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.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s