USWNT

espola said:
It appears that you are in favor of the women getting "more money", but not "equal pay". Did I misunderstand?
Click to expand...
I dont like to say equal pay because if the women bring in more money they should get a bonus and if the men do they should get a bonus. but yes base money should start out the same
 
Just A Dad said:
The problem I have is all the focus is about equal pay and Rapinoe. We are no longer talking about the games and how great some of the other players played. Does it really help womens soccer that we are no longer talking about the games and are younger players who should have become stars after the way they performed in the world cup. And yes i am for US soccer paying the women more money
Click to expand...

Huh? Does it help women’s soccer - is that a serious question? I’m sure all 23 would like to move right along to new topics ASAP but in the mean time we can thank and support them for fighting on behalf of all of our girls. Anyway the discussions are not mutually exclusive.

Lastman here you go:
 
Just A Dad said:
I dont like to say equal pay because if the women bring in more money they should get a bonus and if the men do they should get a bonus. but yes base money should start out the same
Click to expand...

Bring in more money like prize money from a tournament? Like selling broadcast rights? Like profits from replica apparel sales (and other similar fan souvenirs)?
 
Soccerfan2 said:
Huh? Does it help women’s soccer - is that a serious question? I’m sure all 23 would like to move right along to new topics ASAP but in the mean time we can thank and support them for fighting on behalf of all of our girls. Anyway the discussions are not mutually exclusive.

Lastman here you go:
Click to expand...

When I dont hear people talking about the games anymore yes i think it doesnt help womens soccer.
 
Just A Dad said:
When I dont hear people talking about the games anymore yes i think it doesnt help womens soccer.
Click to expand...

Any publicity is good publicity. If it wasn’t for Rapinoe and the equal pay issue, we would have been done talking about the “games.” That’s just the way it works.
 
Soccerfan2 said:
Huh? Does it help women’s soccer - is that a serious question? I’m sure all 23 would like to move right along to new topics ASAP but in the mean time we can thank and support them for fighting on behalf of all of our girls. Anyway the discussions are not mutually exclusive.

Lastman here you go:
Click to expand...
I’m assuming that was Lavelle many years ago.
 
Justafan said:
Any publicity is good publicity. If it wasn’t for Rapinoe and the equal pay issue, we would have been done talking about the “games.” That’s just the way it works.
Click to expand...
I hope thats not the case. If they cant keep people interested in the sport by the play on the field for a week and need other things to keep people interested then the game has bigger issues. I love women's soccer and dont believe thats the case but maybe I'm wrong.
 
@ MAP or others who know, what should the Netherand defenders have done in that scenario? Close in on Lavell earlier ? I never understand why the defenders backtrack like that...Seems like Lavell has excellent/brilliant body dynamics and was able to keep the defenders off balance as she attacked them...
 
soccerobserver said:
@ MAP or others who know, what should the Netherand defenders have done in that scenario? Close in on Lavell earlier ? I never understand why the defenders backtrack like that...Seems like Lavell has excellent/brilliant body dynamics and was able to keep the defenders off balance as she attacked them...
Click to expand...

The defender has got to take away the far post for the GK and she should force her away from her good foot (Lavelle is SIGNIFICANTLY left footed). The back door turn that the defender made is great for playing the post corner if you are a safety in football but not so good for stopping a shooter from taking a shot with their dominant foot.
 
Just A Dad said:
I hope thats not the case. If they cant keep people interested in the sport by the play on the field for a week and need other things to keep people interested then the game has bigger issues. I love women's soccer and dont believe thats the case but maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you aren't wrong and what you see going on right now doesn't help. Rapinoe is allowing herself to be used to advance an agenda (mostly aligned with her own) at the expense of her team. I don't care what anybody's opinion is on politics, it is very sad that we aren't seeing real interviews and media attention on the TEAM, rather than on one player. Last I checked, there were 11 a side and plenty of supporters on the bench who all deserve/earned some time in the spotlight.
 
End of the Line said:
It's hard to say whether you're genuinely ignorant or being intentionally misleading. USSF is not a public benefit corporation. Public benefit corporations are almost exclusively creations of state law, with a few federal exceptions like Amtrak and the US Postal Service (more on that later). In NY, where USSF is incorporated, public benefit corps must have a board that includes elected state officials (USSF obviously does not) which makes them political by their very nature. Regardless, if USSF were a NY public benefit corp as you claim, it would be doing what is in the best interests of NY state overall. And because NY doesn't hate gay folk at the same rate as significant portions of the OC and some of the more backward areas of SD, making players wear rainbow jerseys is something the majority of New Yorkers would probably approve. But it would be none of your business since you aren't a NY resident.

In reality, USSF is a private non-profit incorporated in NY under NY state law. It is a non-profit just like all the major political parties, which kinda hurts your argument that non-profits should remain political. USSF is also a special kind of tax exempt non-profit (a 501(c)(3)), just like thousands of other companies that take strong stands on issues that you call "political" when you really mean "I don't like that I'm not getting what I want so I'll call the actions political, which sounds better than what I really mean, which is that I oppose civil rights". Regardless, and somewhat ironically, 501(c)(3)s are almost always the best type of private business entity that can support civil rights, which you misrepresent as "politics". Just a few examples of private, 501(c)(3) non-profits like USSF happen to be Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. One of the main purposes for creating 501(c)(3)s in the first place is to support causes, just as USSF is doing. The problem for you, which you apparently can't or won't formulate in your mind, is that you think religion deserves a more special place with its tax status and benefits than civil rights. But too f**king bad, cuz those rainbow jerseys are going to keep coming.

I am fully aware of the Ted Stevens Act. The Act created the US Olympic Committee which, in turn, designates certain private entities like USSF to oversee international and Olympic teams. This is probably where you are confused (or intentionally misleading) because USOC is a federally chartered corp, not USSF. USSF is just a private entity that USOC told "go for it" with respect to handling international soccer competitions. As it relates to USSF, the Ted Stevens Act essentially just provides an anti-trust exemption so that it doesn't have to compete with a bunch of different entities fighting with each other over who is going to send teams to international sports competitions, and so that foreign private s**tbags like FIFA don't make that decision themselves. USOC designating USSF to deal with international sports competitions is hardly different than the US Postal Service contracting with FedEx or UPS. The Postal Service doesn't bar private companies from supporting gay pride because that would be wrong - and political - if it tried to prevent private companies from supporting civil rights, just as USOC doesn't bar the private non-profits that send athletes to international competitions from supporting civil rights. You see, you have it backwards. If anything, your hope that USOC would intervene to prevent a private company from supporting civil rights would be "political". But USOC staying out of the way by not actively punishing do-gooders like USSF for supporting civil rights is, well, the opposite of political.

There is also nothing in the Ted Stevens Act that says any of the private entities that USOC designates cannot support civil rights. You should know since you quoted some of it and therefore presumably can read it all instead of the bits and pieces you cut-and-pasted above. Notably, support for LGBT rights encourages public participation in sports (by showing support for a historically oppressed minority), which is an express mandate of USOC (36 USC 2205). It also mandates USOC to promote a safe environment that is free from abuse, including the emotional abuse that Hinkle the homophobe and her friends seek to impose on the LGBT community (also 36 USC 2205). Sure, USOC might decide that one of the private entities it designated has done things so abhorrent that it takes away the designation (like with gymnastics), but your problem is with USOC since USSF can do whatever the f**k it wants as a private entity, and supporting civil rights is not abhorrent in the least bit.

This is a long way of saying you are wrong. And you have lost. Civil rights is here to stay, but the religious tax exemption only has about 20-30 years left before enough of the mongrel horde crossing the border procreates enough citizen voters to eliminate the tax exemption for churches.
Click to expand...

As a preliminary matter, you are mixing up my point of the Federation "should refrain..." from doing something to is "must not ..." Whether the Federation can do something, is different than whether it should. This is really the only point we disagree on.

I acknowledge that I used the term "public benefit corporation" imprecisely and that caused some confusion. If the federation was incorporated in California (it is not), it would be a "public benefit corporation," as opposed to a mutual benefit corporation. Under New York law (as Revised) the Federation is a Type A Not-For-Profit-Corporation. As a Type A corporation, under Section 201 of the Non-For-Profit Corporation Law. The Federation is a "charitable" Type A corporation (the equivalent to a public benefit corporation under California law), which means its members receive no pecuniary benefit from its assets and revenues.

In the case of the Federation, on July 6, 2007, its Articles were Amended and Restated and it expressly acknowledged its "general purpose" was limited to those activities under the NY Not-For-Profit Law and Title 26, Section 501(c)(3), and the specific purposes were serve as governing body, serve as association member to FIFA and promote and develop the game of soccer.

The Federation is a private entity (as opposed to a public entity), but it expressly made an election to hold those assets in trust of its charitable public purpose. In addition, by making at 501(c)(3) election it became a "public charity." Consistent with its charitable purpose, Article 8 of the Federation's Articles states:

No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be carrying on propaganda
or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided by Title
26, Section 501(h) of the United States Code or the corresponding provision of any
future United States Internal Revenue Law), or participating or distribution of statements
for any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.
​
Ultimately, I don't think anybody has a problem with the individuals associated with the Federation promoting their own political or religious agendas. The issue is should the federation engage in activities that are viewed as propaganda and/or offensive to those holding certain religious beliefs. I say, no. You say, yes.
 
El Clasico said:
Unfortunately, you aren't wrong and what you see going on right now doesn't help. Rapinoe is allowing herself to be used to advance an agenda (mostly aligned with her own) at the expense of her team. I don't care what anybody's opinion is on politics, it is very sad that we aren't seeing real interviews and media attention on the TEAM, rather than on one player. Last I checked, there were 11 a side and plenty of supporters on the bench who all deserve/earned some time in the spotlight.
Click to expand...

Well Alex Morgan won top female athlete at the ESPY's last night and the team won top team. Rapinoe on the other hand won the Golden Boot and Best Player award and the President was just shockingly talking nasty about her so it's no surprise that people are talking about Rapinoe. Me thinks that it's likely you don't agree with her politics which is why you are so bothered, but if anyone has a problem with her message which is that there is still social injustice in this country and the women deserve more compensation well that's on them. And if you or anyone else doesn't think that this amazing group of women will help lead to more amazing players down the road for the US then I don't know what to tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top