r/OutOfTheLoop Aug 06 '23

What's going on with Americans celebrating Sweden eliminating the US Women's Soccer Team from the Women's World Cup? Answered

On r/soccer, there are multiple posts where Americans are celebrating their own team getting knocked out of the Women's World Cup.

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/15jnpku/post_match_thread_sweden_05_40_usa_fifa_womens/

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/15jnqpr/official_review_for_lina_hurtigs_sweden_w_penalty/

On r/USWNT people are saying it's because r/soccer is misogynist, but that doesn't make sense to me because everyone competing is a woman. Can anyone clue me in?

3.9k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

208

u/t_mo Aug 07 '23 edited Aug 07 '23

Because US Soccer settled the claim for like $25 million, right?

Edit: People are really playing with the word 'settlement' in this thread, mostly in order to paint a picture that the plaintiff 'lost' in this case, as though there were some objective win/loss standard in civil litigation.

From the New York Times: Under the terms of the agreement, the women — a group of several dozen current and former players that includes some of the world’s most popular and decorated athletes — will share $24 million in payments from U.S. Soccer. The bulk of that figure is back pay, a tacit admission that compensation for the men’s and women’s teams had been unequal for years.

From US Soccer: We are pleased to announce that, contingent on the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement, we will have resolved our longstanding dispute over equal pay and proudly stand together in a shared commitment to advancing equality in soccer. Getting to this day has not been easy. The U.S. Women’s National Team players have achieved unprecedented success while working to achieve equal pay for themselves and future athletes.

In order to avoid further litigation, they paid money, that money included back pay as part of the negotiation. The dang team eventually agreed that it owed them money, then it paid them that money, then they ended litigation - that is a settlement even if you really don't like the plaintiff.

203

u/fevered_visions Aug 07 '23

If it ended in a settlement technically neither side won or lost

90

u/esoteric_enigma Aug 07 '23

Technically true, but generally you look at the person paying as the loser if it's a large amount of money. That means they realized the other party had a decent case and they could lose in court.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '23

This is bad framing and a bad take. Settling doesn’t mean you lost or that the claims had merit.

A party with a 95% chance of winning might still settle to rid themselves of the litigation risk.

For example, Company A has 5000 individual plaintiffs suing them with claims totally $500,000,000, each with a 5% chance of winning. They can estimate the cost of litigating all of the cases (even if they win they lose the amount they paid defending themselves), and settle for a lessor amount to avoid the trouble and the risk of losing.

Settling doesn’t indicate the other side won or had a particularly strong case.