Were the members of the World Cup champion women's soccer team underpaid?

The top line numbers are hard to dispute: the women's team is much more successful than the men's team and they are paid a lot less.  If pay equity decisions revolve around the principle of "equal pay for equal work," this is an open and shut case.

I spent some time recently trying to dig deeper into the question to see if there is a rational economic explanation.  Here is a quick look at the key determinants of pay for the men's and women's national soccer team:

1) Performance: Easy comparison here because the men did not even qualify for the 2018 World Cup and received no prize money at all.  The women's team received $4m for winning the cup.

2) Pay method: Women earn a base salary plus bonuses for wins in qualifying and World Cup matches.  Men get per-match bonuses for being on the active roster but they receive no base annual pay.  WP did a simulation to see what would happen under a range of win-loss scenarios.  Under a median 20 game scenario, if they both won the same number and type of games, women would receive 11 percent less than men.   Pay would be equal in only one scenario: if both teams played 20 matches and lost every match.

3) Revenue: In pure economic terms, product demand has a critical role in salary determination.  That is why the Rolling Stones will make more money than Sleater-Kinney (an all-women's band for those not in the know) for playing the same number of concerts in the same arenas, even if Sleater-Kinney has made better music over the last 20 years.   If the women's team generates more revenue than the men's team in friendly matches and tournaments outside the World Cup, that will make the pay discrimination claims much stronger.  Half of the revenue for the US Soccer Federation comes from sponsorships.  It is impossible to determine whether the women's or men's team has been the main driver of this revenue source.  As for dollars generated by paying customers at matches, the answer depends on timing.  If you include 2014 (when the men participated in the cup), WP reports the men come out $11m ahead.  If you start in a later year and include 2019, the women have generated more revenue.  Lawyers on both sides will have lots of fun making arguments here.

4) Collective bargaining: The pay scale for each team is set through separate collective bargaining agreements.  Some have argued that the women would be well served by taking a stronger stand in the next round of bargaining.   Others would argue that they should not have signed off on an agreement where lower pay is basically baked in.

Bottom line: the women should not have to depend on winning the World Cup to obtain pay equity.  The disparity in the pay scales that is built into the collective bargaining agreements is the strongest argument the women's team has in its favor.  General Motors and the UAW could not legally have one pay scale for women and another for men doing the same jobs.  My guess is that US Soccer will either settle out of court or come up with a new collective bargaining agreement before this case appears before a judge.

What is the Nordic welfare state really like?

Bernie Sanders points to the economic success of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as proof that socialism can produce high living standards.  WP reports about a study done by JP Morgan Chase showing that these countries are not as socialist as you might think.

Granted their payroll and sales taxes are higher than those in the US.  Labor unions are stronger and income is more evenly distributed.

But these countries are anything but socialist paradises:

• Out of pocket spending on health care in the Netherlands and Sweden is the same or higher than the US.  So much for socialized medicine.  
• Companies have just as much business freedom (free trade, openness to international investment, regulations for new business creation) in the Nordics as in the US. 
• Estate tax rates are lower in the Nordics than in the US.   

Money quote from former Danish prime minister Lars Rasmussen: 

Denmark is far from a planned socialist economy.  Denmark is a market economy.   

A goldbug for the Fed?

When I teach my Essential Macroeconomics for Managers course, I spend some time on exchange rates.  I emphasize the role of trade balances, inflation, and Federal Reserve policy, reflecting the consensus of economic research.  I spend no time on the gold standard, as research has shown that it makes economic growth and inflation less stable.  

President Trump has nominated Judy Shelton for a vacant position on the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors.  Dr. Shelton (PhD in business administration from Utah) advocates a return to the gold standard.  Greg Ip has a great WSJ column explaining her views, which are based more on politics than economics.  Her core belief is that the gold standard would impose fiscal discipline on Congress and the President and monetary discipline on the Federal Reserve.  She went ballistic in the aftermath of the Great Recession when quantitative easing led to a massive increase in the money supply and, she argued, an inevitable surge in inflation.  Guess what?  She and other goldbugs were dead wrong; inflation has been at rock-bottom levels for the last 10 years.

Now she is criticizing the Fed for keeping interest rates too high, claiming it is slowing down the economy.  This is hard to swallow in a world where 10-year Treasuries yield two percent and the June jobs report showed 224k new jobs last month.  Will she make it through tough questions at her Senate confirmation hearing?  Stay tuned.