This commentary offers an analysis of the implications of the US Women' National team Collective Action lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation. The players filed the lawsuit based on two grounds: first, that the US Soccer Federation violated the Equal Pay Act by paying them less than the men's national team and second, that the federation discriminated against them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, specifically in regard to workplace conditions. In this article, we discuss three interrelated aspects: (1) the legal implications of either the success or failure of the dispute; (2) playing and workplace conditions; and (3) the gendered meanings of equal pay and its socio-cultural implications. These significant challenges require analysis to understand potential implications of the outcome for women's football, and beyond. Recommendations are made for governing bodies and football clubs, in addition to possible future research directions for academics. We reflect upon the gendered, social and sporting meaning of equal pay for continuing the momentum of women's football, highlighting the need for the most successful women's football team in the world to achieve parity if we are to continue advancing gender equality in a 'new age' of women's sport.
It is commonly believed that Title IX has had one of the greatest impacts on women and girl’s involvement in sport in the United States and beyond. In 2021, 50 years on from its inception, the development of women’s sport and women’s opportunity within the sporting sphere has increased dramatically. It is doubtless that Title IX has increased participation opportunities and “the question is no longer, ‘can women play?’ The critical question is ‘at what level?’ That’s the 21st century question.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised and will continue to raise issues for sport for some time to come. In particular, the pressure put on athletes by politicians to take wage deductions and wage deferrals has caused controversy. This scrutiny of athletes’ tax affairs is not unusual, given the particular and somewhat constant media focus, coupled with HMRC’s ‘Football Compliance Project’ regarding footballer’s use of image rights companies to make tax deductions. This focus often presents footballers in an unflattering light. However, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the issues regarding athlete image rights are generally not due to overly sophisticated or overt actions by footballers and/or their agents but are the consequence of a convoluted system of taxation. Ultimately, HMRC guidance allows athletes to exploit an ‘image right’ to make tax savings. This ‘image right’ does not exist in law. Thus, this article will show that the current controversy surrounding footballers and their tax affairs is not a novel concept and that in the context of image rights athletes, clubs and agents have been forced to navigate a system of tax which is confusing, at best. In short, the issues surrounding footballers and image rights are due to the fact that ‘image rights’ are protected in one area of law yet do not exist in another.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.