The judge rejected the women’s position that they ended up getting paid more than the men only because they played more games and were more successful than the men’s team. Instead, according to the ruling, the evidence showed that the women’s team not only played more games but it also made more money on average than the men’s team.A spokesperson for the women players said they will appeal.“We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up our hard work for equal pay,” Molly Levinson said in an emailed statement. “We are confident in our case and steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that girls and women who play this sport will not be valued as lesser just because of their gender.”The fact that women received smaller bonuses than the men on the national team shouldn’t be taken by itself of evidence of pay discrimination, according to Klausner.“This approach ignores other benefits received by women national team players, such as guaranteed annual salaries and severance pay, benefit that men national team players do not receive,” the judge said.The judge allowed the women players to pursue their claim of allegedly inferior travel conditions, as well as medical and training support, compared to that of the men’s team.Topics : US women soccer players’ claim that they are paid less than male counterpoints to play for the national team was thrown out by a federal judge who found that any pay discrepancy was due to differences they negotiated in their collective bargaining agreements.US District Judge R. Gary Klausner in Los Angeles late Friday granted the US Soccer Federation’s request to take the women’s key pay discrimination claim out of the lawsuit that had been primed to go to a highly anticipated trial.The dispute gained widespread attention in March when Carlos Cordeiro, who was president of US Soccer, abruptly resigned amid a furor over arguments in a federation legal filing that the women’s team is paid differently than the men’s team because its play is inferior and the competition worse, and it competes in less hostile stadiums.
August 26, 2020
Pepsi has released its new commercial for Super Bowl 53 and it is already going viral. The clever ad, which features Steve Carrell, Cardi B and Lil Jon, addresses the “is Pepsi OK?” line often asked by waiters and waitresses at restaurants when customers ask for Coke. Is Pepsi OK? Is having Steve Carell, Lil Jon, and Cardi B in our #SBLIII commercial OK??? #PepsiMoreThanOK pic.twitter.com/LWM6Sh6GN5— Pepsi™ (@pepsi) January 28, 2019Super Bowl 2019: Where were Brady, Romo, Jordan and Tiger at Sean McVay’s age?A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl cost around $5 million this year, according to Forbes:”Prices for Super Bowl TV commercials have nearly doubled over the past decade although its massive audience has shrunk, are little changed from last year’s record $5.24 million average cost for a 30-second spot, according to Bloomberg News.CBS, which is broadcasting the game, has sold more than 90 percent of its available inventory and will likely sell out of its ad time prior to the Feb. 3 game between The New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams because … well, it’s the Super Bowl. It is one of the few events that more than 100 million people watch live. Professional football is by far the most popular professional sport in the U.S. when measured by television ratings among other things.”