....doesn't seem fair to have been forced to beat two countries in one evening.
PS, I wish Alex Morgan was my daughter.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
There's about 6 countries in women's soccer worth a damn. USA, England, Germany, Japan, France and Korea. In a lot of countries there is still a negative stigma around women participating in sports.
Jebus that Alex Morgan equalizer vs. Germany...
Mad skills....
and she earned a penalty after striking the ball.
Easy there Kiel...she's young enough to be your daughter.
PackFoo posted:Easy there Kiel...she's young enough to be your daughter granddaughter.
FTFY
I just saw this.
I hate you all.
Our gals are suing:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...6?mod=trending_now_9
I hope they get every penny they are asking for.
The bottom line is this...the men's game outdraws the women's game big time. Even as garbage as our men's team is, more people will show up to watch them play Guatemala than they will to see the women play Germany or any number of other top women's teams.
Is it fair? Nope, but them's the b's.
And it's because of the men's game being as lucrative as it is, that the women's team, and the developmental men's teams, have nice things to play with. Also, the men's budget is seriously inflated because of Klinsmann's inflated salary. But if you are going to get a quality manager to run a men's team, that's about what it costs.
I do believe they deserve more compensation, and probably the men deserve less quite frankly, but both sides agreed to the current contracts. They were collectively bargained and agreed upon.
The United States is far ahead of most other countries in the world on gender equity in athletics...there's a reason our women's soccer is so good...30+ years of opportunities for young women when other countries were keeping them barefoot and pregnant. Can we be better? Absolutely, but there are greater gender inequities in this country than this one.
I see the gals point........but it's also very true that the men have other, more lucrative options so in order to convince the men to come play for the USMNT, they have to pay more. For the women, they don't have any better options so the pay they get from the USWNT is less. Sucks but that's how a free market works.
Obviously if the ladies are paid as professionals the pay should be commensurate with the revenue produced. If the women's World Cup earns as much revenue as the men they should get the same as the men.
----Adam Smith
Al Bundy: "I can answer any question as good as your mother."
Kelly Bundy: "Okay Daddy, I'm menstruating, and when that happens, I get these sharp cramps right here (gesturing). What should I do?"
Al Bundy: "Walk it off. And next time, stretch before you 'mensterate.'"
PackFoo posted:The bottom line is this...the men's game outdraws the women's game big time. Even as garbage as our men's team is, more people will show up to watch them play Guatemala than they will to see the women play Germany or any number of other top women's teams.
Is it fair? Nope, but them's the b's.
And it's because of the men's game being as lucrative as it is, that the women's team, and the developmental men's teams, have nice things to play with. Also, the men's budget is seriously inflated because of Klinsmann's inflated salary. But if you are going to get a quality manager to run a men's team, that's about what it costs.
I do believe they deserve more compensation, and probably the men deserve less quite frankly, but both sides agreed to the current contracts. They were collectively bargained and agreed upon.
The United States is far ahead of most other countries in the world on gender equity in athletics...there's a reason our women's soccer is so good...30+ years of opportunities for young women when other countries were keeping them barefoot and pregnant. Can we be better? Absolutely, but there are greater gender inequities in this country than this one.
I don't think you read the whole article. The women have been producing more revenue than the men.
Pistol GB posted:Al Bundy: "I can answer any question as good as your mother."
Kelly Bundy: "Okay Daddy, I'm menstruating, and when that happens, I get these sharp cramps right here (gesturing). What should I do?"
Al Bundy: "Walk it off. And next time, stretch before you 'mensterate.'"
LOL
Yeah I screwed it up. Just remembered she said "ovulating" not "menstruating." Al Bundy still rules though.
I read the whole article, perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough (my bad).
First off, I believe the women should get a raise, I am not disputing that. However, I think their claim this is a bias based on gender is in the weeds. And quite frankly, unnecessary for an organization that has supported them very well through a lot of bad soccer years.
Their contract is up, they want more money, this is nothing but a tactic to achieve that. But what opening up the gender can of worms does is open up the USSF to potential damages, which is bad for the ENTIRE organization. If USSF is liable for damages, everyone loses except the WNT individuals who will gain financially.
The current contract is one the entire WNT representation agreed upon, back when not that many people cared about the WWC. At that time, they were content receiving a smaller portion of the revenue because their TV rights, which had significantly lesser value, were going to be bundled with the men's rights. Everything was hunky-dory when they were going to get more money as part of the collective, than as a stand alone product.
And again, I am OK with them renegotiating their deal...that is part of business. But let's not immediately go to "we was wronged cuz we was women." I just don't think that has any merit in this case.
If USSF is smart, they will standardized on a per game wage for all players, and then set up a revenue share for all senior team players. Which 2 years ago the WNT would have jumped all over...but I would bet now that for the last two years their numbers are inflated, they will want to go back to the gender inequitable "let's keep the men's and women's revenues separate."