USWNT To Strike? Here's the deal...
As Abby Wambach is famous for saying, "everyone needs to calm down!" See video here. The ongoing legal drama between US Soccer and the women's team is concerning, but it is certainly not catastrophic.
The most recent news, as first reported by the New York Times, revealed that the US Soccer is taking legal action against the players. Of course, there is much more to the story...
There are two separate, compelling issues surrounding the US Soccer drama. One is legal, and the other is societal.
Here's the legal deal...
To call yesterday's legal action a lawsuit is misleading. US Soccer is not asking the US players to do something. They are asking the players NOT to do something; strike.
I have been around the legal profession long enough to read between the lines. Clients can become frustrated with what they see as inaction by one attorney, and move onto another advertised as more "aggressive." Per the complaint's section entitled “Nature of the Action,” US Soccer is saying the following:
USSF had a long standing relationship with previous counsel (Langel),
The players retained new counsel (Nichols),
Nichols is now trying to wiggle out of the previously established agreement, and
It is well established through Langel's testimony that the players meant to be bound.
Next, USSF is asking the judge to tell the players, in essence:
Through counsel, you came to a binding agreement, and
If you breach the agreement (strike) you will have to pay monetary damages.
The reason USSF is asking for monetary damages is because, generally, money is the best deterrent to defying a court order. Additionally, civil courts are about making a party “whole.” If the USSF loses money because of the breach, they are entitled to get that money back.
Yes, it really is as simple as that.
Here's the REAL deal...
The sides need to come to an agreement, and that agreement needs to center around equality. Gone are the days when having a women's national team was a “feel good story.” Nowadays, the women's team makes the federation a lot of money. They need to pony up.
If the USSF is going to acquiesce to the player's demand for equality, the most important CBA to review is the men's agreement. In no other industry do men and women have formalized, separate employment agreements. If such express inequality did occur, it would be on the front page of every newspaper.
The most equitable agreement is to have a base salary for all US Soccer players, men and women, and add in bonus and other incentives based on attendance and performance. At the end of the day, employment contracts are about compensation and work environment. Employers want to get the most out of their employees, and employees want the best financial position. Going toward a more incentive program protects the federation from loss, and gives the players the opportunity to gain.
And one final note on redaction...(Can't help myself)
To redact, or not to redact. That is the question. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is not required to redact contact information like those revealed in the US Soccer Federation's recent complaint. Like many other things in life, however, it is not that simple.
Despite the stereotypes, attorneys are held to a high moral and professional standard. Failing to redact the home addresses and email addresses of players is bad legal form, as it could genuinely affect the safety of the players. The safe bet would have been to redact the information, and if the court later said it needs to be un-redacted, they could un-redact it without any penalty from the court.
With all that said, it is important to remember that the non-redaction is not necessarily an act of aggression. Sometimes people just make mistakes in haste or inexperience. It is very possible that this was the case.
