In class, we’ve talked a lot about the US Soccer Federation and its treatment of men’s and women’s national teams. The question posed was why the US Soccer Federation wasn’t held to the same gender standards that Title IX exercises on teams at the University level. Based on this 2014 article in the Washington Post, it seems that Title IX doesn’t apply to the US Soccer Federation. That’s because the majority of their funding isn’t federal. Rather, it comes from long-term corporate sponsorships, particularly those from Nike. In fact, the Federation anticipates approximately $20 million in sponsorship revenue, including $4 million from Nike designated for player development. Hopefully, this will lead to an academy process similar to that in Europe.
Interestingly enough, based on the anticipated revenue distribution, it does seem that USSF is making a push for women’s soccer to succeed. As Cindy Parlow mentioned in class, the USSF is helping to fund the still-growing National Women’s Soccer League, contributing over $800,000 to the program, an increase in their contribution from last year by almost $300,000. In that sense, it does seem that the USSF is using its funding to support the development of the women’s game in the US. However, upon further inspection, it is clear that there is still bias in their fund distribution. That’s clear once you take a look at the budget for coaching salaries. For men’s and women’s programs in all age groups, the combined salary budget is $4 million dollars. Of that budget, $2.5 million goes to this man:
Jurgen Klinnsman, pictured above, is the head coach for the US men’s national team. While the USSF has certainly made strides to be inclusive in terms of the funds distributed to the women’s national team, the fact that more than half of coaching funds are given to one man makes it clear that there is a bias in favor of the men’s team. Moreover, the fact that the US women’s national team does not have such a well-paid head coach makes their significant international accomplishments that much more significant.
I would be interested to hear what the breakdown is of the other half of funds distributed to USSF coaches. Considering how many coaches there are on the men’s and the women’s teams, the women’s head coach must make a minimal salary compared to Klinnsman. Its great that USSF has more than doubled its funding to the women’s team in the past year. However, is this in anticipation of the women’s world cup, or will the USSF continue to increase funding to the women’s team after this summer?
Interesting post! What strikes me is the inequity in pay for the head coaches. There are probably plenty of coaches, men and women, that are equally as qualified and as good at coaching as the head men’s coach. Paying the men’s coach more just seems like a blatant prioritization of the men’s team. Also, if they receive any form of federal funding, do you think they should still be exempt from federal requirements like Title IX? Or do you think that as long as less than half of their funding is federal, then they can make decisions on their own?