Three lawsuits have shed a light on some of the pitfalls associated with professional cheerleading. And behind the pom-poms and razzmatazz, life can be hard.
This year, there have already been three lawsuits filed against professional football clubs in the National Football League (NFL) arguing that the scantily-clad, well-trained dancers who work the sidelines aren't compensated fairly for their work, at best, and are subject to degrading work conditions and unwanted sexual contact at worst.
Cheerleaders from the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals and Buffalo Bills have all filed lawsuits claiming the teams don't pay them a fair wage.
The lawsuits have shone a light on the hazards of what's traditionally been seen as a fun, glamorous job for female football enthusiasts.
PERK: A national stage. For many women who grew up taking dance lessons, it's a chance to both continue to learn and to show their skills in front of a national TV audience.
"Think of what you might pay out of pocket for the training you'd receive and what you'd pay to take advanced dance training," says Flavia Berys, a former NFL cheerleader and author of Professional Cheerleading Audition Secrets.
PROBLEM: Every inch is scrutinised. According to the Bills lawsuit, women are subjected to "jiggle tests," where they are judged on their physical appearance in their outfit and told which problem areas need work. Too many warnings for an out-of-shape body could lead to sitting out a game.
PERK: Clubs bring in hair stylists and makeup professionals who serve as team sponsors and provide touch-ups on game day.
PROBLEM: The team can make demands about how the cheerleaders look. According to a copy of the Baltimore Ravens' rulebook, "All fair-skinned cheerleaders must have a warm skin colour tone for every game day. This is provided through tanning and/or spray tanning."
A discount is provided, but the cheerleaders ultimately end up paying out of pocket for the rest. Members of the Buffalo club, where cheerleaders are called the Buffalo Jills, allege that they were forced to use the sponsor services, with discount, rather than seek out a cheaper alternative.
Selections from the Jill's handbook
The handbook for Buffalo Jills didn't just include rules and regulations about game day appearance and fraternising with players. It also included language about personal care and social grace. Some excerpts include:
When trying to "capture" a small piece of food onto a utensil, it is acceptable to use another utensil for aiding it aboard. Never use your fingers.Always avoid: Politics, religion, sexual references… Inappropriate jokes, strong opinions, gossip, saying "I" or "me" too often.When menstruating, use a product that is right for your menstrual flow. A tampon too big can irritate and develop fungus.
PERK: The teams often pose for calendar shots, which are then sold as fundraisers. Cheerleaders are able to pocket the profits from their personal sales.
PROBLEM: In several cases, the cheerleaders are required to buy the calendars outright, and then keep whatever they make only after they've recouped their costs. If the calendars don't sell, that's money they don't get back.
PERK: Cheerleaders have special significance in the US, where they stand for wholesome beauty and all-American charm.
PROBLEM: Heckling and groping. "Let's be honest. You're an NFL cheerleader and you're standing in front of 10,000 drunk guys all the time," says Gabrielle Montemage, a former Buffalo Jill. She says she never felt like the sexual attention "went too far." Some of the Jills, however, allege that they were forced to work events without proper security and were touched without permission.
PERK: Cheerleaders are considered ambassadors for the team within the community. Montemage considers it a point of pride that she was able to work closely with the Make A Wish Foundation, and that she got to travel to Iraq to entertain US troops
PROBLEM: A certain number of volunteer gigs are often required, and as the name implies, unpaid.
The Buffalo Jills have suspended operations for the 2014 season
PERK: A chance to be part of the NFL action. "You get something from cheerleading that you don't get in any other stage type of dance, and that is the tens of thousands of fans who are all rooting for their team," says Berys. "You get to lead that energy, feel that energy thunder over you. It's so exciting. You don't get that high from anything else."
PROBLEM: Most Raiders and Jills cheerleaders make around $100 (£60). Bengals cheerleaders get $90. They receive no compensation for time spent practising or working at events. Only one club, the Seattle Seahawks, has said they pay cheerleaders an hourly wage and overtime.
In the end, says Sharon Vinick, the lawyer representing the Raiderettes, it doesn't matter that there are thousands of women lining up to do the job or that they get perks associated with the NFL.
The NFL isn't just about football. It's about pageantry and spectacle, and above all, commerce, bringing in $9bn (£5.3bn) last year. The cheerleaders, she says, should get their share.
The Jiggle Suit
The Jiggle Suit
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Jiggle Suit
I'm not a labor lawyer, but I think this is a hard suit to win; this is entertainment and the entertainers are treated as independent contractors, often compensated by only a small fee (unless you somehow strike it big) for everything, with no pay for rehearsals, etc. I work sometimes as a professional (paid) singer with a number of choruses and choirs in my area. The pay is small and the travel and rehearsal time, etc. are not compensated (nor are expenses like acquiring or renting tuxedos or tails depending on the concert and venue, as well as travel), but people line up to do the jobs (after paying thousands for training, etc.) because they either want to make it big one day and are supporting themselves a bit by these jobs, or because, like me, they just enjoy it (or like having a hobby that provides some monetary compensation. I suppose they could try to unionize, but otherwise I don't see a lot of chances for success.
Re: The Jiggle Suit
At first glance, they are not very sympathetic plaintiffs for the reason you say BigRR, comparable entertainers work for little and there are a ton of willing replacements. In addition, they're not necessary to the action on the field. However, legally the question is whether these women are employees rather than independent contractors or quasi-volunteers. Given the exclusivity of their dance duties, and workplace control factors, it is likely a court will rule that they are employees rather than independent contractors. Then the question is whether they are more of a volunteer receiving a stipend to help cover costs; again, they have a pretty good argument that their role has grown into a bona fide part of the overall entertainment package that is an NFL game, and that they should be considered employees. I think the league will settle this one rather than have it go through a trial.
Re: The Jiggle Suit
Well the employee question is a good one, but given the industry and customary practices in entertainment venues, I'm not at all convinced that a court will rule them to be employees. Same thing for the volunteer vs employee argument.
Will the league settle? I'm not sure it can; the clubs handle these issues themselves (the NFL is not a party to any of the suits), and the cheerleaders are not covered by any league-wide collective bargaining agreements or rules like the players and coaches are. The league may well press a club to settle behind the scenes, but to take any broader position might amount to an antitrust violation.
Will the league settle? I'm not sure it can; the clubs handle these issues themselves (the NFL is not a party to any of the suits), and the cheerleaders are not covered by any league-wide collective bargaining agreements or rules like the players and coaches are. The league may well press a club to settle behind the scenes, but to take any broader position might amount to an antitrust violation.