Women's Soccer Delusions

[DGS49]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/03/19/megan-rapinoe-us-soccer/

“The overall soccer-playing ability required to compete at the senior men’s national team level is materially influenced by the level of certain physical attributes. Such as speed and strength, required for the job.” Saying that a male player requires “a higher level of skill” than a female player and the men have “more responsibility” than the women, the filing created a storm that cost Carlos Cordeiro, the head of the federation, his job.

The economics of soccer are a matter for the bean counters to figure out. If the Women's national soccer team generates more net revenue than the men's team (revenues minus expenses), then that should be considered in their compensation. But the elephant in that room is that the Men can make a good living playing professional soccer elsewhere, and the women can't. So the men's compensation has to be sufficient to attract good players, justifying their foregoing other financial opportunities in professional soccer. This factor doesn't exist on the women's side.

This is analogous to the women's NBA. Even if those teams drew capacity crowds and large viewing audiences (they don't), the players have NO OTHER OPTIONS to play professional basketball, and their compensation reflects that. An NBA-caliber male basketball player can make a good living all over the globe, so the NBA can't get away with paying them a relative pittance.

But to deny that the players on the Men's soccer team are better than the women is preposterous. It's not even close. Not a single player on the women's team could even make the practice squad on the the Men's team. And the reason for the relative success of the Women's team internationally is that the Rest of the World simply doesn't give a shit about women's soccer ("football").

What kind of a country do we live in where someone loses his job for speaking an obvious truth?

 

[22lcidw]

American women soccer players are the luckiest people in the world. They only have a few teams that are competitive from other nations. And have made names for themselves by it. Somebody is backing them and our cable bills help to support them and others.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually you could argue that the women National players are OVERPAID when you consider how much revenue they generate compared to the men.

 

[Unkotare]

It's soccer. No one cares.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/03/19/megan-rapinoe-us-soccer/

“The overall soccer-playing ability required to compete at the senior men’s national team level is materially influenced by the level of certain physical attributes. Such as speed and strength, required for the job.” Saying that a male player requires “a higher level of skill” than a female player and the men have “more responsibility” than the women, the filing created a storm that cost Carlos Cordeiro, the head of the federation, his job.

The economics of soccer are a matter for the bean counters to figure out. If the Women's national soccer team generates more net revenue than the men's team (revenues minus expenses), then that should be considered in their compensation. But the elephant in that room is that the Men can make a good living playing professional soccer elsewhere, and the women can't. So the men's compensation has to be sufficient to attract good players, justifying their foregoing other financial opportunities in professional soccer. This factor doesn't exist on the women's side.

This is analogous to the women's NBA. Even if those teams drew capacity crowds and large viewing audiences (they don't), the players have NO OTHER OPTIONS to play professional basketball, and their compensation reflects that. An NBA-caliber male basketball player can make a good living all over the globe, so the NBA can't get away with paying them a relative pittance.

But to deny that the players on the Men's soccer team are better than the women is preposterous. It's not even close. Not a single player on the women's team could even make the practice squad on the the Men's team. And the reason for the relative success of the Women's team internationally is that the Rest of the World simply doesn't give a shit about women's soccer ("football").

What kind of a country do we live in where someone loses his job for speaking an obvious truth?

I loved it when they tried to bait Ronda Rousey into bitching about the pay differential in mens and womens pay in the MMA.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I saw an ESPN You Tube exposition on this matter when soccer head Carlos Cordiero stepped down
due to being on the "wrong side" of this matter and I was immediately struck why I hate ESPN so much and how their reporting was about as balanced and fair minded as an MSNBC assessment of Donald Trump.

Four or five commentators were brought up and they all called the US Soccer decision to pay their men's soccer team more than the women "paleolithic" in it's thinking on the matter. And that was a kinder comment from the group who all seemed angry and upset.
Not one single dissenting comment was broadcast or even existed if you listened to ESPN. You would think, if you knew nothing about the matter there was no other opinion that was possible to have.

But I immediately thought about the NBA/ WNBA issue and how the women, and their inferior product demanded equal pay with the NBA.

Every man playing in the World Cup (for their nation, not their club) is being paid a certain amount to pay
for his national team to compensate what he would be making as a well paid professional.

The problem is the women have no such arrangement because they do not play on multi million dollar
professional clubs before tens of thousands of fans every week.

People are not clamoring to see women's professional soccer. The naked fact is they are playing a level of soccer so far below where the men are at they aren't even in the same business for all intents and purposes.

Think of the NBA and WNBA again and ESPN never even made oblique references to this reality.
They said sponsors like VW and Coke were going to withdraw their sponsorship over what US soccer was willing to pay members of their respective men and women's national teams.

Why doesn't Coke and VW, and other sponsors with deep pockets, step up and make up the difference then?

Professional tennis long ago caved in and payed equal money for a vastly inferior brand of tennis to the
Women's Tennis Association just to insure women were in the pro mix.

Well that's one way of solving the problem albeit it's a dishonest way. The women's lawsuit against Soccer USA was a bust because the court noted the physical superiority of the men's play.

Why won't the ideologues at ESPN at least acknowledge this?

 

[DGS49]

I think the wimmin's argument is somewhat based on the attendance and TV ratings of the two teams, which would seem to support them. The difference, as mentioned above, is the amount necessary to get male players with other lucrative soccer opportunities; women don't have these alternatives.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I think the wimmin's argument is somewhat based on the attendance and TV ratings of the two teams, which would seem to support them. The difference, as mentioned above, is the amount necessary to get male players with other lucrative soccer opportunities; women don't have these alternatives.

American male footballers are pretty mediocre and would not generally command top dollar. The women though dominate their sport. I can see why they are peeved.

 

[Unkotare]

I think the wimmin's argument is somewhat based on the attendance and TV ratings of the two teams, which would seem to support them. The difference, as mentioned above, is the amount necessary to get male players with other lucrative soccer opportunities; women don't have these alternatives.

American male footballers are pretty mediocre and would not generally command top dollar. The women though dominate their sport....

Because it's a girls' sport. Our men play men's sports.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I think the wimmin's argument is somewhat based on the attendance and TV ratings of the two teams, which would seem to support them. The difference, as mentioned above, is the amount necessary to get male players with other lucrative soccer opportunities; women don't have these alternatives.

American male footballers are pretty mediocre and would not generally command top dollar. The women though dominate their sport....

Because it's a girls' sport. Our men play men's sports.

you play sports that the rest of the world has no interest in. Just so you can win.

 

[Unkotare]

I think the wimmin's argument is somewhat based on the attendance and TV ratings of the two teams, which would seem to support them. The difference, as mentioned above, is the amount necessary to get male players with other lucrative soccer opportunities; women don't have these alternatives.

American male footballers are pretty mediocre and would not generally command top dollar. The women though dominate their sport....

Because it's a girls' sport. Our men play men's sports.

you play sports that the rest of the world has no interest in. Just so you can win.

Leave the discussion of sports to the men, missy. Go knit something while wishing death on your betters.

 

[22lcidw]

I think the wimmin's argument is somewhat based on the attendance and TV ratings of the two teams, which would seem to support them. The difference, as mentioned above, is the amount necessary to get male players with other lucrative soccer opportunities; women don't have these alternatives.

American male footballers are pretty mediocre and would not generally command top dollar. The women though dominate their sport. I can see why they are peeved.

There are only a few women's soccer teams in the world that our competitive enough to win a tournament. Then there is a massive drop off in team quality. I do not care about that. I care about subsidizing them and other sports through cable TV rates. If people want to watch them, then let them pay for it. Male soccer is quite different. European and South American nations dominate that sport and put resources into it. National pride for most. Throw in a few stragglers and it is a murderers row against Americans to win.

 

[Sunni Man]

There are men's high school teams that can easily beat the top women's national team.

Same with women's NBA ...

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

you play sports that the rest of the world has no interest in. Just so you can win.

You are such a predictable dick! Basketball is played around the world. Baseball is very popular in Asia and Latin America as well as Australia, Canada and some other countries.
And our pro football sells out the yearly matches played in London.

You don't learn. You just continually make idiotic foot in mouth statements without the slightest bit of
research.

 

[DGS49]

Most countries with a strong "soccer" culture cultivate the best [male] players throughout their lives. They go to special schools whose students are chosen entirely by merit (as soccer players). Every year you have to prove your worthiness again, or your slot can be taken by someone from outside. Most importantly, competition is by skill level, NOT by age, as is prevalent in the U.S. For illustration, in this culture, the best 12 year olds are playing against 15 and 16 year olds, while in the U.S., almost everything is done by either age or school grade. This is why American soccer players are not competitive globally.

Even so, our best players can make a good living playing in a number of venues, even if they are not on par with the best in the world.

For women, no country would waste the money to nurture girls and young women this way. The competition is simply not keen enough, and there is insufficient fan interest. Go to a typical American college womens soccer game, and the stands are filled with air and a few personal friends and relatives of the players. Relatively speaking, nobody cares.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Most countries with a strong "soccer" culture cultivate the best [male] players throughout their lives. They go to special schools whose students are chosen entirely by merit (as soccer players). Every year you have to prove your worthiness again, or your slot can be taken by someone from outside. Most importantly, competition is by skill level, NOT by age, as is prevalent in the U.S. For illustration, in this culture, the best 12 year olds are playing against 15 and 16 year olds, while in the U.S., almost everything is done by either age or school grade. This is why American soccer players are not competitive globally.

Even so, our best players can make a good living playing in a number of venues, even if they are not on par with the best in the world.

For women, no country would waste the money to nurture girls and young women this way. The competition is simply not keen enough, and there is insufficient fan interest. Go to a typical American college womens soccer game, and the stands are filled with air and a few personal friends and relatives of the players. Relatively speaking, nobody cares.

There are no soccer schools. Youngsters can be attached to a club from the age of 6 and will attend weekly coaching sessions whilst attending their local school. This goes on for the best of them until they are 16 and are offered an apprenticeship. At the end of 2 years they are then offered a professional contract or released.

Its a system under constant review and not necessarily the most effective. Kids football is scarred by the pushy parents disorder. Idiots who stand on the touchline screaming at children. 7 is also a bit young to tell a child that his dreams will never come true.

 

[DGS49]

Tommy, don't assume that because they don't have these in your neck of the woods they don't exist.

How a Soccer Star Is Made (Published 2010)

In Europe, a cutting-edge talent factory trains elite soccer players — starting at age 7.

www.nytimes.com