Women's World Cup

[Doomsday]

Wow. Straight up denial there.

Women get way less because the men suck. Boys get more if they do good. Women get a quarter of the boys if they do the same.

Your argument is pitiful. If it was reversed would you expect the men to earn less?

The SJW is strong with you.

The women got less because they were generating less revenue, now that they are killing it and popular they will get more money.

Pretty much how every single sport has worked since the beginning of time.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Lulz.

 

[visionary]

You’re as clueless as the piece of gum on my shoe.

You have shoes?
I’ve always pictured you as a bare foot weed smoking hippy

Who knew

 

[CowboysRock1980]

Lianne is an idiot, New England drinks tea so that is not distasteful

 

[Ghost12]

Lianne is an idiot, New England drinks tea so that is not distasteful

The move didn't bother me, but please don't insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting the ridiculous idea that she was doing a callback to tea being consumed in New England.

She was gloating. When you're the best, you have that right until someone proves they can beat you.

 

[Ghost12]

Something doesn't seem right with those revenue numbers.

As good as the women's team is they still drew over 10k less people a game in 2018. 24k to 14k

Here's the issue with the revenue numbers:

1) The revenue numbers only compare the US Men's National Team to the US Women's National Team. So forget all the revenue men make playing professional soccer (either MLS or other leagues). We are talking purely about the national teams.

2) Historically speaking, the US Men generate more revenue than the US Women. That has, however, changed since 2015 because....

3) Since 2015, the Women have won 1 World Cup, they are 90 minutes away from winning a 2nd World Cup, and the Men didn't even qualify for their 2018 WC tourney.

I think the women have a legit beef, but it is more complicated than some would have us believe. The women at their max do indeed bring in more money than the men at their worst, but the men have far more revenue-generating potential. They simply don't live up to it.

 

[nyc-cowboy]

Here's the issue with the revenue numbers:

1) The revenue numbers only compare the US Men's National Team to the US Women's National Team. So forget all the revenue men make playing professional soccer (either MLS or other leagues). We are talking purely about the national teams.

2) Historically speaking, the US Men generate more revenue than the US Women. That has, however, changed since 2015 because....

3) Since 2015, the Women have won 1 World Cup, they are 90 minutes away from winning a 2nd World Cup, and the Men didn't even qualify for their 2018 WC tourney.

I think the women have a legit beef, but it is more complicated than some would have us believe. The women at their max do indeed bring in more money than the men at their worst, but the men have far more revenue-generating potential. They simply don't live up to it.

I don't know, seems a bit complicated. Like I've said before, I'd rather watch the women play and if they can get more money that's great - I definitly believe in equal pay for equal work.

 

[AbeBeta]

The SJW is strong with you.

The women got less because they were generating less revenue, now that they are killing it and popular they will get more money.

Pretty much how every single sport has worked since the beginning of time.

Yeah, because social justice is a bad thing?

Also, you are wrong about revenue. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

 

[Doomsday]

Here's the issue with the revenue numbers:

1) The revenue numbers only compare the US Men's National Team to the US Women's National Team. So forget all the revenue men make playing professional soccer (either MLS or other leagues). We are talking purely about the national teams.

2) Historically speaking, the US Men generate more revenue than the US Women. That has, however, changed since 2015 because....

3) Since 2015, the Women have won 1 World Cup, they are 90 minutes away from winning a 2nd World Cup, and the Men didn't even qualify for their 2018 WC tourney.

I think the women have a legit beef, but it is more complicated than some would have us believe. The women at their max do indeed bring in more money than the men at their worst, but the men have far more revenue-generating potential. They simply don't live up to it.

Honestly you are saying something similar to what I was trying to say but maybe I didn't state it as well as I could have.

I believe the pay was decided in 2016 based on predictions of what revenues were generated by each team. At the point the men were making more for their expected WC appearance and drew larger crowds.

It is easy in hindsight to say it is an injustice, however, if the men had made the World Cup as expected that probably wouldn't be the case. Gets a bit tiring hearing everyone blame sexism etc for logical reasoning. Athletes are typically based on past success with likelihood of future success and typically are a contract behind getting their due.

Based on recent results, I would venture the pay structures will be different the next time around and rightfully so.

 

[Ghost12]

Yeah, because social justice is a bad thing?

Depends on how you define it. I am sure you would consider a lot of forms of social justice to be very bad if I got to set the definition for what constitutes "social justice."

 

[AbeBeta]

Honestly you are saying something similar to what I was trying to say but maybe I didn't state it as well as I could have.

I believe the pay was decided in 2016 based on predictions of what revenues were generated by each team. At the point the men were making more for their expected WC appearance and drew larger crowds.

It is easy in hindsight to say it is an injustice, however, if the men had made the World Cup as expected that probably wouldn't be the case. Gets a bit tiring hearing everyone blame sexism etc for logical reasoning. Athletes are typically based on past success with likelihood of future success and typically are a contract behind getting their due.

Based on recent results, I would venture the pay structures will be different the next time around and rightfully so.

Based on recent results you think the pay will flip?

The women have ouperformed the men since the inaugural women's world cup in 1991. This year is no different.

 

[AbeBeta]

Depends on how you define it. I am sure you would consider a lot of forms of social justice to be very bad if I got to set the definition for what constitutes "social justice."

Words have actual meanings. You can't just make up your own definition.

Stick to the dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social justice

 

[Ghost12]

Words have actual meanings. You can't just make up your own definition.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the meanings and definitions evolve over time and are heavily reliant upon the context within which they are used - especially when discussing something of a political nature. What you may consider "social justice" certainly does not like up with what everyone else considers "social justice" (and vice-versa).

Hence I stand by my original statement: I am sure you would consider a lot of forms of social justice to be very bad if I got to set the definition for what constitutes "social justice."

 

[AbeBeta]

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the meanings and definitions evolve over time and are heavily reliant upon the context within which they are used - especially when discussing something of a political nature. What you may consider "social justice" certainly does not like up with what everyone else considers "social justice" (and vice-versa).

Hence I stand by my original statement: I am sure you would consider a lot of forms of social justice to be very bad if I got to set the definition for what constitutes "social justice."

Oh yes. You can define words however it suits you. So convenient and agenda consistent.

Sad. The worst.

 

[Rockport]

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the meanings and definitions evolve over time and are heavily reliant upon the context within which they are used - especially when discussing something of a political nature. What you may consider "social justice" certainly does not like up with what everyone else considers "social justice" (and vice-versa).

Hence I stand by my original statement: I am sure you would consider a lot of forms of social justice to be very bad if I got to set the definition for what constitutes "social justice."

Hey, just admit it, you think the women are unworthy. That’s what you’re saying.

 

[Doomsday]

Hey, just admit it, you think the women are unworthy. That’s what you’re saying.

I notice how you keep making that accusation, yet completely ignored my point about Brooke Henderson getting paid the same as Tiger Woods etc

Based on recent results you think the pay will flip?

The women have ouperformed the men since the inaugural women's world cup in 1991. This year is no different.

I was referring to financial results / revenue generated. The entire argument of 5 of my posts.

 

[Rockport]

I notice how you keep making that accusation, yet completely ignored my point about Brooke Henderson getting paid the same as Tiger Woods etc



I was referring to financial results / revenue generated. The entire argument of 5 of my posts.

Uh, wasn’t talking to you. I know you think everyone is talking about you but I wasn’t.

 

[ghst187]

Soccer = torture

 

[Ghost12]

Hey, just admit it, you think the women are unworthy. That’s what you’re saying.

What part of "I think the women have a legit beef" did your feeble mind not understand?

 

[Ghost12]

Oh yes. You can define words however it suits you. So convenient and agenda consistent.

Sad. The worst.

Hey, you're the one who defended yourself being a SJW on the ground that "Yeah, because social justice is a bad thing?"

I believe in and support social justice 100%. So I guess that means you support everything I support too, huh?