Scotland women's team taking legal action against the SFA

[Pie Of The Month]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64004005

 

Quote

Scotland women's national football team are taking legal action against the Scottish FA in a fight over equal pay and conditions after talks broke down.

The squad, led by captain Rachel Corsie, are now ready to take their case to an employment tribunal.

The players consider there to be disparities between their treatment and that of their male counterparts.

"This is about all professional footballers being treated equally," Aston Villa defender Corsie said.

"After years of iniquity, disrespect, and in some cases abuse, we have a historic opportunity to advance equal pay and to promote equality for women and girls in football.

"This campaign is about parity, and we'll be seeking to engage with the Scottish Football Association, the fans, and everyone in Scotland's football community to deliver this long overdue change."

The move comes after a landmark case won by the US women's national team earlier this year where they secured a pay-out of more than £17m. The Scottish FA has been approached for comment.

The Scottish women's national team want the SFA to match the actions of the likes of the Football Association of Ireland, which pays the same match appearance fee to its male and female players.

Corsie, 33, first represented the full Scotland team in March 2009 and has amassed 137 caps.

In April she and other members of her squad criticised the SFA on Twitter over its ticketing arrangements at Hampden, claiming only a portion of the national stadium would be open for the visit of Spain in a World Cup qualifier.

The SFA said it was "hugely disappointed by the post" and said: "The ticketing sales process used at Hampden Park is identical to most across Scottish football, with tickets sold in blocks, in line with ongoing demand."

The incident, which Corsie said brought to a head greater frustrations with the way Scottish women's football was organised, led to discussions taking place between Corsie and Ian Maxwell, the SFA chief executive.

Interesting to see how this goes. I suspect the SFA will point to the revenue brought in by the men's team as their justification but considering most of the men's team won't need whatever match fees the SFA pay them it would be good to see if some sort of compromise can be reached between the teams rather than ending up with a bitter dispute like happened in the US.

[VincentGuerin]

Saw this article today in the Guardian about the US case, and I have to say I was surprised to hear that they hadn't actually won in court, as that's certainly how it was presented at the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/16/uswnt-equal-pay-settlement-case

I don't know if a similar issue would apply in this case. Can anyone tell me if the Scotland men and women are paid according to the same structure? As the issue in the US case was that the women had agreed to be paid according to a different structure, so didn't have a case.

I've got to say, I'm quite uncomfortable with, and wary of, quotes such as this one:

"This is about all professional footballers being treated equally," Aston Villa defender Corsie said.

"After years of iniquity, disrespect, and in some cases abuse, we have a historic opportunity to advance equal pay and to promote equality for women and girls in football.

"This campaign is about parity, and we'll be seeking to engage with the Scottish Football Association, the fans, and everyone in Scotland's football community to deliver this long overdue change."

It's not really about those things. It's about the women's team wanting to be paid more money than they are now. I don't take issue with anyone trying to improve their lot, but let's call a spade a spade here.

On the issue of sponsorship money distribution, I imagine it will depend on how the SFA have sold those deals. But I don't think anyone is going to claim the women's team are of equal value to sponsors. Similar to match fees, what is the income to the SFA and on what basis do they split it up?

I absolutely agree that the women's team should have the same conditions as the men's team, but I'm not sure that necessarily translates into the same pay. We'll see what happens.

[invergowrie arab]

Is the mens teams pay related to income generation? If not I don't see how this argument stands up to scrutiny.

If it is, what would be the relative marketing spend by the SFA in men and women's football, what's the relative investment in the men and women's game to produce income generating teams?

Paying the women the same is just the right thing to do and sends a message that it is equally valued.

From a cold capitalist point of view it makes sense to make the women's team a revenue stream and raising the profiles of women's football and not losing players to the game because they have to get jobs also makes sense.

[VincentGuerin]

39 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

From a cold capitalist point of view it makes sense to make the women's team a revenue stream and raising the profiles of women's football and not losing players to the game because they have to get jobs also makes sense.

There's plenty of ground between paying the women enough that they can be full-time and paying them the same as the men.

Apart from 'it's the right thing to do' (why?) there is no real case for paying the women the same.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid properly.

[invergowrie arab]

12 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

There's plenty of ground between paying the women enough that they can be full-time and paying them the same as the men.

Apart from 'it's the right thing to do' (why?) there is no real case for paying the women the same.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid properly.

In relation to your first one they should be paid the same as men. I'm not saying the SFA should be ensuring they are full time bit should be making a contribution to it.

Your second point doesn't even merit a response. I wish you luck getting someone else to engage on that one.

[tamthebam]

Some of you may wish to read up on Equal Pay legislation 

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

 

Your second point doesn't even merit a response. I wish you luck getting someone else to engage on that one.

Not sure what you mean by this, but it's Friday evening and I can't be bovvered wiv this.

[craigkillie]

The SFA have put out a statement saying they have basically identical terms to the men - the same per diem for time away with the national team and the same fee for sponsorship deals. The only potential for the women earning less is the fact that they get the same percentage of prize money as a bonus if they qualify for major tournaments, and clearly the men's ones pay more.

However, with both teams fucking their chances of a World Cup place over the last six months or so, they'll both be getting x% of 0.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

The only people who will gain from the action are lawyers, and I fear that the issue will very quickly become a political football (pun fully intended) for a whole horde of polemicists who have never been near a football match in their life.

Raising a court action seems quite a bold move.

Edited December 16, 2022 by O'Kelly Isley III

[VincentGuerin]

53 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA have put out a statement saying they have basically identical terms to the men - the same per diem for time away with the national team and the same fee for sponsorship deals. The only potential for the women earning less is the fact that they get the same percentage of prize money as a bonus if they qualify for major tournaments, and clearly the men's ones pay more.

However, with both teams fucking their chances of a World Cup place over the last six months or so, they'll both be getting x% of 0.

Cheers for that.

That being the case, what is the crux of this? What are they asking for that they currently don't get?

I don't know how they're paid at all.

[Ginaro]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

The only potential for the women earning less is the fact that they get the same percentage of prize money as a bonus if they qualify for major tournaments, and clearly the men's ones pay more.

The women would've got €600k + €100k for a draw had they qualified for Euro 2022 and repeated their 2017 performance.

The men got €9.25million for just being at Euro 2020, plus €750k for the draw.

Suppose the question is should the SFA set the men's bonus at the same level as the women's (and then invest the rest in grassroots or something?).

[Dirty Sanchez]

3 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 As the issue in the US case was that the women had agreed to be paid according to a different structure, so didn't have a case.

This was the absolute crux of the issue, but was one that lots of people with strong views on the topic didn't seem to know anything about.

As is common in US sport, you are paid based on the Collective Bargaining Agmeement that your union negotiates with the league. In their case they actually rejected the same CBA that the men were on and fought for different terms that gave them guaranteed money, whilst the men were guaranteed $0.

[welshbairn]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA have put out a statement saying they have basically identical terms to the men - the same per diem for time away with the national team and the same fee for sponsorship deals. The only potential for the women earning less is the fact that they get the same percentage of prize money as a bonus if they qualify for major tournaments, and clearly the men's ones pay more.

However, with both teams fucking their chances of a World Cup place over the last six months or so, they'll both be getting x% of 0.

Any idea what the per diems are?

[Busta Nut]

Can the SFA scrap the women's team/game and let them set up themselves? 

[tamthebam]

12 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

Can the SFA scrap the women's team/game and let them set up themselves? 

I suspect FIFA and UEFA would have something to say about that.

Mind you Scotland being banned from International competition could only be a good thing 

[KirkieRR]

Until the Back-end of the Kerr regime the SWNT were a totally feelgood positive Scottish football story. It's all gone a bit awry since then and this issue can hardly help in any way. I hope there is a lot of talk going on behind the scenes to prevent it reaching court.

[Big Ally]

Good point from Kirkie ,until Shelly Kerr had her meltdown in France the team were flying .

Can’t say  the same now  .Recently team have been turgid to watch . Doubt if they had more than a couple of shots on target at home to Eire , with their best player playing far too deep . It must be costing the SFA a fortune to put on their matches at Hampden ,with very little income coming in .
I’m not sure exactly what the players are after, is it equal pay with the men ? 
I don’t think the men take a wage ,but some of the women don’t earn much so perhaps they should be given a modest match fee .  
If it’s hotels and transport they are complaining about ,Steve Clark told the SFA exactly what he wanted so surely it’s up to the womens manager to sort that out with the SFA,not some high court judge.

 

 

 

[Crawford Bridge]

[Binos]

On 16/12/2022 at 16:58, invergowrie arab said:

 

From a cold capitalist point of view it makes sense to make the women's team a revenue stream and raising the profiles of women's football and not losing players to the game because they have to get jobs also makes sense.

That will happen when enough people go through the gates every week to sustain full time women's game

[Andy groundhopper]

Common sense should prevail, the women's game is only a slow burner, gathering some interest along the way. Equal pay for doing the same job ?  Women can only get paid depending on how big their crowds become, lower spfl is part - time, any club needs to cut their cloth. International appearances, could this be a set % of the men's money ?  or based on what revenues are brought in at games ? Any court ruling could blow the whole structure of the game apart.