So much disinfo here. A topic that is WIDELY misunderstood and inaccurately reported.
First, the bill demands "equitable pay", not "equal pay."
Second, the USMNT and USWNT have separate collective bargaining agreements.
That means the USWNT are getting exactly what they bargained for the last time the agreement was negotiated with USSF in 2018.
The CBAs are not negotiated at the same time.
The problem arose when the Men's deal came up for renegotiation after the Women reached an agreement.
The Men bargained for and got from USSF some match-bonus compensation higher than what the Women had agreed to. THAT is when the Women filed suit -- "We want what the Men just got." But they ignored the fact that they were getting WHAT THEY HAD AGREED TO!!!
USSF said "No problem. When your CBA is up for renegotiation, we'll put in all the same things the Men got."
So USSF gave in on many "equitable" issues, like mode of travel, training facilities, per diem, etc.

And there lies the problem. Yes, the players on the USMNT get higher payments for matches played, won, etc. They bargained for it. The Women agreed to take less for those things when they last bargained.
BUT, there is another big difference between the two.

Players on the USMNT get no annual compensation from USSF--no annual salaries paid on a monthly basis. They all play professionally for clubs, and have annual contracts with their clubs. The USMNT payments are "bonus" money.
But Women's professional soccer doesn't pay as well. USWNT members playing professional for clubs have much smaller contracts.
When the Women last negotiated with USSF, they got salaries of $100,000 from USSF for the 20 best women in the USWNT pool, and less bonus money.
The USSF also supplements the salaries of another 22 women who play in the US domestic professional league at approx. $75,000 per year each. This keeps some of the best US players in the US.

The USSF does not pay members of the Men's team any salaries, only match-based bonuses.
The Women's CBA expires this year. Negotiations are ongoing. Stunts like this legislation are meant only to increase pressure on USSF during the negotiations.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with shipwreckedcrew

shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

9 Jun
The "drug warring" and "mass incarceration" came about, in significant measure, from demands for crime reduction by the law-abiding citizens living in inner-city neighborhoods ravaged by crime. I'll stack my years up with your journalism anytime in evaluating cause/effect.
Go back and look at the advocates for the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Look at the votes in Congress. Look at who voted to establish STATUTORY distinctions between cocaine and cocaine base. Look at WHY those distinctions were made.
The 1984 legislation passed by way of Conference Report, with the House voting 252-60 in favor, and the Senate voting 78-11 in favor.
In the Senate there were more GOP votes against the bill than there were Dem. votes against the bill.
Read 14 tweets
25 May
More than that. An indictment provides only a fraction of the "narrative" information that DOJ was having FBI Agents put in their complaint affidavits. DOJ policy is that public comments on pending cases is limited to otherwise public information.
When you turn the complaint affidavit into a press release, you get a lot more of your "narrative" into widespread distribution. There are no legal limits on what can be put in a complaint affidavit, and it ceases to be meaningful the moment an indictment is returned.
There was ZERO reason to seek criminal complaints re Jan 6. Grand Juries were meeting and hearing evidence within a week. A single FBI witness could have testified to what was in the affidavits that were being filed and obtained an indictment from that info.
Read 4 tweets
24 May
This discussion, to the extent it is based on the L&C article and this BS case in New York, is a great example of how laymen's use of terms like money laundering, and casual references to Sater being connected to Trump feed into the false Trump-Russia narrative.
I don't have time to unpack it all here but the use of "money laundering" relating to that civil case is not accurate. The allegations of that civil case aret heat Sater worked with corrupt officials from a Kazahk city to get billions of stolen city funds out of the country.
The article says that Sater talked with the corrupt officials about using the money in the Trump Tower project in Moscow--which didn't actually exist because there was no site and no financing. So Sater is running around the Soviet "Stans" to find stolen funds for financing.
Read 7 tweets
23 May
I've never seen a provision in a "use immunity" agreement -- and that is what was signed based on what I've read -- that guarantees secrecy. It might have been discussed that any public ID of Danchenko could put him and his "network" of contacts at risk in Russia.
Given the subject matter I would have been concerned with that if I was him or his attorney, and as a gov't attorney wanting to make use of the guy's info I would have been sensitive to that concern.
Since this was a CI case, I would not be surprised if Danchenko said "I won't ever testify" and the agents/Laufman said "We won't ever use you as a witness", and from that some level of assurance about non-disclosure was assumed or agreed upon.
Read 4 tweets
23 May
All accurate and it underscores the point made by several retired FBI senior officials. The irregular manner in which the investigation was structured contributed to a lot of irregular case work by those involved. Rotation of agents on 90 day assignments a terrible idea.
Lack of first hand knowledge by most. Four separate investigations with 4 different squads, supervised not by an SSA and ASAC, but by a Dep. AD at HQ, and then stove-piped to the Dep.Dir.
The IG report gives off a very real "odor" that the agents who rotated out after the first 90-120 days, who watched the locomotive continue down the tracks -- driven by Comey and McCabe after Trump's election -- wanted nothing to do with it after the were off.
Read 10 tweets
23 May
"Stepped out" means they were freelancing -- they were pursuing this idea on their own initially because they both knew as a historical matter that Trump Org. had an interest in having a property in Moscow. I'm not sure what doc. you are quoting from here.
And I don't care whether the info is based on info provided by Cohen, Sater, or third parties. The WRITER of the document has a motivation for it to read in a particular fashion, and that was to support the narrative that Trump Org - and Trump himself ...
Were actively pursuing a Moscow project at the same time he was running for President in the GOP Primary process in the fall of 2015, which would support the "collusion" narrative and make Trump's denials on the topic false -- along with Don Jr.'s denials to Congress.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!