SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The U.S. women's national team celebrates after winning the FIFA Women's World Cup against Japan on July 5, 2015 in Vancouver, Canada. (Photo: Dennis Grombkowski/Getty Images)
The union representing the U.S. Men's National Soccer Team waded into the rift between the national women's team and the U.S. Soccer Federation over equal pay Wednesday, demanding that the federation end its "false narrative" over the female players' compensation.
The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association (USNSTPA) released the statement shortly after contract negotiations between the federation (USSF) and the men's team stalled. The union said the women's current contract, covering 2017 to 2021, offers lower compensation than the men's recently expired deal, which covered 2011 to 2018.
"Our great hope is that 2020 will be the year of equal pay. We are grateful for the support of our male colleagues, and also for the overwhelming solidarity from millions of fans and sponsors around the world who have stood with us to fight USSF's discrimination."
--Megan Rapinoe, USWNT
"What we believe should happen is simple. Pay the women significantly more than our recently expired men's deal," said the union. "In our estimation, the women were due at least triple what our expired deal was worth in player compensation."
After winning the World Cup last summer, 28 players from the women's team (USWNT) filed a lawsuit against the federation, accusing officials of "institutionalized gender discrimination."
Despite outperforming their male counterparts by winning three out of seven women's World Cups, the USWNT says players are paid 38% of what the men's soccer team is paid.
"For more than 20 years, the Federation has resisted any concept of equal pay or basic economic fairness for the USWNT players," reads the statement from the men's team. "Historically, the Federation also refused to include in the women's [collective bargaining agreement] the same provisions as the men's with respect to air travel, hotels, etc. This is systematic gender discrimination that should have never happened."
After the USWNT filed its complaint last year, USSF President Carlos Cordeiro put forward what the men's team called a "false narrative," claiming the USWNT has actually been paid more in total over the past decade than the men.
Cordeiro "highlighted tens of millions of dollars of investment by the federation in women's soccer, noting specifically more than $18 million in direct support for the National Women's Soccer League, the seven-year-old professional league, and millions more in spending on youth programs," reported the New York Times.
Molly Levinson, a spokesperson for the USWNT, countered Cordeiro's claim, calling it both a "ruse" and "sad attempt by the USSF to quell the overwhelming tide of support" for the women's case.
"Any apples to apples comparison shows that the men earn far more than the women," Levinson said last summer. "The fact is the women's team requested the same compensation structure as the men have, so they would be paid equally for equal performance. USSF refused, offering lower compensation in every category for the women in a pay for performance structure. That is patently unequal pay."
Megan Rapinoe, captain of the USWNT, released a statement thanking the USNSTPA for its show of solidarity.
"Our great hope is that 2020 will be the year of equal pay. We are grateful for the support of our male colleagues, and also for the overwhelming solidarity from millions of fans and sponsors around the world who have stood with us to fight USSF's discrimination," the statement said. "Achieving equal pay is so much bigger than our team and our playing fields--women in workforces everywhere deserve equality now."
Observers on social media applauded the men's team for speaking out.
"Sport is a microcosm of society," tweeted attorney Kelsey Trainor. "The USWNT equal pay lawsuit is about so much more."
\u201cSport is a microcosm of society. The #USWNT Equal Pay lawsuit is about so much more. \n\nThe men's team with the support today and @mPinoe's response.\u201d— Kelsey Trainor (@Kelsey Trainor) 1581545374
The men's team called on soccer fans to withdraw support from the USSF's sponsors, including Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, and Nike until the federation does "the right thing and gives the women a new CBA that pays a fair share of the gate receipts and that television and sponsorship revenue to the players."
"Support the players, not the Federation," the union added.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The union representing the U.S. Men's National Soccer Team waded into the rift between the national women's team and the U.S. Soccer Federation over equal pay Wednesday, demanding that the federation end its "false narrative" over the female players' compensation.
The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association (USNSTPA) released the statement shortly after contract negotiations between the federation (USSF) and the men's team stalled. The union said the women's current contract, covering 2017 to 2021, offers lower compensation than the men's recently expired deal, which covered 2011 to 2018.
"Our great hope is that 2020 will be the year of equal pay. We are grateful for the support of our male colleagues, and also for the overwhelming solidarity from millions of fans and sponsors around the world who have stood with us to fight USSF's discrimination."
--Megan Rapinoe, USWNT
"What we believe should happen is simple. Pay the women significantly more than our recently expired men's deal," said the union. "In our estimation, the women were due at least triple what our expired deal was worth in player compensation."
After winning the World Cup last summer, 28 players from the women's team (USWNT) filed a lawsuit against the federation, accusing officials of "institutionalized gender discrimination."
Despite outperforming their male counterparts by winning three out of seven women's World Cups, the USWNT says players are paid 38% of what the men's soccer team is paid.
"For more than 20 years, the Federation has resisted any concept of equal pay or basic economic fairness for the USWNT players," reads the statement from the men's team. "Historically, the Federation also refused to include in the women's [collective bargaining agreement] the same provisions as the men's with respect to air travel, hotels, etc. This is systematic gender discrimination that should have never happened."
After the USWNT filed its complaint last year, USSF President Carlos Cordeiro put forward what the men's team called a "false narrative," claiming the USWNT has actually been paid more in total over the past decade than the men.
Cordeiro "highlighted tens of millions of dollars of investment by the federation in women's soccer, noting specifically more than $18 million in direct support for the National Women's Soccer League, the seven-year-old professional league, and millions more in spending on youth programs," reported the New York Times.
Molly Levinson, a spokesperson for the USWNT, countered Cordeiro's claim, calling it both a "ruse" and "sad attempt by the USSF to quell the overwhelming tide of support" for the women's case.
"Any apples to apples comparison shows that the men earn far more than the women," Levinson said last summer. "The fact is the women's team requested the same compensation structure as the men have, so they would be paid equally for equal performance. USSF refused, offering lower compensation in every category for the women in a pay for performance structure. That is patently unequal pay."
Megan Rapinoe, captain of the USWNT, released a statement thanking the USNSTPA for its show of solidarity.
"Our great hope is that 2020 will be the year of equal pay. We are grateful for the support of our male colleagues, and also for the overwhelming solidarity from millions of fans and sponsors around the world who have stood with us to fight USSF's discrimination," the statement said. "Achieving equal pay is so much bigger than our team and our playing fields--women in workforces everywhere deserve equality now."
Observers on social media applauded the men's team for speaking out.
"Sport is a microcosm of society," tweeted attorney Kelsey Trainor. "The USWNT equal pay lawsuit is about so much more."
\u201cSport is a microcosm of society. The #USWNT Equal Pay lawsuit is about so much more. \n\nThe men's team with the support today and @mPinoe's response.\u201d— Kelsey Trainor (@Kelsey Trainor) 1581545374
The men's team called on soccer fans to withdraw support from the USSF's sponsors, including Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, and Nike until the federation does "the right thing and gives the women a new CBA that pays a fair share of the gate receipts and that television and sponsorship revenue to the players."
"Support the players, not the Federation," the union added.
The union representing the U.S. Men's National Soccer Team waded into the rift between the national women's team and the U.S. Soccer Federation over equal pay Wednesday, demanding that the federation end its "false narrative" over the female players' compensation.
The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association (USNSTPA) released the statement shortly after contract negotiations between the federation (USSF) and the men's team stalled. The union said the women's current contract, covering 2017 to 2021, offers lower compensation than the men's recently expired deal, which covered 2011 to 2018.
"Our great hope is that 2020 will be the year of equal pay. We are grateful for the support of our male colleagues, and also for the overwhelming solidarity from millions of fans and sponsors around the world who have stood with us to fight USSF's discrimination."
--Megan Rapinoe, USWNT
"What we believe should happen is simple. Pay the women significantly more than our recently expired men's deal," said the union. "In our estimation, the women were due at least triple what our expired deal was worth in player compensation."
After winning the World Cup last summer, 28 players from the women's team (USWNT) filed a lawsuit against the federation, accusing officials of "institutionalized gender discrimination."
Despite outperforming their male counterparts by winning three out of seven women's World Cups, the USWNT says players are paid 38% of what the men's soccer team is paid.
"For more than 20 years, the Federation has resisted any concept of equal pay or basic economic fairness for the USWNT players," reads the statement from the men's team. "Historically, the Federation also refused to include in the women's [collective bargaining agreement] the same provisions as the men's with respect to air travel, hotels, etc. This is systematic gender discrimination that should have never happened."
After the USWNT filed its complaint last year, USSF President Carlos Cordeiro put forward what the men's team called a "false narrative," claiming the USWNT has actually been paid more in total over the past decade than the men.
Cordeiro "highlighted tens of millions of dollars of investment by the federation in women's soccer, noting specifically more than $18 million in direct support for the National Women's Soccer League, the seven-year-old professional league, and millions more in spending on youth programs," reported the New York Times.
Molly Levinson, a spokesperson for the USWNT, countered Cordeiro's claim, calling it both a "ruse" and "sad attempt by the USSF to quell the overwhelming tide of support" for the women's case.
"Any apples to apples comparison shows that the men earn far more than the women," Levinson said last summer. "The fact is the women's team requested the same compensation structure as the men have, so they would be paid equally for equal performance. USSF refused, offering lower compensation in every category for the women in a pay for performance structure. That is patently unequal pay."
Megan Rapinoe, captain of the USWNT, released a statement thanking the USNSTPA for its show of solidarity.
"Our great hope is that 2020 will be the year of equal pay. We are grateful for the support of our male colleagues, and also for the overwhelming solidarity from millions of fans and sponsors around the world who have stood with us to fight USSF's discrimination," the statement said. "Achieving equal pay is so much bigger than our team and our playing fields--women in workforces everywhere deserve equality now."
Observers on social media applauded the men's team for speaking out.
"Sport is a microcosm of society," tweeted attorney Kelsey Trainor. "The USWNT equal pay lawsuit is about so much more."
\u201cSport is a microcosm of society. The #USWNT Equal Pay lawsuit is about so much more. \n\nThe men's team with the support today and @mPinoe's response.\u201d— Kelsey Trainor (@Kelsey Trainor) 1581545374
The men's team called on soccer fans to withdraw support from the USSF's sponsors, including Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, and Nike until the federation does "the right thing and gives the women a new CBA that pays a fair share of the gate receipts and that television and sponsorship revenue to the players."
"Support the players, not the Federation," the union added.
"The Trump administration is protecting lawbreaking corporate insiders from accountability instead of protecting Americans from corporate lawbreaking," said the author of a new Public Citizen report.
During the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump's administration has withdrawn or suspended enforcement actions against 165 companies in sectors across the U.S. economy, with Big Tech benefiting most from federal agencies' lax approach to corporate crime.
A report released Wednesday by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen found that the Trump administration has halted or ended a third of misconduct investigations and enforcement actions targeting technology firms—including behemoths such as Meta, Tesla, and Google.
Both Meta and Google donated to Trump's inaugural fund, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk spent big in support of the president's 2024 White House bid. Public Citizen found that the tech corporations that have benefited from Trump administration decisions to drop enforcement efforts have spent a combined $1.2 billion trying to influence the president.
"The Trump administration is protecting lawbreaking corporate insiders from accountability instead of protecting Americans from corporate lawbreaking," said Rick Claypool, a research director for Public Citizen and author of the new report. "To Big Tech corporations, this sends the message there is little risk in breaking the law in pursuit of profit—especially if you are an ally of the administration."
"For insiders," Claypool added, "corporate crime pays."
"Although he pretends to be tough on Big Tech, Donald Trump is a willing enabler of Big Tech's wrongdoing."
Public Citizen's report comes amid growing scrutiny of what one critic recently described as "the incredible shrinking Trump antitrust enforcers."
Despite claims of a "surging MAGA antitrust movement," Trump's Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have repeatedly shown a willingness to bow to White House-connected lobbyists and allow corporate consolidation to proceed unabated. Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the Trump DOJ settled a Biden-era legal challenge against UnitedHealth Group, allowing the monopolist to swallow yet another competitor.
"The second Trump administration has now become a pay-to-play operation where influential MAGA lobbyists paid millions by large corporations use their clout with the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi to overrule the enforcers and push through mergers," The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote following news of the UnitedHealth settlement.
"It seems that if you're a company and can pony up the money," Dayen added, "you can get whatever regulatory treatment you wish. Bribery has gone in a few short months from a prohibited activity to the coin of the realm in Trump's America."
As Public Citizen's report showed, tech giants have been the chief beneficiaries of what the group characterized as the Trump administration's corrupt approach to corporate crime enforcement.
At the start of Trump's second term, at least 104 tech corporations faced more than 140 federal investigations and enforcement actions. The Trump administration has withdrawn or halted nearly 50 of those enforcement actions, Public Citizen found.
"Although he pretends to be tough on Big Tech, Donald Trump is a willing enabler of Big Tech's wrongdoing," Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "For Big Tech, a relative pittance in political spending has generated gigantic returns in dropped prosecutions, policy U-turns, and aggressive administration support for Big Tech's global agenda."
Demonstrators yelled at federal agents to "get off our streets" as they set up a police checkpoint on a popular street in the nation's capital.
More than 100 protesters gathered late Wednesday at a checkpoint set up by a combination of local and federal officers on a popular street in Washington, D.C., where U.S. President Donald Trump has taken over the police force and deployed around 800 National Guard members as part of what he hopes will be a long-term occupation of the country's capital—and potentially other major cities.
The officers at the Wednesday night checkpoint reportedly included agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is also taking part in immigration raids in the city. Some agents were wearing face coverings to conceal their identities.
After law enforcement agents established the checkpoint on 14th Street, protesters gathered and jeered the officers, chanting "get off our streets" and "go home fascists." Some demonstrators yelled at the agents standing at the checkpoint, while others warned oncoming drivers to turn to avoid the police installation.
There was no officially stated purpose for the checkpoint, but it came amid the Trump administration's lawless mass deportation campaign and its broader threats to deploy U.S. troops on the streets of American cities to crush dissent.
At least one person, a Black woman, was arrested at Wednesday's checkpoint. One D.C. resident posted to Reddit that agents were "pulling people out of cars who are 'suspicious' or if they don't like the answers to their questions." The Washington Post reported that a "mix of local and federal authorities pulled over drivers for seat belt violations or broken taillights."
The National Guard troops activated by Trump this week were not seen at the checkpoint, which shut down before midnight.
Wednesday night's protests are expected to be just the start as public anger mounts over Trump's authoritarian actions in the nation's capital—where violent crime fell to a 30-year low last year—and across the country.
Radley Balko, a journalist who has documented the growing militarization of U.S. police, wrote earlier this week that "the motivation for Donald Trump's plan to 'federalize' Washington, D.C., is same as his motivation for sending active-duty troops into Los Angeles, deporting people to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador, his politicization of the Department of Justice, and nearly every other authoritarian overreach of the last six months: He is testing the limits of his power—and, by extension, of our democracy."
"He's feeling out what the Supreme Court, Congress, and the public will let him get away with. And so far, he's been able to do what he pleases," Balko wrote. "We are now past the point of crisis. Trump has long dreamed of presiding over a police state. He has openly admired and been reluctant to criticize foreign leaders who helm one. He has now appointed people who have expressed their willingness to help him achieve one to the very positions with the power to make one happen. And both he and his highest-ranking advisers have both openly spoken about and written out their plans to implement one."
"It's time to believe them," Balko added.
One critic accused the president of "testing the limits of his power, hoping to intimidate other cities into submission to his every vengeful whim."
The Trump administration's military occupation of Washington, D.C. is expected to expand, a White House official said Wednesday, with President Donald Trump also saying he will ask Congress to approve a "long-term" extension of federal control over local police in the nation's capital.
The unnamed Trump official told CNN that a "significantly higher" number of National Guard troops are expected on the ground in Washington later Wednesday to support law enforcement patrols in the city.
"The National Guard is not arresting people," the official said, adding that troops are tasked with creating "a safe environment" for the hundreds of federal officers and agents from over a dozen agencies who are fanning out across the city over the strong objection of local officials.
Trump dubiously declared a public safety emergency Monday in order to take control of Washington police under Section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. The president said Wednesday that he would ask the Republican-controlled Congress to authorize an extension of his federal takeover of local police beyond the 30 days allowed under Section 740.
"Already they're saying, 'He's a dictator,'" Trump said of his critics during remarks at the Kennedy Center in Washington. "The place is going to hell. We've got to stop it. So instead of saying, 'He's a dictator,' they should say, 'We're going to join him and make Washington safe.'"
According to official statistics, violent crime in Washington is down 26% from a year ago, when it was at its second-lowest level since 1966,
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) have both expressed support for Trump's actions. However, any legislation authorizing an extension of federal control over local police would face an uphill battle in the Senate, where Democratic lawmakers can employ procedural rules to block the majority's effort.
Trump also said any congressional authorization could open the door to targeting other cities in his crosshairs, including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland. Official statistics show violent crime trending downward in all of those cities—with some registering historically low levels.
While some critics have called Trump's actions in Washington a distraction from his administration's mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, others say his occupation of the nation's capital is a test case to see what he can get away with in other cities.
Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Illinois, said Monday that the president's D.C. takeover "is another telltale sign of his authoritarian ambitions."
Some opponents also said Trump's actions are intended to intimidate Democrat-controlled cities, pointing to his June order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Testifying Wednesday at a San Francisco trial to determine whether Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878—which generally prohibits use of the military for domestic law enforcement—by sending troops to Los Angeles, California Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong argued that the president wanted to "strike fear into the hearts of Californians."
Roosevelt University political science professor and Newsweek contributor David Faris wrote Wednesday that "deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C. is an unconscionable abuse of federal power and another worrisome signpost on our road to autocracy."
"Using the military to bring big, blue cities to heel, exactly as 'alarmists' predicted during the 2024 campaign, isn't about a crisis in D.C.—violent crime is actually at a 30-year low," he added. "President Trump is, once again, testing the limits of his power, hoping to intimidate other cities into submission to his every vengeful whim by making the once unimaginable—an American tyrant ordering a military occupation of our own capital—a terrifying reality."