The U.S. Football Federation announced Tuesday that it has offered respective player unions for the U.S. U.S. and U.S. men’s national teams identical proposals for a new collective agreement.
In a statement, the USSF said this was done with the aim of aligning senior men’s and women’s national teams under “a single collective agreement (CBA) structure”.
“This proposal will ensure that USWNT and USMNT players continue to be the highest paid senior national team players in the world, while providing a revenue-sharing structure that would allow all parties to start new and collectively share the opportunity that combined investment in the future of American football will deliver over a new CBA, “the statement said.
– ESPN + Guide: LaLiga, Bundesliga, MLS, FA Cup, more (USA)
– Stream ESPN FC Daily to ESPN + (US only)
– Don’t have ESPN? Get instant access
More critically, the USSF said in a statement that it will not agree on a CBA with either union not to “take the important step of matching FIFA World Cup prize money.” This issue has been a difficult point for USWNT players, 28 of whom are currently involved in a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination for violations of the Equal Pay Act.
FIFA has proposed awarding prizes of $ 440 million to teams participating in the 2022 Men’s World Cup, above the 400 million in 2018. The proposed prize for the 2023 Women’s World Cup is $ 60 million , compared to 38 million in 2019, but still far behind the men’s tournament. This difference in compensation forms a basis for the USWNT’s equal pay claims.
The announcement comes in the wake of an open letter from USSF President Cindy Parlow Cone in which she said the men’s and women’s national teams needed to “come together and rethink how we’ve done things in the past” and negotiate a solution. which equals FIFA awards between the two teams.
The U.S. National Football Team Players Association (USNSTPA), which represents the men’s team players, has been operating under the terms of a previous CBA that expired on December 31, 2018 The corresponding CBA for players of the United States Women’s National Association (USWNTPA), which represents female players, expires in late 2021.
The two CBAs have very different structures. The men’s CBA has a pure pay-per-play structure, while the women’s CBA has more money guaranteed, in addition to benefits that include health care, payment for National Women’s Football League players and maternity and pregnancy leave and pay . The agreement with women also includes compensation for injuries, 401 (k) plans and compensation.
In the 2019 lawsuit, the women claimed more than $ 64 million in damages plus $ 3 million in interest under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The male union declined to comment on Tuesday’s announcement. While the women’s union also did not immediately respond to a request for comment, in response to Cone’s open letter, USWNTPA executive director Becca Roux said, “It is simply false that in previous negotiations the Federation offered the women’s national team exactly the same contract. ‘
“If the USSF were to put itself seriously in relation to equal pay, they would not engage in publicity tricks that fail to address our issues,” Roux said.
Roux added in his statement: “We are interested in negotiating in good faith to reach a fair deal for our players and we will not let them use our fight for equality to create a division between women and men. We remain committed to working with all parties for a fair deal that lifts all the players “.
Sources told ESPN that the male union and the USSF were about to reach an agreement on a new CBA. These sources stated that the proposal included increases in bonuses for the period from 2019 to March 31, 2023, essentially remuneration for that period and designed to coincide with the exercise of the USSF. As of April 1, 2023, players would be paid for the next four years through a form of revenue sharing.
The proposal, initially reported by Athletic in June, did not address the issue of FIFA bonuses and came after the men’s union threatened to strike ahead of a friendly against Costa Rica the same month.
But sources tell ESPN that the offer, negotiated by USSF CEO Will Wilson, was rejected by the USSF Board of Directors. The USSF Board responded with a counter-offer that was not acceptable to the male union, especially after thinking an agreement had been reached.
There is also skepticism about the USSF’s motives for pushing a single CBA. One source, who requested anonymity due to the sensitive state of the talks, claimed that the issue of FIFA bonus money was being “used as a weapon” against the men’s union. to make the USSF look “the good”.
“The way they want to solve women’s problem is not by increasing women’s income fairly,” the source said. “It ‘s sharp [the men’s CBA] to the [women’s] Offer numbers from 2017 to 2021 “.