Ethics CasesSport

Cases · U.S. Soccer / FIFA · 2016–2022

The USWNT's Fight for Equal Pay

Starting in 2016, players on the U.S. women's national soccer team argued that U.S. Soccer paid them less than the men's team despite greater success. In 2019, 28 players sued under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. In 2020, a judge dismissed the pay claims, finding that the women had earned more in total and per game under the contract they had chosen, which had a different structure from the men's. The federation's legal argument that men's soccer required more "skill" and "physical ability" led to its president's resignation. In February 2022 the parties settled for $24 million, and in May 2022 new contracts gave both teams equal pay and pooled World Cup prize money. The case asks what "equal pay" means when contracts, revenues and prize money differ.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Five players file a federal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  2. The women's team ratifies a new collective bargaining agreement with higher pay.
  3. Twenty-eight players file a gender discrimination lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
  4. U.S. Soccer's filing argues men's team players need more skill and physical ability; president Carlos Cordeiro resigns.
  5. Judge R. Gary Klausner dismisses the equal pay claims; working-conditions claims proceed.
  6. U.S. Soccer and the players settle for $24 million.
  7. New agreements give men's and women's teams equal pay and pool World Cup prize money.

The ethical issues

  • Defining equal pay: equal totals, equal rates, or equal structures?
  • Revenue arguments vs. equal work: whether market differences justify pay gaps.
  • Structural inequality in FIFA prize money.
  • Collective bargaining choices and their legal consequences.
  • Public advocacy by athletes as part of labor strategy.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Women's national team playersFair pay, working conditions and recognition.
Men's national team playersTheir own pay and solidarity with the women.
U.S. SoccerBudget, sponsors, legal exposure and reputation.
FIFAPrize-money structures that differ greatly between men's and women's World Cups.
Fans and sponsorsSupport for the teams and expectations about fairness.

The case

The U.S. women’s national team has been the most successful in the world, winning the Women’s World Cup in 1991, 1999, 2015 and 2019. The men’s team has never advanced beyond the quarterfinals in the modern era. Yet for years, the women’s players earned less in bonuses and appearance fees than the men’s, under different contracts negotiated by different unions.[1]

Background

The pay gap was clearest in tournament bonuses. The women’s team received $2 million for winning the 2015 World Cup, while the men’s team earned $9 million for reaching the round of 16 in 2014.[1] The women’s World Cup roster bonus was $30,000, 44% of the men’s $68,750.[1] Those figures include prize money FIFA paid for the men’s World Cup.[1]

The labor dispute had an earlier phase. In 2016, U.S. Soccer went to federal court to confirm that an extension of the women’s collective bargaining agreement was valid. On July 3, 2016, the court agreed and held the players’ association to a no-strike provision through December 31, 2016.[1] On December 28, 2016, three days before the agreement expired the union dismissed its executive director and legal counsel.[1]

The rules and governance

The case turned on how “equal pay” is measured. The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for equal work, and Title VII bars sex discrimination in compensation.[1] Judge Klausner compared totals and per-game averages and found the women had been paid more. The players argued that the court had held pay to be equal if a woman can earn the same as a man only by working more and performing better, “which is not the law.”[1]

Others supported the appeal. The EEOC filed a brief saying it had “a strong enforcement interest in the proper analysis of pay discrimination claims under the EPA and Title VII,” and identified two errors in the ruling.[1] The men’s players’ association filed an amicus brief stating that “the men stand with the women in their fight to secure the equal pay they deserve.”[1] The settlement also required equal pay for men and women in friendlies, tournaments and the World Cup.[1]

The complaint and the 2017 contract

In March 2016, five leading players, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They argued that U.S. Soccer paid them less than the men even though the women’s team generated comparable or greater revenue.[1][2] They compared bonus structures: men received bonuses even for losses in friendly matches, while women did not, and men’s World Cup bonuses were far larger.[1]

In 2017, the women’s union negotiated a new contract. Unlike the men’s “pay-for-play” structure, it included guaranteed salaries for contracted players, along with benefits and payments to the professional league, the NWSL, in addition to bonuses.[1]

The lawsuit

On March 8, 2019, International Women’s Day, 28 players filed a class-action suit under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. They alleged discrimination not only in pay but also in playing surfaces, travel, medical treatment and coaching.[1][3] Months later, the team won the 2019 World Cup.

In March 2020, a U.S. Soccer court filing argued that playing for the men’s team required “a higher level of skill” and “more physical ability.” The argument drew public outrage, including from sponsors, and federation president Carlos Cordeiro resigned.[4]

In May 2020, Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed the equal pay claims. He found that the women had been paid more, both in total and on a per-game average, than the men during the period in question, and that they had rejected a pay-for-play structure like the men’s in favor of guaranteed salaries. The working-conditions claims went forward and were later settled.[1] The players appealed, arguing that it is not equal pay if women must win more often to earn the same amount.[1]

Settlement and new contracts

On February 22, 2022, U.S. Soccer and the players settled. The federation agreed to pay $24 million: $22 million to the players and $2 million into a fund to support their post-career goals and charitable efforts in women’s soccer. The settlement was conditioned on new labor agreements.[5][6]

In May 2022, U.S. Soccer reached separate agreements with both the men’s and women’s unions providing identical pay structures. Most strikingly, the two teams agreed to pool and share a portion of the prize money that FIFA pays for the men’s and women’s World Cups, which was far larger for the men.[7][8]

Aftermath

The federation’s announcement on May 18, 2022, described agreements running through 2028 that “achieve equal pay through identical economic terms.” It said U.S. Soccer was “the first Federation in the world to equalize FIFA World Cup prize money” for its two teams.[8] Players on the 2022 men’s and 2023 women’s World Cup rosters would each receive an equal percentage of the combined prize money FIFA paid for the two teams’ participation and performance, and the same would apply to the 2026 and 2027 tournaments.[8] In friendlies, both teams would receive identical appearance fees and performance payments, tiered by result and the opponent’s ranking. In official competitions they would receive identical appearance fees, and in other tournaments where both teams played, players would earn an equal share of the total prize money.[8] The federation said the agreements also improved non-economic terms, including player health and safety, data privacy and the balance between club and country.[8] The federation would also share a portion of its broadcast, partner and sponsorship revenue, split 50/50 between the two teams, and pay both teams a share of ticket revenue from home matches.[8]

The new structure gave up something the women had fought for in 2017. Under the agreement, women’s players “will no longer receive guaranteed salaries,” and the federation would stop paying the NWSL salaries of national team players.[8]

Beyond the United States

According to a CNN analysis, players at the 2023 Women’s World Cup earned on average 25 cents for every dollar earned by men at the 2022 men’s World Cup, up from less than eight cents in 2019.[1]

The core dilemma

What does equal pay require when two teams have different contracts, generate different revenue streams, and compete for prize pools set by a third party? Is equal pay about equal outcomes, equal rates of pay for the same work, or equal treatment in negotiating?

Competing values

  • Formal equality vs. substantive equality: identical pay structures against outcomes that reflect performance.
  • Market logic vs. fairness: pay tied to revenue against pay tied to work done.
  • Contract choice vs. discrimination: respecting bargained terms against recognizing constrained options.
  • Solidarity vs. self-interest: the men’s team gave up a share of World Cup prize money.

Strongest arguments

For the players’ claims: the women performed the same job, with greater success, and had to win more often to earn comparable amounts. A pay structure that requires better results to reach parity is not equal.

For the court’s 2020 reasoning: the women chose a contract with guaranteed salaries and benefits rather than the men’s pay-for-play model, and under it they earned more. Courts cannot easily compare different bargains, and much of the gap came from FIFA, not U.S. Soccer.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks what equal pay means when two teams work under different contracts, earn different revenues and play in tournaments with very different prize money. It also asks whether pooling World Cup prize money is a fair remedy for disparities that originate with FIFA.

Rights

A rights lens frames the case as a claim to freedom from sex discrimination at work, in pay and in working conditions such as travel, medical care and playing surfaces. It also emphasizes players’ right to bargain collectively for the terms they value.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian lens weighs the costs to the federation and the men’s team of equalizing pay against benefits to women players, fan engagement, sponsors and the growth of the women’s game. It also considers the broader social signal of equal pay.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are U.S. Soccer’s chief negotiator in 2021. The women’s team is appealing the dismissal of its equal pay claims, and both teams’ contracts are expiring. The stakeholders include both teams, the federation, sponsors, fans and the wider soccer community. The codes in play are the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, labor law and FIFA prize money rules.
  2. Gather facts. How do total pay, per-game pay and bonus structures compare? What does each team value: guaranteed salaries or bonuses? How large is the gap in FIFA prize money?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) continue litigating; (b) settle with back pay only; (c) settle and negotiate identical pay structures, including pooled prize money. Weigh cost and legal risk against fairness and reputation.
  4. Check codes and law. Would the federation’s arguments in court be acceptable if made public? Would you accept your pay structure as a player on either team?
  5. Decide and document. Record the comparison data and the reasons for the chosen approach.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate openly with both unions, explain the structure publicly and review it after each tournament cycle.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the $24 million settlement; the 2022 equal-pay agreements and World Cup prize pooling.
  • Contested: whether the 2020 ruling was correct; whether pooling is a sustainable model; how to address unequal FIFA prize money.

Why this case matters

The USWNT case is the most prominent sports equal-pay dispute. It shows how “equal pay” can be defined in conflicting ways, and how collective bargaining between men’s and women’s players can achieve what litigation did not.

Key terms

Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Title IX
The 1972 U.S. law barring sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, including school and college athletics.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. The court found the women earned more in total and per game under their own contract. Does that answer the discrimination claim? Why might it not?
  2. Is it fair for pay to reflect the revenue each team generates? What if the revenue difference itself reflects decades of unequal investment?
  3. The settlement pooled FIFA World Cup prize money. Is that a fair remedy for FIFA's unequal prize structure?
  4. U.S. Soccer's 2020 filing caused a public backlash. Do organizations have ethical limits on what they argue in court?
  5. What lessons does this case hold for other women's sports seeking pay equity?

Sources

  1. United States women's national soccer team pay discrimination claim — Wikipedia
  2. Top Female Players Accuse U.S. Soccer of Wage Discrimination — The New York Times
  3. U.S. Women's Soccer Team Sues U.S. Soccer for Gender Discrimination — The New York Times
  4. Carlos Cordeiro resigns over sexism in USWNT equal pay lawsuit — SB Nation
  5. USWNT, U.S. Soccer Federation settle equal pay lawsuit for $24 million — ESPN
  6. U.S. Soccer, USWNT members settle equal pay lawsuit for $24 million — The Washington Post
  7. U.S. Women's Soccer to Receive Equal Pay in Historic New Collective Bargaining Agreement — Fisher Phillips LLP
  8. U.S. Soccer Federation, Women's And Men's National Team Unions Agree To Historic Collective Bargaining Agreements — U.S. Soccer