U.S. Soccer has taken the U.S. Women’s National Team’s players union to court.
On Wednesday, the U.S. federation “reluctantly” filed a lawsuit against the USWNT players union after union representative and executive director Richard Nichols said he did not believe there to be a collective bargaining agreement currently in place. U.S. Soccer is arguing there is a valid labor agreement.
A statement from U.S. Soccer said a CBA has been in place since 2013 and is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2016.
“While unfortunate, we believe taking this action provides the parties with the most efficient path to a resolution, in an effort to not jeopardize the team’s participation in any competitions this year, including the 2016 Olympic Games,” U.S. Soccer said. “Obtaining a prompt resolution on the validity of the current CBA will allow both parties to focus on continuing negotiations in good faith on the next CBA that would start in 2017.”
According to the official case filing provided by Philly.com, Nichols is arguing that the “Memorandum of Understanding” created in March 2013 does not serve as a valid CBA.
“Mr. Nichols unilaterally declared that the current collective bargaining agreement will terminate on February 24, 2016 (not on December 31, 2016 as agreed), and thereafter suggested that the Women’s National Team members will no long er be bound by the ‘no strike’ clause and, therefore, will be entitled to ‘engage in actions’ unless the parties agree to a new collective bargaining agreement,” U.S. Soccer’s official complaint said.
When talking to the Guardian last Thursday, Nichols said he expected the union and federation to come to an agreement on a new CBA by the end of the year. However, Nichols recently explained in a letter to U.S. Soccer that the players union saw the current CBA to be invalid, and unless a new one was created by Feb. 24, the players would be able to strike.
In response to Wednesday’s filing, Nichols told the The New York Times that the union had not threatened to strike, but that U.S. Soccer felt it did so the federation decided to sue before that date.
“U.S. Soccer felt it necessary to take this course of action after Richard Nichols … notified U.S. Soccer that he does not believe there to be a current CBA, a position which would allow the team to take labor actions on and after February 24 – a view inconsistent with the negotiating history and directly contrary to the position of the prior Executive Director who actually negotiated the current agreement,” the federation’s statement said.
The tensions between the two sides escalated in December, when the U.S. Women’s National Team boycotted a friendly match against Trinidad & Tobago in Hawaii. The game was subsequently canceled due to the poor field conditions.
“They’ve had to endure second-class citizenship under the offices of US Soccer for many years,” Nichols told the Guardian. “They’ve suffered injuries from playing on turf all these years. They’ve sucked it up and said: ‘We’re gonna do it for the good of the cause.’ But there comes a time when you can’t take it any more.”
What do you think of this development? How do you think the lawsuit will play out?
Share your thoughts below.
I think it is pretty ballsy of the gals to threaten a work stoppage in an Olympic year. They stand to make a lot of bonus money for going and placing, so they are putting their money where their mouth is.
the fact that Rapinoe was injured on a terrible practice field for this particular contest would seem to be very relevant to the current discussion – the men do not have to endure these conditions
I’ve seen the men play on some pretty awful fields. The US and Mexico should have refused to play at the Alamo Dome last year. Guys legs were going out from under them all over that disaster.
Why even mention Rapinoe’s injury. Every report I have ever seen (until this one) has made it clear that her very unfortunate injury did not happen at the field in question. Anyone not knowing that would inescapably draw the conclusion from this article that her injury was a result of the game-field conditions. Yes, US Soccer did a completely unacceptable job preparing for Hawaii. That may have worsened the relationship with the players. However, Rapinoe’s injury is not relevant.
I think this article should include why the USWNT doesn’t believe there is current CBA.
Yea, the SBI article is vague and incomplete. That’s the reason I went elsewhere to find out more to the story (that I posted on here).
And I appreciate that post a lot, but I’m still wishing SBI would put a little more effort, thought, and editing into their articles about complex and controversial issues.
I would have liked your comment more if it was more expansive and elaborate. I’m aware of the pay gap and pitch conditions, but I don’t know if that is part of their official argument on why the current CBA is considered invisible. I would at least expect to hear their representative’s reasoning on why they consider the last CBA invalid. Or that the USWNT knew the CBA existed at all! This article makes it look like the USWNT is clueless or something. . .
“What? We didn’t know about any CBA. What’s that?” – USWNT
So goes the website since Ives left, unfortunately (and yes I’m using the term “left” intentionally).
Maybe we’ll read more in-depth coverage about it on Goal.com
I have not read the MOU, but i did read all 117 pages of the lawsuit files in the US District Court, Philly.com Staff writer Jeff Tannenwald has most of the relevant excerpts from the CBA, the MOU (memoradom of understanding) and the lawsuit in an article covering it
What it comes down to is that the new General Counsel of the US Womens National Team Players Assoc. (WNTPA), has taken the USSF to task by declaring they will issue a Rescission of the MOU in place now, that extends the expired 2012 CBA to the end of 2016.
To head this off the USSF has filed a suit and ask for a declaratory judgement that the US WNTPA abide by the MOU and CBA and in not doing so is a breach of the CBA, and seek further monetary damages and other relief.
What the USSF is afraid of is a strike, the CBA does not allow a strike by the US WNTPA or a lockout by the USSF. The MOU is less clear. But a rescission of MOU are allowable under law unless it’s made clear that no rescission is allowed (it does not). The USSF wants to keep the MOU in force until it expires at the end of 2016 and it has declared that the rescission is, in fact, a breach of contract. The USWNT says no, they have declared the MOU as terminable “at will” and will do so before the expiration of the MOU.
That’s it in a nutshell.
I’m reading a threat of work stoppage is on the horizon. Primarily regarding wage gap between men and women’s players, field conditions, etc.