Difficulties of Equal Pay: US Women's Soccer
As a father of three daughters, two of which play soccer, I have grown to really enjoy the sport and appreciate the style of soccer women play. During the 2019 World Cup, we watched as a family and rooted for the US team. I wasn't thrilled with some of the political posturing and comments that occurred, but that didn't hamper me. However, the other day the discussion about the women's team and their lawsuit over pay came up as a topic of conversation. I listened as my oldest (15) and my wife discussed it. It was an interesting interaction and I was not surprised at my daughter's view on the matter. To her, it seemed totally unfair that women get paid less than me. My wife countered by providing some explanations as to why it may exist. After their conversation, I began to look a little deeper into the issue.
Recently the news regarding USSF's defense, outlined by its now resigned president, Carlos Corediero, was that the difference in pay was result of a difference between the skills in the men's and women's game. The USSF lawyer stated, "The overall soccer-playing ability required to compete at the senior men’s national team level is materially influenced by the level of certain physical attributes, such as speed and strength, required for the job." They also point out that WNT member, Carli Lloyd, admitted that competing against 16- or 17-year-old boys “is about as old as [the WNT] can go.”
Having read through the lawsuit, there are a number of factors that I find compelling and would need to more research to determine if I think they actually were discriminated against. However, this case brings to light the complexities of discerning what is fair and equal pay, and reveals how the simplistic view of equality is never quite that simple. The simplistic view states that "Both men and women are playing soccer, therefore they should get paid the same." Or, "The WNT is more successful, therefore deserve at least equal pay, if not more." But these simplistic views neglect some important contexts and economic realities, and leads to some inconvenient questions that lack easy answers.
First, understanding how the market sets wages is an important place to start. Wages are typically a result of supply and demand within the labor market. When there is an abundance in supply, wages tend to be lower. Conversely, when demand for a skill is high, the wages tend to be more. Different combinations of supply and demand have different impacts. For example, most of us want to find a job that is in high demand but has low supply. This combination leads to high wages. The opposite, high supply and low demand, leads to low wages. With all that being said, in this scenario both WNT and MNT are in very short supply. They are the best of the best and only around 30 players get to be on the team at a time. In terms of demand, there are some important differences. While elite men soccer players have many different options for a career in the sport, women have few. And the opportunities that women have outside of the WNT are not very economically great. In other words, where the WNT is the only real demand for women, the MNT is one of a wide international network of leagues and clubs. This is an important difference because it plays a role in incentivizing the most elite of players to commit to playing for the MNT. In other words. what needs to be answered is, what is the market value outside of the national teams and how does that play a role in determining the pay of their players? If a the average professional men's soccer player gets, say, 10K a game and the average pro female gets 5K, one could argue that USSF is not discriminating.
Another key question that needs to be addressed in this lawsuit centers around revenue generation. One of the key factors in most jobs is an employees ability to either generate revenue or limit the loss of revenue. Obviously, great sales people generate revenue for companies. Likewise, great HR people and managers often help companies prevent the loss of revenue. In either scenario, there is a real dollar value that is attached to a persons particular set of skills and abilities. It is important to note that the market often dictates which skills brings in revenue. The fact is that the market can be discriminatory and this is especially true of men's and women's sports in general. Choose any professional sport that both men and women compete and the revenue for men is larger and that usually leads to much different pay for both. Rapinoe's wife, WNBA star Sue Bird, makes 215,000 a year, four times less then the minimum salary for a male in the NBA . In the lawsuit, the WNT, make the claim that they generate more revenue then the men. If this is the case, then their claim has merit.
Perhaps the most difficult question is, how does the competition of the WNT and MNT compare and should it be a consideration in determining fair pay? There are many layers to this answer. The simplistic response is that both teams are playing against the world's elite an that is true. But that does not make it an equal comparison. This is a critical part of understanding this issue because the lawsuit makes the argument that the WNT have been much more successful than the MNT. Women's international soccer is relatively new (1991 was the first year of Women's World Cup). Most of the competitive teams in the WWC are from Westernized societies (Europe, Japan, S. Korea) where women were allowed greater access to the sport. In fact, the top four finishers in the eight WWC's have come from only ten countries. Women's soccer in America is contextually different from men's soccer. Whereas, women's soccer has a comparatively high following, interest, and involvement relative to other women sports, men's soccer is at the bottom (although rising) compared to football, baseball, and basketball. America's best male athletes play other sports, whereas other countries best athletes play soccer more often (basketball and baseball are catching on internationally in this respect). So, these factors definitely play a role in the level of competition and the success women have had compared to the men and I think should not be used as the criteria for determining discrimination.
Finally, the WNT's union, WNTPA, collectively bargained with the USSF as did the MNT. Both have some key differences in their agreement, which they signed (Here is a great article about the contractual argument). These contracts reflect some of the differences mentioned above, but interestingly also provides evidence that men and women are different, and consequently, can lead to necessary differences in agreements. For example, there is stipulations regarding pregnancies.
I am not sure how this case will get resolved. Cordiero's resignation signals that the USSF will certainly lose the public opinion trial. That may not have a legal impact, but it can play a role in USSFs willingness to fight a long, drawn out trial. That may be what the WNT wants: win the public opinion battle via Twitter, Instagram, and Snap Chat. Social media is where simplistic reduction of issues often create intense emotional reactions, which build momentum like an avalanche. And just like an avalanche, it does not spend much time thinking about the complexities of the structures it is destroying, it just allows the inertia to take over. My hope is that this case is not decided by simple emotional belief about equality, but by a thorough understanding of how wages are determined. In one way, I hope an out come is the dissolution of USSF and the creation of two distinct organizations based upon gender. I wonder if Rapinoe and others would want such an outcome.
Comments
Post a Comment