That idea [equality of opportunity] is predicated on the idea—to speak somewhat cynically, and to therefore not tell the whole story—that talent is widely distributed although comparatively rare. This should come as no surprise to anyone, given that some people are much better at doing a given task, no matter what it is, than others and, because of that, it is in everyone’s selfish interest, in the narrowest sense, to allow such talent to come to the forefront so that we can all benefit.
Equity is a whole different ballgame. It is predicated on the idea that the only certain measure of “equality”, is outcome; educational, social, and occupational. The equity-pushers assume axiomatically that if all positions at every level of hierarchy in every organization are not occupied by a proportion of the population that is precisely equivalent to that proportion in the general population, that systemic prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) is definitely at play, and that there are perpetrators who should be limited or punished that have or are currently producing that prejudice. –Jordan Peterson
Peterson says “There is simply no excuse for this doctrine.” And I agree. But this doctrine dominates the thinking of the simple minded, who have been taken up by the dialectic of Hagel and Marx, which is an ideology that pits one group against the other in an endless struggle. A way to establish a new order through the chaos of societal division. “Ordo Ab Chao“. Now where have I seen that phrase before? Hmmm…
Anyway, the attempt to establish a new order out of chaos has been quite clear in the whole U.S. Women’s National team suing for equal pay brouhaha.
As Yahoo Sports, (a major contributor to the Ordo Ab Chao cause) reports: “The equal pay lawsuit filed by the United States women’s national team has been dealt a major blow. A judge granted summary judgment Friday in favor of the U.S. Soccer Federation, arguing that the USWNT’s claims of being paid less than their male counterparts were insufficient to warrant a trial.”
The Judge ruled that the women “cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure,”
Which is true. As the Yahoo Sports article reports, the judge agreed with U.S. Soccer’s main argument, that “the USWNT players have been paid under the exact structure they sought in collective bargaining negotiations and the players “asked for a very different contract” that offered them benefits the men didn’t get in their contracts.”
But with the men making more money, even under terms and conditions more favourable to the women, USWNT all of a sudden decided that the contracts were oppressive and unfair.
Why is this not shocking at all?
USWNT spokeswoman Molly Levinson, said the women will “immediately appeal.”
“We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision,” she added. “But we will not give up our hard work for equal pay.”
U.S. Soccer spokesman Neil Buethe kept it classy.
“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.”
Four years ago, John Smallwood of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote about this wage squabble.
“Last Friday, five members of the United States Women’s National Team filed a wage discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They say it is unfair that the USSF pays them about a quarter less than what they pay the men when they represent the United States in international competition.”
Smallwood argued that the assumption men and women play the same sport (even when they share a name) is false.
“In almost every way,” he wrote, “from the style of play to officiating to the way they are regarded by fans and the general public, women’s and men’s sports are different games even when they have the same names.”
The reporter posited that “No one who watched both the NCAA men’s and women’s championship games can honestly say they watched the same sport.”
And no one who’s watched (Association) football will argue that the women’s game is the same sport. In fact, if the women are so concerned about equal pay, why won’t they swap salaries with the US Under 15 men’s team that reportedly destroyed them in an unofficial game? Fair is fair after all.
“As far as the suit by the women’s national team soccer players,” Smallwood argues, “I have no issue with the concept of equal pay for equal work.” but “That does not apply in this case.”
“Compensation in professional sports” penned Smallwood “is generally based on how much revenue a player can generate in relation to other players. LeBron James is infinitely more valuable to a team as a revenue builder than Ish Smith – hence the huge disparity in their salaries.”
And that really is the bottom line. It’s like a blogger (for example) with far less views than Breitbart, demanding the same amount in Ad revenue from Google, on the basis he produces the same number of articles in the same line of work. It’s just insane and in the long run unsustainable.
If the women get their way, while generating far less money than the men, it could harm U.S. Soccer’s ability to function profitably and effectively moving forward.
What about 2015, you may ask.
True in 2015, the USWNT did in fact generate more money than the men did.
Smallwood, in his brilliant article, did not ignore this. He did however, refer to it as “a nice shell game” played by the USWNT.
“It is true that the women generated $20 million more than the men in 2015” wrote Smallwood “– but 2015 was a FIFA World Cup year for the women. During the men’s 2014 FIFA World Cup, it’s been reported that the USA men’s team brought in around 50 times that number in revenue.”
So there goes that USWNT argument. And again, if fair is fair, the men ought to be getting 50 times the pay the women get, not barely more, as is the case now.
What’s truly remarkable is that the women are the ones up in arms over wage gaps, and not the men.
But I digress.
“Companies paid more than $600 million for the 451 thirty-second television commercials at the 2014 World Cup.” Smallwood continues. “The 2015 Women’s Cup drew about $40 million.”
The disparity in revenue generation between the two World Cups, men’s and women’s, is not shocking at all, for anyone who follows the sport. What is truly incredible is that this disparity, isn’t reflected in the wages the two groups get. But guess who’s filing lawsuits about unfair pay.
“The USA women’s team got $2 million for winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup” recounts Smallwood. “While the men got $9 million for getting knocked out in the round of 16 in the 2014 World Cup because FIFA awarded the bonuses.”
“The EEOC can’t tell an international business how to give out its prize money. ” contends Smallwood, concluding “That disparity in pay is a function of the business market and not sex discrimination.“
Couldn’t have put it any better.