The unions for the United States men's and women's national soccer teams have ratified new collective bargaining agreements with U.S. Soccer that include an equal split of World Cup bonuses, the federation and the two unions announced on Wednesday.
The two CBAs will go into effect on June 1 and will last until the end of 2028. The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association (USNSTPA), which represented the men's players, had been operating without a CBA since the end of 2018. The deal for the U.S. Women's National Team Players Association (USWNTPA) expired at the end of 2021, though it had been extended.
The agreements are a promise kept by U.S. Soccer Federation president Cindy Parlow Cone, who had vowed that new CBAs would need to address the equal pay issue of World Cup bonuses. The CBAs also put into effect the much-celebrated financial settlement between the USWNT and the federation, which was announced in February after years of legal jostling.
The respective unions will receive 90% of the FIFA bonuses paid at the 2022 and 2023 World Cups and 80% of the bonuses at the 2026 and 2027 editions. All of the funds paid out from those bonus pools will be split evenly among the two national teams. FIFA has announced that the entire bonus pool for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar will be $400 million, while the bonuses for the women's tournament in Australia in 2023 will be $60 million. In the previous World Cup cycle, the last-place men's team won more prize money than the first-place women's team.
"There are tough conversations, but at the end of the day, it is the right thing to do," Zimmerman said. "It's something that [the U.S. women's team players] deserve. It's something that they have fought for so hard, and, to be honest, sometimes it does feel like we had just kind of come alongside of them and had been a little late.
"It's not easy to look back and think about this whole journey and where it started for them and how we entered. And that's why it's even more important for us to feel like we are getting involved. It's never too late to get involved."
The new CBAs achieve equality in other areas, as well. The men's and women's teams will have identical performance-based bonuses for games and competitions. The women's team will no longer have guaranteed salaries for some players and will have the same pay-to-play payment structure as the men's team has always had.
Both unions also will participate in revenue sharing, including 10% of commercial revenue between $55 million and $75 million and 15% of any commercial revenue above $75 million. Both teams also will receive an equal cut of ticket revenue, with the teams receiving $5.06 of each ticket sold through the end of 2026 and $5.75 of each ticket during the final two years of the deal.
To me, this is an odd deal for the men's union to agree to. I think equality in terms of percentages being equal makes all kinds of sense, but isn't pooling revenue always going to benefit the team that brings in less of it? If you're the revenue driver, why agree to such a change?
To avoid awkward conversations at dinner parties where they are being grilled about their bonuses despite their team's poor performance and the success of the woman's team.
There is nothing logical about this. The only thing that you could argue is that the Men's Team is simply hooked up to the World Cup revenue faucet and are not actually driving revenue or engagement on their own merit. The Woman's Team feels that they are just as entitled to these profits as the men since they are bringing more attention to US Soccer as a whole despite playing in the side tournament.
Personally I think this argument is laughable but the members of the USMNT are so beaten and defeated by the superior global national men's teams -not to mention by today's political climate- that they are either unable or unwilling to fight for their dignity. The counter argument that they should make would be that the Woman's Team would have no more success in the Men's tournament and the Men's Team would have world's more success in the Woman's tournament but who really is going to try to make that argument in the court of public opinion?
Wait until you gentlemen learn about how every men's sports league in the United States (including the NBA) splits up their TV and luxury tax revenue. Every league in the world is shameful, in that case. I guess the current political climate has made half of the NBA (the winners, at that) give up their dignity to support the Sacramento Kings and the OKC Thunder. Better we go back to the days of 8 teams and hope the Celtics are on the top of the pile (thanks for hoarding profits and not paying the tax, Wyc!)
I'm personally all for reallocating the pie to keep all sports alive and well. As most are fond of saying when a male athlete speaks out about social causes that they disagree with, the top earners of all sports are making more money than they know what to do with. Doesn't it make sense to give up some of that excess to ensure children in your home country have heroes to look up to and a chance to play the sport they love growing up, just like you did? I personally looked up to Mia Hamm more than any male US soccer player at the same time.
I think there's a distinction between league revenue sharing, versus revenue between two national teams.
I'm surprised that the male players are willing to give up a fairly significant amount of money in some years to support the women's team. I just don't think most humans are that altruistic.
Doesn't this line encapsulate Ayn Rand style objectivism, which often contrasts with progressive movements such as equal pay and equal rights? With this worldview, how would any steps towards equality be of value?
Not really? I'm not really understanding your argument.
I think of it like somebody who works on commission. Let's say that there's a store in Beverley Hills and a store in South Central.
I find it likely that most people at the Beverley Hills store would agree that all people at any store owned by the company should receive the same percentage of commission. I would not expect those people, however, to say that they'd be willing to see their commissions be substantially reduced to subsidize the workers at the South Central store, no matter how talented or hardworking those at the South Central store were.
When there's a direct, substantial individual monetary loss associated with an action that benefits another group only, I expect most people to vote against that action.
