The US national women’s soccer team is worth watching, not only as the favorites to win this year’s Women’s World Cup. They are also at the forefront of a struggle for better treatment of workers — one that extends far beyond sports, and that is far from over.
Team USA have earned the rare distinction of getting paid as much as their country’s male team, an achievement that inspired legislation ensuring that all athletes representing the country internationally receive equal pay and benefits. Yet this is more than a heartwarming story about women’s progress. It should draw global attention to a stark reality: How soccer federations, and employers more broadly, continue to actively and deliberately wield power to keep workers paid less and treated worse, for their own benefit.
At least a third of the teams playing in the World Cup are in disputes with the governing institutions for soccer in their countries.
Illustration: Louise Ting
For example: England’s Lionesses are fighting for bonuses based on how far they advance, which FIFA announced that all World Cup players would receive. Their country’s federation has denied them such performance-related pay, despite standing to gain commercially from their success.
Australia’s Matildas are protesting FIFA’s two tiers of pay and working conditions, which force women to fight for basic benefits, such as not having to do their own laundry or playing on turf.
Last year, 15 senior players quit Spain’s La Roja over their coach’s approach to management and team culture. Their federation yielded nothing, and now three of them are playing in the cup alongside teammates who either did not support or eagerly replaced the protesters.
Canada, the reigning Olympic champions, are fighting mismanagement and its myriad effects on pay and morale. When they tried to refuse matches earlier this year, they were forced to play under threat of legal action. Their federation lacks basic transparency and is cutting budgets and investment, even as the team performs better than ever.
The athletes’ woes should sound familiar to workers throughout the economy, regardless of gender. Screenwriters and actors are striking over residuals for streaming rights, which accrue almost entirely to management and owners. Teamsters at UPS have authorized a strike unless their next contract eliminates a two-tier wage system. Starbucks has a long track record of punishing, firing and replacing workers who attempt to unionize. Nurses across the US have been reduced to striking over mismanagement and dangerous caseloads, despite their heroic efforts to save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic.
All these struggles are fundamentally about power — something the members of the US women’s soccer team understand too well. Almost every one of them has played under a coach who was later fired for abusive, exploitative or sexually coercive behavior. An investigation by former acting attorney general Sally Yates found that the National Women’s Soccer League and US Soccer knowingly ignored sexual and emotional abuse, that coaches fired for such misconduct were rehired by other teams, and that players were dropped from rosters when they came forward for help and protection. The Yates report has spurred investigations into youth leagues, where many of the guilty coaches got their start.
No doubt, the US national team have changed the world for women. They have waged a successful fight for pay and recognition while inspiring girls everywhere to dream big and play hard, but casting this as a women’s victory is selling them short. They and others remain engaged in a much bigger battle, taking on monopolistic entities with almost total control over worker outcomes and shocking disregard for their financial, physical and mental well-being. It is a battle that is not expected to end even if equal pay is achieved.
Kathryn Anne Edwards is a labor economist and independent policy consultant. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals