…according this CNN article due to facts.
Key passage (bold mine):
However, Judge R. Gary Klausner wrote in his decision that members of the USWNT did not prove wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the women’s team played more games and made more money than the men’s team.The women’s team also rejected a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where they would have the same pay structure as the men’s team in favor of a different CBA, Klausner wrote.The women’s CBA guarantees that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not, while the men’s CBA calls for players to be paid if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match, according to the summary judgment.Klausner wrote that the women were asking for a court to conclude that the women were paid less than men because had the women been paid under the men’s CBA, they would have earned more than they did under their own CBA.“This approach — merely comparing what each team would have made under the other team’s CBA — is untenable in this case because it ignores the reality that the MNT and WNT bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the WNT explicitly rejected the terms they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves,” Klausner wrote.
Is what’s in bold a true statement?
If so, this should have been a key element reported in this story from the beginning.
So, this isn’t an “oppressed” (women players) / “oppressor” (USSF) story as it has been made up to be in the media?
This is a story where the women players were not happy with the deal they, or their predecessors, had made?
My guess is they weren’t happy because they did the math after the fact and realized they made a bad deal. Which is a story in of itself, but a different story than what we have been hearing.
Can the media give us the real story on anything?