Res ipsa Loquitur.
The title speaks for itself!
Res ipsa Loquitur.
The title speaks for itself!
Now the demand for more money for the women has gained more traction.
Men's soccer = the world cares about
Women's soccer = the world does not care about
It's easier to win at a sport when you're the only one who cares about it.
Different Class of Athletes wrote:
Men's soccer = the world cares about
Women's soccer = the world does not care about
It's easier to win at a sport when you're the only one who cares about it.
All the women in the world had an equal chance of winning the world cup.......including my Kenya.
The US won.
....and no, it is not just the US that cares about women's football. That is an erroneous assumption.
NativeSon wrote:
All the women in the world had an equal chance of winning the world cup.......including my Kenya.
The US won.
....and no, it is not just the US that cares about women's football. That is an erroneous assumption.
You're entirely wrong. The US has the best programs for women's soccer, including at the collegiate level. Unfortunately that just makes them better than the rest of the world at a sport nobody cares about.
The final was laughable. It looked like it was Netherlands first time playing soccer. What was it? Like 30 shots on goal vs. 3?
NativeSon wrote:
All the women in the world had an equal chance of winning the world cup...
This is absolutely incorrect.
US male athletes play high profile sports. US female athletes play soccer. Many countries restrict what women are allowed to do. Equal pay for equal work would be awesome because no women would be playing.
As the women’s game increases in popularity (the growth of the game in Europe in the past few years has been impressive), they will be able to negotiate higher pay. The ratings and ticket sales for the USWNT over this World Cup will help their cause.
NativeSon wrote:
Res ipsa Loquitur.
The title speaks for itself!
What's your point?
If I point out that the US women can't beat a HS team of US men, does that mean the HS team deserves as much pay as the US women?
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/While people like to rip on the US for being a racist and sexist place, the reality is far from the truth. This country is A LOT less racist and sexist than most of the world.
Personally I think the women's world cup team deserves equal pay based on the income they are bringing in and tv ratings they are getting but if the US men ever had a big run through the World Cup, their ratings would dwarf what we are seeing here.
Anyone suggesting that women should be paid the same as men solely because they are women is an anti-male moron.
If you want equality then promote women and men playing together. If you want gender segregation in sports then you don't get to make hideously embarrassing and incoherent arguments about equality.
rojo wrote:
NativeSon wrote:
Res ipsa Loquitur.
The title speaks for itself!
What's your point?
If I point out that the US women can't beat a HS team of US men, does that mean the HS team deserves as much pay as the US women?
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/While people like to rip on the US for being a racist and sexist place, the reality is far from the truth. This country is A LOT less racist and sexist than most of the world.
Personally I think the women's world cup team deserves equal pay based on the income they are bringing in and tv ratings they are getting but if the US men ever had a big run through the World Cup, their ratings would dwarf what we are seeing here.
That isn't an argument for equal pay for the women's team.
You can argue that the women's team is undervalued relative to their commercial worth. You could argue that the women should be paid more than the men's team.
It isn't an argument for "equal" pay for different work. It isn't even close to one.
False premise. The men “didn’t” beat Mexico. It’s not that they “couldn’t”.
rojo wrote:
NativeSon wrote:
Res ipsa Loquitur.
The title speaks for itself!
What's your point?
If I point out that the US women can't beat a HS team of US men, does that mean the HS team deserves as much pay as the US women?
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/While people like to rip on the US for being a racist and sexist place, the reality is far from the truth. This country is A LOT less racist and sexist than most of the world.
Personally I think the women's world cup team deserves equal pay based on the income they are bringing in and tv ratings they are getting but if the US men ever had a big run through the World Cup, their ratings would dwarf what we are seeing here.
Why bring up the strawman argument about a boys squad knowing that they generate ~$0 in revenue, whereas the women's team generates more revenue than the men's team? Only to then posit a hypothetical situation where the men actuslly have a good Cup run?
Because the men's team would decimate the women's team and this can be demonstrated due to the fact the women's team lost to an U15s team of boys. This is not the first team a junior team of boys has comfortably beaten a major women's international side. A lot of the argumentation around why women 'deserve' more pay is based on the idea they are somehow 'better' than the men's team. If the two every played it would probably be around 20-0.
The women's team does not generate more revenue. What a joke that idea is...
And if the men's team were to go on a great spree and win a few World Cups in a row while the women slumped do you think you'd be saying it was legitimate to pay the women less? No, you'd be defending it for muh equality anyway.
There is only one sport all the world cares about. thats men's football. Its also the sport where the usa sucks because they actually have to compete
That is not what Res Ipsa means.
The US women dominate because of title IX and the US collegiate system. No other country has anything that is even close.
The US men are improving. The US club system has improved a lot over the past 20-30 years. I just got my son onto a U9 club team and the quality of coaching and competition is excellent and way better than anything that was around when I was a kid. So, there will be more Pulisics coming up in the US and a much stronger US team. But it will always be an uphill battle in the US because football, basketball and baseball are so dominant.
I mean women's soccer is mostly about who has the most manly looking and behaving players. Good reason most are lesbians. How different is that really from letting caster run the 800m?
You're not getting equal pay for sports. Just shut up and move on.
Different Class of Athletes wrote:
Men's soccer = the world cares about
And the US mostly does not care about because the public prefers football, baseball and basketball.
Women's soccer = the world does not care about
And the US does care much more about than about men's soccer.
NativeSon wrote:
Res ipsa Loquitur.
The title speaks for itself!
The men's and women's team should play each other and settle it that way. Of course, the women have already lost to a 15- year old boy's team, but who knows? They should go all or nothing. All of the money allocated to soccer goes 100% to one side or the other based on the outcome on the field. Actual soccer. The best team wins. What could be more democratic?