The United States Football Federation (USSF) announced on Tuesday that it has offered the respective unions of players of the national women’s and men’s national teams identical proposals for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
In a statement, the USSF said this was done with the aim of aligning the men’s and women’s national teams under “a single collective agreement (CBA) structure”.
“This proposal will ensure that USWNT and USMNT players remain among the highest paid senior national team players in the world, while providing an income-sharing structure that would allow all parties to start over and share. collectively the opportunity that investment in the future of US Soccer will fulfill in the course of a new collective agreement, ”the statement reads.
More critically, the USSF said in a statement that it would not accept a collective agreement with any of the unions that would not “take the important step of equalizing the money from the FIFA World Cup prize.” This problem has been a point of friction with the players of the women’s national team, 28 of whom are currently involved in a lawsuit for gender discrimination for violations of the Equal Pay Act.
FIFA has proposed awarding $ 440 million in prizes to teams participating in the 2022 Men’s World Cup, compared to $ 400 million in 2018. The proposed cash prize for the 2023 Women’s World Cup is of $ 60 million, up from $ 38 million in 2019, but still well behind the men’s tournament. This difference in compensation is part of the equal pay claims of the U.S. women’s team.
The announcement comes immediately after an open letter from USSF President Cindy Parlow Cone in which she said the men’s and women’s national teams must “come together and rethink how we did things in the past “and negotiate a solution that equals FIFA prize money between the two teams.
The United States National Football Team Players Association (USNSTPA), which represents the men’s team players, has been operating under the terms of a previous collective agreement that expired on December 31, 2018. The corresponding collective agreement for the players of the United States Women’s National Team (USWNTPA), which represents the women’s side players, expires at the end of 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, as well as benefits that include health care, payment of players in the National Women’s Football League, and maternity and pregnancy leave and pay. The women’s agreement also includes payment for injuries, 401 (k) plans and compensation.
In their 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 men’s 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 past negotiations the Federation offered in the Women’s National Team exactly the same contract.
“If the USSF were to take equal pay seriously, they wouldn’t get involved in advertising tricks that fail to address our issues,” Roux said.
Roux added in his statement: “We are interested in negotiating in good faith to get fair treatment for our players and we will not allow them to use our fight for equality to create a division between women and men. We remain committed to work with all parties for fair treatment that elevates all players. “
Sources told ESPN that the men’s union and the USSF were close to reaching an agreement on a new collective agreement. These sources stated that the proposal included an increase in bonuses for the period from 2019 to March 31, 2023, essentially the late payment for that period and designed to coincide with the USSF fiscal year. 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 The Athletic in June, did not address the issue of FIFA bonuses, and came after the men’s union threatened to go on strike before a friendly against Costa Rica that 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 men’s union, especially after they thought an agreement had been reached.
There is also skepticism about the USSF’s reasons for pushing for a unified CBA. A source, who asked to remain anonymous due to the delicate state of the talks, stated that the issue of FIFA bonus money was being “used as a weapon” against the men’s union. to make the USSF look “good.”
“The way they want to solve the women’s problem is not by increasing women’s income fairly,” the source said. “It’s cutting [el convenio colectivo de hombres] to the chord numbers [de mujeres] from 2017 to 2021 “.