The U.S. Women's National Team -- Reflections

The first word that comes to mind when I think of this team is "juggernaut."  Another thought is a rap that the Oakland Raiders sang when they were the biggest, baddest team on the planet -- "we never retreat, we always attack."  This is the team that you hate to play but love them if they are the team from your town, reflecting the toughest and most relentless elements of the Raiders, "We are Family" Pittsburgh Pirates, the Splash Brothers, Steel Curtain, Green Bay Packers, New York Yankees and name any other dynasty for that matter.  This team does change up its roster every four years -- only a handful of starters from '15 started in '19 -- and it keeps on rolling.

And it seems that with its popularity, a strong pipeline of talent and competition down in the ranks that helps ensure that the best players surface, this team will keep on rolling forward.  In Rose Lavelle, they had a star and have their centerpiece for 2023.  Of this squad, Megan Rapinoe will be 38, Tobin Heath 36 and Alex Morgan 34 during the next go-round, so it figures that new players will rise up and have center stage.  Some will play a role, but if the powers that be hold true to form four years from now (and, no doubt, with advanced analytics will evolve their thinking even more), these folks will play diminished roles.  Rose Lavelle, Mallory Pugh and Tierna Davidson seem primed for greater ones.  The pipeline, to borrow a phrase from those studying whether to invest in pharmaceutical stocks, is loaded.  Bet against them at your own risk.

Those who formed the foundation of this effort, and those who continue the excellence, should be lauded for all their accomplishments.  They are huge, they are many, and they are inspiring.

While I'm at it, let's not avoid the quest for these women to get paid for their national club service at the same rate as the men.  We are not talking about whether a player for the Portland Thorns should make as much as a player for teams with much more revenue, enterprise value, endorsements and exposure, and neither are the members of the women's national team.  That is not the point of the lawsuit, whether, for example, someone for a professional women's team in the US league should make what her equivalent is making for Liverpool or Real Madrid.  What we are talking about is whether the players of the USWNT should make what the players on the USMNT should for their national team service.

The answer is a resounding yes, for many reasons.  First, they have earned it.  The women have put soccer on the US map more so than the men have.  I would argue that if soccer is more popular among young boys, it is because of the influence of the international stars and league more so than MLS and because finally many parents are waking up that kicking a ball is a healthier way for junior to spend his fall afternoons than banging heads on a gridiron.  Put differently, you can argue and win that the "brand equity" in the women's team is much greater than that of the men's team in the U.S.

How?  How many members of the U.S.men's team can the average fan name?  Christian Pulisic is the one that comes to mind.  True, he is very good, perhaps even the best player in U.S. history -- and he is only 20.  But his career has a long way to go and he needs to develop to become an international star.  Anyone who thinks he can replace Eden Hazard at Chelsea is mistaken right now -- Hazard is one of the top five players in the world.  He is very good.  But he is not at the elite level of his sport the way [fill in the blank -- Megan Rapinoe, Alex Morgan, Julie Ertz, Rose Lavelle] is in hers.  Many Americans can name more than a handful of the U.S. women's stars.  After Pulisic, most Americans will come up empty.

Second, the numbers have to add up, despite FIFA's emphasis on the men's game and the huge disparity of the dollars FIFA puts into the men's game versus the women's.  The TV ratings for the US women's team were great, and the results were terrific.  Contrast those ratings and the results of the U.S.men's team in the CONCACAF Gold Cup, a concoction of the regional soccer authority to create a tournament and opportunity for TV money for teams in various parts of the world during a year when there is not a World Cup or continental championship.  The ratings were not great, the stadiums were half empty and the US men's team once again fell short and lost to Mexico.  Not only that, but they lost to Mexico in the U.S.and in a stadium where Mexican national team jerseys far outnumbered (according to people who were there) U.S. men's national team jerseys.

Third, forgetting the economic arguments, it is the right thing to do, sends the right message and will not cost the US Soccer Federation all that much money (we're talking probably less than $3.5 million) to get the U.S. women on par with the U.S.  men.  US Soccer does not want to litigate this before a jury, especially right after a World Cup where the U.S. women made quite a statement.  The members of the US women's team agreed to mediation to take the temperature down and try to settle this matter reasonably, but remember that mediation is not arbitration.  If the parties cannot work out a deal in mediation, then litigation will continue.  And that will be bad for US Soccer and its governing body.  Even if it is right on some of the numbers -- numbers that are skewed because of FIFA's historic emphasis on the men's game and the money that FIFA can command from sponsors of the men's game -- US Soccer will not win.  Not providing equal pay to this juggernaut will stain US Soccer for a long time.  And let's face it, the women need this money to remain elite.  They do not command the sums that their male counterparts make in MLS (a second-tier league) or in Europe (for the few ambitious, aggressive, tough, and good enough to make a leap into top-tier leagues).  The gap in club team play -- and that is not at issue in the litigation -- is not even close.  If US Soccer wants the women's team to continue to excel, it needs to level the playing field when it comes to compensating members of the national team.

The time is right to do the right thing.

* * * * *

That the men's team trails the women's team in international success is no surprise.  There are several reasons for this.  First, soccer has not been a priority among boys in the United States since, well, forever.  In contrast, it has been the primary obsession in many other countries in the world -- for decades.  In short, the men's team started way behind and continues to be way behind, despite all the effort put into elevating the men's team to a level where it can be competitive with the top countries in the world.  Second, the team still is a game of the suburbs and the well off, for the most part, areas that do not always give rise to the hungriest, best or most talented athletes.  Look at stars in the NFL and NBA -- I am sure that almost none of them gave any thought to playing soccer.  But imagine if they did -- Allen Iverson as a center attacking midfielder, Calvin Johnson as a goalie, LeBron James as a striker, Dwayne Wade as holding midfielder.  The possibilities are endless.

The U.S. -- for men -- has many other sports that are key parts of its culture and have been for over a century.  It is difficult for soccer to compete with that.  Third, there is a culture of going to college -- at 18 -- and playing four years there.  In contrast, kids in Europe enter academies at very young ages and start playing for their clubs' youth teams thereafter.  By the time a kid is 18 in Europe he is expected to draw the notice of the manager of the top team within the club -- the one that competes in the likes of the English Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, etc.  By the time a kid is 18 in the U.S. he might be a freshman at Indiana, playing against other collegians.  The contrast is striking, although it is changing (recent case in point -- the Philadelphia Union last season traded all of its draft picks as a concession that it is getting its best players from its academy, the way clubs do in Europe).  Almost no elite men's players come out of college -- they are just too far behind.

As former U.S.men's team player and current English Premier League player Geoff Cameron observed, unless and until the top players -- dozens of them -- play in the elite leagues in Europe and make the sacrifices that he did (moving to a small city, where it rains a lot, living in a small apartment, not knowing the culture) to play against the world's best, the U.S. will have difficulty competing against the world's best.  And before you start to argue that many of the USMNT players play in MLS, let me ask you this -- who would you pick to win a series -- the Miami Marlins, with all their flaws, or a team from AAA baseball, from Scranton or Lehigh Valley, Tidewater or wherever?  People make the show, the big club, for a reason.  They are that good, even if the Marlins in their current format are struggling.  In other words, the current model is not sustainable.

I went to the CONCACAF Gold Cup quarterfinals a week ago in Philadelphia and texted my son afterwards that the four players who distinguished themselves were Pulisic, Weston McKennie, Tim Ream and Zack Steffen.  His response -- well, sure, because they are the four guys who play in Europe.  The rest of the guys lacked the zing and oomph that you see in an average Premier League match, even between teams at the bottom of the standings.

Even with all of the U.S.'s resources, even with a country that is the fifth-most populated country in the world, even with all of the thinking involved, the U.S. remains an also-ran for men's soccer in the world.  Soccer has made gains, but you can argue that the popularity of the best teams from the elite leagues in the world comprise part of the new-found popularity.  Witness the crowds at bars to cheer on teams in the Champions League final or during the home stretch of the unprecedented dog fight in the Premier League between Man City and Liverpool.  But that still does not mean that the kid who is the outstanding option quarterback in Tyler, Texas (but undersized for FBS football) or the kid who is the 5'6" point guard in Indianapolis putting up 28 points a game) are even considering soccer as an option.  And I'm not talking about every kid considering soccer over football, basketball and baseball first.  I'm just talking about 20% of them, with equal access (translated, let's have academies where professional teams pay for the kids as opposed to access determined because parents can pay for all the fees that go into travel sports).  The culture that the U.S. has helps ensure that the men's team will be climbing a steep hill without much of a chance to win more than one game in the knockout round for the World Cup for decades to come.

Assuming, of course, it can get out of its own qualifying region.

The women, in contrast, have made the most of their opportunities.  Let's face it, field hockey and lacrosse are easy to compete with, and not every kid plays basketball.  The advent of Title IX created massive opportunities for women in sports in the U.S., and soccer eagerly and happily filled the vacuum (hoops did too).  You can argue that the best athletes among girls who were not going into basketball were going into soccer; there were no equivalents for football and even baseball (although softball has made great strides).  And the rest of the world had showed the chauvinism that the U.S. did by not putting money into its girls' and women's programs that it did for the men.  To make a long story short, the U.S. women did not have to overcome two things that the men's team has had to overcome and failed -- the ingrained culture of other major men's sports in the U.S. and decades' long lead that other nations had over it with respect to soccer.  The U.S. women, in short, could start say thirty years ago mostly on a level playing field; it was not playing from way behind.

And those in charge of the U.S. women's game applied mythical and historical U.S. ingenuity to the women's game, and fast.  Great athletes flocked to the sport (although not from economically disadvantaged areas -- not everyone can be perfect, at least not yet), and the numbers were there to foster intense competition that helped the best players -- the Michelle Akers, the Mia Hamms -- to rise to the top.  And stay there.  The U.S. women's team has created a great culture of excellence to help ensure continued success; the men's team has not.  Yes, the obstacles for the men have been tougher, but those obstacles have existed for half a century at least -- without that much improvement in terms of the team's overall record.  The women's team has established a high standard; the men's team has yet to crack the code.

I cheer hard for both teams.  I admire the women for their grit, determination and skill.  I root for the men with more optimism, knowing, though, that until the top 100 U.S. men's players play for club teams in Europe, until the top athletes in the U.S. pick soccer, until there is better access for kids from the cities to play soccer, and until the U.S. men's team establish a deep culture of the academy system that exists in Europe, not much will change for them.

It is a tale of two teams, a tale of contrasts, a tale of relativity, a tale of rapid ascension, a tale of utter frustration, a tale of two cultures, a tale unique to the United States.  Let's make sure to honor the excellent -- the women's team is what its record says it is -- outstanding!  And let's hope that U.S. soccer can give us a men's team that is worthy of mention in the same breath as the women's.

Until then, the women's team deserves more praise and more attention.

And equal pay.