Earlier today, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman issued a ruling stating that the U.S. Women’s National Team could not strike due to a clause in previous agreements with the its governing body. Give credit to the U.S. Soccer Federation. The Federation argued a strike could cause the USWNT to withdraw from the Olympics and thereby injure the development of the sport within the United States.
While the Federation also argues that a strike would hurt the development of soccer in the United States, the real injury to the sport lies with the governing bodies of sport–FIFA and the U.S. Soccer Federation–and their treatment of women within the sport.
Every woman knows there is more than one way to strike. It does not take picket signs and not showing up to work. Today, many women are strong, educated and independent. These women are not looking to stand behind a man but beside him equally knowing she can contribute just as much to the world as he can. Therefore, she is expecting equal treatment and deserves such. Being able to strike is just one of those equal treatment expectations she has.
Decidedly, Judge Coleman stated the interpretation of the memorandum between the Federation and the USWNT’s union was as the upholding of an oral contract (layman’s terms), the USWNT still deserves to strike. They have earned the right to strike. They have accomplished more than the USMNT has despite the men’s team being paid larger salaries than the women. The USWNT won the World Cup, a feat the USMNT has yet to accomplish, and thereby negating the Federation’s argument that revenue generation by the women is misleading. The fact that the women’s program has been more successful overall, and therefore generated more revenue, is a valid reason to believe the women are entitled to fight for higher compensation through legal means including a strike.
The USWNT also deserves the right to strike based upon legal interpretation of the law. While an oral contract or amendment of an agreement is may be valid, it is up to the Federation to prove both sides meant to agree with a no-strike clause and that it was not just a negotiating point. The view from the cheap seats says the Union needs to demonstrate this better to the Court. Whereas the Federation and FIFA still need to prove the artificial turf, known to breed and help in the spread of the MRSA virus, was not a danger to the USWNT as well as other teams who played in last year’s World Cup. Dangerous work conditions void no-strike clauses.
Further, if the male dominated leagues of NBA (3 lockouts), NHL (4 strikes/lockouts) and MLB (8 strikes/lockouts) could survive lockouts, aka strikes, then one could assume that soccer could as well. And maybe that would be the best thing for the women’s soccer . . . the NFL survived 6 lockouts/strikes and is thriving better than ever. Unions that initiate work stoppage fairly can actually improve the sport for athletes, and that flows over to the fans with a better product.
Whatever happens, the world is watching . . . young girls and women are watching to see how this plays out. For the Federation’s sake, let’s hope they realize the status quo will no longer work when it comes to women being lower class citizens or there will be no development in the sport.