USWNT

tjsoccer said:
The women have every right to rip up their contract and try to earn more based on the revenue they are generating. But, women's soccer is not the same product as men's soccer. Leveraging the "equal pay" argument is disingenuous and hurts the cause. Throwing it into the political realm is a cynical ploy to try to take advantage of the current political climate. In corporate America, women do the exact same job as the men and compete for the exact same positions...and get paid less. Crying "wolf" publicly could really hurt this issue, and keep quality legislation from moving forward.
Click to expand...

But --- it's not really clear which side you are supporting here.
 
espola said:
One of those links came from a website that claims expertise in computer gaming and demonstrates ignorance of the reality of the WNT training program.
Click to expand...

The source of the information should have some merit regardless of their ideology. However if the information is accurate and while slightly biased in exposing some facts, that shouldn't negate that it content has value. The links bring a side of conversation and I believe answers the question of why. I don't have to agree with everything in the links to share it for those that may not have had a different understanding of the situation. It was never a black and white answer. To chose a side and not offer a legitimate solution, then you will never have any progress.
 
ChargerPride said:
The source of the information should have some merit regardless of their ideology. However if the information is accurate and while slightly biased in exposing some facts, that shouldn't negate that it content has value. The links bring a side of conversation and I believe answers the question of why. I don't have to agree with everything in the links to share it for those that may not have had a different understanding of the situation. It was never a black and white answer. To chose a side and not offer a legitimate solution, then you will never have any progress.
Click to expand...

The content you posted from the video games master has no value in a discussion of WNT pay.

Change my mind.
 
Dos Equis said:
I find this analogy highly misleading. As you point out, the USSF is a single purpose entity with an anti-trust exemption so it can be the sole team able to wear the US Flag and represent this country in international competitions. Now if US soccer simply turned to the LA Galaxy and said, "Hey, go represent us this time in the World Cup", your analogy might be relevant. That would mean other private groups would, in theory, be given the same opportunity, or at least there would be competition to earn that designation.

Are Civil Rights really here to stay, as you claim? I think each player on this team should have the same rights -- to speak their mind anyway they see fit (even if that means choosing to kneel during our anthem, which I find distasteful). They are not exempt from suffering repercussions personally and professional, but should not from an entity supported by our government through an exclusivity agreement making them our nations representatives. And those rights also include no compelled speech, meaning if they do not want to wear something that is clearly advocating a viewpoint (a pink ribbon, a black armband, or even a rainbow number), that is their right. And I have every right to disagree or agree with any one of them, and to do so publicly. It seems to me a lot of people on this board who claim to support Civil Rights only do so when they agree with the viewpoint of those taking advantage of those rights.
Click to expand...

USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
 
End of the Line said:
USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

I disagree. But you are good at both setting up straw men, then tearing them down.
 
espola said:
The content you posted from the video games master has no value in a discussion of WNT pay.

Change my mind.
Click to expand...

SMH, This is a forum for discussion. The simple fact that the video speaks of the USWNT means it has relevance and value. You don't have to agree. I don't have to change your mind. Once again its an open soccer forum.

Or is there some rule, where this forum is only accepts opinions that you agree with otherwise they have no value.
 
ChargerPride said:
SMH, This is a forum for discussion. The simple fact that the video speaks of the USWNT means it has relevance and value. You don't have to agree. I don't have to change your mind. Once again its an open soccer forum.

Or is there some rule, where this forum is only accepts opinions that you agree with otherwise they have no value.
Click to expand...

My opinion? The posting was worthless. The author demonstrated he has no knowledge of the subject of WNT pay and appeared to be just trying to stir up some clickbait.
 
End of the Line said:
USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

Civil rights, by definition, includes the right to political and social freedom. It's the most fundamental right of them all. It's why the ACLU supported the Neo Nazi's right to march in Skokie. I guess "civil rights" is just a word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing the civil rights of others.
 
End of the Line said:
USSF is not a "single purpose entity" and I have never suggested anything of the sort. USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

I don't know what you mean when you suggest that what I am saying is not "relevant". If anything, it's your view that is irrelevant because what you think "should" happen is not the reality of what is actually happening. It is also not the reality of what USSF is legally entitled to do. USSF is using rainbow jerseys one month a year, and it has every legal right to do so. It has every right to boot bigots from the team because they're bad teammates although, in Hinkle's case, she didn't make the team because she just isn't good enough. The only thing that is not relevant to USSF's actions is what you think it "should" do. Keep whining. In fact, I strongly recommend that you let your congressman know exactly how you feel about civil rights and ask them to pressure USOC into decertifying USSF. I'd love to see how that goes.

BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Ashlyn_Harris/s...-hinkle-homophobia_n_5d2cb2e5e4b0c145d7b26a21
 
espola said:
My opinion? The posting was worthless. The author demonstrated he has no knowledge of the subject of WNT pay and appeared to be just trying to stir up some clickbait.
Click to expand...

If I may be so bold, just in case I missed your take on the equal pay. I would like your thoughts as to the validity and a real solution. As I stated before, I have a vested interest in this as my DD is on a path where this would affect her decision on how far her soccer could continue. I simply believe that a lawsuit, while justified in performance, ignores the CBA. While also failing to understand the economics behind it. I am no expert , but after reading, listening, and watching how this has unfolded. I hope for the best, but can see that it's not just a simple, black and white choice.
 
soccerobserver said:
@tjsoccer, I wish we could have a more nuanced discussion, but as you have seen with your own eyes on this thread, many still do not understand the issue, even when it is spelled out C-A-T. BTW you posted 4 times since 2016? Who is your other avatar ??
Click to expand...

I got a bunch of posts on the norcal board. No other handle other than @tjsoccer.

I agree with you 100%. They have every right to renegotiate their contract. Why wouldn't they do it when they are in a position to show that they are generating increased revenues? I guess I'm just quarreling with their tactics. I believe they should de-certify like the NFLPA and go on strike.

That said, the EEOC is allowing the players to sue because they believe their case could have merit. I guess going the lawsuit route allows them to get paid while they negotiate...and keep their sponsors happy. If they can prove this is really about "the cause", then all is good. But if they can't, then they are just a group trying to profit off of Civil Rights legislation.
 
End of the Line said:
...USSF is a private entity that does a whole bunch of stuff, only one of which involves sending national teams to play in international competition. There is also nothing stopping USOC from telling LA Galaxy that it's unhappy with USSF and giving LA Galaxy the right to send national teams instead of USSF. Just ask USA Gymnastics what happens when USOC gets unhappy.

... BTW, do you and your buddies also oppose USA Track and Field's annual celebration of black history month? Would you be opposed if the US Chess Federation engaged in a "political" boycott of the world championships in Iran because the host country required that female Christian participants wear hijabs? In reality, support for civil rights is not politics. As I have said before, "politics" is just the word people use to make themselves feel better for opposing civil rights and equality. But when people like you and MWN advocate that government entities should get in the way of private entities supporting civil rights, well, that is politics.
Click to expand...

@End of the Line ... there are a few impediments stopping the USOC from anointing the LA Galaxy the right to send a national team. The first is that the LA Galaxy is part of the MLS, which is a privately held, for profit entity with no charitable public purpose. This would violate the USOC's legal requirements under the Ted Stevens act that National Governing Bodies be charities. The second problem, is that the LA Galaxy team is technically an operating unit of the MLS, thus, the MLS would have to be given the right (assuming it changed its corporate purpose).

With regard to National Governing Bodies advocating for various social and charitable causes, be it black history month, breast cancer awareness, white pride, Hispanic pride, Asian pride, save the fairy shrimp, etc., I believe they should not. Its one thing to say ... all are welcome, discrimination based on melanin levels, sex, gender, etc., are not tolerated. Its an entirely different thing to say "we are going to single out this one issue, change our uniforms to recognize it, and advocate." Along with the freedom of speech, comes the freedom not to speak. The freedom to march and protest, and the freedom not to march and protest. National Teams and National Governing Bodies should establish rules that prevent violations of civil rights, but should not pick up the sign and go march.

My above opinion was reinforced as a result of an event that occurred when I was coaching my son's recreational team many years ago. It was the Fall season, he returned back to rec soccer from a bad club experience, I coached the team. The season was played in September and October. October was breast cancer awareness month. The program asked all the teams to wear pink socks. For years we went along with the whole pink socks thing ... be it pop warner or soccer, but this year was different. You see, the week of our opening game, one of my player's mother passed away from pancreatic cancer. What month is pancreatic cancer month? Hell if I knew, but what I did now is there are a whole host of cancers out there and each one has a color. If I recall, "purple" was the pancreatic color, so I informed the league that we would not be wearing pink ... we would wear purple socks.

About midway through October, it hit me that maybe instead of purple or pink or whatever color, we should just be wearing the color of socks for cancer itself ... whatever color that was. What made breast cancer so special over the other cancers. I had a player would mother died just a few weeks earlier and here are all these teams focusing on breast cancer and not the cancer that killed his mom.

The reason I don't want National Governing Bodies to take on political advocacy of issues is because for every issue there are others left out. If we are going to celebrate Gay Price and change the jersey's, do we also celebrate Heterosexual Pride?, African-American Pride, Irish-American Pride, Hispanic Pride, White Pride, etc. Its best the NGB's set policies of non-discrimination and put down the picket signs.
 
MWN said:
@End of the Line ... there are a few impediments stopping the USOC from anointing the LA Galaxy the right to send a national team. The first is that the LA Galaxy is part of the MLS, which is a privately held, for profit entity with no charitable public purpose. This would violate the USOC's legal requirements under the Ted Stevens act that National Governing Bodies be charities. The second problem, is that the LA Galaxy team is technically an operating unit of the MLS, thus, the MLS would have to be given the right (assuming it changed its corporate purpose).

With regard to National Governing Bodies advocating for various social and charitable causes, be it black history month, breast cancer awareness, white pride, Hispanic pride, Asian pride, save the fairy shrimp, etc., I believe they should not. Its one thing to say ... all are welcome, discrimination based on melanin levels, sex, gender, etc., are not tolerated. Its an entirely different thing to say "we are going to single out this one issue, change our uniforms to recognize it, and advocate." Along with the freedom of speech, comes the freedom not to speak. The freedom to march and protest, and the freedom not to march and protest. National Teams and National Governing Bodies should establish rules that prevent violations of civil rights, but should not pick up the sign and go march.

My above opinion was reinforced as a result of an event that occurred when I was coaching my son's recreational team many years ago. It was the Fall season, he returned back to rec soccer from a bad club experience, I coached the team. The season was played in September and October. October was breast cancer awareness month. The program asked all the teams to wear pink socks. For years we went along with the whole pink socks thing ... be it pop warner or soccer, but this year was different. You see, the week of our opening game, one of my player's mother passed away from pancreatic cancer. What month is pancreatic cancer month? Hell if I knew, but what I did now is there are a whole host of cancers out there and each one has a color. If I recall, "purple" was the pancreatic color, so I informed the league that we would not be wearing pink ... we would wear purple socks.

About midway through October, it hit me that maybe instead of purple or pink or whatever color, we should just be wearing the color of socks for cancer itself ... whatever color that was. What made breast cancer so special over the other cancers. I had a player would mother died just a few weeks earlier and here are all these teams focusing on breast cancer and not the cancer that killed his mom.

The reason I don't want National Governing Bodies to take on political advocacy of issues is because for every issue there are others left out. If we are going to celebrate Gay Price and change the jersey's, do we also celebrate Heterosexual Pride?, African-American Pride, Irish-American Pride, Hispanic Pride, White Pride, etc. Its best the NGB's set policies of non-discrimination and put down the picket signs.
Click to expand...

Do you need a tissue?
 
espola said:
Do you need a tissue?
Click to expand...

At the time, yes, it was very sad to see that this young man, age 10 or 11 was going to go through life without a mother. I attended her funeral and needed another one at the time.

Are you asking if I still need one? The answer is no. Why did you ask? Are you trying to be funny? Minimize the reason for why I believe a certain way?
 
MWN said:
@End of the Line ... there are a few impediments stopping the USOC from anointing the LA Galaxy the right to send a national team. The first is that the LA Galaxy is part of the MLS, which is a privately held, for profit entity with no charitable public purpose. This would violate the USOC's legal requirements under the Ted Stevens act that National Governing Bodies be charities. The second problem, is that the LA Galaxy team is technically an operating unit of the MLS, thus, the MLS would have to be given the right (assuming it changed its corporate purpose).

With regard to National Governing Bodies advocating for various social and charitable causes, be it black history month, breast cancer awareness, white pride, Hispanic pride, Asian pride, save the fairy shrimp, etc., I believe they should not. Its one thing to say ... all are welcome, discrimination based on melanin levels, sex, gender, etc., are not tolerated. Its an entirely different thing to say "we are going to single out this one issue, change our uniforms to recognize it, and advocate." Along with the freedom of speech, comes the freedom not to speak. The freedom to march and protest, and the freedom not to march and protest. National Teams and National Governing Bodies should establish rules that prevent violations of civil rights, but should not pick up the sign and go march.

My above opinion was reinforced as a result of an event that occurred when I was coaching my son's recreational team many years ago. It was the Fall season, he returned back to rec soccer from a bad club experience, I coached the team. The season was played in September and October. October was breast cancer awareness month. The program asked all the teams to wear pink socks. For years we went along with the whole pink socks thing ... be it pop warner or soccer, but this year was different. You see, the week of our opening game, one of my player's mother passed away from pancreatic cancer. What month is pancreatic cancer month? Hell if I knew, but what I did now is there are a whole host of cancers out there and each one has a color. If I recall, "purple" was the pancreatic color, so I informed the league that we would not be wearing pink ... we would wear purple socks.

About midway through October, it hit me that maybe instead of purple or pink or whatever color, we should just be wearing the color of socks for cancer itself ... whatever color that was. What made breast cancer so special over the other cancers. I had a player would mother died just a few weeks earlier and here are all these teams focusing on breast cancer and not the cancer that killed his mom.

The reason I don't want National Governing Bodies to take on political advocacy of issues is because for every issue there are others left out. If we are going to celebrate Gay Price and change the jersey's, do we also celebrate Heterosexual Pride?, African-American Pride, Irish-American Pride, Hispanic Pride, White Pride, etc. Its best the NGB's set policies of non-discrimination and put down the picket signs.
Click to expand...
@MWN I was at a soccer club board meeting and I tried to politely object to wearing the pink socks for the reason you stated. After the words came out of my mouth at the board meeting ...the reaction on their faces was as if I had let loose a terrible fart in church...

I’ll never do that again !
 
I’ll never do that again ![/QUOTE said:
Actually you should. Who cares what their reactions are. They are just virtue signaling after all. How about instead of for instance dressing up the kids in pink, if it is a dear issue to the parents, have the parents wear pink.
Click to expand...
 
soccerobserver said:
@MWN I was at a soccer club board meeting and I tried to politely object to wearing the pink socks for the reason you stated. After the words came out of my mouth at the board meeting ...the reaction on their faces was as if I had let loose a terrible fart in church...

I’ll never do that again !
Click to expand...
And unfortunately a sign of hypocrisy regarding free speech and freedom of beliefs - as long as you believe and support what the standard view is you are accepted , if not you are criticized even if in a subtle way. There should never be a time when behaviors of bigotry and racism are tolerated but when it comes to different views like this no should feel silenced.
 
MWN said:
@End of the Line ... there are a few impediments stopping the USOC from anointing the LA Galaxy the right to send a national team. The first is that the LA Galaxy is part of the MLS, which is a privately held, for profit entity with no charitable public purpose. This would violate the USOC's legal requirements under the Ted Stevens act that National Governing Bodies be charities. The second problem, is that the LA Galaxy team is technically an operating unit of the MLS, thus, the MLS would have to be given the right (assuming it changed its corporate purpose).

With regard to National Governing Bodies advocating for various social and charitable causes, be it black history month, breast cancer awareness, white pride, Hispanic pride, Asian pride, save the fairy shrimp, etc., I believe they should not. Its one thing to say ... all are welcome, discrimination based on melanin levels, sex, gender, etc., are not tolerated. Its an entirely different thing to say "we are going to single out this one issue, change our uniforms to recognize it, and advocate." Along with the freedom of speech, comes the freedom not to speak. The freedom to march and protest, and the freedom not to march and protest. National Teams and National Governing Bodies should establish rules that prevent violations of civil rights, but should not pick up the sign and go march.

My above opinion was reinforced as a result of an event that occurred when I was coaching my son's recreational team many years ago. It was the Fall season, he returned back to rec soccer from a bad club experience, I coached the team. The season was played in September and October. October was breast cancer awareness month. The program asked all the teams to wear pink socks. For years we went along with the whole pink socks thing ... be it pop warner or soccer, but this year was different. You see, the week of our opening game, one of my player's mother passed away from pancreatic cancer. What month is pancreatic cancer month? Hell if I knew, but what I did now is there are a whole host of cancers out there and each one has a color. If I recall, "purple" was the pancreatic color, so I informed the league that we would not be wearing pink ... we would wear purple socks.

About midway through October, it hit me that maybe instead of purple or pink or whatever color, we should just be wearing the color of socks for cancer itself ... whatever color that was. What made breast cancer so special over the other cancers. I had a player would mother died just a few weeks earlier and here are all these teams focusing on breast cancer and not the cancer that killed his mom.

The reason I don't want National Governing Bodies to take on political advocacy of issues is because for every issue there are others left out. If we are going to celebrate Gay Price and change the jersey's, do we also celebrate Heterosexual Pride?, African-American Pride, Irish-American Pride, Hispanic Pride, White Pride, etc. Its best the NGB's set policies of non-discrimination and put down the picket signs.
Click to expand...

LA Galaxy has a foundation. Their youth clubs are also 501(c)(3)s. Just throw it in one of those or create a new one specially for the WNT. Your fake problem has now been solved.

Man, have you gone down the rabbit hole. You started by claiming that USSF is a public entity and therefore cannot support equality. This is false, of course, but it is also bizarre since various government agencies and entities properly support civil rights every single day, as they should. Now that all your other non-sense has been proven to be rubbish, now you're claiming USSF shouldn't support civil rights because your kid's soccer team doesn't support white supremacy or pancreatic cancer awareness month?

Let me explain something to you. The very point of the 501(c)(3) tax exemption - of which USSF is one - is to support causes. USSF has chosen to support civil rights. USATF has chosen to support black history month. The US Postal Service has chosen to support just about everything (including Christmas) with a variety of stamps. 501(c)(3)s, government entities and private entities support causes every day.
 
MWN said:
At the time, yes, it was very sad to see that this young man, age 10 or 11 was going to go through life without a mother. I attended her funeral and needed another one at the time.

Are you asking if I still need one? The answer is no. Why did you ask? Are you trying to be funny? Minimize the reason for why I believe a certain way?
Click to expand...

Seriously dude, you are desperate. USSF shouldn't support equality because you went to a funeral? WTF are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top