Here is what I’d do from the management side in a new collective bargaining agreement between the US Soccer Federation and the US Women’s National Team Players Association:

  • Major increases in the level of money spent on residency/camp compensation, per-game salaries/appearance fees, results-oriented bonuses, etc.
  • Provide EVERY NWSL team with a $400,000 subsidy for their player expenses.
  • Make equal ALL perquisites between the US Men’s National Team and the US Women’s National Team (flights, hotels, bonuses, etc.).
  • Greater revenue sharing on home friendlies (currently the players get somewhere around $1.50 on each ticket sold)

In exchange for that significant increase in money available and allotted for women’s soccer:

  • The player pool limit, guaranteed compensation, and tiered system of salaries as exposed in the Memorandum of Understanding which currently operates (in part) as an extension of the CBA that expired at the end of 2012 would be eliminated.
  • Implement a upward sliding scale for call-ups (first call-up $2000, second $2500, third $3000, etc.) up to a max of $5000.

Any dollar figures in this proposal are placeholders and not to be construed as concrete values.

WoSo fandom, bring your knowledge of the current situation and help expound/expand upon this.


4 thoughts on “A New CBA for USWNT

  1. Questions that come to mind at first reading:
    1- By providing subsidy to NWSL teams, there is NO incentive for NT players to play domestically, thus undercutting management’s support of NWSL. How would players be enticed to play there, since for this CBA NWSL salaries will not be commensurate w/international offerings in most sought after instances?

    2- Is $400K to be used solely for NT expenses, or could it be siphoned off to pay for international players, again undercutting managements support of NWSL?

    3- Even with a $400K subsidy to NWSL teams, will NT players w/no guarantee of a salary -since WoSo is not at a sustainable wage career point yet, here or worldwide- choose to leave the game, or not even enter the senior team to make a career elsewhere? Will the best stay in the game?

    While from a money-saving point of view all these measures make sense, and will give coaches more latitude when constructing teams, I’m not sure the sport is at a level to implement them at this CBA. I’d like to see one more cycle with close to the current standards in place and maybe a gradual move over the course of the CBA closer to the author’s idea. The suggested measures certainly have merit, but I feel if they were to be negotiated for this CBA it would be too drastic a change to be a good thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. 1 – Some players won’t choose to go abroad for the larger check, though some will and that needs to be taken into account by the Fed (the lack of free access to players outside of international windows), which means they cannot operate under the same premises of USWNT > pro soccer that currently exists on both sides.

    2 – The $400k would be to replace the Fed’s paying the players directly (or theoretically allocating them to the clubs). The club wage would be determined between player and club. The NT players were pulling $56k for playing in the league in 2015 as a supplement to their NT salary and I can see some of them being able to make more than that (Broon might be worth 100k or $120k to FCKC, thus being a significant jump over the $56k) and it would allow them to spread that money out over more of the roster (the mid-level player that COULD be NT-level were it not for the protectionist deal in place, for instance) should they not have that many “allocated” players. I’d rather the money go to the clubs and them decide how to allocate it with the caveat that it’s a separate “pool” that can only be used on USWNT-eligible players. If a club wanted to pay bigger dollars for internationals, it would have to do so relative to the salary cap in place for NWSL.

    I don’t necessarily see this as money-saving, because I feel the Fed needs to throw a LOT more money into women’s soccer and the WNT program. I see getting the policy changes going forward being the most important thing in a new CBA and the Fed should spend whatever might be necessary to make that happen.


    • 1- You lost me on the free access part and that still doesn’t address what keeps players at home. Help me out.

      2- I’m a little confused. Are you saying teams would get $400K AND allocated players? How could we* “allocate” a player if they were not under contract to us to play in the league? And what would be the purpose of allocation then? What if a player was “allocated” to a team and the team chose to pay them a paltry sum, would they then be free to look elsewhere or would there be a league minimum? I think this just adds a layer of bureaucracy that doesn’t need to exist. As management, I don’t see how this is a plus for us. I think the benefit to the league isn’t sufficient to warrant giving up the control we currently have over where players play. If this were phased in over the course of the CBA, say 25% a year for 4 years until the $400K is reached, then it makes more sense.

      Also, what would be the definition of “COULD be NT-level”? Doesn’t that include every player who isn’t an international, minus green cards? And how would salary cap be administered?

      I definitely think this would be a money-saver simply because equal prerequisites allowing some economy of scale and a flat fee to NWSL. Of course we would be paying out more on the first items mentioned in the post, but I assume we would also negotiate for a bigger say in how many such events take place therefor being able to somewhat control costs.

      *My use of we/us reflects looking at this from managements viewpoint.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. 1 – With the mandate that all USWNT players be domestic-based (i.e., playing in NWSL), the Fed and their coaches have the freedom to call them into NT camp at pretty much any time they want, as opposed to only being able to get players during FIFA-specified windows of time (think of Little or Fishlock or the Australians with respect to their national teams and that their clubs are only obligated to release them to their NTs for WWC qualifiers and matches, continental championships/qualifiers, and friendlies scheduled during FIFA-determined windows). As for players choosing to stay in the US, there may be reasons other than money (relationships, comfort, other professional opportunities in the NWSL off-season) that would keep them here. Alex Morgan I am sure could make a LOT more money playing in Europe but I don’t see her making that jump for off-field reasons.

    2 – The salary subsidy to NWSL clubs would replace allocation, in that the clubs would pay the players instead of the Fed. Players would be free to negotiate their own wage with their current club, with minimums in place (using the current MOU value of $56k, a $66k minimum would make sense). We’d probably have to phase this in over time (years 1 and 2, we pay the clubs for specific players they currently have; years 3 and 4, they get the money and decide what they pay to or if they keep those players). On the point of “could be NT-level”, players like Bucz, Hagen, Tymrak, Edwards, Winters who if not for the current CBA can and should have gotten matches/camps/call-ups to the full WNT. With a pool of money from the Fed to subsidize his roster, Huw might decide and be able to give Bucz an extra $10k or $15k over the current NWSL max salary, money that wouldn’t count against the cap since it is coming from the 400k USSF subsidy.

    Thanks for bringing up some of these points. I wanted people to jump in and expand my thinking on the original argument of getting rid of the guaranteed contracts and limited player pool (what I think the Fed HAS to get done in the next CBA no matter the $ they have to shell out) and how we might be able to get there.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s