In an apparent move to fend off a player strike, US Soccer has sued the union representing the women’s national team over an ongoing contract dispute. This isn’t the first time the team’s collective bargaining agreement has been brought up lately, but it is the surest sign negotiations are, to put it mildly, not going well.  At issue is a simple question: does the national team have a collective bargaining agreement that expires at the end of this year, or don’t they? If they don’t, the players have the option to strike, which US Soccer says would jeopardize the team’s participation at, among others, the Rio Olympics. But if their current contact is valid, the players must abide by a no-strike clause.  Related: USWNT push for new deal and make clear: we are not playing on artificial turf  “While unfortunate, we believe taking this action provides the parties with the most efficient path to a resolution in an effort to not jeopardize the team’s participation in any competitions this year, including the 2016 Olympic Games,” US Soccer said in a statement. “Obtaining a prompt resolution on the validity of the current CBA will allow both parties to focus on continuing negotiations in good faith on the next CBA that would start in 2017.”  When the team’s last CBA expired in 2012, instead of putting together a new agreement, both sides settled on a memorandum of understanding [MOU], which carried over the terms of the expired CBA and added new provisions covering the National Women’s Soccer League. The MOU is set to expire at the end of this year, but USA players union attorney Rich Nichols argues an MOU can be terminated at any time – and thus, the current deal with the national team and NWSL can be canceled. US Soccer is asking a judge to declare the MOU valid through the set expiration date, which would keep the expired CBA’s no-strike clause in place.  According to the lawsuit, Nichols said in a 23 December letter that if a new CBA was not in place within 60 days, the union will terminate the MOU that extended the expired agreement. If the emails provided in the lawsuit are any indication, there is no way a new CBA will be in place by 24 February, which is 60 days from the letter.  US Soccer alleges that during a meeting on Wednesday to discuss the letter, they asked if the union would strike, but “Nichols refused to provide the requested assurance” and union reps said “they would not agree to ‘disarm’ the players”.  Speaking to the Guardian on Wednesday night, Nichols said neither he nor the players ever threatened to strike, adding, “The players are committed to the US team and they just want to be treated fairly.  He said: “I did not issue any threat about any action that we would take at all. All I did do was I made it quite clear that we are going to preserve our legal rights in this collective bargaining negotiation. I don’t threaten.”  Nichols said although US Soccer interpreted the timing of his letter as a threat for a strike, it was part of business as usual.  “There’s nothing unusual about there being an ongoing negotiation and modification of terms of a collective bargaining relationship and even more so with an MOU because it’s not a definitive document,” he told the Guardian. “There are always discussions as events evolve, as time goes on, as questions arise about working conditions.  “Why are we talking to them about this now? I talk to US Soccer about issues in the MOU almost daily. There’s nothing new about this.”  A factor, however, maybe be that fresh off winning the Women’s World Cup, the team has more leverage than it has ever had. The men and women both had friendlies in California to open 2016 and, while the men drew a paltry crowd of 8,803, the women drew 23,309. That’s not a typical comparison, but it is a sign of many that the women’s team clout is growing.  That’s not clear. The emails US Soccer included in their lawsuit don’t provide any hints and Nichols declined to specify for the Guardian what the players want in a new collective bargaining agreement.  In an interview with the Guardian last week, Nichols accused US Soccer of treating the women’s national team as second-class citizens for making the players play on artificial turf, among other issues, such as lower spending on the women than the men. Playing surfaces are not mentioned in the CBA or MOU at all, as revealed by the lawsuit.  If the court rules in favor of US Soccer, the fight that the union appears to be gearing up for will be delayed until the year’s end.  But if the court rules with the union, it could have major implications for the national team and the NWSL this year as both are still riding the success of the World Cup and looking ahead to the Rio Olympics. The players would be able to strike and if a strike lasts through summer, US Soccer says they may need to drop out of the Olympics.  In 2005 when the men went on strike, US Soccer brought in new replacement players for a World Cup qualifier but it’s unclear whether they’d do the same thing for the women’s team during an Olympics. More likely to be affected would be a US Soccer-hosted tournament in March, the SheBelieves Cup, which will feature top teams Germany, France and England.  Related: Carli Lloyd: complicated, inconsistent ... and officially the world's best  The most likely scenario is that US Soccer will file a motion asking the judge to prohibit the union from taking any action with regard to the CBA or MOU until the case is ruled on.  A whole lot. While the legal question posed is the primary focus, the information revealed in the lawsuit is perhaps even more interesting. The complete MOU and the team’s two prior CBAs are provided in full, disclosing salaries, benefits and other matters the federation has previously refused to disclose. Here are some highlights:
The USWNT and the game’s governing body in America are at loggerheads but what is behind the disagreement?