Hats off to the USWNT

[prewarsports]

The team the USWNT lost to was an FC Dallas u15 Academy team. I have high school players on my team that have left and played for these academies and I know them VERY well so let me put that into a bit of perspective.

There are 24 MLS teams in the U.S. and each has an Academy. Within each academy there are teams for the different age groups (U15-U17 etc.). This is the absolute youngest group of boys in one of 24 different academies that spread the talent so thin that many of these young men do not even get scholarships to four year universities, after four years of maturing beyond the u15 level. These are recently graduated middle schoolers or at best, freshman in high school. The best of the best usually skip these academies anyways as they are more about $$ than talent.

This was far from the best 15 year old in the country, and they won 5-2.

Again, hats of to the USWNT, they are awesome and I watch their games. They deserve every single bit of attention they are getting for their play. I just do not understand for the life of me why anyone needs to bring the mens team into the debate or start talking about pay gaps etc. Just celebrate the accomplishment.

[oldjudge]

Great. Many male college tennis players could beat Serena Williams. Should she earn less money than her male counterparts?

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Great. Many male college tennis players could beat Serena Williams. Should she earn less money than her male counterparts?

I would have said no. But when you phrase it that way I guess the answer is yes.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Great. Many male college tennis players could beat Serena Williams. Should she earn less money than her male counterparts?

Like any other profession shouldn’t she be paid based on what she produces and what value she has? The women apparently receive 13% of their revenue and the men 9%. Maybe it’s the women who are overpaid?

[kateighty]

It might sound wrong but personally (and as a woman) I've always felt like Serena was a dude. In which case she'd be great at kicking your butt in regards to your comment Jeffrey. MIC DROP.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Like any other profession shouldn’t she be paid based on what she produces and what value she has? The women apparently receive 13% of their revenue and the men 9%. Maybe it’s the women who are overpaid?

Actually women players receive 23% of total World Cup revenue while men players receive 7%.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Actually women players receive 23% of total World Cup revenue while men players receive 7%.

Bottom line, we're not "women players" or "the women" this terminology has to stop. Were you guys born in 1400? I'm pretty sure Serena would agree with me regardless. Come on guys not cool. And here's to the women reading this. Step up and join.

[prewarsports]

Not one person on here has said anything disrespectful of women. Everyone on here is praising their accomplishments and relishing how good they are compared to their peers. What exactly has to stop, the word "women". Calling it "women's soccer" is offensive? What would you like us to call the team?

Also, it is the USWNT who are making the distinction to their pay v. men and trying to rally people to their cause and talking about the fairness. They have taken shots at the men and the debate has hijacked the World Cup, which is why a simple thread praising their accomplishments immediately took a turn to the "fairness" question just like everywhere else anyone is talking about women's soccer. I have not heard one single thing from a male athlete saying one negative thing against the ladies so when you bring attention to your cause and then people debate the merits of it, that is completely fine and sets nobody back to the year 1400.

[kateighty]

This is my exact point prewarsports. Maybe invest in some glasses. My quotes were about other terms that were used. I never said or used the term "women's soccer" so check yourself. Please show me the exact quote where I said "women's soccer is offensive" because I never did. If you're going to make shit up and defame me you better have your name.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Like any other profession shouldn’t she be paid based on what she produces and what value she has? The women apparently receive 13% of their revenue and the men 9%. Maybe it’s the women who are overpaid?

Jeff-First, I have trouble understanding those figures. The US men did not even play in the 2018 World Cup. They were knocked out by Trinidad and Tobago. To be kind, the men’s team is mediocre. The men’s sport is bigger and the men’s tournament generates a lot more revenue. I understand that. However, our men’s team doesn’t generate its’ fair share of the revenue any more than the Washington Generals generated its’ fair share of the revenues when it played the Globetrotters. The US soccer federation can allocate their income to the players as it sees fit. The USWNT is a source of national pride and an inspiration to youngsters growing up. How can they not be compensated at least as well as the men?
In Olympic competition US athletes are compensated based on how they do. I competed in the US Olympic curling trials many moons ago. We were told that if we became the US team and won a gold we would get I believe $25,000. A silver was $10,000, and a bronze was $5,000. I think all US Olympic athletes are compensated based on results. I think that the soccer teams should be compensated in a similar fashion.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Jeff-First, I have trouble understanding those figures. The US men did not even play in the 2018 World Cup. They were knocked out by Trinidad and Tobago. To be kind, the men’s team is mediocre. The men’s sport is bigger and the men’s tournament generates a lot more revenue. I understand that. However, our men’s team doesn’t generate its’ fair share of the revenue any more than the Washington Generals generated its’ fair share of the revenues when it played the Globetrotters. The US soccer federation can allocate their income to the players as it sees fit. The USWNT is a source of national pride and an inspiration to youngsters growing up. How can they not be compensated at least as well as the men?
In Olympic competition US athletes are compensated based on how they do. I competed in the US Olympic curling trials many moons ago. We were told that if we became the US team and won a gold we would get I believe $25,000. A silver was $10,000, and a bronze was $5,000. I think all US Olympic athletes are compensated based on results. I think that the soccer teams should be compensated in a similar fashion.

Well said Jay! Hoping you still get your curl on.

[rhettyeakley]

The men’s World Cup generated $6 billion, of which the participants split $400 million, ~7 percent of the total revenue. The Women’s World Cup is expected to generate $130 million, of which the women’s teams will split $30 million, or about 23 percent of the overall revenue.

You keep saying the Men's team is the Washington Generals of International Soccer and that is just silly. Other than their loss to Trinidad & Tobago in the final qualifying game for the 2018 World Cup the men have qualified for the World Cup every time it was played since 1990. They have been consistently in the top-20 rankings of international squads since the mid-to-late 1990's. Soccer is a funny sport, often times a superior team will lose. (which makes the Women's current run very impressive I might add)

Case in point... in 2017 when the USA lost to Trinidad&Tobago all Mexico had to do was beat Honduras to send the US team into a game against Australia to get one of the final bids to the 2018 World Cup and they (Mexico) lost to lowly Honduras 3-2, thus Honduras played in that game against Australia instead. Funny thing is that 4 years earlier Mexico would have missed the World Cup if the US hadn't beat Panama and given Mexico the possibility to play a game to get that same final spot to get into the field. I would hardly say that Mexico is the Washington Generals of Men's Soccer.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by kateighty

This is my exact point prewarsports. Maybe invest in some glasses. My quotes were about other terms that were used. I never said or used the term "women's soccer" so check yourself. Please show me the exact quote where I said "women's soccer is offensive" because I never did. If you're going to make shit up and defame me you better have your name.

Your attempt at having Rhys put his name out here is NOT part of the rules as his link to his auction, in every post, has all of his bio info. From the looks of your tone it seems my PM was spot on.

[lancemountain]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The men’s World Cup generated $6 billion, of which the participants split $400 million, ~7 percent of the total revenue. The Women’s World Cup is expected to generate $130 million, of which the women’s teams will split $30 million, or about 23 percent of the overall revenue.

You keep saying the Men's team is the Washington Generals of International Soccer and that is just silly. Other than their loss to Trinidad & Tobago in the final qualifying game for the 2018 World Cup the men have qualified for the World Cup every time it was played since 1990. They have been consistently in the top-20 rankings of international squads since the mid-to-late 1990's. Soccer is a funny sport, often times a superior team will lose. (which makes the Women's current run very impressive I might add)

Case in point... in 2017 when the USA lost to Trinidad&Tobago all Mexico had to do was beat Honduras to send the US team into a game against Australia to get one of the final bids to the 2018 World Cup and they (Mexico) lost to lowly Honduras 3-2, thus Honduras played in that game against Australia instead. Funny thing is that 4 years earlier Mexico would have missed the World Cup if the US hadn't beat Panama and given Mexico the possibility to play a game to get that same final spot to get into the field. I would hardly say that Mexico is the Washington Generals of Men's Soccer.

Well, Mexico clearly did not want to win that game and did everything they could short of explicitly throwing the match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BruceinGa]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The Mens World Cup brings in way, way more money. 6 Billion vs 130 Million were the figures I heard on ESPN. Equal pay will happen when the Women generate the revenue.

++

[darwinbulldog]

I have no objection to the argument that salaries should be proportionate to generated revenue, but I can't see awarding the U.S. men's team or punishing the U.S. women's team on account of the revenue generation that, say, the Argentinian men's team accounts for. If you're going to compensate all players (or teams) equally, that is tantamount to a participation trophy for the teams that are generating less revenue (and as a rule, playing worse) within the tournament. It would be simple enough to run a regression analysis and see how much of the total revenue each team is causally responsible for, and though the men's tournament clearly draws far more attention and money than the women's tournament, I don't know a priori whether the U.S. men's team per se accounts for more or less revenue than does the U.S. women's team.

So if you want to make a strictly economic argument in trying to allocate salaries appropriately for the U.S. men's and women's players, the question shouldn't be "How much money did the men's World Cup make compared to the women's World Cup?". It should be "How much more [or perhaps less] money did each tournament make with the U.S. as a participant relative to what it would have made without the U.S. as a participant?".

A headliner at a small regional music festival may bring in more dollars (or Euros) than a band on the fifth stage at 9:30 A.M. at Glastonbury or Coachella or whatever the kids are going to these days, and so too may certain women's soccer teams, in isolation, account for more in ticket sales than certain men's teams in their respective World Cup tournaments.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As for the U.S. just taking men's soccer seriously, we won two medals for soccer in the 1904 Olympics.

Umm... 1904 was mostly a sideshow for the worlds fair, most of the competitors were from the US.

In Soccer, yes, we earned two medals.
Silver and bronze, in a field that had at total of three teams.....

Canada represented by Galt F.C. won 7-0 and 4-0 over Christian Brothers College and St. Rose Parrish.

St. Rose "won" the Bronze by going 0-2 and scoring no goals.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Posting a card(her first). What other women are considered elite players?

[Leon]

That is my kind of bronze! I think I still have a bowling perfect attendance trophy somewhere.

Originally Posted by steve B

Umm... 1904 was mostly a sideshow for the worlds fair, most of the competitors were from the US.

In Soccer, yes, we earned two medals.
Silver and bronze, in a field that had at total of three teams.....

Canada represented by Galt F.C. won 7-0 and 4-0 over Christian Brothers College and St. Rose Parrish.

St. Rose "won" the Bronze by going 0-2 and scoring no goals.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Posting a card(her first). What other women are considered elite players?

Marta, from Brazil. She has ridiculously sick ball skills (to this day).

I'm late to the party, but I watched almost all of the games for the women's world cup (not just the US). I actually really enjoy watching the women's game much more than the men's game. The women are tougher and are less prone to flopping and diving. There was some of that going on in the women's world cup, but it wasn't nearly as painful as it usually (always?) is when watching the men fall and clutch onto their ankle to waste minutes of time (that should get added on as extra time anyway, but that's besides the point) only to get up moments later to do the same thing two minutes later. It's such a let-down when the momentum is shifting, etc. Buzz kill.

Also, the game is more spread out in the women's game (perhaps due to their size and skill compared to the men) so, to me, it's more tactical and more fun to watch.

Great debate on pay. What do you think some of these women bring in for sponsorship money and advertising compared to the U.S. men? I'm sure Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe and a few others are far more popular sports figures than most (all) of the U.S. men's soccer players. They are household names, but I don't think my wife (or kids) could name any of the current U.S. men's team soccer players.

And yes, I still hate Michael Bradley, even though he played pretty darn well throughout the Gold Cup. Who is the "face" of U.S. men's soccer today? Altidore (who didn't even start in all of the games)? Bradley? Pulisic was awesome (and will be a star), but he's certainly not a household name. Landon Donovan, Alexis Lalas, Cobi Jones, Clint Dempsey from years past. Meh. Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Brandi Chastain (yep, that one)...they are household names (at least in my house).

I have to imagine that many of these women are doing quite fine for themselves. The solid players that aren't household names, now that's where the compensation debate should really matter. Crystal Dunn, Sauerbrunn, Lavelle, Dahlkemper, Tobin Heath, Ertz, Carli Lloyd. Should they be paid less than the no-namers on the U.S. men's team? For me, the answer is no. But I totally get the other side of the coin with respect to the amount of revenue generated. Tough call. Great debate.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Marta, from Brazil. She has ridiculously sick ball skills (to this day).

I'm late to the party, but I watched almost all of the games for the women's world cup (not just the US). I actually really enjoy watching the women's game much more than the men's game. The women are tougher and are less prone to flopping and diving. There was some of that going on in the women's world cup, but it wasn't nearly as painful as it usually (always?) is when watching the men fall and clutch onto their ankle to waste minutes of time (that should get added on as extra time anyway, but that's besides the point) only to get up moments later to do the same thing two minutes later. It's such a let-down when the momentum is shifting, etc. Buzz kill.

Also, the game is more spread out in the women's game (perhaps due to their size and skill compared to the men) so, to me, it's more tactical and more fun to watch.

Great debate on pay. What do you think some of these women bring in for sponsorship money and advertising compared to the U.S. men? I'm sure Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe and a few others are far more popular sports figures than most (all) of the U.S. men's soccer players. They are household names, but I don't think my wife (or kids) could name any of the current U.S. men's team soccer players.

And yes, I still hate Michael Bradley, even though he played pretty darn well throughout the Gold Cup. Who is the "face" of U.S. men's soccer today? Altidore (who didn't even start in all of the games)? Bradley? Pulisic was awesome (and will be a star), but he's certainly not a household name. Landon Donovan, Alexis Lalas, Cobi Jones, Clint Dempsey from years past. Meh. Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Brandi Chastain (yep, that one)...they are household names (at least in my house).

I have to imagine that many of these women are doing quite fine for themselves. The solid players that aren't household names, now that's where the compensation debate should really matter. Crystal Dunn, Sauerbrunn, Lavelle, Dahlkemper, Tobin Heath, Ertz, Carli Lloyd. Should they be paid less than the no-namers on the U.S. men's team? For me, the answer is no. But I totally get the other side of the coin with respect to the amount of revenue generated. Tough call. Great debate.

+10

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Marta, from Brazil. She has ridiculously sick ball skills (to this day).

I'm late to the party, but I watched almost all of the games for the women's world cup (not just the US). I actually really enjoy watching the women's game much more than the men's game. The women are tougher and are less prone to flopping and diving. There was some of that going on in the women's world cup, but it wasn't nearly as painful as it usually (always?) is when watching the men fall and clutch onto their ankle to waste minutes of time (that should get added on as extra time anyway, but that's besides the point) only to get up moments later to do the same thing two minutes later. It's such a let-down when the momentum is shifting, etc. Buzz kill.

Also, the game is more spread out in the women's game (perhaps due to their size and skill compared to the men) so, to me, it's more tactical and more fun to watch.

Great debate on pay. What do you think some of these women bring in for sponsorship money and advertising compared to the U.S. men? I'm sure Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe and a few others are far more popular sports figures than most (all) of the U.S. men's soccer players. They are household names, but I don't think my wife (or kids) could name any of the current U.S. men's team soccer players.

And yes, I still hate Michael Bradley, even though he played pretty darn well throughout the Gold Cup. Who is the "face" of U.S. men's soccer today? Altidore (who didn't even start in all of the games)? Bradley? Pulisic was awesome (and will be a star), but he's certainly not a household name. Landon Donovan, Alexis Lalas, Cobi Jones, Clint Dempsey from years past. Meh. Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Brandi Chastain (yep, that one)...they are household names (at least in my house).

I have to imagine that many of these women are doing quite fine for themselves. The solid players that aren't household names, now that's where the compensation debate should really matter. Crystal Dunn, Sauerbrunn, Lavelle, Dahlkemper, Tobin Heath, Ertz, Carli Lloyd. Should they be paid less than the no-namers on the U.S. men's team? For me, the answer is no. But I totally get the other side of the coin with respect to the amount of revenue generated. Tough call. Great debate.

Good take on the situation. I also enjoy watching the women play almost as much as I enjoy watching the men. Definitely two very different styles of soccer/football. The women tend to have more time with the ball and that is why it seems more tactical, the men play at a faster pace and it can seem a bit frenetic, like a more spread version of a hockey game, this mainly due to the speed at which they are closing space and collapsing on the player with the ball.

All that being said and as someone that has played soccer for 35+ years I can’t stand the flops! That may be the biggest reason that soccer has never caught the attention of the average American sports fan, just terrible to watch (I can’t stand Neymar as a player for that reason)

[Orioles1954]

Penalty kicks should be moved back 10 yards. That will discourage much of the flopping in the penalty box.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Penalty kicks should be moved back 10 yards. That will discourage much of the flopping in the penalty box.

I would love that so much!

In my opinion there should be two versions of the penalty kick, almost like a flagrant 1 or 2 in basketball. If the ball is going in and a non-goalie defender just punches the ball with their hand to prevent the goal then a traditional penalty kick should be awarded, other than blatant issues I would be on board with making the penalty kick a bit tougher and not such a free goal. At the minimum don't require the goalie to be standing on the line, let them be wherever they want within the 6, perhaps.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I hate to see World Cup games decided by shootouts.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hats off to the U.S. Woman’s National soccer team, and especially Megan Rapinoe. They talked big and backed it up. Forget equal pay for the men’s and woman’s teams. The men are horrible and no threat to win anything. The women should be paid more than the men. They are the best in the world and likely to stay that way.

agree 10,000%

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by Leon

Your attempt at having Rhys put his name out here is NOT part of the rules as his link to his auction, in every post, has all of his bio info. From the looks of your tone it seems my PM was spot on.

Depends on which PMs you mean Leon! Honestly I'm here to talk about old school baseball. Not women's soccer. My tone was in response to a tone and wording I found offensive. Thanks to everyone who reached out to me with your encouraging words to stay here. It's so very much appreciated. Y'all are the best! I'm not going anywhere other than vacation with my family. Thanks again guys.