With their popularity peaking, the World Cup winners deserve equal pay

As they floated through the Canyon of Heroes in Manhattan on Wednesday, showered in confetti, the World Cup champions took turns holding up a sign of the times.

“PARADES are cool. EQUAL PAY is cooler.”

Someone from among the tens of thousands of parade spectators had passed the sign up to the women and, sure enough, chants of “equal pay” would break out as U.S. Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro addressed the crowd, just as they had Sunday in France after the USWNT defeated the Netherlands.

This isn’t only about soccer anymore. All this, Megan Rapinoe, the U.S. women’s team, their hearts and souls, their celebrations, their words have spilled into something much more.

“This is a watershed moment for women in sports,” said Gary Phelan, who has practiced employment law in Connecticut for three decades and is an adjunct professor at Quinnipiac Law School. “A way where women and men are being paid equally in a major (team) sport? It has never happened before. Not that there is going to be

equal money in every sport, but it lays the foundation in other sports for equal treatment.

“It is the culmination in many ways from what the intent of Title IX. Title IX, Me Too, Time’s Up, all those things are sort of blending together with this as the outcome.”

On March 8, 28 members of the USWNT filed a class action lawsuit against the USSF. In the genderdiscrimination suit, the women alleged their employers paid them less than the men’s team in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The federation has maintained the difference is because “aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex.”

The sides have agreed to try mediation.

“It is a strong case from a straight legal standpoint (for the players),” said Phelan, former chair of the CT Labor and Employment Section. “In making a claim as far as equal pay, it really focuses on the job. There clearly are comparable working conditions, the duties, what they do is very comparable. Look at the metrics. This isn’t just about feeling good or wanting to support women. It’s about the quantifiable ways you would compare the men and the women.

“The most important metric, I think, is the revenue generated, the success they’ve had, the size of the TV audiences. That’s why it’s a strong case. The women’s team hasn’t been laying down the foundation the last year. They’ve been doing it the last 20 years. This is more the culmination, the final straw. People like Kristine Lilly from Wilton, on their shoulders these women are now in position to say, ‘We earned it.’ ”

From 2016 to 2018 women’s games made $50.8 million for the federation. The men generated $49.9 million in game revenue. The women’s team won its fourth World Cup to go with four Olympic titles. The men? Zilch. Didn’t even qualify for the 2018 World Cup. The women’s victory over the Dutch was viewed by 14 million on Fox (20 million including streaming). The 2018 men’s final between France and Croatia was viewed by 11.4 million.

Half of the federation’s income comes from sponsorship deals, jersey sales, broadcast, etc. Those are bundled so it’s not easy to determine exactly how much

each side generates. They also have different collective bargaining agreements, much of the pay coming in bonus money depending on quality of the opponent and the result.

The women’s lawsuit pointed out that if both teams played 20 “friendlies” a year and won them all, the women would each get a max of $99,000 — $4,950 a game. The men would each get $263,320 — $13,166 a game. That’s a joke. Unacceptable. Unfair.

The longstanding difference comes from FIFA allocating $440 million total — $38 million to the winner — for the men’s World Cup, while $30 million total — $4 million to the winner — for the women. FIFA has put the women on artificial turf. FIFA does things like have the Gold Cup the same day as the women’s World Cup. Still, a billion people watched the entire World Cup worldwide, including a spike in Europe. One thing is for sure. As more and more European countries invest in the women’s game, the USWNT’s dominance will be challenged.

“If you’re not down with equal pay at this point … you’re so far out of reality and the conversation that we can’t even go there,” Rapinoe told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. “I think it’s time to move to the next phase. I think everybody wants that. Nobody wants this contentious fight all of the time ... We don’t want to constantly have that sort of animosity and exchanging blows in one way or another.”

Rapinoe said she talked to FIFA president Gianni Infantino on Sunday. She senses things “have changed dramatically,” although talk and dollar signs ain’t the same.

“I do think everyone now realizes it’s time for the next step,” Rapinoe said. “To work together, get it to a better place, be collaborative.”

So how could the women lose in court?

“One of the biggest legal defenses that the U.S. Soccer Federation has,” Phelan said, “is, ‘In 2017 you entered in a collective bargaining agreement. You agreed to the pay structure. Like every other industry if you want a better deal when it expires in 2021 we’ll talk about it.’

“That could happen even in the Ninth Circuit. (The players) picked the right place to file. If you’re an employee no matter what the issue is, the best place to file is a court in California in the Ninth Circuit. (The players and lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler) hit all the right things as far as laying

the foundation on what they need to do. Having said that, I think mediation is better step than litigation.”

Except for Neanderthals who argue the women could never defeat the men in a game and people like Fox’s Jesse Watters, who argued the women have hurt their case and their popularity by disparaging the president and being unpatriotic. Almost everyone sees the women players are at the height of their popularity and bargaining position. Watters pointed to a drop from 25 million watching the 2015 women’s World Cup, conveniently overlooking it was played in prime Eastern time while Sunday’s game was at 11 a.m.

“Their leverage is definitely at its peak,” Phelan said. “Taking the approach, setting the tone of let’s work together as opposed to we’re ready to fight for the next three years in court I think is brilliant.

“That’s one of the benefits of mediation. With litigation, it’s win or lose. You actually can change more through mediation because you can design the outcome. You’re also not rolling the dice with what a court can do, and you can do it a heck of a lot sooner.”

On Tuesday, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia introduced a bill that would withhold federal funding for the U.S. hosting the 2026 men’s World Cup until the men’s and women’s team receive equal pay. On Wednesday at the parade, in symbolic support of the USWNT, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed pay equity legislation for the state. While pressure from politicians and public wouldn’t necessarily have impact on the legal case, there is no denying the colossal public relations beating the USSF could take.

“If you beat them in court and say, OK, wait until after 2021 to address this,” Phelan said. “You can make the argument that winning in court can do more damage than good to the federation.

“I really think they’re likely going to be able to reach some sort of agreement through mediation. It will benefit both parties if they can come up with a solution that can help serve as model for men’s and women’s sports. This one isn’t NBA vs. WNBA. That’s an apples and oranges argument. They don’t generate close to the revenue to pay the (WNBA) the same. This is different. They do have the money. This is how they parcel it out.”