Equal Pay in Soccer but not yet in football

How the United States Soccer Federation and its Players Solved the Equal Pay Issue

New contracts for the men's and women's national teams will herald in an era of equal compensation at the United States Soccer Federation. This is how it will run.

For the first time, the women's team, which has won the last two Women's World Cups and four in total, will be paid the same amount for game appearances and tournament victories as the men's team, which has historically (and perpetually) failed to even come close to that level of success.

Furthermore to the new (and higher) per-game payouts, the new contracts include a thus far unseen allocation of the millions of dollars in World Cup prize money that the men's and women's teams can win by competing in the tournament every four years. They also include new revenue-sharing agreements, which could result in the players receiving millions more from their annual cut of US Soccer's commercial profits.

What are the changes, both in practice and in dollars? Read on

What exactly do they mean by equal pay?

For the first time, men and women will be paid the same amount for representing the United States in international soccer matches and tournaments under the new contracts.

This is a first for US Soccer, but not for women's soccer; teams in Norway and Australia have signed and publicized equal pay agreements for match payments, but none address their teams' overall wage discrepancy. The sums of money involved in the US Soccer transaction, as well as their sources, make this a watershed moment.

How are the national teams paid?

In nearly every year, the majority of the funds come from so-called match fees: Each player called up to play for a national team receives an appearance fee (for being called up) and a performance bonus (additional money provided for a victory or a tie; teams do not receive any further money if they lose). In years when there are big tournaments, the payments are supplemented by prize money for competing in major championships like as the World Cup.

Previously, men and women received separate match wages as a result of a setup in which women accepted lower camp fees and bonuses in exchange for fixed annual salary from US Soccer.

The men, on the other hand, were strictly pay-for-play: if you were called up to the national team, you would receive a (larger) bonus. You got nothing if you didn't.

World Cup funds? Even though, as the women frequently pointed out, the women won championships while the men failed to make it out of the first round, the men received multiple times more.

Whats changed?

The women's decision to pursue guaranteed compensation had always been a strategic calculation: whereas men have typically earned the majority of their revenue through club salaries, the young women's professional game — still in its early stages — paid far smaller salaries, even to its stars.

Guaranteed salaries from US Soccer, on the other hand, provided the stability of a constant wage while also ensuring that a female player who became disabled or pregnant would not lose her house or car.

For some women, switching to a pay-for-play paradigm is risky: A player who falls out of favor and is no longer on the US Soccer payroll may be forced to leave the sport because she lacks a continuous source of revenue outside of her club compensation. The potential of larger match bonuses, shared World Cup payouts with the men, and revenue-sharing splits with US Soccer was definitely worth it for the top players, who currently receive higher salary from their club teams.

Is everyone's compensation really equal?

Equal compensation has always been an inaccurate concept, because equal is defined by the beholder. Every year, the women's team has played more games and spent more time in camp than the men's squad, which means the women have had to train harder and longer simply to keep up. And not every player is invited to every camp or selected to play in every match.