Hussain worked as a research analyst and project manager at UCLA. She
intends to pursue a career in business consulting.
I.M. “Jim” Jawahar, Ph.D. ( jimoham@ilstu.edu) is a professor in the Department of Management &
Quantitative Methods at Illinois State University. He received his Ph.D. in human resource management and
organizational behavior from Oklahoma State University. Jawahar has authored more than 70 journal articles
and published in journals, such as Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel
Psychology and Journal of Management. Since 2007, he has been editor of Career Development International.
His research areas include performance appraisals, fair perceptions, citizenship and counterproductive work
behaviors and career-related issues.
Thomas H. Stone, Ph.D. (tom.stone@okstate.edu) is the Carson Priority Excellence Professor, Department
of Management, Oklahoma State University. After earning his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota (I/O
psychology), he served on the faculties of the Universities of Iowa and Minnesota. He’s published in the the
WorldatWork Journal, Journal of Psychology, Leadership Quarterly, Academy of Management Review and
others. Stone has served as associated editor of Career Development International since 2008.
REFERENCES
American Association of University Women. 2019. “Know Your Rights: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/.
Bachman, Rachel. 2019. “U.S. Women’s Soccer Games Outearned Men’s Games.” Wall Street Journal,
June 17. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-
games-11560765600.
Barrabi, Thomas. 2019. “FIFA Women’s World Cup: Prize Money and Other Key Numbers to Know.” Fox
Business, June 4. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.foxbusiness.com/features/fifa-womens-world-cup-by-the-
numbers.
Clif Bar & Co. 2019. “LUNA Bar Moves U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team One Step Closer to Equal Pay.”
April 2. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.clifbar.com/press-room/press-releases/luna-r-bar-moves-u-s-women-
s-national-soccer-team-one-step-closer-to-equal-pay.
Creedon, Pamela J. 1994. Women, Media and Sport: Challenging Gender Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Das, Andrew. 2019a. “U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Sues U.S. Soccer for Gender Discrimination.” New York
Times, March 8. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/sports/womens-soccer-team-
lawsuit-gender-discrimination.html?module=inline.
Das, Andrew. 2019b. “Mediation Talks Between U.S. Women’s Team and U.S. Soccer Break Down.” New York
Times, Aug. 14. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/sports/uswnt-mediation-us-soccer.html.
DelGallo, A. 2019. “USWNT Ends Mediation with U.S. Soccer, Will Pursue Jury Trial for Equal Pay.”
ProSoccerUSA.com, Aug. 19. Viewed: Dec. 11, 2019. https://www.prosoccerusa.com/us-soccer/uswnt-
ends-mediation-with-us-soccer-will-pursue-jury-trial-for-equal-pay/.
First Quarter | 2020 25Dolles, Harald and Sten Soderman, eds. 2011. Sport as a Business: International, Professional and Commercial Aspects. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ewing, Martha Elaine. 1983. Achievement Orientations and Sport Behavior of Males and Females. Microform Publications, University of Oregon, 1983. Gordon, Bridget. 2019. “The USWNT’s Equal Pay Lawsuit Is a Fight for All of Women’s Sports.” SBNation.com, June 7. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.sbnation.com/2019/6/7/18653t50/uswnt-pay-equality-lawsuit-gender- discrimination-us-soccer. Gordon, James. 2017. “A Quick and Dirty Look at The New USWNT Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Paste Magazine. April 5. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/a-quick-and-dirty-look- at-the-new-uswnt-collective.html. Hall, M.A. 1978. Sport and Gender: A Feminist Perspective on the Sociology of Sport. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (CAHPER). Hayes, Graham and Associated Press. 2019. “USWNT Suing U.S. Soccer for Discrimination.” ESPNW, March 9. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/26189867/uswnt-suing-us-soccer- discrimination. Hess, Abigail. 2019. “U.S. Viewership of the Women’s World Cup Final Was Higher than the Men’s.” CNBC, July 10. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/us-viewership-of-the-womens-world-cup-final- was-higher-than-the-mens.html. Lewis, Aimee. 2017. “Norway’s Footballers Sign Historic Equal Pay Agreement.” CNN, Dec. 14. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/football/norway-football-equal-pay-agreement/index.html. McCann, Michael. 2019. “How USWNT’s CBA, EEOC Impact New Equal Pay Lawsuit.” si.com, March 8. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.si.com/soccer/2019/03/08/uswnt-lawsuit-us-soccer-equal-pay-cba-eeoc-gender- discrimination. McCann, Michael. 2019. “What Mediation Means for U.S. Soccer, USWNT in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit.” Sports Illustrated, June 21. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.si.com/soccer/2019/06/21/uswnt-us-soccer-medi- ation-equal-pay-gender-discrimination-lawsuit. McCarthy, Niall. 2017. “Soccer’s Ridiculous Gender Wage Gap (Infographic).” Forbes, Nov. 28. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/11/28/soccers-ridiculous-gender-wage-gap- infographic/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_content=1183088544&utm_campaign=spri nklrForbesMainTwitter#4a7f7ebb7b08. Murray, Caitlin. 2019. “For U.S. Women’s Team, Higher Bonuses Raise the Stakes for Each Match.” New York Times, April 9. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/sports/uswnt-bonuses-equal-pay.html. Murray, Caitlin. 2019. The National Team: The Inside Story of the Women Who Changed Soccer. New York: Abrams Books. Olmstead, M. 2019. “U.S. Men’s National Team Blasts U.S. Soccer for Claiming It Pays Women More.” Slate. com, July 30. Viewed: Dec. 11, 2019.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/usmnt-statement-womens- team-equal-pay-fight.html. Our Goal Is Now. 2019. “Campaign Resources.” Viewed: Oct. 31, 2019. www.goal.com/en-us/news/what-is- fifas-prize-money-for-the-womens-world-cup-2019-how-does-/1prr3je0vxxyk193owz0eijhj4. Ransom, Ian. 2019. “Australia’s Women Soccer Players to Get Same Base Pay as Men.” Reuters, June 6. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-australia-women/australias-women-soccer- players-to-get-same-base-pay-as-men-idUSKCN1T80DU. Rollenhagen, Luisa. 2019. “What Does Germany Have to Do to Get Anyone at Home to Pay Attention?” Deadspin, June 12. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. deadspin.com/what-do-germany-have-to-do-to-get-anyone-at- home-to-pay-1835486718. Siregar, Cady. 2019. “What Is FIFA’s Prize Money for the Women’s World Cup 2019 & How Does It Compare to the Men’s Finals?” Goal.com, July 11. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. www.goal.com/en-us/news/what-is-fifas- prize-money-for-the-womens-world-cup-2019-how-does-/1prr3je0vxxyk193owz0eijhj4. Strauss, Ben. 2019. “Women’s World Cup Final Delivers Viewers for Fox, Despite Early Start Time.” Washington Post, July 9. Viewed: Dec. 11, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/07/08/womens-world-cup-final- delivers-viewers-fox-despite-early-start-time/. Tuttle, Brad. 2019. “Here’s How Much Money the Best Soccer Players in the Women’s World Cup Really Make.” Money, June 28. Viewed: Oct. 22, 2019. money.com/money/5646612/world-cup-2019-womens- soccer-salary-prize-money/. 26 The Journal of Total Rewards
U.S. Department of Education. 2018. “About: Title IX and Sex Discrimination.” Sept. 25. Viewed: Oct. 23, 2019.
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html.
U.S. District Court Central District of California Western Division. 2019. Alex Morgan et al. vs. United States
Soccer Federation Inc., March 8.
USWNT Players. 2019. Letter to U.S. Soccer Board of Directors. Aug. 12. https://www.prosoccerusa.com/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/USSF-BOD-Letter.1.pdf
U.S. Soccer. 2019a. “About U.S. Soccer.” Viewed: Oct. 23, 2019. www.ussoccer.com/about.
U.S. Soccer. 2019b. “Jill Ellis to Step Down as U.S. Women’s National Team Head Coach.” On the Pitch, July 30.
Viewed: Oct. 23, 2019. www.ussoccer.com/stories/2019/07/jill-ellis-to-step-down-as-uswnt-head-coach.
Wagstaff, Christopher. 2017. The Organizational Psychology of Sport: Key Issues and Practical Applications.
Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Yang, Stephanie. 2019. “USWNT and USSF Equal Pay Mediation Unable to Find Resolution.” Stars and Stripes
FC, Aug. 14. Viewed: Oct. 29, 2019. www.starsandstripesfc.com/2019/8/14/20806296/uswnt-ussf-equal-
pay-mediation-breaks-down.
Yang, Stephanie. 2016a. “The Most Interesting USWNT CBA Details.” Stars and Stripes FC, Feb. 4. Viewed:
Oct. 23, 2019. www.starsandstripesfc.com/2016/2/4/10916838/most-interesting-uswnt-cba-collective-
bargaining-details.
Yang, Stephanie. 2016b. “Understanding the USSF/USWNT CBA Dispute.” Stars and Stripes FC, Feb. 4.
Viewed: Oct. 29, 2019. www.starsandstripesfc.com/2016/2/3/10911558/understanding-ussf-uswnt-cba-
dispute-lawsuit.
First Quarter | 2020 27You can also read
