Greater minds than mine have tried to explain the realities versus the persistent perception of the Gender Pay Gap. (5:35) It is illegal in the United States to pay women less money for the same work, if this were possible, companies would just hire women.
Time and time again the Pay Gap Delusion has shown itself to be remarkably fact resistant.
In 2021, some cracks began to appear in this Critical Gender Theory.
This article is a play-by-play of Nate The Lawyer’s excellent breakdown of the Women’s Soccer Team’s “fight for equal pay”.
US Women’s Soccer Equal Pay Claims vs Facts
Readers of my blog will undoubtedly know Nate from his contributions to Rekieta Media’s excellent coverage of the recent Kim Potter trial.
The USWNT fight for “equal pay” began when they sued for gender discrimination, after previously refusing the same deal the men’s team received. After making more money than the men and losing their case, they were invited to the White House on Equal Pay Day.
The Case
The United States Women’s Soccer Team claimed they were discriminated against simply because they were women. Nate interrogates this claim.
Worthy of note, the majority of men also play in other Leagues who pay their insurance and benefits.
The women “have a hard time explaining their discrimination,” because the women wanted less risk and greater guarantees, and they also already made more money.
They make more money in total and they make more money per game. It’s difficult to describe the discrimination because the women actually made more money than the men.
The women also had greater benefits packages.
Nate explains this as two buckets: pay, and benefits.
The women negotiated greater employee benefits and a greater security plan.
The men negotiated for a riskier plan that rewarded more competitive, successful players.
The men only made more money from bonuses only if they competed and won.
The women were guaranteed more money, no matter the outcome.
The Irony
The women’s team was OFFERED the men’s deal (pay, benefits, and bonus structure).
The women refused that deal.
They got what they asked for, and then they won the Women’s World Cup.
This created a media frenzy. If they men had won, they would have made more money.
But, the media overlooked the women’s benefits plan which included:
- Base Pay
- Signing bonuses
- Partnership/Ticket revenue sharing
- ‘She Believes” tournament bonuses
- Severance benefits injury protection
- Health, Vision and Dental, Child Care Assistance
- Guaranteed rest time
- Licensing agreements
- Minimum number of game assurances
- $250k-$350k for a post World Cup tour
None of this was offered to the men.
The media failed to mention that as well.
The Other Irony
After the women rejected the men’s deal, they were celebrated in the media for getting the greater deal they negotiated for.
Two years later, they were suing for gender discrimination.
The women argued in court that they wanted the deal that they originally refused but they ALSO wanted ALL of the benefits of their original deal.
In other words, if they didn’t get greater benefits AND more money than the men, they were being discriminated against.
The women literally made more money, in total pay, and per game, plus benefits, then sued for gender discrimination.
After the court threw out their case, Joe Biden threatened sanctions against the league and invited the women to the White House for a presser, on Equal Pay Day.
The Summary
- The Women were paid more
- The Women were offered the same deal, but rejected it
- They wanted the men’s deal when AND the additional benefits they negotiated for
The women’s soccer team demanded greater money, benefits, and lower risks than the men and the leader of the free world and the media cheered them on.
This illusion is just one example of the ASCHITI Model of Gender Perception combined with the media and State power to advance the War on All Men.
Be sure to subscribe to Nate The Lawyer on Youtube.
