Don’t confuse US women’s soccer with the facts
By Michael R. Shannon
The US women’s national soccer team just scored a spectacular ‘own goal’ in California US District court. Their lawsuit, contending they were underpaid in comparison with the men’s team, was rejected in a summary judgement.
And without so much as a single dramatic courthouse steps news conference starring the purple–haired Norma Rae: Megan Rapinoe.
A dejected spokesperson for the team tweeted, “We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up working for two bites at the same apple. We are confident that with the right judge and a gullible jury, women’s soccer will be able to have our cake and eat it, too!”
Whoops! My mistake! That’s what she should have said. The real statement was,” …shocked and disappointed –therapeutic buzzwords – equal pay – wah, wa, wa – gender.”
The lawsuit, which has the strong support of feminists, leftists and sportswriters has been a lie from the beginning. Last September I wrote about the initial filing and the immediate support it gained from the Washington Post and various Hollywood hairdos.
Fact is the women’s soccer team is paid under the provisions of a contract the women negotiated with US Soccer and then approved by a majority vote. It wasn’t a document the overseer brought down from the massa and made the field women sign.
Their contract differs significantly from that of the men due to tradeoffs the women demanded.
In negotiating terms of employment there’s a tradeoff between risk and reward. The salesman who agrees to be compensated solely by commission has a much higher potential income than the worker who wants a set and regular salary.
The contract the women negotiated rewards the collective at the expense of the individual. During negotiations, the women were offered a contract that more closely matched the incentives in the men’s agreement and they turned it down. They preferred a sure thing even if upside potential was limited.
National Review explains the women wanted, “guaranteed contracts, injury protection; health, dental, and vision insurance; child-care assistance; severance pay; guaranteed rest time. In short: more security and more benefits” along with more guaranteed slots on the team. That is a low risk agreement.
The only item the women didn’t demand was a Teamster’s lapel pin.
The men’s contract was a high risk “pay to play” arrangement where “all the economic risk was borne by the players in exchange for more upside if the players made the team and the team was successful.”
The women had second thoughts about the men’s agreement after their championship season and realized ‘damn! If we’d taken that offer, with our record, we’d really be rich!’
(This is why gamblers – regardless of sex – aren’t allowed to bet after the dealer has revealed his cards.)
Sally Jenkins, who covers the estrogen beat for the WoePost sports page, was incensed last year when the women filed suit and now that the salary portion of the lawsuit has been dismissed she’s incandescent.
To Jenkins the “summary judgment” that was issued by the judge didn’t mean the unequal pay claim was “completely without merit.” Sally said it meant “Male Entitlement!” Jenkins didn’t have time for the facts last year and certainly doesn’t now.
Did Gloria Steinem consult an economist before she set fire to her drawers?
Jenkins is obsessed with the idea of equal–pay–for–equal–work. What she can’t grasp is that this isn’t about reporters in the WoePost bullpen. Women’s soccer and men’s soccer are completely different games. The men’s fan base is larger. Men’s soccer brings in more money and the TV audience is much larger.
As hapless as the US men’s team is on the world stage, and it’s pretty pitiful, if the men played the US women they would streamroller the women. The women couldn’t even beat a team of 15–year–old boys during an exhibition match in 2015, and that was a year when the women won the World Cup.
This is why even the most talented player in the Lingerie Football League makes a fraction of the salary of a player on the NFL’s worst Miami Dolphins.
And to prove this suit has the intellectual content of an argument with your ex–wife, NR points out, “The lowest-paid member of the women’s team made more money than the highest-paid member of the men’s team.”
The women negotiated their contract. They opted for security over reward. And now they want the courts to impose terms on US Soccer the team rejected during negotiations because, like women, they changed their collective mind.
What’s particularly ironic is, even though the lawsuit failed, the contract the oppressed members of Team Estrogen formerly agreed to is still paying them during the WuFlu lockdown. While the men haven’t seen one thin dime.
Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at mandate.mmpr (at) gmail.com. He is also the author of Conservative Christian's Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with added humor!).