# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Richard Nixon signed Title IX into law on June 23, 1972, he wasn't thinking about the future FIFA Women's World Cups he was helping to advance (including the 2023 edition, kicking off this week in Australia and New Zealand). There are two reasons.

The first is that, at the time, hardly anyone gave any thought to how a law granting equality of educational opportunities between the genders would affect sport. No one then imagined that the public would come to associate Title IX primarily with collegiate sports; and certainly no one could have foreseen that the law's revolutionary impact on women's sport would be felt globally.

The second reason is that President Nixon, however visionary he might be on his rare good days, had far more pressing matters on his mind that June 23. That same morning, he had a conversation with Bob Haldeman, his chief of staff, that would come to be known as Watergate's "smoking gun" that cost him his presidency. You know, the one where the two men discussed (on tape, no less) having the CIA order the FBI to back off from investigating the prior weekend's break-in at the Democratic National Committee.

Nixon is long gone, Watergate has been superseded by plenty of other presidential scandals, but Title IX's influence on the women's version of soccer - the world's default sport - remains an ongoing, underappreciated success story.
With Title IX, Women's Soccer Wins
It didn't happen overnight, but Title IX forced a level of investment in women's sports without precedent in this or any other country. Women's soccer was a prime beneficiary, the recipient of scholarships and infrastructure funding meant to partially offset the lavish but-don't-call-it-professional level of support colleges provide their men's American football programs.

As a result, by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. intercollegiate athletics stood at the apex of the women's game, offering the best-resourced, highest level of competition anywhere in the world. (This isn't saying that much given the cultural headwinds the game encountered elsewhere.) Sports aren't inherently gendered, but culture dictated that in countries where soccer was deeply embedded as the sport of choice, it was established as a manly pursuit. Girls and women wanting to play were actively dissuaded from taking the field, pointed instead to other sports or no sports at all. To this day, the idea of women playing soccer encounters far more resistance in Britain, for example, than it does in the United States, not because British society is generally less enlightened than American society, but because soccer there is the incumbent, male "contact sport." In Britain, opening soccer fields to girls is more culturally akin to providing girls opportunities to play American football in this country, as opposed to ceding them an unclaimed sport.

"Title IX forced a level of investment in women's sports without precedent in this or any other country."

Paradoxically, then, it was the fact that soccer was so historically neglected and peripheral in the United States, where we had our own incumbent "macho" varietal of football, that allowed American women to thrive at it more quickly, make it their own, and gain global ascendancy. Until very recently, American colleges offered the only top-level talent incubators for the women's game anywhere, courtesy of Title IX. The first U.S. team that won a major international tournament, the first-ever FIFA Women's World Cup in China in 1991, was essentially the University of North Carolina team, coached by the legendary Anson Dorrance, who, in addition to leading the Tar Heels, served as head coach of the United States Women's National Team (USWNT) from 1986 to 1994.

The virtuous cycle of millions of young girls taking up recreational soccer across the country, inspired by the collegiate athletes conquering the world through Olympic Games and World Cups, helped naturalize a sport previously deemed as suspiciously foreign as the metric system and socialism. By the time of Brandi Chastain's iconic celebration of her winning goal at the 1999 World Cup, watched by 18 million viewers on ABC, the term "soccer mom" had become ensconced in the lexicon of American politics to represent mainstream, suburban, white middle-class voters.

Conversely, what Title IX and the success of the women's game in America did globally was launch an aspirational contagion, a proof of concept that women's sports were worth investing in - and not merely as a matter of gender equity. The phenomenal success of the American college athletes who comprised the USWNT showed the world that, like any compelling elite sport, women's soccer could capture the imagination and interest of massive audiences.
Going Global
Title IX didn't just inspire foreign athletes as a distant model. American colleges have long been a magnet for athletes from all over the world. NCAA women's soccer continues to be among the international game's top leagues and most proficient incubators of talent. More than 20,000 international athletes compete each year across all sports in the three divisions of the NCAA - and at last year's NCAA Division I soccer tournament, student players from 35 nations were represented. The university where we teach, Arizona State University, included 13 international players from 7 countries on its roster last season. One of New Zealand's players at the upcoming World Cup, Gabi Rennie, is an ASU senior.

The global game that U.S. collegiate athletics helped launch is now being transformed by serious investment in many other countries at the professional level. Across Europe over the past decade, despite the still considerable cultural headwinds, venerable men's clubs like Manchester United and Real Madrid have finally gotten around to establishing women's teams to compete in the same uniforms.

The development of professional leagues and clubs for women players in other countries are creating new pathways for their players: Spain's roster headed to the Women's World Cup this week, for instance, doesn't include any players who ever played in U.S. colleges. Germany has only one player with American collegiate experience, though England has four, including three former Tar Heels.

Countries like the Philippines, meanwhile, that have yet to create a professional women's league of their own, still rely on American colleges to develop their talent - seventeen of the 23 Philippine players headed for the country's inaugural World Cup play or have played in NCAA programs.

The U.S. roster, for its part, includes three players (Lindsey Horan, Trinity Rodman, and Alyssa Thompson) who opted to forego the college game in their own country to go pro earlier. This will become more common as the women's game grows and offers players better pay and more talent development opportunities. As in the men's game, the day may come when the opportunity cost for the top players to play in college becomes too high.

The growth of the professional women's game in Europe and elsewhere will also chisel away at American dominance. Within the past year, the USWNT has lost friendlies against Germany, England, and Spain. But no need to despair. If we win fewer trophies in women's soccer in coming years, that will still be an American success story, given how much credit Title IX can claim for launching the sport globally.

Richard Nixon should be proud, regardless of whatever else he was up to that June 23.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FIFA, Meet Title IX: How the U.S. Law Elevated Women's Sport to New Heights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Title IX helped launch women's soccer as a global sensation - setting an equity standard and influencing how women's sport is viewed today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Representatives for the men's and women's U.S. national teams on Tuesday signed their historic collective bargaining agreements with U.S. Soccer, formally closing a long and sometimes acrimonious fight over equal pay.

The federation announced in May that it had struck separate agreements with the players' unions on contracts that run through 2028. The new contracts include identical pay structures for appearances and tournament victories, revenue sharing and equitable distribution of World Cup prize money.

A signing ceremony was held following the women's friendly match against Nigeria at Audi Field in Washington, with Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh among those on hand.

"I have to give a lot of credit to everyone involved, the women's national team and their PA (players' association), the men's national team and their PA, and everyone at U.S. Soccer. There were so many people that helped, that worked together to make this happen," said U.S. Soccer President Cindy Parlow Cone, herself a former national team player. "And it wouldn't get pushed over the line without the men jumping in and being on board with equal pay."

After years of struggling for equitable pay and treatment, The U.S. women filed a federal gender discrimination against U.S. Soccer in 2019. The lawsuit drew international attention, prompting fans to chant "Equal Pay!" when the United States won the Women's World Cup final in France.
WATCH: U.S. soccer legend Briana Scurry opens up about the highs and lows of her career
In February, the two sides settled the lawsuit, with U.S. Soccer agreeing to pay the women $24 million. But the settlement was contingent on reaching new labor agreements with both teams.

The men had been playing under the terms of a CBA that expired in December 2018. The women's CBA expired at the end of March, but talks continued after the lawsuit was settled.

The sticking point in negotiations was World Cup prize money, which is based on how far a team advances in soccer's most prestigious tournament. While the U.S. women have been successful on the international stage with back-to-back World Cup titles, differences in FIFA prize money meant they took home far less than the men's winners. American women received a $110,000 bonus for winning the 2019 World Cup; the U.S. men would have received $407,000 had they won in 2018.

The unions agreed to pool FIFA's payments for the men's World Cup later this year and next year's Women's World Cup, as well as for the 2026 and 2027 tournaments.

Because the men's national team players are currently in league play, the CBA was signed by USNSTPA Executive Director Mark Levinstein. Women's players Crystal Dunn, Becky Sauerbrunn and Sam Mewis also signed, along with USWNTPA Executive Director Becca Roux.

Sauerbrunn addressed the crowd.

"I want to thank all of you guys for the support, all the social media posts, the messages of support, the chants of `Equal Pay' at really funny times, showing up at our games. You guys make the difference and you are truly, truly the best fans in the world," she said.

Former players Kristine Lilly, Briana Scurry and Lori Lindsey also attended the on-field ceremony after the U.S. defeated Nigeria 2-1.

With the CBAs accepted, a federal judge in August gave preliminary approval approved the settlement. A hearing to finalize it is set for December.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. men's and women's soccer teams formally sign equal pay agreements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Representatives for the men's and women's U.S. national teams on Tuesday signed their historic collective bargaining agreements with U.S. Soccer, formally closing a long and sometimes acrimonious fight over equal pay. The federation announced in May that it had struck separate agreements with the players' unions on contracts that run through 2028.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fight for Equal Pay: From Women's Soccer to Corporate America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In February, the USWNT settled their class action lawsuit over unequal pay and treatment against the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) for $24 million, the two sides announced in a joint statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perhaps it's not fair to call the US women's soccer team's $24m "equal pay" settlement a Pyrrhic victory.

Let's instead call it a pyromaniac's victory. A lot of money was piled up and set on fire.

Thanks to a filing by the US women's legal team, we can now quantify at least part of that cost: "(T)he Court should award Plaintiffs' counsel $6.6 million in attorneys' fees and approve reimbursement of $1,369,127 ($1,319,127 plus $50,000) in expenses."

According to that filing, the women who stand to collect that settlement are fine with that money - with the exception of Hope Solo, who has not settled a separate lawsuit against US Soccer and has pounced on those legal fees in an effort to block the settlement with her former teammates.

The women's legal team's filing includes plenty of self-aggrandizement about the landmark settlement and the collective bargaining agreement that followed, the latter of which was a multiparty conversation that would be at best tangentially related to the lawyers' aggressive posture. What's mentioned a bit less frequently is one little detail:
They lost the case.
In the court of public opinion, the women did quite well. The fuzzy math and torturous logic of their legal team's filings meant little when weighed against an unsympathetic US Soccer Federation, whose own lawyers drastically misstepped with a filing that claimed women have less "ability" than men, a move that precipitated the resignation of tone-deaf federation president Carlos Cordeiro. Few people critically examined the half-truths and outright distortions of arguments in which players making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year were portrayed as paupers who couldn't afford child care. Such claims were not subject to cross-examination.

In the court of law, the women lost the bulk of their case on summary judgment, a decision that surprised the media but was less of a surprise to lawyers who actually examined the case and sought alternative remedies for the team. The key factor was that the US women had always negotiated not just for a different pay scale but for a different pay structure - many women were on salaries while the men played for bonuses only.

"The WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," Judge R Gary Klausner wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs 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."

Simply put, when the evidence was put before any critical examination in which the opposition could be heard, the women's lawyers lost.

In their filing arguing for nearly $8m, the lawyers make a passing reference to the decision, but only to claim that the case was quite complicated: "The legal side too presented novel complexities, particularly on how to understand and apply an equal 'rate of pay' when presented with competing collective bargaining agreements involved differing and complicated pay structures. Navigating this key issue, especially with the intricate facts here, demanded "a high level of skill and high-quality work to overcome. ... Indeed, this very issue decided summary judgment and became the focus of Plaintiffs' Ninth Circuit appeal."

The women's lead lawyer, Jeff Kessler, has been wildly successful in cases involving sports other than soccer. But he has a track record of losing cases against US Soccer, only to drag them out on appeal.

At least this particular case settled before going back to court, and it's little wonder Kessler and company want to count it as a win. But how much was spent to get to that place?

The settlement is $22m in back pay and $2m in grants for players' service to the game after their playing days are done. If the legal team takes an $8m cut, that's $14m in back pay and the $2m in grants.

skip past newsletter promotion

Sign up to Moving the Goalposts

No topic is too small or too big for us to cover as we deliver a twice-weekly roundup of the wonderful world of women's football
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Would the federation have settled the case for that much money several years ago?

Perhaps, especially when we consider how much the federation spent on its own legal fees. The federation's 990 forms show some staggering bills for outside counsel. In the fiscal year ending March 2021, US Soccer paid $9.17m to Latham & Watkins and $3.2m to other firms. The year before, it was nearly $9m to Latham & Watkins. We can't assume all of these costs went to the women's suit because the federation is also facing other lawsuits - against plaintiffs also represented by Kessler - but it's safe to say the federation threw a considerable amount of money to trial lawyers as well as its own in-house counsel, perhaps especially after a reshuffling prompted by the same legal filing that doomed Cordeiro.

US Soccer considered those expenses worthwhile because they were better than a $67m payout. Cindy Cone, the Hall of Fame player who replaced Cordeiro as president, frankly said that such an award would likely bankrupt the federation, and accounting at the time supported her case.

The federation's bottom line looks better now, thanks in part to punting elite youth development to professional and youth-specific clubs and thanks in part to lower expenses during the pandemic. But the cost of this case and its settlement is still staggering.

And rank-and-file members of US Soccer are angry that so much of the federation's budget is going toward the elite few, both players and lawyers, to such an extent that they tried to replace Cone with, of all people, the previously ousted Cordeiro. The new collective bargaining agreements that pay the able-bodied national teamers far more than their known peers won't soothe any raw emotions. Grassroots organizers have asked pointed questions about spending on developing referees, who have literally and figuratively come under attack at several levels of the game, and coaches, who often have to shell out thousands of dollars in fees and travel costs to get advanced licenses.

So while other federations put their prize money back into developing the next generation, US Soccer's prize money pays the current players and their lawyers.

Maybe Fifa can institute a Legal World Cup one day, and the US can lift the trophy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Did the US women's soccer team win their 'equal pay' case? It's complicated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While other federations put their prize money back into developing the next generation, US Soccer's prize money is paying the current players and their lawyers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a big win for the U.S. women's soccer team, a Los Angeles federal judge granted preliminary approval last week for a $24 million pay discrimination settlement. The initial complaint was filed in 2016 by players who alleged that their male counterparts were being paid nearly four times more. The lawsuit followed three years later. Damages were sought under the federal Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner originally dismissed the players' claim in 2020, and ruled that during the timeframe covered in the lawsuit, the U.S. women's team had made more than their male counterparts, though the women played more games. The lawsuit continued after an appeal was granted.

Molly Levinson, the spokesperson for the players, tweeted, "We are pleased that the Court granted preliminary approval for the Historic Equal Pay Resolution today," adding, "We look forward to celebrating this hard fought victory for women and girls at the final hearing," which is slated to take place on Dec. 5.

Under the settlement, which was initially announced in February, $22 million will be split into amounts proposed by the players. The remaining $2 million will be placed into a fund established by the U.S. Soccer Federation, which will both benefit players after the end of their soccer careers, and go towards charitable endeavors that aim to create more opportunities for women in the sport.

The gender wage gap has been a longstanding issue, and athletics is no exception. In 2022, the U.S. Soccer Federation made history when it announced a plan for equal pay between its men's and women's teams, but many other sports continue to lag behind.

Russia's detention of Brittney Griner has brought these questions to the forefront, with many questioning why the WNBA superstar had to seek extra work overseas during the off-season at all. 2021-2022 season data from Basketball Reference shows the average NBA player earning $5.3 million a year, while the average WNBA player earns $130,000.

In the workforce overall, women on average earn 84% of what men earn, according to a Pew Research Center analysis from 2020. But women's pay fell further behind during the pandemic, according to Payscale's 2022 State of the Gender Pay Gap report, which shows women making 82 cents for every dollar made by a man.

While the U.S. women's soccer team players were only granted a little over a third of the $66.7 million in back pay they initially sought, Judge Klausner wrote in his filing, "The unopposed settlement agreement accomplishes the plaintiffs' goal for litigation: equal pay."

More from CBS News

C Mandler

First published on August 15, 2022 / 5:57 PM EDT

© 2022 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.

Create your free account or log in
for more features.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judge approves $24 million equal pay settlement for U.S. women's soccer team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal judge in Los Angeles has given preliminary approval for a $24 million pay discrimination settlement.