U.S. team files lawsuit, seeks equal pay

All 28 current United States women’s national team players filed a federal class-action lawsuit Friday morning against the U.S. Soccer Federation seeking equal pay and alleging gender-based discrimination.

The USSF is the governing body for the sport in America and pays the men’s and women’s national teams. The lawsuit demands a jury trial for violations of the Equal Pay Act, which prohibits wage discrimination between men and women who perform similar jobs, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

Below is a breakdown of the most important parts of the lawsuit, along with prepared statements from five of the players. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Yes. The players for the U.S. women’s national team have demanded equal pay and treatment many times throughout the years, most recently on March 30, 2016, when five players — Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and former U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo — filed a federal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the federation practiced wage discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.

Friday’s lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles effectively ends that EEOC complaint after seeing no resolution nearly three years later. The EEOC issued “Notices of Right to Sue” to the players Feb. 5, and the players received them Feb. 11. The complaint: The lawsuit alleges U.S. Soccer engaged in “systemic gender-based pay discrimination” and “has caused, contributed to, and perpetuated genderbased pay disparities” against the players in “nearly every aspect of their employment.”

There are more than 41 complaints against U.S. Soccer in the lawsuit. Here are some of the highlighted complaints:

The women are paid less than the men despite performing similar job duties for the same employer and outperforming the men — at times earning more profit for the federation, playing more games, winning more games, winning more championships and garnering higher television ratings. To support that claim, the lawsuit cites the women’s three World Cup titles, four Olympic gold medals, No. 1 rank in the world for 10 of the 11 last years and the 2015 World Cup title game being the most-watched soccer game in American TV history.

The women actually spend more time in training camps and playing games than the men because of this success. From 2015-18, the women played 19 more matches than the men.

In addition to unequal pay, the lawsuit says the federation provides unequal playing, training and travel conditions, and unequal promotion for games. Examples cited: From 2014-17, the women played 21 percent of their domestic matches on artificial turf compared to 2 percent for the men. In 2017, the USSF chartered at least 17 flights for the men and none for the women. Lower ticket prices and less promotion of women’s matches led to “USSF-manufactured revenue depression.”

When the USWNT players association negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement, which took effect Jan. 1, 2017, and runs through 2021, the USSF rejected requests for equal compensation and also turned down a proposed “revenue-sharing model” that would test the federation’s claim that “market realities” do not justify equal pay for women. “Under this model, player compensation would increase in years in which the USSF derived more revenue from WNT activities and player compensation would be less if revenue from those activities decreased. This showed the players’ willingness to share in the risk and reward of the economic success of the WNT,” the lawsuit says. What they’re seeking: Change. And restitution. The players want the USSF to stop discriminatory practices immediately by providing “an adjustment to the wage rates and benefits” for the plaintiffs and the class “to the level these Plaintiffs and the class would be enjoying but for the USSF’s discriminatory practices.”

They are also seeking damages, including back pay, front pay, attorneys fees and punitive damages to deter future discriminatory practices. What’s next? A response from U.S. Soccer, which did not release a statement Friday.

The federation likely will raise the issue of the men and women having separately negotiated CBAs that feature vastly different pay structures.

For example, the women are paid annual guaranteed salaries with smaller bonuses for matches and tournaments.

The men have a more “pay-toplay” structure with larger bonuses. The women also receive some benefits, such as health care, that the men do not, according to the federation.