"She wants equal pay for equal play": Women athletes fight for what they deserve
On May 18, 2022, a historic agreement was signed between the U.S. Soccer Federation and the men's and women's national teams to provide equal pay for both genders - in proportion to their playing duties and athletic performance, including the World Cup. The collective agreements are valid until 2028. After that, the partners' representatives will be asked to renegotiate the terms.
However, the road to such a decision was not paved with rose petals. The data below show that female athletes receive significantly lower salaries than their male counterparts, even when they have greater achievements to show, such as winning a world cup. Before enumerating the steps that were necessary for the U.S. women's national soccer team to reach this important milestone, it is vital to point out how, until recently, the distinction between the two sexes was institutionalized in sports life.
The first law passed and implemented was the Title IX Act in 1972, which prohibited any discrimination between the two sexes in all educational institutions that received federal grants. It can be concluded that the emancipation of women in sports was closer than ever, which meant equal access to training facilities, sports resources and equipment. At that time, legendary tennis player Billie Jean King threatened to boycott the 1973 US Open if the winning female tennis player did not receive the same prize money as her male counterpart. It will be several years before the movement for equal pay for both sexes is organized on a larger scale and before some legal disputes are “settled”.
Title IX “taken” to court
On March 8, 2019, the U.S. women's national soccer team filed a lawsuit against the American Soccer Federation, accusing it of violating Section 206 of the Equal Pay Act, which specifically prohibits discrimination based on sex - that is, pay at will by employers. They also accused them of violating the Civil Rights Act, specifically Title VII, which also specifically provides equal employment opportunities for both sexes.
It is easy to conclude that the U.S. Soccer Federation asked the court to dismiss the case based on false allegations. But let us take a look at the main arguments on both sides to clarify the situation. Specifically, the federation claimed that both national teams (men and women) received the same number of subsidies. Moreover, the men had a different commercial contract than the women, they brought in more revenue, and finally, it was a different type of work (since they played in different places and in different competitions). At first glance, we see that the claims of the association and the line of defense are not so strong and convincing. But we should not forget that we are talking about a case that would come to court when all the “cards can be played”.
Former federation president Carlos Cordeiro said that in fact women are not paid the same as men, which he believes is due to the regulatory rules of the market. The group of female soccer players argued that since the same performance factors (talent, mood, etc.) are taken into account and "tested" in the same "work phases" as men (training, nutrition, etc.), they should be paid the same. Specifically, the female athletes' side argued that they were paid less, that bonuses for friendlies were lower than those for men, and that medical care was also not included in the contract package. The federation countered the salary argument by claiming that the 2015-2019 women's national team received $220,747, while the men's national team received $212,639.
At this point, however, an important clarification must be made about the above amounts. The women did win more money than the men, but they had to play more to do so - 24 more games, to be exact. I am afraid that the federation did not consider something as serious as this. To be quite honest, it must be said that a federation full of technocrats would not have noticed such a thing.
In examining the second - and obviously stronger - claim, female soccer players in the U.S. referred primarily to the condition of the playing fields, but also to their transportation and housing conditions. So we would say that the conditions and labor relations between the two groups were not absolutely equal. Their main complaint was that they had to train on artificial turf fields. I suppose any of us who have played even semi-professional soccer knows the risk of injury and the poor spectacle that can provide. As for the transportation issue, they argued that men are more likely to take charter flights than women. This is proven just by the fact that airline tickets for men cost a total of $9 million, while for women they cost $5 million. The other side, i.e., the federation, in response to questions about the pitch, argued that it had not anticipated the corresponding success of the women's team and therefore had not made investments to improve it. A settlement was reached on the transportation issue too.
We won a battle but not the war
The outcome of the above controversy led to a landmark decision for women's sports in America. The federation agreed to pay a lump sum of $22 million to the women players and another $2 million that would serve as gasoline in the tank of the newly formed Women Players Fund, a fund that will take care of the athletes' post-career lives as well as various charitable causes. Finally, it was also decided to pay men and women equally for all competitions in which they participate, as well as for friendly matches. The 22 million may seem small compared to the 66 that the footballers originally could earn, but we must not forget what an important contribution these women have made. Perhaps this particular decision will be the springboard for further social change. We will see!
Before moving on to the last part of the article, where I specialize in the differences between the NBA and the WNBA, I would like to mention the cases of some countries and clubs that we can learn from. In Finland, the Finnish FA dropped the prefix “women” to push for equality in the league and introduced equal pay for both national teams in 2019. In June 2017, the Scottish women's national soccer team went on strike demanding "equal pay for equal work," an increase in wages, but also an improvement in competition conditions, and recently took legal action against the Scottish FA. In September 2017, it was the turn of the national teams of Argentina and Denmark, who went on strike for exactly the same reasons. The battles were won, but not without cost.
On the other hand, the example of Norway and New Zealand shows us where we should be looking, namely at the introduction of equal pay and profit sharing for men's and women's teams. This is followed by the announcements of the federations of Brazil, England and Nepal. We should be aware that gender inequality is a bitter truth at all levels of sporting reality. When we think of the huge sums of money spent in the 21st century, as unequal as it seems, we see that there has been no real will to alleviate discrimination.
The WNBA case
The unequal treatment of women in sports is not just a feature of soccer but is found elsewhere as well. Before specializing in women's basketball in the U.S., it is sufficient to mention golf as a "protector" of inequalities. The debate over the unsightly inequality we see between WNBA-NBA has its roots in the financial terms of promoting and supporting a product. The proponents of the "we do not invest in women's basketball because it does not bring in revenue" view is only partially true and verifiable. The fact is that the WNBA makes a revenue of about $60 million per year, while the NBA makes a profit of about $10 billion. So, for a league like the WNBA to be financially viable, the NBA should support such a project because its revenues are incomparably higher. The hard dogma of "whoever brings it gets it" may reflect part of the truth, but it does not show the whole picture of the problem. It deliberately ignores other factors such as social criteria or even health considerations.
According to a study presented on the athleteassemment.com blog, by 2020, 40% of the world's sports population will be women, who will receive only 4% of all media coverage. In other words, women are significantly underrepresented in coverage of sporting events. In Australia, women's sports account for only 8% of sports sponsorship, while representatives of the Women's Sports Foundation note that $179 million more is spent each year on college scholarships for men than for women. The numbers are relentless.
Back to the pathologies of the WNBA, which, if you will allow me, can be traced to specific decision centers. The salary gap between men and women starts on draft day. The salaries of players selected No. 1 in the 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 drafts (Karl-Anthony Towns, Ben Simmons, Markelle Fultz and DeAndre Ayton) ranged from $6.4 million to $8.3 million in the 2018/2019 season, while the earnings of women selected No. 1 in each of those drafts (Jewell Loyd, Breanna Stewart, Kelsey Plum and A'ja Wilson) did not exceed $120,000.
The difference is confusing even at this level because the amounts vary from season to season. Because of the low salaries and short duration of the season in the WNBA, women's basketball players are forced to play in other countries to earn more money and remain competitive. The contracts that players of the caliber of Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi and Candace Parker have received in Europe in recent years have been infinitely better financially. The need to supplement their income tempts many players to play all year round, with a possible rest period of 7 weeks, without considering that some of them have commitments in the selection teams of their countries. Overtraining therefore leads with mathematical precision to injuries that are often very serious.
The aforementioned athletes gave up the prospect of Europe because of the injuries they suffered. However, they were able to negotiate better contracts with the league and sponsors. Female basketball players are six times more likely to get injured than men. This can be explained by genetics and other factors, such as the structure of the female body. But 2022 also brought radical changes for the WNBA. In February 2022, league commissioner Cathy Engelbert announced plans to increase the league's financial pool by $75 million through investments from corporate giants such as Nike, team owners like Ted Leonsis and basketball veterans such as Pau Gasol and Baron Davis. There is also talk of expanding the league, i.e. adding more teams/cities to the project, although this is still in the works. All of this is a continuation of the successful fight that the players themselves started three years ago for a salary increase, better transportation and housing conditions, and a better insurance package.
There are two components that will strengthen the WNBA: a) more media coverage and b) more money invested in the product. You could say that men "consume" women's sports to a satisfactory degree. The issue here is the presence of women as "consumers" but also as a support mechanism for their peers. The NBA's profit-sharing model - a near-equal split of the pie for both sides - should be a model for appropriate competition among women. When female players succeed in earning 50% of total revenue, not just incremental revenue, then we can talk about bold financial emancipation. Until then, the chorus of the song Dedication by Nipsey Hussle sets the pace.
Manos Karousos