Women's World Cup

[jterrell]

Megan Rapinoe almost made me root against them. Her obsession with "you know who" was over the top.

Media ASKED her the question.
She answered.
Every bit her right to do so.
But perhaps maybe media should stop asking athletes politically motivated questions at athletic events.

She was stellar all tournament and won every award there is at 34 for her country. I don't care if she loves bro country (trash of all trash) if she does her actual job that well.

Anyone who wants to rail against 1 political side or the other is going to be pretty miserable as its about a 50/50 split.
I'm going to be listening to Texas country, driving to Chik-Fil-A in my Nike shorts and I don't buy Starbucks because it is heinously overpriced but could care less about their politics.

 

[jterrell]

Congrats to the USWNT. Not an easy bunch to get behind, though. Between the politics, absurd demands to paid like the men, and poor sportsmanship, I stopped caring if they won. They made the game itself into a sideshow and soapbox.

coulda stopped at Congrats.
you made your post a soapbox.
funny how that works.

 

[jterrell]

US women are the very best in the world.
Men are a very immature team that is no where near that level.
They should be paid more. They are better and have been for 6-8 years straight. It's a meritocracy right?

Men might have found a coach/manager but his reliance on Zardes strikes me as a common weakness of managers who want familiar faces.
The USMNT has a good thing in Pulisic to build around and they've shown some quality youth off.

The defense was far better than I expected to be honest.

But the US must get better at set pieces and on ball skill from anyone not named Pulisic.
The US women has Lloyd(aerial star) and Rapinhoe(goal poacher and kick taker) as specialists on a very good team.
The men are not anywhere near that level of development and just trying to field a good 11.

Zardes and Bradley def need to put USMNT duties behind them.
Jozy fills a very specific need but he's a 30-45 min a game guy at this point preferably when the other team is gassed and can't handle his size/strength.

 

[Carson]

Jozy fills a very specific need but he's a 30-45 min a game guy at this point preferably when the other team is gassed and can't handle his size/strength.

Which is why Jozy operates best in a two striker formation.

Put him next to Wood, Sargent, Weah etc and he will be better. He holds the defender ... just doesn’t finish enough and seems heavy footed and slow. His miss yesterday turned out to be costly

 

[Pompey-Cowboy]

US women are the very best in the world.
Men are a very immature team that is no where near that level.
They should be paid more. They are better and have been for 6-8 years straight. It's a meritocracy right?

Men might have found a coach/manager but his reliance on Zardes strikes me as a common weakness of managers who want familiar faces.
The USMNT has a good thing in Pulisic to build around and they've shown some quality youth off.

The defense was far better than I expected to be honest.

But the US must get better at set pieces and on ball skill from anyone not named Pulisic.
The US women has Lloyd(aerial star) and Rapinhoe(goal poacher and kick taker) as specialists on a very good team.
The men are not anywhere near that level of development and just trying to field a good 11.

Zardes and Bradley def need to put USMNT duties behind them.
Jozy fills a very specific need but he's a 30-45 min a game guy at this point preferably when the other team is gassed and can't handle his size/strength.

The point you make is good and fair but the women's game as a whole, in terms of generated income, is and always will be massively dwarfed by the men's game. There will never be parity. The men's game has existed for centuries without the need for a women's game. The existence of the women's game is completely dependent on the existence of the men's game. I'm not saying it's fair, that's just the way it is.

 

[atlantacowboy]

The point you make is good and fair but the women's game as a whole, in terms of generated income, is and always will be massively dwarfed by the men's game. There will never be parity. The men's game has existed for centuries without the need for a women's game. The existence of the women's game is completely dependent on the existence of the men's game. I'm not saying it's fair, that's just the way it is.

Actually it is perfectly fair. They are paid in proportion to their audience. Their incomes will rise as their audience grows. What would be unfair is to pay them like the men who draw about 990 million more viewers.

 

[jterrell]

Which is why Jozy operates best in a two striker formation.

Put him next to Wood, Sargent, Weah etc and he will be better. He holds the defender ... just doesn’t finish enough and seems heavy footed and slow. His miss yesterday turned out to be costly

he set up the best chances for the team however. pulisic had a gimme too he missed.
if jozy was clinical with his finishing he'd be playing for a massive Euro side.
all in all we don't have enough firepower to be considered world class.

the US doesn't have enough talent to play 2 strikers atm.
the formation was very good for them this tourney because they need as much help in mid-field and on that back line as they can get.
the US is like Italy in that they've historically only been good when they played defense first and scored on counters.

i do think sargent should start at forward from this point onwards.
give him and the team two full years to develop before the next WC.

they need another skilled and speedy wing and a true replacement for bradley.

 

[jterrell]

The point you make is good and fair but the women's game as a whole, in terms of generated income, is and always will be massively dwarfed by the men's game. There will never be parity. The men's game has existed for centuries without the need for a women's game. The existence of the women's game is completely dependent on the existence of the men's game. I'm not saying it's fair, that's just the way it is.

That's not true in the US at the national team level.
The US women drew 30M viewers or more for WC games. The men drew 0 as they didn't qualify.

Turns out often when you invest in things they grow and when you don't they die.
So what we want to simplify as economical good sense is really just Neanderthal thinking.
The growth potential is in the women's game, not the mens. It's been at its apex for decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc5170d122d0
The women’s team contributed close or more than half of the federation’s revenue from games since fiscal 2016. Overall, from fiscal 2016 to 2018, the women’s games generated about $900,000 more revenue than the men’s games. In the year following the 2015 World Cup win, women’s games generated $1.9 million more than the men’s games. And in recent years, the men’s revenue tally also includes the fees that opposing teams pay in order to play the United States.

 

[Pompey-Cowboy]

That's not true in the US at the national team level.
The US women drew 30M viewers or more for WC games. The men drew 0 as they didn't qualify.

Turns out often when you invest in things they grow and when you don't they die.
So what we want to simplify as economical good sense is really just Neanderthal thinking.
The growth potential is in the women's game, not the mens. It's been at its apex for decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc5170d122d0
The women’s team contributed close or more than half of the federation’s revenue from games since fiscal 2016. Overall, from fiscal 2016 to 2018, the women’s games generated about $900,000 more revenue than the men’s games. In the year following the 2015 World Cup win, women’s games generated $1.9 million more than the men’s games. And in recent years, the men’s revenue tally also includes the fees that opposing teams pay in order to play the United States.

That, as you say, is true of the National team. The National team doesn't play often enough or in enough high profile events to be financially stable as a separate entity. The women's game only becomes financially viable through a flourishing league system, played at local level, week in and week out. That will never happen. It's struggling in European countries where 'soccer' is a way of life. In the major European men's leagues, players are routinely earning 50 thousand dollars plus on a weekly basis. The women's game can't generate those kind of income streams, the interest just isn't there.

 

[jterrell]

That, as you say, is true of the National team. The National team doesn't play often enough or in enough high profile events to be financially stable as a separate entity. The women's game only becomes financially viable through a flourishing league system, played at local level, week in and week out. That will never happen. It's struggling in European countries where 'soccer' is a way of life. In the major European men's leagues, players are routinely earning 50 thousand dollars plus on a weekly basis. The women's game can't generate those kind of income streams, the interest just isn't there.

The entire conversation is about the USWNT pay from the federation where they ARE bringing in ~50% of the revenue.
No one is suggesting they make EPL league pay for their club duties.

 

[Pompey-Cowboy]

The entire conversation is about the USWNT pay from the federation where they ARE bringing in ~50% of the revenue.
No one is suggesting they make EPL league pay for their club duties.

In that case, I would be inclined to argue that the USWNT players should be paid far more than the USMNT players BECAUSE they can't possibly earn the same level of pay that the men achieve from their clubs. The major European countries pay the men a token amount to play in internationals because, clearly, playing for their country is prestigious and not about money.

 

[jterrell]

In that case, I would be inclined to argue that the USWNT players should be paid far more than the USMNT players BECAUSE they can't possibly earn the same level of pay that the men achieve from their clubs. The major European countries pay the men a token amount to play in internationals because, clearly, playing for their country is prestigious and not about money.

it all does seem to point that direction.
the us soccer federation has one team that's a star and one team that could potentially be worth a lot of money but they kinda suck.
they punish the women who rely on the money because they can't make much in the sport elsewhere.
the men play for it as a second income far below club earnings....

now perhaps you see why these women are so mad.

the us probably could have the best womens club leagues in the world and make it very profitable as they'd attract ALL the top womens talent but someone will have to invest it in and see it through.
budweiser just jumpe idn as an investor there and other women will too.

Nike just posted that it's best selling single jersey OF ALL TIME is the USWNT jersey.
The market is ready.

 

[erod]

US women are the very best in the world.
Men are a very immature team that is no where near that level.
They should be paid more. They are better and have been for 6-8 years straight. It's a meritocracy right?

The women's World Cup made $73 million. The players got a 13% cut.

The men's World Cup made $4 billion. The players got a 9% cut.

Simple. The men's game makes 58 times more money in the World Cup alone.

 

[Rockport]

Megan Rapinoe almost made me root against them. Her obsession with "you know who" was over the top.

The women's World Cup made $73 million. The players got a 13% cut.

The men's World Cup made $4 billion. The players got a 9% cut.

Simple. The men's game makes 58 times more money in the World Cup alone.

This proves you're dead wrong. As usual.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/08/sport/uswnt-btn-equal-pay-trnd/index.html

 

[sean10mm]

$900,000: How much more revenue the women's team generated than the men's team from fiscal year 2016 to 2018, according to the Washington Post.
$3,662,480: The amount spent on development for women's teams (under-14 teams to under-23 teams) in fiscal year 2016, according to the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
$7,438,159: The amount spent on development for men's teams in fiscal year 2016.
$11,400,000: The total projected revenue of the women's events (such as friendlies and tournament play) in fiscal year 2018. After expenses, the team made the US Soccer Federation money, with a surplus of just over $2 million, according to the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
$10,325,000: The total projected revenue of the men's events in fiscal year 2018. After expenses, the team had a deficit of just over $3.5 million.
$240,019: Carli Lloyd's salary in 2015, after winning the World Cup, according FiveThirtyEight.
$428,022: Clint Dempsey's salary in 2014, after losing in the round of 16 in the World Cup, according to FiveThirtyEight.

USMNT are a bunch of b-made f-boys that aren't even better in a crude profitability sense than the women, never mind their play on the field. I don't want to hear about the men deserving more money than the women until they grow some nuts on the field.

 

[erod]

This proves you're dead wrong. As usual.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/08/sport/uswnt-btn-equal-pay-trnd/index.html

No, I'm not. I have two girls in the US federation program, and I know exactly how it works.

FIFA pays the players based on a percentage of total revenue and how far teams advance in the tournament. The women's players are upset that they can't make money in professional soccer because those leagues draw crickets for attendance, whereas the men make tens of millions.

US Soccer HAS to pay the men's players more to get them to play on the US men's team. Otherwise, they won't do it. They still take a HUGE paycut based on what their club teams pay them. Chelsea paid $70 million for the rights to Chrisitan Pulisic, who is still only 20 years old. He personally only makes $1.1 million now, but that won't last long. Guys like Renaldo and Messi make $40+ million a year.

The women are only this dominant because the rest of the world doesn't give a rip about their women's programs. The USA puts FAR MORE money into the women's team than other countries do.

Here's some basic economics for you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#71b1c4866da4

 

[erod]

USMNT are a bunch of b-made f-boys that aren't even better in a crude profitability sense than the women, never mind their play on the field. I don't want to hear about the men deserving more money than the women until they grow some nuts on the field.

The US men play against real professional soccer players. The women play against a bunch of glorified recreational teams.

The US puts many times more money into the women's program than other countries, who simply don't give a rip about the women's game.

If you don't pay the men more, they simply won't agree to play. They make a lot more from their clubs. The women on the other hand made a lot more play for the US than they do their clubs.

Did you see the attendance in the vast majority of those games? Empty bleachers.

And this is from someone who has daughters in the US federation pool playing in the Academy leagues.

 

[Rockport]

No, I'm not. I have two girls in the US federation program, and I know exactly how it works.

FIFA pays the players based on a percentage of total revenue and how far teams advance in the tournament. The women's players are upset that they can't make money in professional soccer because those leagues draw crickets for attendance, whereas the men make tens of millions.

US Soccer HAS to pay the men's players more to get them to play on the US men's team. Otherwise, they won't do it. They still take a HUGE paycut based on what their club teams pay them. Chelsea paid $70 million for the rights to Chrisitan Pulisic, who is still only 20 years old. He personally only makes $1.1 million now, but that won't last long. Guys like Renaldo and Messi make $40+ million a year.

The women are only this dominant because the rest of the world doesn't give a rip about their women's programs. The USA puts FAR MORE money into the women's team than other countries do.

Here's some basic economics for you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#71b1c4866da4

What the men make from their clubs is irrelevant to the equal pay the Women want. Having 2 daughters playing soccer does not make you some kind of expert. I guess you didn’t even read the article I posted.

 

[erod]

What the men make from their clubs is irrelevant to the equal pay the Women want. Having 2 daughters playing soccer does not make you some kind of expert. I guess you didn’t even read the article I posted.

My daughters play in the US Women's development program. Quite a bit different, buddy. We understand the reason for this, even if dolts like Rapinoe do not. Soccer is not a communist sport as much as she'd like it to be.

If you don't pay the men, you're going to get a bunch of college kids that never cross midfield. The US men's pool is getting better and better, but they're still playing against the best in the world, which takes soccer more seriously than any sport there is. They will not bother going back and forth over the ocean to play here for the US team if you don't pay them well. The women don't have to do that because pro soccer for women there isn't any better than it is here.

The 26 US women make a lot more playing for the US team than they do club. They should be grateful. The men take a huge paycut to do so.

Meanwhile, nobody in the world gives a flying you know what about women's soccer except the US. They just don't care anywhere else. It's like watching putt-putt golf to them.

 

[yimyammer]

I really enjoy watching these gals play, love their passion and intensity