Travis WTF??? Our USA women soccer players are really poor Sports.

Running it up like that! For shame.

Wow.

The score matters bro

Fuck off with that shit dwags. It’s the World Cup. Some of our players will never be in it again. What do you want them to do? Kick it out of bounds on purpose?

No. Compound that with the fact that subs are limited so you can’t even bring out all the good players. Thailand should work to be better. On this stage you don’t sit back and rest for them.

DWags wrote:

I watched the first half dwags. It’s pretty good stuff.

Know what I really think? I think our women should be paid way more than our shitty men’s players. Did we even send a team to the last cup for men? Fuck them. They should be side out throw in guys for these women. The women a fucking amazing. Pay them!

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

I watched the first half dwags. It’s pretty good stuff.

I mean, holy shit. Are they going to be touched? Wow.

DWags wrote:Know what I really think? I think our women should be paid way more than our shitty men’s players. Did we even send a team to the last cup for men? Fuck them. They should be side out throw in guys for these women. The women a fucking amazing. Pay them!

D wags gets it!

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I watched the first half dwags. It’s pretty good stuff.

I mean, holy shit. Are they going to be touched? Wow.

France will probably beat us in the quarterfinals tbh dwags. It’ll be the “biggest upset ever” when the American media gets ahold of it, but it won’t really be at all.

But that game will basically be the finals. Maybe england is good too i guess. But France and the us are a different plane

DWags wrote:Know what I really think? I think our women should be paid way more than our shitty men’s players. Did we even send a team to the last cup for men? Fuck them. They should be side out throw in guys for these women. The women a fucking amazing. Pay them!

I don’t think that they get to just send a team if they choose to dwags

Dwags since you’re ancient and you can remember the blue jays winning in the 70s or whenever that was.... if a Canadian team wins an American sports league do they go to the White House, the prime ministers (umm... house) or both?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Dwags since you’re ancient and you can remember the blue jays winning in the 70s or whenever that was.... if a Canadian team wins an American sports league do they go to the White House, the prime ministers (umm... house) or both?

I dont' recall any teams back in the day going to the houses of anyone. Maybe the PM had the Hockey champs come up with the cup and drink some beer with him/her, but I don't recall the stealers jawing it up with Jimmy Carter. I think that started with Reagan. He was pretty good at that kind of stuff. Maybe they did it with Carter, but I can't remember. Bradshaw would have prolly passed out int he Lincoln bedroom shagging some intern. Who knows.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:The score matters bro

That’s why DWags is confused. He never scored with the ladies.

Score early and score often if you want to be in the playoff committee's final four.

Oh, sorry, wrong sport.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:Know what I really think? I think our women should be paid way more than our shitty men’s players. Did we even send a team to the last cup for men? Fuck them. They should be side out throw in guys for these women. The women a fucking amazing. Pay them!

I don’t think that they get to just send a team if they choose to dwags

Yeah they have to beat the Canary Islands and Gautemala first. Unfortunately we cant.

Is this possibly a sport where our women wouldn’t be embarrassed if they played against our men?

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I don’t think that they get to just send a team if they choose to dwags

Yeah they have to beat the Canary Islands and Gautemala first. Unfortunately we cant.

Is this possibly a sport where our women wouldn’t be embarrassed if they played against our men?

It was Trinidad and Tobago that stopped us dwags.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

Yeah they have to beat the Canary Islands and Gautemala first. Unfortunately we cant.

Is this possibly a sport where our women wouldn’t be embarrassed if they played against our men?

It was Trinidad and Tobago that stopped us dwags.

Got my ass kicked in Trinidad once.

Tobago is nice though

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Dwags since you’re ancient and you can remember the blue jays winning in the 70s or whenever that was.... if a Canadian team wins an American sports league do they go to the White House, the prime ministers (umm... house) or both?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/255553/BUSH-INVITES-BLUE-JAYS-TO-WHITE-HOUSE.html

Invited in 92. They won again in 93, but didn't visit.

A second soccer thread? The tSwill has officially jump the shark.

Mods, please merge.

Random observation. Have a local hipster bar/cafe in town. They'll show stuff like world cup soccer and cycling races and the place will be packed. Will never show a game from any of the four major sports. They owner told me they showed a game from the NCAA tournament and drew a lot of complaints from the regulars.

In short hipsters love European sports and have contempt for American sports.

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I don’t think that they get to just send a team if they choose to dwags

Yeah they have to beat the Canary Islands and Gautemala first. Unfortunately we cant.

Is this possibly a sport where our women wouldn’t be embarrassed if they played against our men?

Umm, no.
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The speed, power, etc. of the men's game is just a whole other level. Think of it like women's basketball.

As for paying the women as much or more than the men, if they ever bring in as much money as the men's team, they should get paid as much. But it's

MiamiSpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

Yeah they have to beat the Canary Islands and Gautemala first. Unfortunately we cant.

Is this possibly a sport where our women wouldn’t be embarrassed if they played against our men?

Umm, no.
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The speed, power, etc. of the men's game is just a whole other level. Think of it like women's basketball.

As for paying the women as much or more than the men, if they ever bring in as much money as the men's team, they should get paid as much. But it's

People say that a lot about the revenue but no one really looks into it they just accept it as fact but it might not really be true. I’m not saying “it isnt” I’m saying “I don’t know if it is.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/here-are-the-strongest-arguments-the-uswnt-makes-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html

MiamiSpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

Yeah they have to beat the Canary Islands and Gautemala first. Unfortunately we cant.

Is this possibly a sport where our women wouldn’t be embarrassed if they played against our men?

Umm, no.
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The speed, power, etc. of the men's game is just a whole other level. Think of it like women's basketball.

As for paying the women as much or more than the men, if they ever bring in as much money as the men's team, they should get paid as much. But it's

Interesting. Do those numbers include the international soccer television? I don't know much about either, but I wonder what the women's television ratings were like in the united states vs the mens. i know, world wide it's probably 10-1 in favor of the men. I'd like to see what they are compared to each other in our country. And yes, I get it that the men benefit from playing (and often losing) in the world cup because of the wolrd wide audience.

Here are some numbers from the 2011 shindig. I know they're old, but so is that game you referenced.

In 2011, the women's world cup final ranked as the most-viewed soccer telecast (regardless of gender) ever on ESPN; the sixth-most viewed soccer telecast ever on a single network (also, regardless of gender); and the second-most viewed daytime program in the history of cable television. It drew a 7.4 U.S. rating and 13.458 million viewers.
In 2012, the U.S.-Canada women's Olympic semifinal contributed the then- single most-viewed half-hour of the Olympics on NBCSN.
Three days later, the U.S.-Japan gold medal match drew 4.350 million viewers on NBC Sports Network, the largest audience in the history of that network. The previous record was the 2010 Stanley Cup hockey final.
Last year's Women's World Cup, in which the U.S. triumphed over Japan, saw the biggest numbers ever for the women's game, and offered some striking comparisons to men's sports.

Early-round matches each had at least 3-million viewers, ranking them in the top-10 most-watched women's games ever . One match against Nigeria, which was broadcast against the NBA Finals and America's Got Talent, still netted 5 million viewers.

The semi-final against Germany notched 8.4 million viewers, giving it the largest audience ever for a World Cup semifinal on a single network, regardless of gender.
And the final was the most-watched soccer telecast ever in the U.S., with a total of 26.7 million viewers. That topped the previous record of 26.5 million for the 2014 Men's World Cup Final. The previous high for a women’s match was the 18 million for the 1999 final.
Finally, an Olympic qualifying match against Trinidad and Tobago just last month broke the record the women's game had already set for NBCSN, bringing in 329,000 viewers.


Anyway, I'm not the economics guy, but I wouldn't bet my hat that the women are not being discriminated against a bit here.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Umm, no.
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The speed, power, etc. of the men's game is just a whole other level. Think of it like women's basketball.

As for paying the women as much or more than the men, if they ever bring in as much money as the men's team, they should get paid as much. But it's

People say that a lot about the revenue but no one really looks into it they just accept it as fact but it might not really be true. I’m not saying “it isnt” I’m saying “I don’t know if it is.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/here-are-the-strongest-arguments-the-uswnt-makes-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html

I'm saying that it is true.

2018 USMNT Average Attendance - 24,163
2018 USWNT Average Attendance - 14,064

2018 USMNT Average TV Viewership - 431,818
2018 USWNT Average TV Viewership - 302,421

Now, the article that you linked says the women had more revenue in 2017 and 2018 than the men. But it's worth noting that they played a lot more games than the men. So, in that sense, yeah, they should be paid on par, and maybe a revenue sharing incentivized package is the answer.

But I don't think that it's the revenue over a select couple of years that's the issue. The men have the potential to make so much more. Yes, they missed the World Cup last year, but that was the first time in 32 years. If the men had made it, and lost all three group games, they'd still have ended up with more prize money than if the women win the whole thing.

But they didn’t make it.

The revenue being on par or not is not in hypothetical numbers since the salaries are not in hypothetical numbers, it’s in real dollars.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

People say that a lot about the revenue but no one really looks into it they just accept it as fact but it might not really be true. I’m not saying “it isnt” I’m saying “I don’t know if it is.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/here-are-the-strongest-arguments-the-uswnt-makes-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html

I'm saying that it is true.

2018 USMNT Average Attendance - 24,163
2018 USWNT Average Attendance - 14,064

2018 USMNT Average TV Viewership - 431,818
2018 USWNT Average TV Viewership - 302,421

Now, the article that you linked says the women had more revenue in 2017 and 2018 than the men. But it's worth noting that they played a lot more games than the men. So, in that sense, yeah, they should be paid on par, and maybe a revenue sharing incentivized package is the answer.

But I don't think that it's the revenue over a select couple of years that's the issue. The men have the potential to make so much more. Yes, they missed the World Cup last year, but that was the first time in 32 years. If the men had made it, and lost all three group games, they'd still have ended up with more prize money than if the women win the whole thing.

Where were the games attendance that you linked played at? In our country? Other countries? again, I really don't know.

The viewers of the t.v., are they strictly u.s. figures or international?

I know you and Travis are big into it, and I respect that. I"m not, and to be honest, as a casual observer, I'd be more inclined to watch a women's match than a man's match. But that's just one viewer in one household.

DWags wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Umm, no.
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The speed, power, etc. of the men's game is just a whole other level. Think of it like women's basketball.

As for paying the women as much or more than the men, if they ever bring in as much money as the men's team, they should get paid as much. But it's

Interesting. Do those numbers include the international soccer television? I don't know much about either, but I wonder what the women's television ratings were like in the united states vs the mens. i know, world wide it's probably 10-1 in favor of the men. I'd like to see what they are compared to each other in our country. And yes, I get it that the men benefit from playing (and often losing) in the world cup because of the wolrd wide audience.

Here are some numbers from the 2011 shindig. I know they're old, but so is that game you referenced.

In 2011, the women's world cup final ranked as the most-viewed soccer telecast (regardless of gender) ever on ESPN; the sixth-most viewed soccer telecast ever on a single network (also, regardless of gender); and the second-most viewed daytime program in the history of cable television. It drew a 7.4 U.S. rating and 13.458 million viewers.
In 2012, the U.S.-Canada women's Olympic semifinal contributed the then- single most-viewed half-hour of the Olympics on NBCSN.
Three days later, the U.S.-Japan gold medal match drew 4.350 million viewers on NBC Sports Network, the largest audience in the history of that network. The previous record was the 2010 Stanley Cup hockey final.
Last year's Women's World Cup, in which the U.S. triumphed over Japan, saw the biggest numbers ever for the women's game, and offered some striking comparisons to men's sports.

Early-round matches each had at least 3-million viewers, ranking them in the top-10 most-watched women's games ever . One match against Nigeria, which was broadcast against the NBA Finals and America's Got Talent, still netted 5 million viewers.

The semi-final against Germany notched 8.4 million viewers, giving it the largest audience ever for a World Cup semifinal on a single network, regardless of gender.
And the final was the most-watched soccer telecast ever in the U.S., with a total of 26.7 million viewers. That topped the previous record of 26.5 million for the 2014 Men's World Cup Final. The previous high for a women’s match was the 18 million for the 1999 final.
Finally, an Olympic qualifying match against Trinidad and Tobago just last month broke the record the women's game had already set for NBCSN, bringing in 329,000 viewers.


Anyway, I'm not the economics guy, but I wouldn't bet my hat that the women are not being discriminated against a bit here.

I addressed some of these in my response to Travis. If you take a couple of games like World Cup Semi-Finals and Finals compared to the women, versus a group stage or round of 16 game for the men, the women will do as well or better. But they play a lot more games than one tournament every 4 years.

If the women make as much as the men, cool, give them the same money. Travis' link had a 2 year span that said they made more than the men. That was largely because the men missed the world cup last year. But do you pay the women more because the men shit the bed? The men should have money taken away, but that's a different question, and probably not something that is in the contracts. If that was the case, a lot of the men wouldn't bother playing for the national team. They make so much more for their clubs.

Also, just FYI, arguing that tv networks worth billions of dollars and a soccer organization that brings in tens of millions a year should short women who actually make the product so that the networks and organizations can keep even more money is going to be a pretty huge non starter for me. You’re just buying into their argument which isn’t coming from a place of fairness like they frame it, it’s so they can keep the damn money for themselves. Fuck them.

DWags wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
I'm saying that it is true.

2018 USMNT Average Attendance - 24,163
2018 USWNT Average Attendance - 14,064

2018 USMNT Average TV Viewership - 431,818
2018 USWNT Average TV Viewership - 302,421

Now, the article that you linked says the women had more revenue in 2017 and 2018 than the men. But it's worth noting that they played a lot more games than the men. So, in that sense, yeah, they should be paid on par, and maybe a revenue sharing incentivized package is the answer.

But I don't think that it's the revenue over a select couple of years that's the issue. The men have the potential to make so much more. Yes, they missed the World Cup last year, but that was the first time in 32 years. If the men had made it, and lost all three group games, they'd still have ended up with more prize money than if the women win the whole thing.

Where were the games attendance that you linked played at? In our country? Other countries? again, I really don't know.

The viewers of the t.v., are they strictly u.s. figures or international?

I know you and Travis are big into it, and I respect that. I"m not, and to be honest, as a casual observer, I'd be more inclined to watch a women's match than a man's match. But that's just one viewer in one household.

The attendance was for home matches, so in the US. The TV was for US viewership.

Why would you be more inclined to watch a women's match, because it's a higher likelihood that they'll win? That's probably the case for a lot of casual fans, most of whom will watch very little of either. But, especially outside of a big game like a World Cup game, or especially a World Cup semi-final or final, you are probably very unlikely to tune in to either.

I hope I'm not coming across as a basher of women's soccer, because that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm for them getting paid relative to what they generate, whether that ends up being more or less than the men.

I nominate Travis for World Futbol Czar.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Also, just FYI, arguing that tv networks worth billions of dollars and a soccer organization that brings in tens of millions a year should short women who actually make the product so that the networks and organizations can keep even more money is going to be a pretty huge non starter for me. You’re just buying into their argument which isn’t coming from a place of fairness like they frame it, it’s so they can keep the damn money for themselves. Fuck them.

Ok, Mr. High and Mighty. That's just bringing in a very separate issue, and one that could be made about any men's sport, as well. As much as players make, you can still say that the TV networks and leagues/organizing bodies are making a shit ton and paying their execs way more than they deserve for effectively riding the coat tails of the players that make the product, if that's the stance that your making.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Also, just FYI, arguing that tv networks worth billions of dollars and a soccer organization that brings in tens of millions a year should short women who actually make the product so that the networks and organizations can keep even more money is going to be a pretty huge non starter for me. You’re just buying into their argument which isn’t coming from a place of fairness like they frame it, it’s so they can keep the damn money for themselves. Fuck them.

Ok, Mr. High and Mighty. That's just bringing in a very separate issue, and one that could be made about any men's sport, as well. As much as players make, you can still say that the TV networks and leagues/organizing bodies are making a shit ton and paying their execs way more than they deserve for effectively riding the coat tails of the players that make the product, if that's the stance that your making.

Sure why not. Everyone should be paid more.

Just don’t be so naive about why they get paid less. It’s not that they aren’t bringing in enough money to earn more. It’s because people don’t want to give it to them.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

Where were the games attendance that you linked played at? In our country? Other countries? again, I really don't know.

The viewers of the t.v., are they strictly u.s. figures or international?

I know you and Travis are big into it, and I respect that. I"m not, and to be honest, as a casual observer, I'd be more inclined to watch a women's match than a man's match. But that's just one viewer in one household.

The attendance was for home matches, so in the US. The TV was for US viewership.

Why would you be more inclined to watch a women's match, because it's a higher likelihood that they'll win?

Yes. That is pretty much the reason. Not that I don’t respect the men’s athleticism and talent, but I guess that’s the reason. I get that the men are great athletes, but so was the 2016 MSU football team. How much did we turn that dog shit off?

I do, however believe the women are getting ripped off financially. How do they correct that? Next time they’re on espn and pulling those numbers on their way to a championship maybe they just stop playing and say fuck it? That would be interesting.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Ok, Mr. High and Mighty. That's just bringing in a very separate issue, and one that could be made about any men's sport, as well. As much as players make, you can still say that the TV networks and leagues/organizing bodies are making a shit ton and paying their execs way more than they deserve for effectively riding the coat tails of the players that make the product, if that's the stance that your making.

Sure why not. Everyone should be paid more.

Just don’t be so naive about why they get paid less. It’s not that they aren’t bringing in enough money to earn more. It’s because people don’t want to give it to them.

Which again can be applied to every men's sport.

America will get no calls in this World Cup. Watching the replay with the kid. These officials are overlooking so many penalties because they are so dominant. This will carry over to when we play teams more our caliber