March 2019 saw female soccer players file a joint lawsuit against their employer United States Soccer Federation Incorporated. Claiming both pay and accommodations disparity compared to their male counterparts who are employed by the same company. The two principle arguments presented for their case were the female team performed better than their male counterparts yet were paid less and Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been violated during their employment.

The lawsuit states in part:

“Despite the fact that these female and male players are called upon to perform the same job responsibilities on their teams and participate in the same international competitions for their single common employer, the USSF, the female players have been consistently paid less than their male counterparts. This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of their male players – with the female players, in contrast to the male players, becoming world champions.”

What is omitted in the brief is the relevant performance metrics of said players. The world finals that they won, was only viewed by 263.62 million viewers. Ratings that were heralded as all-time highs for the female league by CNBC, but stem from reports that counted people if they viewed only a single minute of the game. In comparison, the male league’s final round was viewed by over 1.1 billion (with a ‘B’) individuals.

For further consideration, the entire female league in 2015, which is the last season they have published complete numbers without attempted obfuscation, only saw 764 million viewers. Compared to the men’s 2018 showing of 3.572 billion for the entire season, as recounted by PopSugar.

As for the mentioned obfuscation mentioned, that statement is in reference to media attempts to make a grand total of 414.1 million views seem to be a significantly better season than their 2015 performance. Through limited citations of select games significantly performing better than their 2015 counterparts. Averages are put forth despite admissions that quarterfinals saw only 74%, and semifinals only 88% of their 2015 viewership with no totals revealed until vastly later in articles, such as the one from Forbes. When men’s numbers are mentioned they are done by taking the worse examples to provide a comparison to their female non-equivalents.

On May 1st, 2020, Federal Court Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed the equal pay clause of the lawsuit citing the female team’s rejection of the pay for play model in exchange for guarantees. Where the men only get paid if they play and do well, all women regardless if they play are paid the same. This was by their own union negotiation.

In his ruling the Judge explains:

“The history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players.”

“Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA [collective bargaining agreement] worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to-play terms structure when they themselves rejected such a structure.”

Keep in mind this dismissal does not negate the prior performance metrics. Said metrics will be brought out during trial by the defendants to demonstrate that the women fail to generate anywhere near the same revenue and are thus overpaid for their services compared to the men’s league. An argument that we very well may see presented as the women intend to appeal the ruling which is estimated to delay the start date of the trial.

Permitted to go through was their claim they received poorer amenities, including flights and hotel accommodation, along with poorer support and training services.

Likely what will transpire out of the proceedings if the company doesn’t buckle and risk a revolt by their male players in the process, is the same that happened with the Google lawsuit: Where the truth is presented that the women do not produce anywhere near as much as the men and thus is why they are not getting paid as much as the men.

For those unfamiliar with how that argument panned out, the Google class-action lawsuits were originally dismissed in December of 2017 for being too broad, but then a new suit was filed in early 2018, as reported by Mercury News.

(Thanks for the tip Gemma Ham)