Wages and Salaries

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Soccer

      The USWNT vs. U.S. Soccer: an Equal Pay Timeline

      by

      A six-year legal fight that saw victories on the field and losses in federal court ended with a multimillion-dollar settlement. Here’s how the sides got here.A settlement announced on Tuesday abruptly ended a six-year legal fight between dozens of members of the United States women’s national team and U.S. Soccer, an often bitter and contentious dispute that had placed some of the world’s most popular and high-profile athletes at the forefront of the fight for equal pay for women.What was the fight about? That was complicated from the start. A simple slogan — equal pay — faded into shades of gray upon deeper review of different contracts, different schedules and different values placed on women’s soccer by the sport’s global leadership and its U.S. federation.The timeline of the fight, which started with a wage discrimination complaint filed by five top players in March 2016, is much more easily explained. That single filing set off years of twists and turns, court arguments and public statements, hard feelings, hard-won victories and at least one humbling defeat for the athletes.Here’s a review of how we got from the initial complaint to this settlement, told through reporting by The New York Times.March 2016: The shot across the bow.Hope Solo at the Rio Olympics in 2016. An original complainant but long retired from the team, she continues to wage her own separate equal pay fight against U.S. Soccer.Eugenio Savio/Associated PressThe equal pay fight began with five star players and a claim of wage discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. agency that enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination.“The numbers speak for themselves,” said goalkeeper Hope Solo, one of the players who signed the complaint. Solo said the men’s players “get paid more to just show up than we get paid to win major championships.”Solo was joined in the complaint by the co-captains Carli Lloyd and Becky Sauerbrunn, forward Alex Morgan and midfielder Megan Rapinoe. As The Times noted that day:In their complaint, the five players cited recent U.S. Soccer financial reports as proof that they have become the federation’s main economic engine even as, they said, they often earned only half as much — or less — than their male counterparts.At the same time, the players said, they exceeded revenue projections by as much as $16 million in 2015, when their World Cup triumph set television viewership records and a nine-game victory tour in packed stadiums produced record gate receipts and attendance figures.Wounded by the accusation they were treating the women’s players unfairly, U.S. Soccer — which had for years been a global leader in advancing women’s soccer — pushed back forcefully by citing figures that it said showed the men’s national team produced revenue and attendance about double that of the women’s team, and television ratings that were “a multiple” of what the women attracted. The federation accused the players and their lawyers of cherry-picking figures from an extraordinarily successful year for the women — they had won the World Cup in 2015 — and a U.S. Soccer spokesman called their math “inaccurate, misleading or both.”Offended by the suggestion that their games, and their successes, were worth less to the federation than those of the men’s team, the women and their teammates dug in for a fight.Few knew then how long it would last.Early 2017: An education and a new contract.Becky Sauerbrunn in a match against France in 2017.Robin Alam/Icon Sportswire, via Getty ImagesWithin a year, the players had taken control of their collective fate, firing their union chief and reorganizing their players’ association in ways that gave them a more active role in the issues affecting them.“It was always the plan,” Sauerbrunn, the team captain, said at the time, “to have a players’ association that listens to all the voices of its members and then can take that, and elevate that, and try to make that a reality.”Receiving a high-speed education in topics like labor law and public relations, the players voted one another onto negotiating teams and subcommittees and — between camps and full-time jobs as professional athletes — threw themselves into the task of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with U.S. Soccer.Uniting disparate teammates through text messages, overnight emails and anonymous player surveys, they determined priorities for a new contract and then made their cases personally in negotiating sessions with the federation and its lawyers.Within a few months, they had a deal.The agreement includes a sizable increase in base pay for the players — more than 30 percent, initially — and improved match bonuses that could double some of their incomes, to $200,000 to $300,000 in any given year, and even more in a year that includes a World Cup or Olympic campaign.The agreement largely sidestepped the broader equal pay fight that the women had made the cornerstone of their cause. The players were able to not only take pride in gains on salaries and bonuses, but also in having won control over some licensing and marketing rights that the union saw as an opening to test the team’s value on the open market.March 2019: Same fight, new forum.Labor peace did little to move the sides closer to an equal pay agreement, so in March 2019 the players withdrew their E.E.O.C. complaint and significantly raised the stakes by suing U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination.In their filing and a statement released by the team, the 28 players described “institutionalized gender discrimination” that they say has existed for years.The discrimination, the athletes said, affects not only their paychecks but also where they play and how often, how they train, the medical treatment and coaching they receive, and even how they travel to matches.The suit brought the fight to a new forum but also presented new hurdles. The players now not only had to prove that their team and the men’s national team did the same work, they also had to overcome questions about the differences in their pay structures and their negotiated collective bargaining agreements. And the C.B.A. they fought so hard to win suddenly left them without one bit of leverage: The players were forbidden by its terms to strike at least until it expired at the end of 2021.July 2019: Stadium chants and parade taunts.Fans cheered at a parade for the U.S. women’s team as they celebrated their World Cup victory in 2019.Damon Winter/The New York TimesIn the summer of 2019, a fight that had played out in public statements, social media hashtags and white T-shirts for more than three years moved to its biggest stage to date: the Women’s World Cup in France.By then, the U.S. national team’s stars were fighting not only their federation and others opposed to their equal pay claims, but also a sitting U.S. president, critics of their victory margins and those who didn’t appreciate their goal celebrations. When it lifted the trophy, though, all the team had was friends.The chant was faint at first, bubbling up from the northern stands inside the Stade de Lyon. Gradually it grew louder. Soon it was deafening.“Equal pay!” it went, over and over, until thousands were joining in, filling the stadium with noise. “Equal pay! Equal pay!”A few days later, fans repeated the chant as the U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro feted the team after its victory parade in New York.February 2020: The price of peace? $67 million.Among the voluminous filings before the women’s case was heard in federal court last year were two notable ones seeking to end it outright.In separate requests for summary judgment — the process in which each side claims its case is so strong that the judge should rule in its favor — U.S. Soccer and the players showed just how far apart the players and the federation remained not only in what they considered a fair outcome, but also in their basic concepts of what constituted equal pay, despite years of litigation, depositions and public relations campaigns.U.S. Soccer asked for a simple declaration that the players’ claims were without merit; simultaneously, the players finally put a price tag on what they considered a fair outcome:The federation sought to avoid a looming gender discrimination trial by asking the judge to dismiss the players’ claim. The women’s players also asked for a pretrial decision, but on far different terms: They are seeking almost $67 million — and potentially millions more — in back pay and damages.March 2020: The fight gets ugly.While Rapinoe had offered an olive branch at the victory parade, hinting at the idea of a settlement on points on which the two sides agreed, that hope was gone months later.The spark was a court filing in which U.S. Soccer, through its lawyers, argued that “indisputable science” proved that the players on its World Cup-winning women’s national team were inferior to men.Carlos Cordeiro resigned after U.S. Soccer argued through its lawyers that women’s players were inferior to their men’s counterparts.Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press“I know that we’re in a contentious fight,” Rapinoe said, “but that crossed a line completely.”U.S. Soccer fired its lawyers, but the damage was done. After unsuccessfully trying to manage the fallout, Cordeiro resigned. Talks of a settlement that might have headed off the march to federal court fell apart.April 2020: A crushing defeat for the players.The ruling in the lawsuit, when it came, was devastating for the players. The judge, R. Gary Klausner of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, granted the federation’s motion for summary judgment. But he went further: He declared that the women’s core argument — that they had been paid less than players on the men’s national team — was factually wrong.In his ruling, the judge dismissed the players’ arguments that they were systematically underpaid by U.S. Soccer in comparison with the men’s national team. In fact, Klausner wrote, U.S. Soccer had substantiated its argument that the women’s team had actually earned more “on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis” than the men’s team during the years at issue in the lawsuit.The brutal irony, of course, was that in going to court against U.S. Soccer while they were at the peak of their powers, the women’s team had also picked the absolute worst time to line up a few years of their salaries against a few years of the men’s pay.Since February 2015, the agreed-upon start of the class-action period in the case, the women’s team had won two World Cup titles (and millions in bonus payments for those triumphs) and other major salary gains by negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. During the same period, the men’s team had plumbed new lows, with its failures serving to cripple the women’s case.By failing to qualify for the only men’s World Cup played during the class window, the men became ineligible for millions of dollars in performance bonuses of their own. Those payments would have swelled their paydays from U.S. Soccer far beyond what the women could ever have earned.A chance to salvage something from defeat?It was, a day later, hard to overstate the weight of the court decision. Judge Klausner had not only ruled against the players’ arguments; in effect, he had said they could never win. Yet even though U.S. Soccer’s victory in court was complete, and the players immediately announced their intention to appeal, the federation signaled just as quickly that it was still happy to discuss a way out.“We look forward to working with the women’s national team to chart a positive path forward to grow the game both here at home and around the world,” it said in the briefest of statements after the ruling.Cindy Parlow Cone, who replaced Cordeiro as president of U.S. Soccer, signaled a willingness to continue negotiations with the players.Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated PressThe federation’s words seemed carefully chosen. The seemingly endless battles with its most popular players have unquestionably damaged — and continue to damage — U.S. Soccer’s reputation. The dispute has even brought it into conflict with its own sponsors.But much has changed since the equal pay war began: U.S. Soccer has a new president, the former women’s player Cindy Cone, and a new chief executive, and neither of them could reasonably be tied to past missteps and injustices.For them, and for U.S. Soccer, rebuilding a functional relationship with the women’s team — the federation’s most valuable asset and a critical moneymaker in troubled economic times — should be a top priority. If that means eating some crow and cutting a check to signal an eagerness to move forward, it might even work.November 2021: A small victory, and a new start.In November of last year, U.S. Soccer and the players reached an agreement that resolved claims about unequal working conditions. The deal, a rare moment of détente in the yearslong fight, formalized an effort the federation had already begun to remove differences in areas like staffing, travel, hotel accommodations and venue choices related to men’s and women’s national team matches. But it was a necessary step for the players before they could appeal their larger defeat in federal court.For the players and their lawyers, the agreement brings opportunity: In settling their issues related to working conditions, the women’s stars cleared the way to appealing a judge’s decision in May that had rejected most of their equal pay claims. For the federation, removing one of the last unresolved items in the team’s wage-discrimination lawsuit allowed its new leadership team to rid itself of one more point of contention in a dispute they would prefer to see end, and to signal that U.S. Soccer is open to more accommodations.U.S. Soccer’s president, Cindy Parlow Cone, hailed the agreement, saying it signaled the federation’s efforts “to find a new way forward” with the women’s team and, hopefully, a way out of the rest of the litigation.“This settlement is good news for everyone,” Cone said, “and I believe will serve as a springboard for continued progress.”Tuesday: The fight ends at last.Tuesday’s settlement between the women’s players and U.S. Soccer includes $24 million in compensation for the athletes — largely back pay for dozens of players who were included once the plaintiffs were granted class-action status, and several million dollars in seed money for a fund that will be available to players for post-career plans and initiatives to grow the women’s game.It also includes a pledge from U.S. Soccer to equalize pay, appearance fees and match bonuses for the women’s and men’s national teams for all games, including the World Cup, in the teams’ next collective bargaining agreements.That last bit is the stage for the next fight: Both the men’s and women’s teams are playing under expired — and separate — agreements. Negotiations on new ones are ongoing. It’s not clear when a deal will be struck. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Basket

      W.N.B.A. Raises $75 Million With Hopes of Business Model Revamp

      by

      Cathy Engelbert, the league’s commissioner, said the investment could help fund marketing, improve digital products and fan outreach to increase revenue.The W.N.B.A. has raised $75 million from more than two dozen investors in a bid to revamp its business model as players call for expansion, higher salaries and better benefits.The funding includes investments from Nike, Condoleezza Rice, Laurene Powell Jobs, Pau Gasol, N.B.A. and W.N.B.A. team owners, and other sports and business figures.“We’re going to take a huge step forward in transforming the league and getting us an economic model that is worthy of players on the court,” W.N.B.A. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said in an interview.This was the first time that the W.N.B.A. raised money from investors. The league, which was founded by the N.B.A. in 1996, held its first season in 1997. Financial struggles have been a constant, and stark disparities in revenue, media attention and player pay distinguish the women’s league from the N.B.A. The W.N.B.A. is betting that with the right investments it can generate enough interest in its players to create a sustainable business model.“Part of it is exposure,” Engelbert said. “It’s like pushing a boulder up a hill.”The W.N.B.A. is currently owned half by the 30 N.B.A. teams, and half by the 12 W.N.B.A. teams. Ownership on both sides will be diluted as part of the deal. Engelbert declined to disclose the size of the stake the new investors are taking in the company, the valuation of the deal or the league’s annual revenue.The league has no current plans to raise further money but would consider doing so if it is “successful with deploying this capital for sustainable growth in a few years,” Engelbert said.The league is open to ideas from the players’ union about how to use the new money, she added, but it plans to prioritize marketing and improving its digital products, including its website, app and league pass, which allows fans to watch games that are out of market and not on national television.Revenue from these efforts could then be used to fund key requests from players, such as chartered flights, Engelbert said. Unlike in the N.B.A., where team members travel on private flights, W.N.B.A. players fly commercially. It’s long been a sore issue for players; on Tuesday, Elizabeth Cambage, a four-time All-Star, wrote on Twitter about having to pay “out of my own pocket” to upgrade her seats on flights to games.When asked about Cambage’s Twitter post, Engelbert said: “People get emotional. People tweet things. We all want the best travel conditions for our players. But the reason why it’s there for the men’s league is because they get these big valuations. They get media rights of their assets.”The W.N.B.A. began to raise money in January 2020, after it signed a new collective bargaining agreement with its players, though the latest fund-raising had been sidelined by the coronavirus pandemic. (The goal shifted to “let’s make sure we survive,” Engelbert said.) As the year edged closer to 2021, the league began to see “some growth” in sponsorship revenue and social media engagement — and began to try again.Investors, flush with capital, have increasingly parked their money in sports teams and leagues, which have in turn looked to outside funds to stem the losses from the pandemic. Streaming wars have created new appetite for sports rights as services look for distinguishing ways to fight for eyeballs. A wave in state legalization of sports betting has created a multibillion-dollar industry.The W.N.B.A.’s new backing could pave the way for any number of investments, spanning sports betting and online virtual experiences, Engelbert said. Top of the list of priorities: “We need more fans,” she said.Engelbert, center, said the capital investment could help the league generate enough revenue to pay for players’ requests, like chartered flights.Norm Hall/Getty ImagesEngelbert said the fan base skews young and female, but the league’s digital strategy to connect with that group has been underfunded. Last year, the W.N.B.A. struck a multiyear deal with Google, which helped sponsor the airing of 25 regular-season games on ABC and ESPN. It also signed a multiyear streaming deal with Amazon Prime and has streamed games on Twitter over the past five seasons. But the league, which holds its season over the summer, is competing with other sports that have more and more prominent TV exposure, such as the N.B.A. playoffs and Major League Baseball.Engelbert said she wanted to “market players into household names” both in the United States and abroad. That could help generate revenue to increase player salaries, which, like chartered flights, have long been a source of friction.The minimum player salary for the 2022 season is about $60,000, and the maximum is $228,094, with a team salary cap of just under $1.4 million. With just 12 roster spots on each of the league’s 12 teams, it can be difficult for even talented players to find a place in the league. But as players call for expansion, with fans eyeing Oakland, Calif., and Toronto for new teams, Engelbert has maintained that the league must increase revenue before it could expand.Other investors include Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Inc., and his wife, Susan; Joe and Clara Tsai, who own the W.N.B.A.’s Liberty and the N.B.A.’s Nets; and Swin Cash, the vice president of basketball operations for the N.B.A.’s New Orleans Pelicans. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Basket

      As W.N.B.A. Players Call for Expansion, League Says Not Now

      by

      Many players and fans want bigger rosters and more teams, but the W.N.B.A. said it can’t “expand for expansion’s sake” without the money to support it.On Oct. 17, Lexie Brown became a W.N.B.A champion. She and the Chicago Sky defeated the Phoenix Mercury to win the first title in franchise history. Yet, four months prior, Brown was sitting at home wondering if she would ever find her way back into the league.Brown expected to play for the Minnesota Lynx during the 2021 season, but the Lynx waived her on April 17. Days later, she arrived in Chicago for training camp.“You have to deal with things like that,” Brown said. “Keep your mental, stay professional, stay ready for your number to be called.”The Sky cut Brown at the close of training camp in May, signed her again, cut her again, then signed her for the remainder of the season on June 14.“It’s been a very hard last few months for me personally,” Brown said in June, “but I think that Chicago is where I wanted to be. And even though it took a lot of nonsense for me to end up on Chicago, I’m really happy to be here.”The hassle can pay off — Brown did win a championship, after all — but it can take its toll.Each season, players are caught in a revolving door of contracts for 144 W.N.B.A. roster spots. Many people inside and outside the league believe now is the time to expand team rosters or teams in the league, or both. With only 12 teams and 12 roster spots on each team, the W.N.B.A. is harder to get in, and stay in, than the N.B.A., especially with most players’ contracts not being guaranteed. The relatively low salaries also push players to make tough choices about when and where to play.The W.N.B.A. is seen as the gold standard for women’s sports leagues because of the level of competition and many of the benefits players have gained through collective bargaining. But Nneka Ogwumike, the president of the players’ union, is among those striving for more.“I like where the league is now as far as people garnering attention around it,” said Ogwumike, a 10-year veteran forward for the Los Angeles Sparks. “I don’t like where it is with rosters, number of rosters, number of teams. And it’s not to say that, you know, it’s anyone’s fault. It’s just, like, we want to see growth.”‘We need more teams’Nneka Ogwumike, the president of the players’ union, helped secure higher salaries and other benefits during contract negotiations but also wants to see the W.N.B.A. add teams.Ashley Landis/Associated PressOgwumike led the players’ union as it reached a landmark collective bargaining agreement that took effect in the 2020 season and will last through 2027. The agreement introduced a team salary cap of $1.3 million, an increase of 30 percent. Many saw it as a step in the right direction regarding pay equity. But it also illuminated another concern.“The $300,000 increase in the salary cap was not significant,” said Cheryl Reeve, the head coach and general manager of the Minnesota Lynx. “It was highly lauded that we were doing better for the players. And, yeah, for the supermax players, there’s separation now.”The minimum player salary for 2020 increased by about $15,000, to $57,000, and the supermax for veterans rose by about $100,000, to $215,000. The figures increase each year.Teams that are looking to carry experienced players to make a deep playoff run now must play what Reeve called “salary cap gymnastics.”“I’m doing far more general managing during a season than you want to do, and that was brought on, in our case, by injuries,” Reeve said.The Lynx signed Layshia Clarendon to a contract for the remainder of the 2021 season on July 2 after three hardship contracts. The game of catch-and-release was necessary for Minnesota to remain within its team cap as the Lynx dealt with injuries and other player absences.Clarendon started the season with the Liberty, and had tweeted on the season’s eve, “My heart breaks for players getting cut (yes, it’s part of the business) but particularly since there are ZERO developmental opportunities.”Seven days later, after playing three minutes total in one game for the Liberty, Clarendon became such a player after being waived by the Liberty.That opened the door for the Lynx. To alleviate the burden caused by player injuries, the W.N.B.A. can grant hardship contracts for teams with fewer than 10 active players. Each replacement for an injured player requires a new, prorated contract from the salary cap. Teams often must choose between cutting injured players to free roster spots or keeping them and competing with fewer active players.Terri Jackson, the executive director of the players’ union, said the union had “made our position known” about adding injured reserve spots and expanding rosters during the last round of contract negotiations, but could not agree on terms.Ogwumike said the players wanted to create a more “robust league.”“I think the ideas are there,” she said, adding, “but, most certainly, we need more teams.”‘Not enough for me to survive on’Diana Taurasi sat out the 2015 W.N.B.A. season to rest after playing for a Russian team, UMMC Ekaterinburg, which paid her $1.5 million.James Hill for The New York TimesTo that end, some within the W.N.B.A believe a developmental league is a logical evolution.The N.B.A.’s G League is a proving ground for unsigned players and also a way for developing players signed to N.B.A. teams to get playing time. Each N.B.A. team can have up to two players on two-way contracts who split time between both leagues. Teams can also call up other G League players on short-term contracts as needed if they have the roster space.Jacki Gemelos, a Liberty assistant coach and former W.N.B.A. journeywoman, said “an extra two roster spots would be huge.”“I would have been that 13th, 14th roster spot player that maybe is not necessarily good enough to make that 12 but a good culture piece,” Gemelos said, adding that the spots could be for “a specialty player, like a knockout shooter or, a really, really tall big player if you need it for certain games or even just for injury purposes.”In her brief W.N.B.A. career, Gemelos played 35 games for three franchises. For players who don’t catch on in the W.N.B.A. or who hardly see the court, there have long been few avenues to get more playing time without going overseas. A new domestic league, Athletes Unlimited, which will begin its five-week season this month, is now an option. But for most players, international leagues are their best opportunity to play, and to get paid.Even most of the highest-paid W.N.B.A. players go abroad to compete for European clubs and national teams during the off-season, and sometimes instead of playing in the W.N.B.A.Minnesota’s Napheesa Collier is one of many players who play for international teams during the W.N.B.A.’s offseason to make additional money. She played in France last year.David Joles/Star Tribune, via Associated Press“If I’m not making that much in the league, if it’s not enough for me to survive on during the year, I’m going overseas and having the summer off,” Lynx forward Napheesa Collier said on the “Tea With A & Phee” podcast she hosts with Las Vegas Aces forward A’ja Wilson.As a result, many overseas players arrive late for W.N.B.A. training camp, leave at midseason or miss the season entirely, especially in Olympic years. In the 2021 season alone, 55 players arrived late to W.N.B.A. training camp, and about a dozen players missed their home opener, according to The Hartford Courant. In the future, this will cost players 1 percent of their salary for each day they are late and full camp pay for those missing all of camp. The league wants players to stay in the United States, to minimize disruptions to the W.N.B.A. season and to reduce injury risk, but for some that is a difficult decision.A top-tier player can earn $500,000 to $1.5 million for playing overseas. Diana Taurasi sat out the 2015 season after winning a championship with the Phoenix Mercury in 2014. “The year-round nature of women’s basketball takes its toll, and the financial opportunity with my team in Russia would have been irresponsible to turn down,” Taurasi wrote in a letter to fans.Taurasi’s Russian team, UMMC Ekaterinburg, paid her W.N.B.A. salary, $107,000, according to ESPN, plus her $1.5 million overseas salary to sit out the six-month 2015 W.N.B.A. season.In 2021, Taurasi led the Mercury to the W.N.B.A finals despite an injured ankle, for a max salary of $221,450.‘Don’t expand just for expansion’s sake’Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said that the league would expand “down the road” but that it didn’t make business sense right now.Phelan M. Ebenhack/Associated PressReeve, the Lynx coach and general manager, said she preferred franchise expansion over roster expansion, especially since the answer, either way, is more money.“We need a greater commitment as a whole from the N.B.A. and the N.B.A. owners,” she said. “We need a greater commitment financially. We need greater investment. This league has been far too long about, you know, the revenues and expenses matching, don’t lose one dollar. And that’s not how you grow a league.”When asked for a response to Reeve’s comment, W.N.B.A. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said: “I disagree with that. I have a track record of building businesses and growing businesses, and that’s what we’re doing here.”Engelbert said she was proud that the W.N.B.A. is the longest-standing women’s domestic professional league (among team sports) and of the financial commitment of the N.B.A., including having the W.N.B.A. as part of the brand identity.“Quite frankly, I don’t think that we could be around if the N.B.A. hadn’t been so supportive over the years,” Engelbert said.The N.B.A. owns 50 percent of the W.N.B.A., and five N.B.A. owners — of Phoenix, Brooklyn, Indiana, Minnesota and Washington — also own a W.N.B.A. team outright. Engelbert declined to comment on the operating budget for the W.N.B.A.When asked about providing more support, an N.B.A. spokesman, Mike Bass, said in an email: “The N.B.A. has provided enormous financial support to sustain the operation of the W.N.B.A. for the past 25 years, and our commitment has never wavered. We’ve seen exciting growth for the league under Cathy’s direction and are confident in the ability of league, team, and player leadership to continue that growth.”Engelbert said she also knows there are “inequities in the system” regarding viewership for women’s sports leagues.“All signs and symbols point to league growth, but we’re not even close to having the economic model the players deserve,” Engelbert said.Since becoming commissioner in July 2019, Engelbert has focused on economics and the experiences of players and fans. She has brought on more investors, such as Amazon as the sponsor of an in-season tournament with a prize pool of $500,000 for the two finalists. While that has increased player compensation opportunities, as has a provision for marketing deals, it does not address the underlying concerns about limited roster spots and better pay for players overall.Engelbert said expanding the league is “part of a transitional plan,” but not now.“If you want to broaden your exposure, probably need to be more than 12 cities in a country with 330 million people,” Engelbert said. “We’re going to absolutely expand down the road, but we don’t just expand for expansion’s sake until we get the economic model further along.”Ogwumike hopes more financial commitments from sponsors will lead to the players getting what they want — bigger rosters and higher salaries — to keep the most prominent players in the W.N.B.A.“These last two drafts have shown there’s a league sitting at home, and so we have to do something about that,” Ogwumike said, referring to the number of talented players who are not drafted. “I think that it’s really just the onus is on ownership, investment, people wanting to pump more into women’s sports. We have players that are ready to be a part of this league.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Football

      Lamar Jackson’s Bold Play: A Contract Without an Agent

      by

      Jackson is leading his own negotiation for a contract extension with the Ravens, challenging the norms of executives’ relationships to N.F.L. players and raising questions about the efficacy of agents.By any argument, Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson has had an exceptional career through his first three N.F.L. seasons.Drafted at the end of the first round in 2018, he quickly emerged as one of the league’s most dynamic players, winning six of his first seven regular season starts in his first year and the Most Valuable Player Award in his second. At 24, he is a face of the league and the undisputed centerpiece of the Ravens’ future.Those are among the facts that undoubtedly will be brought up as Jackson and Baltimore executives negotiate an extension of his rookie contract, the massive payday that is usually the largest salary bump in an N.F.L. player’s career and that will determine the market for other franchise quarterbacks nearing the end of their entry-level deals.His peers have already set the table. Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott in March signed a four-year, $160 million contract extension (with $126 million in total guaranteed money). In August, Bills quarterback Josh Allen received a six-year, $258 million deal (with $150 million in total guaranteed money).But as Jackson haggles with his team over the size and conditions of a new deal, he stands out for handling the matter on his own, one of 17 N.F.L. players not represented by a traditional sports agent. Instead, Jackson has enlisted advisers, including his mother, Felicia Jones, to work out the clauses, exceptions and trade-offs.They have offered little insight into the process. He could follow the trend and ask for a four-year deal to increase his flexibility, or he could try to secure a longer and larger contract as Kansas City’s Patrick Mahomes and Allen did. Jones did not respond to a request for comment.By proceeding without traditional representation, Jackson is challenging football orthodoxy, partly promoted by agents, that players can’t possibly understand complex contracts or negotiate one successfully. At the same time, Ravens team executives — who declined to speak for this story — can’t limit their relationship to only talking to Jackson about his labor. They also must tell him what they think his labor is worth.“The agents have told the whole world that the players can’t do anything without them,” said Russell Okung, who began representing himself halfway through his 12-year N.F.L. career as an offensive lineman. “By Lamar going out on his own, it’s scary to the agent world. If he figures it out, others will too.”The challenges stretch beyond dollar signs. “He’s also a Black quarterback and people are used to labor looking a certain way,” Okung added. “He’s pushing up against a myriad of narratives all at once.”Lamar Jackson posed with his mother, Felicia Jones, after winning the Heisman Trophy in 2016 while at the University of Louisville.Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswire via AP ImagesFor years, players have complained that agents don’t do enough to earn their fees, which can run as high as 3 percent of a contract’s value. Saving hundreds of thousands of dollars is largely what motivated Richard Sherman, Okung, DeAndre Hopkins and others in recent years to negotiate their own deals, some of which were panned in the media.While those players ditched their agents midcareer, Jackson has gone without an agent from the outset.Under the league’s peculiar economics, that’s understandable because rookie pay scales are tightly prescribed, leaving little room for negotiation. Teams operate under rigid salary caps, and often pick up the fifth-year option in star players’ contracts to keep them at a cheaper figure for an additional year before they become free agents, or in the Ravens’ case with Jackson, to allow for more time to negotiate an extension.Teams can also slap a “franchise tag” on players — a one-year designation of either the average salary of the top five players at the same position (over the past five seasons) or 120 percent of the player’s previous salary — to refrain from paying what the market will bear. To hang on to their star quarterbacks, whose salaries are growing far faster than those of players at other positions, teams can also fill the rest of their rosters with rookies and free agents willing to play for minimum salaries.Jackson’s decision to forgo traditional representation is inviting more scrutiny than other stars’ negotiations because he is in line for a mammoth contract extension that will help set the future market for franchise quarterbacks. Deciphering N.F.L. contracts is complicated because teams can include a host of clauses that when triggered can cost the player dearly. Getting injured away from the field might allow a team to withhold payment. So might an arrest, suspension or an unexcused absence from the club.A player’s yearly salary can be relatively small compared to signing bonuses, payments for making a team’s roster, payments for appearing at voluntary training camps and hitting performance targets like leading a statistical category.Top-tier quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers have in recent negotiations prevented their teams from assigning them franchise tags. The tag would have kept Brady from hitting the open market after the 2019 season, his last with the Patriots. The reworked contract Rodgers signed in July prevents the Packers from assigning him the franchise tag after the 2022 season, when he is eligible to become a free agent.In 2018, Minnesota Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins negotiated through an agent to reach a rare contract that was 100 percent guaranteed, like those in Major League Baseball and the N.B.A. The percentage of guaranteed money in N.F.L. contracts is increasing, but for most players it is below 70 percent, which makes it easier for teams to justify cutting players.Agents argue that part of their role is to steer players away from deals that give teams too much leverage.“There are so many different ways to not get your money in the N.F.L.,” said Joby Branion, who runs Vanguard Sports Group, an agency that represents 36 N.F.L. players, including Von Miller of the Denver Broncos and Keenan Allen of the Los Angeles Chargers. “The best agents are going to understand that the most important part of any negotiation is leverage. Guarantees in the N.F.L. are not guarantees like in other sports.”Agents also pay for top prospects to train for the combine and talk up their draft value with general managers. Once they join a team, agents help players find marketing opportunities and keep track of their needs during the season.“It’s not just doing negotiating the contract and washing your hands of the player,” said Kim Miale, an N.F.L. agent who leads the football division at Roc Nation Sports, which represents Giants running back Saquon Barkley, Buccaneers running back Leonard Fournette and others. Still, some players do many of these things themselves. Seahawks linebacker Bobby Wagner said he negotiated a three-year, $54 million extension in 2019 not just to avoid paying his agent, but to become a smarter businessman. He read the league’s collective bargaining agreement, studied other player contracts and sought advice from corporate executives, team owners and even Michael Jordan.During the process, he was aware of how unusual a path he was taking. “There were a lot of people that felt players were not able to negotiate their contracts successfully, so I knew once I committed to doing it, I had to do it right because I knew there was a lot of eyeballs that wanted me not to succeed,” Wagner said.Seahawks linebacker Bobby Wagner told reporters that reading the book ”Why Should White Guys Have All the Fun?” by Reginald Lewis helped him negotiate a three-year, $54 million contract with the team.Ted S. Warren/Associated PressThe union does not push players either way on hiring agents. But it provides players who represent themselves access to its database of contracts and reviews any proposed contract language, just as it does for agents. Since 2016, the union has required agents to send all contracts that average $2 million or more a year to the union’s lawyers for review to ensure that agents are sufficiently protecting their clients.“The union-agent relationship is complicated and sometimes adversarial,” said George Atallah, the spokesman for the N.F.L. Players Association. “But when it comes to representing players, we haven’t changed our model of providing services to the agents.”For now, just 17 players represent themselves according the N.F.L.P.A., but that may change in the coming years as college athletes, now allowed to earn money off their names, images and likenesses before turning pro, become better educated about their value and how others profit from it.“With name, image and likeness rules, you’re going to have more young people recognizing their worth,” said Charles Grantham, the director of the Center for Sport Management at Seton Hall and a former N.B.A. agent and union executive. Agents may be forced to cut their fees to secure players, he added. “It’s definitely going to change the economics of the business.”Over time, Grantham and others said, the younger generation’s awareness could lead them to take the same leap as Jackson.“A lot of it is players waking up to realizing the power that they have and how they can execute if they educate themselves the way that they should,” Wagner said. It’s all part of a bigger picture of players becoming more aware of their potential outside of the sport that they play.” More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Football

      NFL Quarterbacks Want Their Voices Heard

      by

      From Aaron Rodgers to Tom Brady to Patrick Mahomes, quarterbacks are trying to push football’s status quo. The results have lagged behind stars’ achievements in other sports.Aaron Rodgers had a lot to get off his mind.After two years of mounting whispers over his frustration with his team, Rodgers finally laid out his grievances when he reported to Green Bay Packers training camp in July. In sweeping depth and granular detail, the franchise quarterback expounded on all the topics team executives had not asked his opinion about, from the drafting of his potential successor to the team’s letting go of one of his favorite receiver targets.“I just want to be involved in conversations that affect my ability to do my job, and it’s not all personnel, but I think I have a unique perspective being in the locker room and having been the starting quarterback here for 13 years and being here for 16 years,” Rodgers said during his July news conference.Packers management, he said, had tried sweetening his contract, but money was not his primary concern.He wanted his voice heard. The reigning M.V.P.’s standoff with the Packers represented one of the most drastic examples of a quarterback bucking the status quo, but he was not alone among players at his position who pushed for their voices to be acknowledged and for autonomy over their careers.“For every athlete, they have to calculate for themselves the value of winning and then the value of their own personal business,” said Don Yee, the agent who represents quarterbacks Tom Brady and Jimmy Garoppolo. “And the latter part of that equation, at least in my personal view, has become more and more important with each successive generation.”In a league like the N.B.A., star players routinely discuss potentially significant organizational moves with team owners and general managers. Quarterbacks operate the most crucial and iconic position in America’s most popular sport, but in the N.F.L., the team is prioritized over any one player — face of the franchise or not.In Houston, after signing Deshaun Watson to a $160 million contract extension in 2020, the Texans ostracized their quarterback through moves that included trading the All-Pro wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins and not consulting Watson on a replacement for the fired head coach and general manager Bill O’Brien. Watson requested a trade from the franchise before 22 sexual misconduct lawsuits were levied against him in March. (He has denied the allegations.)And in Seattle, Russell Wilson complained that he wanted more say over team personnel after absorbing the most hits of any N.F.L. quarterback through his first nine seasons.Russell Wilson signing autographs in Seattle last month. He has said he wants to “be involved” in the Seahawks’ personnel decisions.Stephen Brashear/Associated PressIn the last few years, as rallies of athlete empowerment swept up leagues like the N.B.A. and W.N.B.A. and individual sports like tennis, the N.F.L. seemingly lagged, and players are starting to take notice.“You saw a lot of those guys get involved in the social justice thing that was going on over the last year, ever since George Floyd,” said Warren Moon, a Hall of Fame quarterback who spent the bulk of his N.F.L. career in Houston. Now, he said, if N.F.L. stars don’t get the support they expect from their teams, “they’re going to voice their opinions.”Patrick Mahomes and Brady, the quarterbacks who have won the last three Super Bowls, have utilized their voices in different capacities.Mahomes, the budding face of the league as Kansas City’s do-everything quarterback, participated with a number of N.F.L. stars in a June 2020 video naming Floyd and other Black victims of violence and demanding that the league condemn racism and systemic oppression.Mahomes told Fox Sports’ “Undisputed” that he had spoken with Roger Goodell, the league’s commissioner, about recognizing Black Lives Matter. Goodell responded with a video of his own, saying the league had been wrong for not listening to players earlier — he did not mention Colin Kaepernick by name — and encouraging peaceful protest.“I do think that’s a sign of more autonomy and lack of fear,” said Leigh Steinberg, the agent who negotiated Mahomes’s $503 million contract extension in 2020 with Kansas City. “So, what forestalled players of yesteryear from expressing their opinion was a fear that somehow they might go under controversy and might run afoul of the team, right? And now they’re trying to influence the team and the league.”In 2019, Brady asked for a provision in his contract extension that would prevent the New England Patriots from placing a franchise or transition tag on him, allowing him to become a free agent if he and the team did not agree on his future. Brady ended his 20-year tenure in New England to sign with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers the following year.Since winning his seventh Super Bowl in February, Brady criticized the league’s policies on voluntary off-season workouts and in August wrote in an Instagram post that N.F.L. players were “ignorant” about the league’s financial disparities. “The salary cap dropped by 20% and the new media deals were announced the day AFTER 2021 salary cap was set,” he wrote, referring to the league’s March negotiation of over $100 billion in media contracts.“I see him inspiring people to have some confidence in their own thoughts and ideas,” Yee said. “It may sound a bit trite, but in the football world, that’s actually quite innovative.”To Brady’s point, players today have climbed their way back to a 48.5 percent share of the league’s revenue, less than the 50 percent take reportedly in place as part of the 2006 collective bargaining agreement.Boomer Esiason, who was a player representative during the 1987 strike, said he had tried informing players of the increasing disparity between how much team owners received versus the players.“Finally, somebody by the name of Tom Brady alluded to that fact about three weeks ago, how ignorant N.F.L. players are to the amount of money that is available or should be available to them,” Esiason said. “Especially in light that the contracts are not 100 percent guaranteed. I think there is a changing landscape and Tom Brady may have changed it without even realizing that he changed it.”Tom Brady in a preseason game last month. He criticized the N.F.L.’s policies on voluntary off-season workouts.Kim Klement/USA Today Sports, via ReutersQuarterbacks have benefited the most from the increased salaries that are the result of the league’s soaring revenues. For a while, Esiason led the N.F.L. with the highest annual salary of $1.2 million. This off-season, Dak Prescott signed a contract extension with the Dallas Cowboys worth $160 million over four years, with $126 million guaranteed, after a season-ending ankle injury. In Buffalo, Josh Allen inked a six-year, $258 million extension.“You probably feel maybe less pressure to do whatever you’re told to do, and you get more courage to speak up for what you believe in and what you believe is best for the football team,” said Sage Rosenfels, a former N.F.L. journeyman quarterback.But even with the most leverage among their N.F.L. peers, quarterbacks operate within a constrained system. They rarely arrive at free agency because of the franchise and transition tags that are standard practice, and young quarterbacks are often eager to reach lucrative contract extensions, with guaranteed payouts, rather than press for the freedom to test the open market if they’re unhappy with their teams.Those gargantuan contracts further wed a quarterback to his franchise: Teams risk taking a huge salary cap hit letting go of a disgruntled passer, and front offices often can’t add free agents if the quarterback won’t agree to restructure his deal in later years.“We’re getting to a point where the investment in that position is getting closer and closer and, in some respects, exceeds the dollar investments made into athletes from other sports,” Yee said, adding that teams want to see a return on their investment.Steinberg previously represented quarterbacks like Steve Young and Troy Aikman and said those quarterbacks worked in a symbiotic fashion with their teams’ management.“What’s become enhanced is that that position is so critical that teams will search in the draft or through free agency forever and still not be able to solve their problem,” Steinberg said. “So a team that has an incumbent quarterback, over time he almost morphs into another member of the coaching staff. A player that’s been there for years and years, teams want that input. They don’t have to take all his advice, but to not listen to him, they do at their peril.”All the off-season’s smoke from quarterbacks resulted in little fire. Rodgers, Wilson and Watson are still with the franchises they had voiced frustrations about, seemingly changing little about how teams respond to players’ calls for more say-so.“I just go back to the owners,” said Dan Fouts, a Hall of Fame quarterback. “They take care of each other and they’d all like to have a great quarterback, like an Aaron Rodgers, but they’re not going to change the way they do business.”The significant quarterback deals that did occur this off-season involved behind-the-scenes maneuvering that didn’t draw headlines. Detroit dealt Matthew Stafford to the Los Angeles Rams for a package that included the Rams’ incumbent quarterback, Jared Goff. Philadelphia traded Carson Wentz to the Indianapolis Colts for a couple of draft picks.“Everyone is different for their reason for wanting to get traded, released or whatever it may be,” Stafford said. “I just tried to make sure that whenever I got to the new place, I did what I could to make it successful.”Les Snead, Los Angeles’s general manager, said he navigates cases as they come, but it’s natural for players to want their voices acknowledged.“You always have to mix it together and see what’s best for the organization and the player,” Snead said. “Sometimes the organization may think that the player is better for us here, but if he really doesn’t want to be here, then what? We’ve all been a part of somewhere where you’ve worked with someone who really didn’t want to be there. It’s kind of like a toothache. You kind of wish that energy wasn’t there.”In the age of athlete empowerment around sports, players at the N.F.L.’s most crucial position haven’t been able to advance their cause very far.Emmanuel Morgan More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Basket

      Teenage Ballers Can Cash in Earlier Than Ever. But at What Cost?

      by

      Male players as young as 16 have many options to play high-level basketball before the N.B.A. without going to college — and get paid big money to do it.In February, Ramses Melendez, who goes by RJ, announced his college decision in a video posted to his social media accounts. A 4-star forward in the class of 2021, Melendez followed a typical formula for the video: a highlight reel and then a jersey reveal. He strayed from the script for a moment, though, when he acknowledged in a voice-over that “it wasn’t easy to make this decision.”A couple of months later, an unusual phone call made that decision even more difficult.On the other end of the line was Timothy Fuller, a former college basketball coach and the director of recruiting for a new league, Overtime Elite. Backed by investors ranging from the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to the Nets All-Star forward Kevin Durant, Overtime Elite aims to be an alternative to college as a path to the N.B.A. for high-level high school basketball players as young as 16.Fuller had seen Melendez play, and he wanted to offer him a spot in the nascent league. Fuller told Melendez that Overtime would help him prepare for the pros. Fuller also told Melendez that, unlike college, the league could pay him.A lot.Melendez declined to reveal a dollar figure during a recent interview at Rucker Park in New York City, where he was preparing to play in the Omni Elite tournament. But he did say that it was in line with Overtime’s other announced deals.In May, Overtime signed Matt and Ryan Bewley, twin brothers in Florida who are rising high school juniors, to two-year deals reportedly worth at least $1 million apiece. The league has since signed another set of Florida basketball twins for an undisclosed sum, and its leaders have said that it will eventually acquire 30 players who are each making a minimum annual salary of $100,000.“The money was nice, but it wasn’t the most important factor in my decision,” Melendez said. “I want my next step to get me ready to play in the N.B.A. I asked myself: What’s the best way to get there?”This year’s N.B.A. draft, whose order was announced last week with Detroit landing the top pick, isn’t likely to feature any players from the newest alternative paths when it takes place on July 29. But the 2022 draft will be a different story, and players and coaches from middle school to college have taken notice — and taken action.For top-flight high school basketball players, recruiting has often been a high-wire walk without much of a safety net. These teenagers have to discern the trustworthiness of college coaches who text and call them relentlessly, promising playing time and a sure path to the pros. And they have to be wary of boosters and agents and other unscrupulous characters who often offer money and benefits that run afoul of N.C.A.A. rules and the law.Now the best men’s players also have to decide whether it’s worth it to forfeit their college eligibility by turning pro during or immediately after high school.Because of the N.B.A.’s so-called one-and-done rule, American players must be 19 years old and one year removed from their high school graduating class to be eligible to be drafted. But no rule says they must attend college during that year. These new leagues are hoping to lure top players away from the N.C.A.A. with something colleges can’t match: a salary.In addition to Overtime Elite, there is also the N.B.A.’s own elite developmental team, the G League Ignite, which pays top players far and above the salaries for the G League’s regular teams. There is the Professional Collegiate League, which is backed by former Obama administration officials and aims to place 96 players on eight teams this fall. Those players will be compensated up to $150,000 each and receive a lifetime academic scholarship.And there are also overseas professional leagues, from Australia to Europe to China, pursuing American high school stars.“Before it was just, ‘What college am I going to?’” said Samson Johnson, a center from New Jersey who has committed to play for Connecticut in 2021-22. “Now there’s a lot of leagues, and it’s hard to keep up with all this new information. How can you be sure what’s real? It’s risky.”Among top prospects, the G League Ignite team has become the most attractive alternative to college. The G League enjoys the N.B.A.’s backing, and it also has proved it can develop N.B.A. draft prospects.Last year, the Ignite team inked the 5-star guard Jalen Green to a $500,000 contract. Despite playing a shortened season because of the coronavirus pandemic, Green is still considered a top-five pick for this year’s N.B.A. draft in July.Seeing other players succeed in the G League was part of the reason Scoot Henderson decided to graduate from high school early and sign a two-year, $1 million deal with the Ignite.“I wanted to be myself, and I wanted to own myself,” Scoot Henderson said. “With the G League, I get to play at a high level every night.”Lynsey Weatherspoon for The New York TimesHenderson had garnered interest from a professional league in China, from Overtime and from just about every college basketball powerhouse in the country.His decision came down to college or the Ignite team, which offered money, competition and the opportunity to sign endorsements. Despite some scattered progress on names, images and likeness reforms, it remains unclear whether N.C.A.A. athletes will be able to sign endorsement deals this year.“I wanted to be myself, and I wanted to own myself,” Henderson said. “With the G League, I get to play at a high level every night. I can also run camps and sign autographs and sponsor products.”Henderson had an added benefit while weighing his options. His A.A.U. coach, Parrish Johnson, is a longtime friend of Ignite Coach Brian Shaw.But not every elite high school player is so lucky. The N.C.A.A. doesn’t allow high school players to have contacts with agents, so they have to rely on the advice of coaches and family members who are not often familiar with the nuances of professional athletic contracts.Darrell Miller’s son, Brandon, is a top-15 prospect in the class of 2022. Whenever Darrell learns about a new league, he pulls out his laptop and starts Googling. Sometimes he’ll find himself with a dozen tabs open as they’re waiting at the airport for a flight to another A.A.U. tournament.“The scary part is: You just don’t know,” he said. “These are start-ups. They look really nice. They have the coaches. They have the board members. But then you get this feeling: What if? What if that check doesn’t clear? What if my son’s stock drops? If you’re a professional athlete, you’re not allowed to make the same mistakes you can as a college kid. If you choose the wrong college, you can transfer. If you choose the wrong pro league, what’s your backup plan?”Some high school and A.A.U. coaches, who are often players’ closest confidants, are also uncomfortable with their roles.“Your biggest nightmare as a coach is to push a kid in a certain direction and have it not work out,” said Vonzell Thomas, who coaches the A.A.U. team Southern Assault. “Then for the rest of that kid’s life, whenever he thinks of you, he’ll think: That’s the guy who screwed up my life. You never want your name to come up when a kid gets asked why he didn’t make it.”Melendez discussed the Overtime offer with his parents and coaches. They looked at the contract together. Ultimately, he decided to turn the league down and stick with his decision to play at Illinois. It felt, for now, like the safer decision.“I said no because I’ve heard some N.B.A. players talk about how they regret not playing in college,” he said. “I don’t want to find myself in that situation. I didn’t want to wake up next year and feel like I’d made a big mistake. These leagues may turn out to be great opportunities, but I want to be able to see some history first. I want to make sure it works. These decisions change your entire life.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Soccer

      Review: ‘Sisters on Track,’ ‘LFG’ and the Price of Star Power

      by

      Two documentaries explore the flaws of the financial reward systems in elite sports and their effects on the athletes involved.Two documentaries, “Sisters on Track” and “LFG,” explore the achievements of world-class athletes and, more intriguingly, the way money is allocated within sports.“Sisters on Track” follows Tai, Rainn and Brooke Sheppard, three preteen sisters who qualified as junior Olympians in track. The film begins in their first moments of national recognition, as they are invited on to shows like “The View” to discuss their family’s achievements. At the time, their mother was single, working minimum-wage jobs that were insufficient to cover their rent in Brooklyn. The Sheppard family was living in a homeless shelter, and their athletic success is presented as a story of resilience.The documentarians Corinne van der Borch and Tone Grottjord-Glenne show how this flash of national attention granted them immediate opportunity, including an offer by the entertainer Tyler Perry to pay for the family’s housing for two years. Their film follows the Sheppard sisters in vérité style through this period, as their mother, Tonia, and their coach, Jean, guide them through middle school, puberty, nerves and indecision. The shared dream is for all three girls to earn college scholarships.“Sisters on Track” shows a family working within the imperfect system that controls the financial rewards available to them. By contrast, the subjects of “LFG,” (it stands for a soccer rallying cry), are looking to upend the entire pay structure of their sport. The documentary follows the U.S. women’s soccer team as the players pursue a lawsuit against their employer, the United States Soccer Federation, for institutionalized sex discrimination.Soccer stars like Megan Rapinoe, Christen Press and Jessica McDonald explain how the women’s team has to win more games, secure more viewers and generate more revenue to make a wage that is comparable to that of the men’s team. In talking-head interviews with the documentary’s directors, Andrea Nix Fine and Sean Fine, the teammates express their hopes that future generations of girls will be able to earn a living as athletes without having to maintain an unparalleled record within their sport.Jessica McDonald in the soccer documentary “LFG”.HBO MaxBoth films are conventional in cinematic style, and they constitute the kind of feel-good entertainment that is easy to recommend. But what is timely and interesting — even thorny — about these films is their focus on the economic opportunities generated by athletic achievement. For the Sheppard family, continued track success pushes closed doors open, granting the sisters access to shelter, scholarships and private school admissions that might have otherwise been beyond their means. But as they plan ahead for college — its opportunities and its expenses — they know they have to maintain their national records if they want to translate early success into lifelong stability.Unlike the Sheppards, who are at the start of their athletic careers, the women of the national soccer team have already proven themselves as world champions. But their astronomical achievements have not translated into astronomical earnings, suggesting that a glass ceiling looms over all women in sports. Both documentaries question how much success women must achieve to attain financial stability, and both films find that it’s not enough to be very good. To translate physical ability into financial gain, you have to be the best in the country, if not the best in the world.Though both movies are peppered with promises that everything will work out in the long run, they also function as documents of the exploitation that elite athletes experience. Here, superhuman strength runs straight into all-too-recognizable barriers — poor working conditions, low wages, discrimination, corporate greed. The subjects of “Sisters on Track” and “LFG” confront challenges with the mentality of champions, but that doesn’t make the opposition any less daunting.LFGNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 45 minutes. Watch on HBO Max.Sisters on TrackRated PG. Running time: 1 hour 36 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Football

      N.F.L. Salary Cap to Rise as Much as 14 Percent in 2022 Amid Pandemic Rebound

      by

      If fans are in stadiums and games are played as anticipated in 2021, the salary cap for 2022 could be as much as $208.2 million.The N.F.L. and the N.F.L. Players Association on Wednesday agreed to raise the salary cap by as much as 14 percent, to a maximum of $208.2 million, for the 2022 season, according to a person with direct knowledge of the agreement, a sign that the league is quickly rebounding from the financial havoc caused by the coronavirus pandemic last season.The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement had not been announced.After losing roughly $4 billion in revenue last season because of prohibitions on fans attending games, the league and the players’ union agreed to cut the salary cap — or the maximum amount teams can spend on player payroll — by 8 percent, to $182.5 million, for the 2021 season. This was only the second time the cap had been lowered since the spending limit was introduced in 1994. For the 2020 season, the salary cap — which was based on revenue from 2019 ticket sales and from preset 2020 media-deal numbers — was $198.2 million.Once the lost revenue from 2021 was calculated, the owners and the union — which split the revenue each year, with about 53 percent going to team owners and 47 percent to players — agreed to reduce the salary cap’s growth over several years rather than take a more drastic decline for one or two seasons. But now it seems that the cap will rise roughly as was expected before the pandemic.N.F.L. revenue appears likely to rebound more quickly than anticipated, for several reasons. In the coming season, the league will add a 17th regular season game, which will generate more ticket revenue for teams. Also, nearly all of the 32 teams have announced plans to host full-capacity crowds at their games this fall. The league drew just 1.2 million fans last year, down from about 17 million before the pandemic.The league also plans to return to playing several games outside the United States in 2021, after canceling all international travel last season.“We do expect a more normal experience” this season, Commissioner Roger Goodell said on a conference call with reporters.The N.F.L. also expects more income from its new media contracts, including the sale to Amazon of the rights to show Thursday Night Football starting in 2022. Amazon agreed to pay an estimated $1.1 billion per year for 10 years to show those games, about 35 percent more than Fox, which is entering the final year of its agreement.Many of the other new media agreements that the league secured in March, with CBS, NBC and other networks, do not begin until the 2023 season, all but ensuring that the salary cap will continue to grow in the coming years.The league typically announces the salary cap for the upcoming season at its owners meeting in December. The $208.2 million cap for the 2022 season presumes all games will be played in full stadiums. If those plans change, the cap might be lowered.Separately, the N.F.L. owners, in a one-day meeting on Wednesday, approved limits on team rosters. Teams will be able to invite 90 players to training camps when they open in late July. The rosters will have to be cut to 85 on Aug. 17, 80 on Aug. 24 and 53 on Aug. 31, after the third and final preseason game.Goodell declined to say what percentage of players were currently vaccinated. The league and union agreed to loosen restrictions on players who are vaccinated, in hopes of increasing the number of people who are inoculated. The league said that more than 90 percent of essential staff members on 30 of the 32 teams had already been vaccinated.The owners also approved an expansion of the prohibition against blocking below the waist. Players will now be penalized if they block an opponent below the waist beyond 5 yards on either side of the line of scrimmage and more than 2 yards outside of either offensive tackle. The rule is designed to reduce the risk of knee and ankle injuries. More