The core argument of U.S. Soccer is that the women are paid less because they are playing under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement they signed. It is exceedingly rare for a U.S. court to let the law override a contract — especially a labor agreement — that was signed willingly by two parties.
So: U.S. Soccer has a case to make, but it needs to be made on the basis of attendance and revenue streams, period. U.S. Soccer's lawyers, however, went well beyond that and introduced language that, in both substance and tone, clearly disrespected the women's game. When you are being sued in a gender discrimination case, this is just plumb stupid, especially when the women are world champions and the men can't play through those monster Caribbean teams in the CONCACAF field to qualify for the World Cup.
Yes, men are bigger, faster and stronger, which is why women's sports have to be run as a separate class competition. That doesn't stop most of us from rooting for U.S. women gymnasts, ice skaters, sprinters, swimmers, etc. in international competitions. What makes women's soccer a lightening rod? I really don't think it's Megan Rapinoe and her in-your-face antics. I think, rather, that in most of the sports where U.S. women excel, the U.S. men have also historically done very well. Soccer is the obvious exception, where the U.S. women are the best in the world while the U.S. men are chronic underperformers. This leads to the inevitable observation that the U.S. women are better than the U.S. men -- which they clearly are, in terms of class competition -- which seems to set off the knuckledraggers who think their manhood is being threatened.
Julie Foudy, one of the broadcast commentators for last night's game, is always worth listening to. She is a very sharp gal and was a great player in her day. Her frustration was palpable. She brought up the same canard that comes up on this forum regularly, that the women's national team lost to a U15 boys team. Yes … and a U15 boys team of this caliber will consist of 15 and 16 year old boys, in this case elite academy players who are top male athletes in their age group, most of whom will probably be playing major college soccer in a couple of years, and some of whom are already on the youth national team. Are boys like this going to physically dominate the women? Yes, of course. Every woman on the U.S. national team will acknowledge this. If you've ever seen pictures of that match, you will recall that the boys were all a head taller than most of the adult women, and with well developed young adult male musculature as well. Physically, they were young men, not boys; until not very long ago, they'd have been issued weapons and armor and gone off to war as adults. The USWNT plays scrimmages like this because there's not another women's team in the U.S. that can challenge them. They seek out games with boys' teams that can beat them because the boys are bigger, stronger and faster, and that's how you improve. And the women are sick and tired of idiots throwing this in their face.
Not even Megan Rapinoe would be rash enough to walk down the street in a bad part of town, alone and at night. She knows perfectly well that teenage boys, if improperly socialized, are threats to adult women. She may be out and proud and may dye her hair funny colors, but she's not stupid.
The money arguments are complicated, but they can be fenced off and discussed rationally. What does not help is for U.S. Soccer's lawyers to stumble into verbiage that clearly suggests that the management of U.S. Soccer thinks of the women's game as a second rate afterthought. Tone matters. U.S. Soccer is getting killed in the court of public opinion, and if the case ever reaches a jury, U.S. Soccer will get killed again. It takes really, really stupid lawyers to include in a court filing the claim that your world championship women have "lesser responsibilities" than the men, who can't beat Jamaica. It takes really, really stupid lawyers to jabber about the men having to face hostile crowds, when the women have just won a World Cup played in France, beating the best the Europe could throw at them. This included a French team -- the cofavorite in the tournament and a team that had beaten the U.S. in two of the three previous meetings -- that the U.S. women beat in Paris in front of a packed stadium with a crowd that could be heard across the Channel. While the men can't beat the banana republics. So what is the point about tough crowds -- that women's soccer crowds are better behaved than the soccer hooligans who thug up the men's game? Tone matters. U.S. Soccer is digging itself into a deep hole.
Sensible women, including (I'm sure) all the players on the USWNT, who have scrimmaged enough against men to know, have this in perspective. Here's a good example; it's funny, and remember that the two women here are both Olympic gold medal gymnasts: [men doing women's gymnastics] If the link doesn't work, go to "Men doing women's gymnastics" on YouTube.