I'm aware that the agreement just happened. I was referring to the lost opportunity USA Soccer had years ago to avoid this whole mess. That would imply that the history of how we got here was pertinent, no?
Why would you assume I've never been outside the US? I've travelled extensively through Eastern and Western Europe, North, Central, and South America, all in all, north of 45 countries.
The reason I say the US has the most liberated women versus the rest of the world is because, here in the US, a woman can put on shorts and a shirt and go for a jog or train for a sport, in public, without too much harassment (the harassment is still there but just a fraction of the public abuse women from other countries are subjected to if they dared to exercise in public at all).
If you're a woman, try running, cycling, walking, or just being, by yourself in Buenos Aires. If you're a budding female soccer player, try joining a pickup game on the beach in Recife with other women.
There are too numerous to mention female athletes in other countries that will never get a chance to play a sport of their aptitude because of a lack of facilities, support, safety, public perceptions, etc., etc. This creates a huge competitive advantage for the USA. The sports clubs in Europe are starting to up their game but are mostly spread too thin to give the US a reasonable competitive challenge on a national team level.
The US dominating the World in women's soccer is a good thing because it will cause other countries to view their females as something more than a pretty face.
USWNT is the tide that will eventually float all boats and, for that alone, they deserve to be paid equal to, if not more than, the USMNT. But lets not fool ourselves into thinking that they are in the same international competitive environment as the USMNT.
You didn’t say the most liberated, you said the US has “MORE liberated than the rest of the world combined”
If you agree that women in Europe alone are equally liberated then it’s impossible for there to be MORE liberated women in the US than the rest of the world combined. Not to mention Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc etc
I get the sense that you've got a lot to say but, for some reason, aren't saying it. Instead just resort to "fluff", ignorant, wrong, uniformed, etc., etc.
My fluff comment on the USA being the tide to eventually float all boats is certainly supported by a 5 second Google search:
"USA was the first ever country to include more women than men in the Games of 2012 in London (269 women and 261 men). That has had a positive impact on their performance, as women won 58 medals and men 45, thus sending the USA to the first position. 4 years later, they followed the same pattern, sending to the Games 292 female athletes of a total of 555. This is the largest value of women participating for any nation in the history of the Olympic Games. The recipe was successful once again: USA was the leader in the final table, totaling 121 medals. The biggest success achieved by the women of team USA, who won the majority of the medals. At the Rio Olympics, 61 of USA’s 121 medals were won by women, while men won 55 (5 medals were from mixed events). Furthermore, from the 61 female medals, 27 were gold. Many countries soon started following the same pattern, understanding the importance of women’s participation. Australia, in the 2016 Olympics won 29 medals (41.5% was from female athletes) reaching the 10th position with 5 out of 8 gold medals won by female athletes."
From antiquity, there have been numerous inequalities and biases among the genders. In many prominent ancient civilizations, women’s social role was limited to house affairs and childcare. This has had an impact in all aspect...
So while other nations are following in the USA's women-in-sports strategy, they still have a ways to go. I mentioned Europe is there but if you're a country of 4 million it will be hard to compete with the USA's female industrial sports complex on a national team level. This speaks to the dearth of competition (beating Thailand 13 - 0 in a World Cup). It would be interesting to see how many soccer players the US has to pick from in club/NCAA leagues versus Europe and the rest of the World.
If you can't get over my "liberated" assertion, let me better define it for you; I gauge a country's level of liberation of its female population by how many sports opportunities they have (I know, I know, I'll save you the effort of typing "rudimentary" for a curt response). So Norway? Highly liberated. Saudi Arabia? Not so much. This might get you or me to amend my original assertion that the USA has more females in sport (re liberated) than the rest of the World combined.
You didn’t say the most liberated, you said the US has “MORE liberated than the rest of the world combined”
If you agree that women in Europe alone are equally liberated then it’s impossible for there to be MORE liberated women in the US than the rest of the world combined. Not to mention Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc etc
I get the sense that you've got a lot to say but, for some reason, aren't saying it. Instead just resort to "fluff", ignorant, wrong, uniformed, etc., etc.
My fluff comment on the USA being the tide to eventually float all boats is certainly supported by a 5 second Google search:
"USA was the first ever country to include more women than men in the Games of 2012 in London (269 women and 261 men). That has had a positive impact on their performance, as women won 58 medals and men 45, thus sending the USA to the first position. 4 years later, they followed the same pattern, sending to the Games 292 female athletes of a total of 555. This is the largest value of women participating for any nation in the history of the Olympic Games. The recipe was successful once again: USA was the leader in the final table, totaling 121 medals. The biggest success achieved by the women of team USA, who won the majority of the medals. At the Rio Olympics, 61 of USA’s 121 medals were won by women, while men won 55 (5 medals were from mixed events). Furthermore, from the 61 female medals, 27 were gold. Many countries soon started following the same pattern, understanding the importance of women’s participation. Australia, in the 2016 Olympics won 29 medals (41.5% was from female athletes) reaching the 10th position with 5 out of 8 gold medals won by female athletes."
So while other nations are following in the USA's women-in-sports strategy, they still have a ways to go. I mentioned Europe is there but if you're a country of 4 million it will be hard to compete with the USA's female industrial sports complex on a national team level. This speaks to the dearth of competition (beating Thailand 13 - 0 in a World Cup). It would be interesting to see how many soccer players the US has to pick from in club/NCAA leagues versus Europe and the rest of the World.
If you can't get over my "liberated" assertion, let me better define it for you; I gauge a country's level of liberation of its female population by how many sports opportunities they have (I know, I know, I'll save you the effort of typing "rudimentary" for a curt response). So Norway? Highly liberated. Saudi Arabia? Not so much. This might get you or me to amend my original assertion that the USA has more females in sport (re liberated) than the rest of the World combined.
Keep shifting the goalposts to suit your narrative.
You've transitioned from the “the US has MORE liberated women than the rest of the world combined” to a female jogger in Bueno Aires might get harassed to well the US had more females in the Olympics in 2012.
You’re all over the place and once AGAIN refuse to address YOUR original claim that there are “more liberated women in the US thank the rest of the world combined”
Crunch the numbers on Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and so on. Do you still genuinely believe that claim was accurate?
It was horse poop. I know it, you know and best of all I know you know it. There’s no need to dig deeper and starting dragging Saudi Arabia into your ever shifting fluff.
I get the sense that you've got a lot to say but, for some reason, aren't saying it. Instead just resort to "fluff", ignorant, wrong, uniformed, etc., etc.
My fluff comment on the USA being the tide to eventually float all boats is certainly supported by a 5 second Google search:
"USA was the first ever country to include more women than men in the Games of 2012 in London (269 women and 261 men). That has had a positive impact on their performance, as women won 58 medals and men 45, thus sending the USA to the first position. 4 years later, they followed the same pattern, sending to the Games 292 female athletes of a total of 555. This is the largest value of women participating for any nation in the history of the Olympic Games. The recipe was successful once again: USA was the leader in the final table, totaling 121 medals. The biggest success achieved by the women of team USA, who won the majority of the medals. At the Rio Olympics, 61 of USA’s 121 medals were won by women, while men won 55 (5 medals were from mixed events). Furthermore, from the 61 female medals, 27 were gold. Many countries soon started following the same pattern, understanding the importance of women’s participation. Australia, in the 2016 Olympics won 29 medals (41.5% was from female athletes) reaching the 10th position with 5 out of 8 gold medals won by female athletes."
So while other nations are following in the USA's women-in-sports strategy, they still have a ways to go. I mentioned Europe is there but if you're a country of 4 million it will be hard to compete with the USA's female industrial sports complex on a national team level. This speaks to the dearth of competition (beating Thailand 13 - 0 in a World Cup). It would be interesting to see how many soccer players the US has to pick from in club/NCAA leagues versus Europe and the rest of the World.
If you can't get over my "liberated" assertion, let me better define it for you; I gauge a country's level of liberation of its female population by how many sports opportunities they have (I know, I know, I'll save you the effort of typing "rudimentary" for a curt response). So Norway? Highly liberated. Saudi Arabia? Not so much. This might get you or me to amend my original assertion that the USA has more females in sport (re liberated) than the rest of the World combined.
Keep shifting the goalposts to suit your narrative.
You've transitioned from the “the US has MORE liberated women than the rest of the world combined” to a female jogger in Bueno Aires might get harassed to well the US had more females in the Olympics in 2012.
You’re all over the place and once AGAIN refuse to address YOUR original claim that there are “more liberated women in the US thank the rest of the world combined”
Crunch the numbers on Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and so on. Do you still genuinely believe that claim was accurate?
It was horse poop. I know it, you know and best of all I know you know it. There’s no need to dig deeper and starting dragging Saudi Arabia into your ever shifting fluff.
+1, it’s a desperate refusal to accept the claim was ridiculous.
4
1
"Comfort must not be expected by folks that go a pleasuring."
I get the sense that you've got a lot to say but, for some reason, aren't saying it. Instead just resort to "fluff", ignorant, wrong, uniformed, etc., etc.
My fluff comment on the USA being the tide to eventually float all boats is certainly supported by a 5 second Google search:
"USA was the first ever country to include more women than men in the Games of 2012 in London (269 women and 261 men). That has had a positive impact on their performance, as women won 58 medals and men 45, thus sending the USA to the first position. 4 years later, they followed the same pattern, sending to the Games 292 female athletes of a total of 555. This is the largest value of women participating for any nation in the history of the Olympic Games. The recipe was successful once again: USA was the leader in the final table, totaling 121 medals. The biggest success achieved by the women of team USA, who won the majority of the medals. At the Rio Olympics, 61 of USA’s 121 medals were won by women, while men won 55 (5 medals were from mixed events). Furthermore, from the 61 female medals, 27 were gold. Many countries soon started following the same pattern, understanding the importance of women’s participation. Australia, in the 2016 Olympics won 29 medals (41.5% was from female athletes) reaching the 10th position with 5 out of 8 gold medals won by female athletes."
So while other nations are following in the USA's women-in-sports strategy, they still have a ways to go. I mentioned Europe is there but if you're a country of 4 million it will be hard to compete with the USA's female industrial sports complex on a national team level. This speaks to the dearth of competition (beating Thailand 13 - 0 in a World Cup). It would be interesting to see how many soccer players the US has to pick from in club/NCAA leagues versus Europe and the rest of the World.
If you can't get over my "liberated" assertion, let me better define it for you; I gauge a country's level of liberation of its female population by how many sports opportunities they have (I know, I know, I'll save you the effort of typing "rudimentary" for a curt response). So Norway? Highly liberated. Saudi Arabia? Not so much. This might get you or me to amend my original assertion that the USA has more females in sport (re liberated) than the rest of the World combined.
Keep shifting the goalposts to suit your narrative.
You've transitioned from the “the US has MORE liberated women than the rest of the world combined” to a female jogger in Bueno Aires might get harassed to well the US had more females in the Olympics in 2012.
You’re all over the place and once AGAIN refuse to address YOUR original claim that there are “more liberated women in the US thank the rest of the world combined”
Crunch the numbers on Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and so on. Do you still genuinely believe that claim was accurate?
It was horse poop. I know it, you know and best of all I know you know it. There’s no need to dig deeper and starting dragging Saudi Arabia into your ever shifting fluff.
Ok now I think rather than having something to say you're just dense.
I'll be happy to retract my claim that "the US has more liberated women than the rest of the world combined". It was too bombastic. I need to be more careful when arguing with a pit bull on LRC. Let's move on, shall we?
The goal posts haven't shifted, the premise I'm making making still stands as it pertains to the US and the USWNT; that there are more sporting opportunities for women in the USA than in there are in all the other countries in the world. Combine that with our population and we have more potential athletes to chose from when picking a national team than any other country (save China?). Europe may now be better developing the athletes they have versus the US but it would be hard to overcome our sheer numbers.
Sooooooo, when others say that the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT on the international stage I respond, of course they are, they have no competition, there's no depth, no parity, only a few countries have caught up.
But that is not how I think we should value the USWNT's accomplishments, they are leading the way by motivating other countries to provide more females with access to sport - which is what I value and worth every penny we pay them.
Keep shifting the goalposts to suit your narrative.
You've transitioned from the “the US has MORE liberated women than the rest of the world combined” to a female jogger in Bueno Aires might get harassed to well the US had more females in the Olympics in 2012.
You’re all over the place and once AGAIN refuse to address YOUR original claim that there are “more liberated women in the US thank the rest of the world combined”
Crunch the numbers on Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and so on. Do you still genuinely believe that claim was accurate?
It was horse poop. I know it, you know and best of all I know you know it. There’s no need to dig deeper and starting dragging Saudi Arabia into your ever shifting fluff.
Ok now I think rather than having something to say you're just dense.
I'll be happy to retract my claim that "the US has more liberated women than the rest of the world combined". It was too bombastic. I need to be more careful when arguing with a pit bull on LRC. Let's move on, shall we?
The goal posts haven't shifted, the premise I'm making making still stands as it pertains to the US and the USWNT; that there are more sporting opportunities for women in the USA than in there are in all the other countries in the world. Combine that with our population and we have more potential athletes to chose from when picking a national team than any other country (save China?). Europe may now be better developing the athletes they have versus the US but it would be hard to overcome our sheer numbers.
Sooooooo, when others say that the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT on the international stage I respond, of course they are, they have no competition, there's no depth, no parity, only a few countries have caught up.
But that is not how I think we should value the USWNT's accomplishments, they are leading the way by motivating other countries to provide more females with access to sport - which is what I value and worth every penny we pay them.
When Ian Wright (Arsenal striker in the 90s) was selected to play for England, he returned his pay cheque to the Football Association; he believed it was an honour to play for his country and that no pay was necessary.
I thought they did research and found out due to health care and other benefits that the US womens team receives, that the women's team was already paid more?
I think that might have been a claim by the defense; not sure what "research" was involved.
The national team in theory is not really a for-profit / market-based business. The governing body can set a single price for everyone for representing their country and being on the national team. I'm fine with that. Why not?
Now, in the the free market, that wouldn't make sense. Should all actors actors get paid the same regardless of their box office success. Should I, as a man, get paid the same as Adele if I bring my demo to a record company? Should tickets to my concert be priced the same as hers?
What's unusual about this new agreement is that it also equalizes World Cup bonuses, which come directly from FIFA and are outside of US Soccer's control. The only reason this was possible was because the men essentially agreed to subsidize the women (probably because it makes for good press and they already make way more from their club teams). None of the other countries that have "equalized" women's and men's compensation for soccer have gone that far.
Also, while it's true that US Soccer is a non-profit, that doesn't mean they aren't market participants for labor. I work at a non-profit, and I have negotiated my raises based on what I could make in the private sector or at other non-profits.
Yes, the women should be paid by US Soccer the same as the men. That's because the money is coming from the US government through a sports federation. Should be the same way for basketball and any other government sponsored sport.
Hahaha. No.
The US government does not fund US Soccer. At all. They're on their own.
The goal posts haven't shifted, the premise I'm making making still stands as it pertains to the US and the USWNT; that there are more sporting opportunities for women in the USA than in there are in all the other countries in the world. Combine that with our population and we have more potential athletes to chose from when picking a national team than any other country (save China?). Europe may now be better developing the athletes they have versus the US but it would be hard to overcome our sheer numbers.
Sooooooo, when others say that the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT on the international stage I respond, of course they are, they have no competition, there's no depth, no parity, only a few countries have caught up.
But that is not how I think we should value the USWNT's accomplishments, they are leading the way by motivating other countries to provide more females with access to sport - which is what I value and worth every penny we pay them.
Exactly right. Title IX gave the US a 30 year head start on elite women's sport. It's actually remarkable how quickly other countries are catching up.
Yes, the women should be paid by US Soccer the same as the men. That's because the money is coming from the US government through a sports federation. Should be the same way for basketball and any other government sponsored sport.
Now, as for individual contracts that are held by athletes and their clubs, and that's where the real money is, that is entirely separate. It is whatever the free market will bear. Too say that Megan Rapinoe should be paid the same as Mo Saleh, Luka Modrić, or Karim Benzema, is absolutely ludicrous!
Then there's product endorsements. A whole other realm that is an extremely big business.
What happened to "equal pay for equal performance"?
Since professional women in pretty much every sport are somewhere around high school boy level, pro women should be paid the same amount as high school boys make, right?
So what do high school boys get paid for being athletes?
2
3
"Comfort must not be expected by folks that go a pleasuring."
Ok now I think rather than having something to say you're just dense.
I'll be happy to retract my claim that "the US has more liberated women than the rest of the world combined". It was too bombastic. I need to be more careful when arguing with a pit bull on LRC. Let's move on, shall we?
The goal posts haven't shifted, the premise I'm making making still stands as it pertains to the US and the USWNT; that there are more sporting opportunities for women in the USA than in there are in all the other countries in the world. Combine that with our population and we have more potential athletes to chose from when picking a national team than any other country (save China?). Europe may now be better developing the athletes they have versus the US but it would be hard to overcome our sheer numbers.
Sooooooo, when others say that the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT on the international stage I respond, of course they are, they have no competition, there's no depth, no parity, only a few countries have caught up.
But that is not how I think we should value the USWNT's accomplishments, they are leading the way by motivating other countries to provide more females with access to sport - which is what I value and worth every penny we pay them.
There you go, that wasn’t so hard was it 👍
I note your mistake.
Actually it was pretty darn hard…I blame testosterone.
According to a statement from Fox Sports, citing data from Nielsen, approximately 14.3 million U.S. viewers tuned in to the final match on television, compared to 11.4 million for the 2018 Men's World Cup Final, a 22% U.S. vi...
Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
Timothy 2:9 Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,
Gosh I wonder if US viewership ratings have anything to do with the US women's team making the world cup final in 2019 and the men's team not being in the 2018 world cup final in 2018? What an idiot.
That probably has more to do with the fact that the women were in the final and the men didn't even make the tournament. A lot of people in the US watched the final because of that. However, worldwide more people watched the Men's WC final than watched the Women's final. It's not even a close comparison. This is why it is much more expensive to advertise at the Men's WC than the Women's WC for all matches.
Just looked up ticket prices for the USWNT game in Denver. The cheapest seats are $200 a ticket plus fees (it was less expensive when I went to a Stanley Cup game the other night).
