The U.S. Women’s National Team Player’s Association responded Feb. 8 to the the lawsuit filed against them by U.S. Soccer.
In a 72-page motion, the union claims that "USSF’s motion is filled with blatant inaccuracies, misrepresentations and misleadingly incomplete quotations from the relevant record."
As previously reported, U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) is seeking a declaratory judgment from the court to clarify if a current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing the U.S. Women's National Team (USWNT) is still in effect. The player’s union’s motion is fighting back against U.S. Soccer’s request for an expedited schedule and disputing some of the claims made by U.S. Soccer.
In part the player’s union is contesting that U.S. Soccer excluded key parts of both Ruth Uselton's emails and John Langel's testimony, two major parts of U.S. Soccer’s initial complaint.
The player’s union also contends that U.S. Soccer has known for months that the player’s union stance was that there was no effective CBA in place and, therefore, no no-strike cause in effect.
As written in the complaint, "USSF has known since at least July 2015 that the WNTPA’s position is that no collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with USSF is in place."
The effects of what might happen to the National Women's Soccer League if the USWNT is permitted to and does strike would, in theory, undo much of the boost the league got after the World Cup win in 2015. The USWNT allocated players would not return to their club teams in the event of a strike, leaving all clubs down starting players. The NWSL is also dependent on U.S. Soccer for much of their financial support.
As reported by Dan Lauletta, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman will hear from both sides on March 3, coincidentally the date of the first matches in the inaugural SheBelieves Cup.
The full text from the player’s union response can be found here.