On the evening of May 1st, Judge Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California released his partial summary judgment in the U.S. women’s national team’s lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation, which sought compensation equal to that of the men’s national team.
In his decision, Klausner ruled almost entirely against the players and in favor of the U.S. Soccer Federation in both parts of the players’ suit.
The players’ argument under the Equal Pay Act was denied entirely, and their argument under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was denied almost entirely; all that remains in that part of the suit are the team’s claims of unequal treatment when it comes to travel conditions (specifically charter flights) and personnel and support services.
In public, the team has enjoyed equal pay chants at matches, and received widespread support for their ‘four stars, no crest’ protest, turning their warm-up jerseys inside out at a March SheBelieves Cup game. U.S. Soccer, meanwhile, has been dealt damage to its brand along with accusatory statements from their own sponsors regarding their treatment of the women’s national team players.
Molly Levinson, spokesperson for the players, said via a statement:
We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up our hard work for equal pay. We are confident in our case and steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that girls and women who play this sport will not be valued as lesser just because of their gender.
Levinson also promised that the players will appeal, via the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The players can still make gains in settlement talks with the federation, and based on the initial reaction to ruling, will still have a large advantage when it comes to public support.
Klausner’s ruling relied heavily on the two fundamentally different collective bargaining agreements (CBA) negotiated by the U.S. Soccer Federation and respective player associations for the womens and mens national team. The women, Klausner determined, had valued guaranteed contracts and benefits in their CBA over the rewards of a pay-per-play model like the men have in theirs.
In his decision, Klausner found that the Women’s National Team (WNT) players earned more than the Men’s National Team (MNT) players on an overall and game-by-game basis:
It is undisputed that, during the class period, the WNT played 111 total games and made $24.5 million overall, averaging $220,747 per game. By contrast, the MNT played 87 total games and made $18.5 million overall, averaging $212,639 per game. Based on this evidence, it appears that the WNT did not make more money than the MNT solely because they played more games. Rather, the WNT both played more games and made more money than the MNT per game. Under these circumstances, it is not ‘absurd’ to consider the total compensation received by the players.
With this math in mind, he ruled in favor of the federation entirely when it came to the players’ Equal Pay Act arguments.
Because of that ruling, Klausner also granted summary judgment to U.S. Soccer on the same complaint of discriminatory compensation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Klausner also did not find any discriminatory reason for the USWNT’s higher rate of play on turf surfaces, pointing to the federation’s argument that they did not anticipate enough revenue to justify the cost of installing temporary grass for the playing surface. He rejected the players’ argument to that effect.
The only finding in favor of the players related to the two other arguments made under Title VII: the inequality between the two teams when it comes to charter flights, and medical and training support. Arguments on both of those grounds would be allowed to proceed to trial.
Even as the federation has paid the price in the court of public opinion, with previous legal arguments that the USWNT did not have the same “strength and skill” as the men (a strategy that ultimately forced federation president Carlos Cordeiro to resign), their strongest legal argument in the differing CBAs ultimately proved successful in court.
A U.S. Soccer motion from February stated:
Ultimately, Plaintiffs want the Court to force U.S. Soccer into paying them as though they negotiated a different contract, won competitions they did not play in, defeated opponents they never faced, and generated over $60 million more in FIFA prize money for U.S. Soccer than they actually did. This is not the purpose of the anti-discrimination laws, which are designed to prevent employers from paying women less than men in exchange for virtually identical work, just because they are women. That did not happen here.
The federation said in a statement:
We look forward to working with the women’s national team to chart a positive path forward to grow the game both here at home and around the world. U.S. Soccer has long been the world leader for the women’s game on and off the field, and we are committed to continuing that work to ensure our Women’s National Team remains the best in the world and sets the standard for women’s soccer.
The players, meanwhile, certainly appear ready to fight on:
We have learned that there are tremendous obstacles to change. We know that it takes bravery and courage and perseverance to stand up to them.
Source: https://theathletic.com/