The article was informative, but seemed contract itself at times
because the author didn't quite know what to make of the gray areas. I did find these statements most interesting though.
"However, we can’t directly attribute this increase to either team. USSF sells sponsorships (which include broadcast rights for all U.S. Soccer games) as a bundle. The documents we reviewed don’t distinguish which team brings in more sponsorships or how sponsorship dollars are allocated."
"The Fact Checker obtained the new agreement, which took effect in April 2017. Using the same 20-game scenario, we calculated the player on the women’s team would earn $28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player. If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount. That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary."
"USWNT players have previously said publicly they believed this was the best agreement they could get without going on strike."
The Women's Team earns less if they won all 20 games and the same if they lost all 20 games. How odd. Is it even possible for a National Team to go on strike? Would US Soccer find scabs willing to put on the USA kit even if it means crossing the picket line and watering down the brand? Maybe US Soccer thinks the strike would end if the US lost to Thailand 14-0 in a friendly on national TV.
|
(
In response to this post by HokieForever)
Posted: 07/08/2019 at 5:11PM