- After the U.S. Women’s National Team won the World Cup on Sunday, crowds chanted “Equal Pay” to highlight the pay difference between male and female athletes as the FIFA President walked onto the field.
- The World Cup total prize for men in 2018 was $400 million. This year for women, the total prize is $30 million.
- The USWNT has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation alleging gender-based discrimination in pay.
- Several reports show that while the women’s prize is substantially less, the U.S. women have generated more profit than the U.S. men.
Fans Call for Equal Pay
After the United States Women’s National Team scored their fourth World Cup title, crowds erupted in “Equal Pay” chants, bringing a long-running conversation about the gender pay gap to center stage.
On Sunday, the USWNT beat the Netherlands 2-0, securing themselves another title and cementing their status as the best women’s soccer team in the world. During post-game celebrations, FIFA President Gianni Infantino walked onto the field alongside French President Emmanual Macron, and the two were met with a clear request from the crowd.
“Equal Pay!” chants echoed throughout the stadium, to encourage Infantino and the organization to pay the female athletes the same as the men. Last year, the World Cup total prize for the men was $400 million, with $38 million going to the champions. This year, the women’s World Cup tournament total prize was $30 million, with $4 million for the champion team.
This World Cup win for the American women follows a discussion about their talents and success compared to the men’s team. The U.S. Men’s National Team has never won a World Cup. They also do not send their full team to compete in the Olympics, while the women have won four gold medals.
The win also follows a lawsuit filed by several female players. In March athletes like Megan Rapinoe, Alex Morgan and Rose Lavelle filed a suit against the United States Soccer Federation claiming gender-based discrimination.
“Despite the fact that these female and male players are called upon to perform the same job responsibilities on their teams and participate in international competitions for their single common employer, the USSF, the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts,” the lawsuit states.
“This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players – with the female players, in contrast to male players, becoming world champions.”
Rapinoe, who walked out of the World Cup both the Golden Boot and Golden Ball winner, has also made statements on her own about this pay gap. According to ESPN, after the game, she spoke about the need for the conversation to move forward.
“It’s time to sit down with everyone and really get to work,” Rapinoe said. “This game has done so much for all of us. We’ve put so much into it. I think it’s a testament to the quality on the field, and I don’t think everything else is matching that. So how do we get everything to match up and continue to push this forward. Because I think at this point the argument we have been having is null and void.”
Politicians Speak Out
Soccer players are not the only ones pushing for equal pay. Last week, several members of Congress wrote a letter to the president of the USSF calling the pay gap “indefensible.”
“The U.S. Soccer Federation should work to correct course and close the wage gap so that the only thing women athletes are fighting for is the world title or a gold medal,” the letter read. “Instead, the message sent to women and girls is that their skills and accomplishments are of lesser value.”
President Donald Trump was also pressed about the issue after Sunday’s game. According to a White House press pool, he was asked about the women’s pay, and if anything should be done.
“I would like to see that, but you’ve also got to look at the numbers,” Trump responded. “You have to look at who’s taking in what.”
Since the start of the World Cup and the resurgence of pay gap discussions, several reports have taken a closer look at the numbers. A June report from The Wall Street Journal found that in recent years the women’s team has boosted more revenue for the USSF than the men’s.
Their report looked at audited USSF financial statements and said that between 2016 and 2018, women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue while the men’s generated $49.9 million.
The Washington Post also broke down some of the finances between the male and female teams after the ladies won the World Cup. The Post looked at the net revenue of each team. In 2016 and 2017, the women’s net revenue was $8 million and $1 million. In 2015 and 2016, the men’s was $350,000 and $2.7 million.
The Post also estimates that last year, the women made more in bonuses and salary, but also played close to twice as many games and won more often.
The article outlines a scenario that shows if both teams were to play 20 games in a season, the women would make 89% of what the men make. Before 2016, this would have been even lower. Before their updated bargaining agreement was put into place, they would have made 38% of what the men would.
Others have brought up the fact that as of last week, the U.S. women’s home jersey became the most sold jersey on Nike’s website in one season.
FIFA says that they plan on doubling the women’s World Cup prize to make it $60 million by 2023. This still is a fraction of the men’s prize, which is also set to increase to $440 million.
Many, including player Tobin Heath, see the U.S. team’s win and the conversation that it started as a pivotal moment for equal pay.
“It’s cool because unless we get to the final, and obviously win the final, maybe that chant isn’t being chanted,” Heath said. “So I think in a lot of ways, this team has been, I guess you could call it, single destiny with this fight for equal pay.”
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (ESPN) (The Washington Post)
How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?
America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF).
Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world.
While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.
Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit
- In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.”
- The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.”
- The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
- Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein.
Court Filings Made Public
Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.
Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.
Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.
Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.
He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”
Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.
Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.
Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet
In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.
“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”
“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”
The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.
The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.
In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls.
“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”
Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.
That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.
Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.
In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”
He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”
Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.
“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”
He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”
Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.”
Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.
“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.
“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”
See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)
Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…
The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.
So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.