A8| Tuesday, July 30, 2019 ** THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

ing tide of support the USWNT

has received from everyone

from fans to sponsors to the

United States Congress.”

The federation pays U.S.

women’s team members per-

game payments for national-

team play along with profes-

sional-team salaries for playing

in the National Women’s Soccer

League, as all 23 members of the

women’s World Cup team do.

The federation doesn’t pay pro-

fessional salaries for the men.

Ms. Levinson said the feder-

ation’s numbers “inappropri-

ately include the NWSL salaries

of the players to inflate the

women’s players compensation.

Any apples to apples compari-

son shows that the men earn

far more than the women.”

When World Cup prize pay-

ments from FIFA, the interna-

tional governing body of soc-

cer, are included, the U.S.

men’s players were paid $

million from 2010 through

2018 and the U.S. women $39.

million, the letter said. During

that span, the men reached the

round of 16 in 2010 and 2014

and failed to qualify for the

2018 tournament. The women

won the 2015 World Cup and

finished second in 2011.

FIFA’s total prize money for

the 2018 men’s World Cup was

$400 million. For the 2019

Women’s World Cup, it was

$30 million.

U.S. Soccer and its women’s

team soon will head into medi-

ation over the pay-discrimina-

tion suit filed by all 28 mem-

bers of the U.S. women’s

national team player pool. The

suit alleges that the federation

illegally pays the women less

than the men, despite the

women’s superior results. The

women have won four World

Cups; the men haven’t won any.

The federation pays the

members of the U.S. women’s

team $100,000 base salary and

$67,500-$72,500 annually to

play in the professional NWSL,

a Monday statement said. The

U.S. women also can earn bo-

nuses for playing in national-

team games. The federation

didn’t release information about

the men’s bonus structure.

U.S. NEWS

The U.S. Soccer Federation
released a letter from its presi-
dent Monday saying it has paid
the U.S. Women’s National
Team more than the men’s team
in recent years, a move that
comes ahead of mediation in
the women’s team’s pay-equity
lawsuit against its employer.
The pay analysis—which U.S.
Soccer president Carlos Cord-
eiro said was conducted by U.S.
Soccer staff and reviewed by an
accounting firm—likely will
add fuel to a complex debate
about how the federation has
compensated its championship
women’s national team. The
federation has faced increasing
pressure from the public and
Congress over the issue, espe-
cially since the U.S. women suc-
cessfully defended their World
Cup title this month.
Mr. Cordeiro said the feder-
ation’s analysis showed that
U.S. Soccer paid female players
$34.1 million in salaries and
game bonuses from 2010-2018,
while paying the men $26.
million during the same pe-
riod. Women’s team members
receive salaries plus bonuses,
while the men receive only bo-
nuses, though larger ones, ac-
cording to the letter.
The compensation structure
for the two teams is different
because of their respective
collective-bargaining agree-
ments and not because of gen-
der, Mr. Cordeiro wrote.
Molly Levinson, a spokes-
woman for the players, called
the letter “a sad attempt by
USSF to quell the overwhelm-

BYRACHELBACHMAN

U.S. Soccer Counters Pay Dispute

The U.S. Women’s National Team celebrated their World Cup win this month, demanding to be paid as much as the male team.

TAYLOR BALLANTYNE/SPORTS ILLUSTRATED/GETTY IMAGES

sive images of Mexicans and

Muslims.

“I think the challenge is

when guys become frustrated

and want to say something on

their personal account, versus

what the department and what

the city’s opinion of that post

might be,” Mr. London said.

Law-enforcement experts

said such posts generally aren’t

the 2020 election.

Concerns about rising defi-

cits and debt have been absent

from the presidential cam-

paign trail, in contrast to pre-

vious election cycles.

The tea party rose to prom-

inence amid a budget austerity

drive that consumed Washing-

ton in the early part of the de-

cade, leading to the 2011 deal

in Congress to impose spend-

ing caps. Worries about rising

borrowing costs in the early

1990s led to sweeping biparti-

san budget deals during the

George H.W. Bush and Clinton

administrations, putting the

budget in the black for the

first time since 1969.

But political support for

taming deficits faded in recent

years, with Republicans sup-

porting higher deficits in ex-

change for tax cuts and Demo-

crats pushing for more

spending on domestic pro-

grams.

The current bipartisan bud-

get agreement, set for ap-

proval by the Senate this

week, would boost federal out-

lays and suspend the govern-

ment’s borrowing limit for two

years, adding further to an-

nual deficits into the future. It

would lift spending $44 billion

above fiscal year 2019 levels,

Continued from Page One

or 3.5%, not including emer-

gency war funding or one-time

funding for the 2020 census.

Without a new deal, auto-

matic spending cuts would

have reduced discretionary

spending—the part of the bud-

get Congress can adjust each

year—by 10% in 2020, weigh-

ing on economic growth.

The agreement removes a

key source of economic uncer-

tainty heading into the presi-

dential election year, though

economists said the modest

spending lift is unlikely to

translate into higher growth.

The deficit as a share of the

economy is set to more than

double over the coming de-

cades, due in part to higher

spending on Social Security

and Medicare.

“It is difficult to see what

would bring the deficit below

$1 trillion in the absence of a

very large turnaround in fiscal

policy,” said Brian Riedl, a se-

nior fellow at the Manhattan

Institute, a right-leaning think

tank. “We can’t count on an

economic recovery to save us

like it did last time we had

trillion-dollar deficits.”

Low borrowing costs,

meanwhile, suggest that mar-

kets remain unfazed by all the

red ink. Government debt has

soared since the financial cri-

sis, but 10-year Treasury

yields have fallen to near 2%

from more than 5% in 2006,

holding down government in-

terest payments.

At the same time, main-

stream economists are in-

creasingly questioning

whether larger federal debt

and deficits might be tolerable

if put toward programs that

would bolster long-term eco-

nomic growth.

The Congressional Budget

Office estimated last week the

budget deal would add $

billion to federal deficits over

the next decade, though pro-

jected deficits could be as high

as $1.7 trillion during that

time if spending continues on

the same trajectory.

Deficits usually decline dur-

ing economic expansions such

as the current record-long

one, as low unemployment and

rising paychecks push up fed-

eral tax revenue, and auto-

matic spending on safety-net

programs declines.

Deficits, after falling in the

expansion’s first six years as a

share of the economy, are ris-

ing again.

“Austerity is on no one’s

political agenda at present,

and even though this is the

time in the business cycle

where you really ought to be

cutting back on red ink,

there’s simply no appetite for

it,” said Louis Crandall, an

economist at Wrightson ICAP.

The U.S. economy grew at a

seasonally adjusted annual

rate of 2.1% in the second

quarter, the Commerce Depart-

ment said Friday, a slowdown

from 3.1% in the first quarter

but still a solid clip 10 years

into the economic expansion.

Employers added 224,

jobs in June, and the jobless

rate continued to hover near a

50-year low at 3.7%, the Labor

Department said earlier this

month.

The estimates released

Monday by the Treasury sug-

gest the government borrow-

ing surge will continue

through the end of the calen-

dar year.

The department’s latest

borrowing estimate is up sig-

nificantly since its projection

in April, when the government

was constrained by the debt

ceiling, which took effect

March 2 after a previous one-

year suspension. The agency

has been relying on so-called

“extraordinary measures”

since then to keep paying the

government’s bills on time,

but has been unable to tap

bond markets to raise new

cash.

The deal in Congress an-

nounced last week would sus-

pend the debt limit for two

years—until July 31, 2021—en-

abling the government to be-

gin borrowing again.

The House voted last week

to approve the agreement,

which the Senate is expected

to pass this week before leav-

ing for its August recess. Pres-

ident Trump praised the pact

as a positive for the military

and veterans and urged Re-

publicans to support it.

Fiscal conservatives, how-

ever, have warned the agree-

ment will enshrine trillion-dol-

lar deficits.

subject to free speech protec-

tions because officers are typi-

cally barred from behavior that

reflects badly on their depart-

ment, whether on or off duty.

Phoenix is one of several

cities where offensive com-

ments by law enforcement

have been highlighted by the

Plain View Project, a San Fran-

cisco-based nonprofit that has

created a database of social-

media posts by law-enforce-

ment officers.

In Philadelphia, the Plain

View Project said it found of-

fensive posts made by more

than 300 current officers. Po-

lice Commissioner Richard

Ross has launched social-me-

dia training for all the city’s

officers and said the depart-

ment will audit social-media

content to root out any more

problems. He has moved to

fire 13 officers over posts on

Facebook that encouraged po-

lice brutality, insulted Islam

and intimated violence toward

transgender individuals, and

he has said he was “angry and

disappointed” by the posts.

In Dallas, another city

where Plain View found offen-

sive posts, 34 officers are be-

ing investigated by the city’s

police department for online

comments that encouraged vi-

olence by law enforcement

and were demeaning toward

racial and religious minorities.

The local police union is cau-

tioning officers to post only

comments they are certain

won’t get them in trouble, said

Mike Mata, president of the

Dallas Police Association.

“The officers are confused

on where the standard is.

Where is that line?” said Mr.

Mata. “Do they have a right to

privacy at all?”

Mr. Mata said that while he

agreed some posts were offen-

sive, he believed many others

weren’t offensive if the full

context was included.

Police departments and
law-enforcement unions
around the country are rush-
ing to strengthen policies and
issue warnings to members in
an effort to avoid a growing
spotlight on officers’ offensive
social-media posts.
The moves follow a tide of
recent reports of derogatory
and hostile online comments
by police officers who in some
cases now face discipline for
posting racist images or
threats against public officials.
Meanwhile, representatives
of rank-and-file officers are
raising questions about what
the limits should be on police
who want to share their views
as private citizens.
“We all have a First Amend-
ment right,” said Michael Lon-
don, president of the Phoenix
Law Enforcement Association.
He recently advised his mem-
bers to refrain from posting
anything people could find
“remotely offensive,” after 12
Phoenix officers were assigned
to nonenforcement roles pend-
ing results of an investigation
into posts that included offen-

BYDANFROSCH

Police, Unions Face Social-Media Dilemma

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross announced the suspension of 13 officers on July 18.

MATT ROURKE/ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON—Attorney

General William Barr is mov-

ing to cut off asylum for peo-

ple whose claims are based on

being related to persecuted

family members, in the Trump

administration’s latest effort

to restrict who is eligible to

seek refugee status in the U.S.

Mr. Barr overturned a deci-

sion on Monday from the

Board of Immigration Appeals,

which had ruled that a Mexican

man could apply for asylum on

the basis of his father being

targeted by a Mexican cartel.

Federal law gives the attor-

ney general the authority to

overrule the immigration ap-

peals board’s decisions. It

wasn’t immediately clear how

many people Monday’s ruling

could affect.

Asylum eligibility usually

hinges on whether people are

afraid to return to their coun-

try of origin because they face

persecution on the basis of fac-

tors such as race, religion, po-

litical opinion or membership

in a particular social group.

Membership in a family, Mr.

Barr said, didn’t count as

membership in a social group.

“An applicant must estab-

lish that his specific family

group is defined with suffi-

cient particularity and is so-

cially distinct in his society,”

Mr. Barr said. “In the ordinary

case, a family group will not

meet that standard, because it

will not have the kind of iden-

tifying characteristics that ren-

der the family socially distinct

within the society in question.”

Immigrant-rights advocates

have regularly accused the

Trump administration of

stretching its authority to

change immigration policy.

David Leopold, an Ohio-

based immigration lawyer,

said he saw Mr. Barr’s latest

ruling in that light.

“It’s kind of a surreptitious

attempt to change the asylum

law because they are not

changing the law, they are

prejudging the facts and that

is not the job of the attorney

general,” Mr. Leopold said.

The ruling expands on a

similar decision from former

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

that Central American women

who were the victims of do-

mestic violence would no lon-

ger be considered members of

a particular social group for

purposes of asylum law. In that

2018 ruling, Mr. Sessions said

domestic and gang violence

constituted “private violence.”

In December, a federal

judge blocked the administra-

tion from immediately dis-

qualifying such asylum seek-

ers.

BYALICIAA.CALDWELL

ANDLOUISERADNOFSKY

Family

Bids for

Asylum

Blocked

Federal

Borrowing

Soars

Political support for

taming deficits has

faded in recent

years.

5 CIGARS

$

5

only

http://www.CigarsIntl.com/SA

Enter complete web address or search keyword: SA

1-888-244-

Mention code SA7724 | Item #: CA64-SP

Free shipping. Purchase may be subject to state or local sales tax where applicable.

First-time purchasers only. One per customer. No sales to anyone under the age

of 21. We do not ship to Utah or South Dakota. For shipping information & restrictions

please visit http://www.CigarsIntl.com/SHIP. Offer expires 8/31/19.

Includes 1 each of:

• HC Series


• Mark Twain


• Bahia


• Gurkha


• 5 Vegas