“What, are they a married couple — or maybe divorced under California law?” That was one incredulous reaction to an incredible situation:
When the U.S. men’s national soccer team beat Iran on Tuesday to advance to the World Cup’s knockout stage, they earned a guaranteed $13 million. But they’re only going to receive $6.5 million. No, the issue isn’t taxes, unless you want to call it the Feminism Tax.
Because the U.S. women’s soccer team is going to get half the men’s money — for doing nothing.
Actually, that’s not entirely accurate because they did do something: complain and agitate and sue for years until capitulation was achieved. The Washington Examiner reported on the story Wednesday:
Under a clause in the recent collective bargaining agreement, the men’s team and women’s team receive an equal percentage of the pooled prize money for World Cups.
By advancing to the Round of 16, U.S. Soccer will earn $13 million. If the men’s team loses to the Netherlands on Saturday [which they did], the men’s team players will receive a combined roughly $6.5 million from the pool, and the women’s team players will combined receive the remaining roughly $6.5 million.
The collective bargaining agreement was reached in May and makes U.S. Soccer “the first Federation in the world to equalize FIFA World Cup prize money” awarded to men’s and women’s teams.
With the new agreement, the women’s team is already set to earn more from the men’s team’s performance at the 2022 World Cup than their championship at the 2015 and 2019 World Cups.
“The women’s team, which has won the last two World Cups, had long been advocating for equal pay, but without success,” the New York Post adds. “It took a collectively bargained agreement with a buy-in from both the men and the U.S. Soccer Federation to achieve it.”
“Prior to that, the women’s team had sued U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination,” the paper continues. “The lawsuit was settled in 2019 for $24 million, contingent on the new agreement.”
Witnessing this socialistic effort, many observers were aghast. Just consider some comments under the Post article:
- “The women on the women’s team are welfare recipients and maybe worse!”
- “Belligerent Rapino[e] and the rest should not get one cent they have not earned. It is Socialism to demand another’s pay. Those ladies are bad ads for our country.”
- “So the US Women’s team gets half the pool of money that the Men’s team wins. Women, demanding equality but still dependent on the men for their income.”
Even über-liberal CNN host Don Lemon saw the light, pointing out that the players’ pay is based on market performance (video below; relevant portion begins at 3:49).
Yet more perspective is needed. The Washington Examiner wrote that the equal-pay issue captured more attention because of the “women’s team’s success versus the men’s team’s underperformance.” Responding to this, some point out that it’s much easier for the women to triumph on the world stage because many nations don’t develop robust female soccer teams. But a deeper point is illustrated with a rhetorical question:
Following the relative-success logic, should a children’s team that does better in its 10-and-under category than the pros do in theirs be reckoned as better than the latter and deserving of equal compensation?
Related point: Imagine a lightweight boxer demanded the heavyweights’ pay. Might someone not point out that there’s a way to get their money?
Compete in the heavyweight category and succeed. If you can’t do that, it’s preposterous claiming you deserve their earnings.
Shouldn’t the same be said to the female soccer players, that if they want the men’s money, try playing in the men’s league? After all, a woman passing muster there would dwarf the men in salary with the endorsements she’d command. She’d be the biggest thing in sports.
Given that the women aren’t nearly as good — they lost 5-2 in 2017 in a scrimmage to the FC Dallas Under-15 squad (yes, 14-year-old boys) — this won’t happen. Note here that professional women’s soccer teams regularly lose to mid-teen boys, who aren’t paid anything. The point is that those touting “equal pay for equal work” should note what the male soccer players’ “work” actually is: succeeding in the men’s category. The women’s work involves succeeding in the women’s league.
This raises the next question: Why ignore market realities and seek equal pay only for certain groups within certain dimensions? Why not equalize earnings between female and male fashion models (the women command substantially more)? Why should pro soccer players get more green than teachers, firemen, police, or plumbers? Instead of being discriminatory, why not be principled and apply socialism across the board?
The irony here is that the only reason female soccer players have careers — the only reason they’re even known — is that they’ve been given a separate league in which to compete, one protected from the best competition: the men. And when female athletes must compete against half-demasculinized males, the “transgenders,” they cry foul.
Here’s what the female soccer players’ gripes are analogous to: Imagine that with the NBA being approximately 75 percent black, a league was created solely for white guys. Now imagine that after this, the white league demanded the NBA players’ money? What would be the reaction?
It takes incredible chutzpah to lobby for equal pay while endorsing and benefiting from a system that’s inherently unequal (separate arenas in which to compete). But, hey, complaining certainly does work — when you’re a media-favored group.
