Author ORCID Identifier
Abstract
Even though the United States Women’s National Team (“WNT”) has been far more successful than the United States Men’s National Team (“MNT”), the team members have experienced unequal treatment from the United States Soccer Federation (“USSF”) since its inception. In March 2019, members of the WNT filed suit against USSF, alleging that it had violated the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleged that USSF had a policy of discriminating against the WNT due to their players’ gender by paying them less than the MNT and providing them with lesser employment conditions than those provided to the MNT. A final judgment on both the EPA and Title VII claims was never given, as both eventually settled outside of court. We analyze the substantive legal and economic arguments made by both parties. We show that USSF’s arguments in support of gender pay disparities were misguided and calculate what proper compensation to the two teams should have looked like from the 2015–2019 period of dispute. Although we frame our analysis in the context of the WNT lawsuit, our analysis has far broader implications for pay equity. We illustrate how the outside market force argument in justification of lower pay for women may often be incorrect. We illustrate how the traditional EPA requirement that an individual must work in the same physical location as their comparator to be considered similarly situated is faulty. This investigation is particularly timely and relevant in light of the substantial rise in remote work arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recommended Citation
Joni Hersch & Delaney Beck, Gender Pay Equity: An Analysis of the United States Women’s National Team Soccer Settlement, 2024 ULR 561 (2024).