USWNT

I agree the men should get an equitable pay raise. From what I have read they only get 9% of revenues and the women get 13%. It is unfair and I am protesting. Equal pay!!!!!!
 
Frank said:
I agree the men should get an equitable pay raise. From what I have read they only get 9% of revenues and the women get 13%. It is unfair and I am protesting. Equal pay!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Quit using logic to prove your point, it is not fair.
What a male chauvinist pig you are.
 
soccer.jpg

Equal pay for women’s soccer will require equal revenue

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 8:01 am on July 09, 2019

Before getting to the topic at hand, allow me to join the rest of the chorus in congratulating the USA women’s soccer team on winning the world cup. I neither know nor care enough about the sport of soccer (for either gender) to comment on the performance, but I’m assured it was masterful. Also, I’m always ready to cheer for a U.S. team kicking the butts of any other nation’s teams in any sport. Well done, ladies.










Unfortunately, the celebrations were immediately embroiled in political disputes, and I’m not talking about the widely publicized spat between the President and one of the star players. No sooner had the team secured their victory than the cheers of the crowds shifted from “U.S.A!” to “EQUAL PAY!” And from that moment on, I would estimate that I saw as much coverage of the equal pay issue on cable news as I did of the back to back victories.

It’s been established as fact that the female professional soccer players earn less than their male counterparts. And particularly now, because the American women’s team is producing more victories than the men’s team, this is seen as a call to action. Why shouldn’t the women be paid as much, if not more, than the men? (That’s an actual question I heard asked on CNN yesterday.) As A.G. Hamilton points out at National Review, it’s not a matter of how many goals you score. It’s a question of how much revenue the two leagues generate.

In reality, relative to the men’s World Cup, it was actually the women’s teams that were being paid a much larger share of what they brought in. While these articles noted that the U.S. women’s team brings in more money than the men’s team, they all managed to ignore the more-relevant disparity in revenue: The men’s tournament brought in over $6 billion in revenue in 2018, while the women’s tournament is estimated to only have brought in $131 million in 2019. The prize pools are taken from those revenue totals. In other words, the women’s prize pool was approximately 23 percent of their total revenue, while the men’s prize pool consisted of approximately 7 percent of revenue.

There are a number of moving parts in this puzzle and not all of them are equally relevant. For example, I think Hamilton goes a bit astray later in the article where he (I’m assuming “he” because Hamilton is anonymous) delves into the relative skill levels of the men’s and women’s teams, stating that the ladies wouldn’t do very well against the men. That’s not the point here.







What’s truly relevant is the fact that the women’s league pays out 23% of its total revenue into the prize pool. The men’s league, by comparison, puts just 7% of its revenue into the prize money. The reason for this is that the men’s league attracts a vastly larger global audience, hence bringing in far more ad revenue and endorsement deals. If you started paying the women’s league teams the same amount as the men’s teams in the interest of “fairness,” the women’s league would soon be bankrupt and there would be no games.

ADVERTISEMENT





We see similar arguments in other women’s sports. The most glaring example is probably found in basketball. There might legitimately be a gender pay gap there because the NBA pays roughly 50% of its revenue to the players while the WNBA pays out 25%. But at the same time, the total revenue of the NBA is a staggering 7.4 billion dollars while the WNBA brings in around 25 million. You’re never going to reach equal pay when facing that sort of revenue disparity.






There’s probably some confusion over this in the United States because, at least for the moment, there are more people here watching and talking about the women’s soccer team than the men’s. But you probably don’t need me to tell you why that is. Americans love a winning team and don’t display much enthusiasm for losers. And our men’s team, I’m sorry to say, generally falls into the loser’s category as compared to their competition on nearly every other continent. (Though I’m pretty sure we could kick the butts of any Antarctic teams out there.)






But a string of victories by the American women isn’t going to do much to keep the rest of the world eagerly tuned in. Unless and until you can figure out a way to drive up revenue in the women’s league, you’re not going to solve the “gender pay gap” in professional soccer.
 
RUSRiUS ??? This is Jazz Shaw's argument ? It's sad that the writers at Hot Air have so little grasp of the data.

In the poor analysis above from the blog Hot Air they completely ignore the advertising revenues paid to the USSF directly. The advertising revenue collected by the USSF has grown to an all-time record and it's not bc the men are winning folks! The WNT wants to get paid from that pool of revenue. It's critical to realize that the advertising revenue dwarfs the revenues earned by winning the WWC.

I like a decent argument. But the analysis above from the pseudonym Jazz Shaw is unfortunately deceiving and incompetent and to an embarrassing degree.

A more valid argument would address the advertising revenues and how they should be allocated and accounted for by the USWNT, the USMNT and the MLS since the USSF bundles them together. Hot Air in this case is just that.
 
End of the Line said:
Wow, there is a lot to unpack between this and MWN's post. First, to MWN's point, the WNT is a private entity that receives no taxpayer dollars. So, by his logic, the WNT should be doing exactly what they are doing to promote civil rights. If MWN were serious about neutrality in the government, he'd support eliminating the billions in taxpayer money that goes to benefit religious organizations, he'd support firing the congressional chaplain and also getting rid of "In God We Trust" on our money. How does MWN feel about those things? You're opposed to a private entity supporting civil rights but in favor of billions in taxpayer dollars supporting entities that actively oppose civil rights?
Click to expand...

@End of the Line. No. The WNT is not a private entity. It is a team that is promoted by the United States Soccer Federation, which is a "Public Benefit Corporation" formed under New York law, and enjoys exemption from Federal Taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because it IS NOT PRIVATE, but a corporation formed for the benefit of the public. So, now we look at the unique "Federal" status the United State Soccer Federation enjoys.

The Federation is the national governing body for the sport of soccer in the United States, as provided by the Sports Act (as defined in Bylaw 109) and the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”). Note, the "Sports Act" refers to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code. The USSF has been giving a federal monopoly over the sport to serve as the governing body. With that unique Federal status, comes certain responsibilities to promote the sport and to refrain from activities that do not promote the sport.

The statement or belief that the Federation does not receive "federal" funding assumes that being exempt from taxation is not a federal benefit. So, yes, the federal government does not give money directly to the Federation, but it also does not tax the Federation, which saves the federation roughly $25M to $30M per year. All 501(c)(3) entities receive federal tax subsidies by not paying taxes, and in the case of the Federation, it receives grants and funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee, which is a "Federally Chartered" corporation under 36 US §220502. Because the Federation is the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer and a PUBLIC CORPORATION, not private, it has the following duties as mandated by FEDERAL LAW:

For the sport that it governs, a national governing body shall—
(1) develop interest and participation throughout the United States and be responsible to the persons and amateur sports organizations it represents;
(2) minimize, through coordination with other amateur sports organizations, conflicts in the scheduling of all practices and competitions;
(3) keep amateur athletes informed of policy matters and reasonably reflect the views of the athletes in its policy decisions;
(4) disseminate and distribute to amateur athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators, and officials in a timely manner the applicable rules and any changes to such rules of the national governing body, the corporation, the appropriate international sports federation, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, and the Pan-American Sports Organization;
(5) allow an amateur athlete to compete in any international amateur athletic competition conducted by any amateur sports organization or person, unless the national governing body establishes that its denial is based on evidence that the organization or person conducting the competition does not meet the requirements stated in section 220525 of this title;
(6) provide equitable support and encouragement for participation by women where separate programs for male and female athletes are conducted on a national basis;
(7) encourage and support amateur athletic sports programs for individuals with disabilities and the participation of individuals with disabilities in amateur athletic activity, including, where feasible, the expansion of opportunities for meaningful participation by individuals with disabilities in programs of athletic competition for able-bodied individuals;
(8) provide and coordinate technical information on physical training, equipment design, coaching, and performance analysis; and
(9) encourage and support research, development, and dissemination of information in the areas of sports medicine and sports safety.​

In sum, because the Federation is not a for-profit private entity, but a public benefit corporation AND most importantly has special status as the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer under the Ted Stevens Act and therefore the ONLY organization allowed to represent the United States in the sport of soccer during the Olympics and other international competition, it must adhere to the principals of the Ted Stevens Act and remain apolitical.

To answer you other question, the rules relating to the 501(c)(3) corporations are just fine how they are. I'm fine with churches, charities, sports programs, etc., receiving federal subsidies by being exempt from taxation. I'm not fine with National Governing Bodies under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act endorsing political or religious beliefs or non-beliefs and/or advocating for anything beyond what their charter calls for.
 
Frank said:
I agree the men should get an equitable pay raise. From what I have read they only get 9% of revenues and the women get 13%. It is unfair and I am protesting. Equal pay!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Read what where?

WSJ reported this week that revenue attributed to WNT has caught up and exceeded that from MNT.

223a8351-eaa5-44d8-ad65-a1e6f0f9bdf4.png
 
MWN said:
@End of the Line. No. The WNT is not a private entity. It is a team that is promoted by the United States Soccer Federation, which is a "Public Benefit Corporation" formed under New York law, and enjoys exemption from Federal Taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because it IS NOT PRIVATE, but a corporation formed for the benefit of the public. So, now we look at the unique "Federal" status the United State Soccer Federation enjoys.

The Federation is the national governing body for the sport of soccer in the United States, as provided by the Sports Act (as defined in Bylaw 109) and the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”). Note, the "Sports Act" refers to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code. The USSF has been giving a federal monopoly over the sport to serve as the governing body. With that unique Federal status, comes certain responsibilities to promote the sport and to refrain from activities that do not promote the sport.

The statement or belief that the Federation does not receive "federal" funding assumes that being exempt from taxation is not a federal benefit. So, yes, the federal government does not give money directly to the Federation, but it also does not tax the Federation, which saves the federation roughly $25M to $30M per year. All 501(c)(3) entities receive federal tax subsidies by not paying taxes, and in the case of the Federation, it receives grants and funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee, which is a "Federally Chartered" corporation under 36 US §220502. Because the Federation is the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer and a PUBLIC CORPORATION, not private, it has the following duties as mandated by FEDERAL LAW:

For the sport that it governs, a national governing body shall—
(1) develop interest and participation throughout the United States and be responsible to the persons and amateur sports organizations it represents;
(2) minimize, through coordination with other amateur sports organizations, conflicts in the scheduling of all practices and competitions;
(3) keep amateur athletes informed of policy matters and reasonably reflect the views of the athletes in its policy decisions;
(4) disseminate and distribute to amateur athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators, and officials in a timely manner the applicable rules and any changes to such rules of the national governing body, the corporation, the appropriate international sports federation, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, and the Pan-American Sports Organization;
(5) allow an amateur athlete to compete in any international amateur athletic competition conducted by any amateur sports organization or person, unless the national governing body establishes that its denial is based on evidence that the organization or person conducting the competition does not meet the requirements stated in section 220525 of this title;
(6) provide equitable support and encouragement for participation by women where separate programs for male and female athletes are conducted on a national basis;
(7) encourage and support amateur athletic sports programs for individuals with disabilities and the participation of individuals with disabilities in amateur athletic activity, including, where feasible, the expansion of opportunities for meaningful participation by individuals with disabilities in programs of athletic competition for able-bodied individuals;
(8) provide and coordinate technical information on physical training, equipment design, coaching, and performance analysis; and
(9) encourage and support research, development, and dissemination of information in the areas of sports medicine and sports safety.​

In sum, because the Federation is not a for-profit private entity, but a public benefit corporation AND most importantly has special status as the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer under the Ted Stevens Act and therefore the ONLY organization allowed to represent the United States in the sport of soccer during the Olympics and other international competition, it must adhere to the principals of the Ted Stevens Act and remain apolitical.

To answer you other question, the rules relating to the 501(c)(3) corporations are just fine how they are. I'm fine with churches, charities, sports programs, etc., receiving federal subsidies by being exempt from taxation. I'm not fine with National Governing Bodies under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act endorsing political or religious beliefs or non-beliefs and/or advocating for anything beyond what their charter calls for.
Click to expand...

You are fine with churches that use their tax-exempt status to help funding when they preach exclusion and hate?
 
Sheriff Joe said:
soccer.jpg

Equal pay for women’s soccer will require equal revenue

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 8:01 am on July 09, 2019

Before getting to the topic at hand, allow me to join the rest of the chorus in congratulating the USA women’s soccer team on winning the world cup. I neither know nor care enough about the sport of soccer (for either gender) to comment on the performance, but I’m assured it was masterful. Also, I’m always ready to cheer for a U.S. team kicking the butts of any other nation’s teams in any sport. Well done, ladies.










Unfortunately, the celebrations were immediately embroiled in political disputes, and I’m not talking about the widely publicized spat between the President and one of the star players. No sooner had the team secured their victory than the cheers of the crowds shifted from “U.S.A!” to “EQUAL PAY!” And from that moment on, I would estimate that I saw as much coverage of the equal pay issue on cable news as I did of the back to back victories.

It’s been established as fact that the female professional soccer players earn less than their male counterparts. And particularly now, because the American women’s team is producing more victories than the men’s team, this is seen as a call to action. Why shouldn’t the women be paid as much, if not more, than the men? (That’s an actual question I heard asked on CNN yesterday.) As A.G. Hamilton points out at National Review, it’s not a matter of how many goals you score. It’s a question of how much revenue the two leagues generate.

In reality, relative to the men’s World Cup, it was actually the women’s teams that were being paid a much larger share of what they brought in. While these articles noted that the U.S. women’s team brings in more money than the men’s team, they all managed to ignore the more-relevant disparity in revenue: The men’s tournament brought in over $6 billion in revenue in 2018, while the women’s tournament is estimated to only have brought in $131 million in 2019. The prize pools are taken from those revenue totals. In other words, the women’s prize pool was approximately 23 percent of their total revenue, while the men’s prize pool consisted of approximately 7 percent of revenue.

There are a number of moving parts in this puzzle and not all of them are equally relevant. For example, I think Hamilton goes a bit astray later in the article where he (I’m assuming “he” because Hamilton is anonymous) delves into the relative skill levels of the men’s and women’s teams, stating that the ladies wouldn’t do very well against the men. That’s not the point here.







What’s truly relevant is the fact that the women’s league pays out 23% of its total revenue into the prize pool. The men’s league, by comparison, puts just 7% of its revenue into the prize money. The reason for this is that the men’s league attracts a vastly larger global audience, hence bringing in far more ad revenue and endorsement deals. If you started paying the women’s league teams the same amount as the men’s teams in the interest of “fairness,” the women’s league would soon be bankrupt and there would be no games.

ADVERTISEMENT





We see similar arguments in other women’s sports. The most glaring example is probably found in basketball. There might legitimately be a gender pay gap there because the NBA pays roughly 50% of its revenue to the players while the WNBA pays out 25%. But at the same time, the total revenue of the NBA is a staggering 7.4 billion dollars while the WNBA brings in around 25 million. You’re never going to reach equal pay when facing that sort of revenue disparity.






There’s probably some confusion over this in the United States because, at least for the moment, there are more people here watching and talking about the women’s soccer team than the men’s. But you probably don’t need me to tell you why that is. Americans love a winning team and don’t display much enthusiasm for losers. And our men’s team, I’m sorry to say, generally falls into the loser’s category as compared to their competition on nearly every other continent. (Though I’m pretty sure we could kick the butts of any Antarctic teams out there.)






But a string of victories by the American women isn’t going to do much to keep the rest of the world eagerly tuned in. Unless and until you can figure out a way to drive up revenue in the women’s league, you’re not going to solve the “gender pay gap” in professional soccer.
Click to expand...


Who or what is "JAZZ SHAW"?
 
espola said:
Read what where?

WSJ reported this week that revenue attributed to WNT has caught up and exceeded that from MNT.

223a8351-eaa5-44d8-ad65-a1e6f0f9bdf4.png
Click to expand...


Nonsense. When viewed appropriately—based on how much money they generate—women actually make more than men.

As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.

The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams (23%).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#508154d36da4
 
Frank said:
Nonsense. When viewed appropriately—based on how much money they generate—women actually make more than men.

As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.

The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams (23%).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#508154d36da4
Click to expand...
Maybe globally....but we are talking USNT, so i’ll leave you with the below...
Wall Street Journal report released on June 17 showed that the USWNT had made $50.8 million in revenue from 2015-2018, the men made $49.8....just saying Here's a link to the WSJ story with just a tease: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600 Here is a story from Yahoo that you can actually read: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what...he-us-womens-soccer-pay-debate-153139503.html Would you pay someone more if they are producing less?
 
Espola...basically you can read the annual reports yourself and bypass the third party articles...even Stevie Wonder would see that the WNT has a valid argument...

Here is the executive summary of the article that was kindly posted by Kicker4L...
From the Wall Street Journal:

"To recap where things stand: The women’s team has generated more revenue since 2016 than the men’s team; the women still earn less than the men in base pay from U.S. Soccer. That is a separate issue from FIFA, which doles out less in World Cup payouts to the women than it does to the men. The U.S. women have won four World Cups, while the men’s team has won zero.

"The U.S. Women’s National Team... has generated more revenue for U.S. Soccer than the men’s team has for three years running."
 
MWN said:
@End of the Line. No. The WNT is not a private entity. It is a team that is promoted by the United States Soccer Federation, which is a "Public Benefit Corporation" formed under New York law, and enjoys exemption from Federal Taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because it IS NOT PRIVATE, but a corporation formed for the benefit of the public. So, now we look at the unique "Federal" status the United State Soccer Federation enjoys.

The Federation is the national governing body for the sport of soccer in the United States, as provided by the Sports Act (as defined in Bylaw 109) and the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”). Note, the "Sports Act" refers to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code. The USSF has been giving a federal monopoly over the sport to serve as the governing body. With that unique Federal status, comes certain responsibilities to promote the sport and to refrain from activities that do not promote the sport.

The statement or belief that the Federation does not receive "federal" funding assumes that being exempt from taxation is not a federal benefit. So, yes, the federal government does not give money directly to the Federation, but it also does not tax the Federation, which saves the federation roughly $25M to $30M per year. All 501(c)(3) entities receive federal tax subsidies by not paying taxes, and in the case of the Federation, it receives grants and funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee, which is a "Federally Chartered" corporation under 36 US §220502. Because the Federation is the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer and a PUBLIC CORPORATION, not private, it has the following duties as mandated by FEDERAL LAW:

For the sport that it governs, a national governing body shall—
(1) develop interest and participation throughout the United States and be responsible to the persons and amateur sports organizations it represents;
(2) minimize, through coordination with other amateur sports organizations, conflicts in the scheduling of all practices and competitions;
(3) keep amateur athletes informed of policy matters and reasonably reflect the views of the athletes in its policy decisions;
(4) disseminate and distribute to amateur athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators, and officials in a timely manner the applicable rules and any changes to such rules of the national governing body, the corporation, the appropriate international sports federation, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, and the Pan-American Sports Organization;
(5) allow an amateur athlete to compete in any international amateur athletic competition conducted by any amateur sports organization or person, unless the national governing body establishes that its denial is based on evidence that the organization or person conducting the competition does not meet the requirements stated in section 220525 of this title;
(6) provide equitable support and encouragement for participation by women where separate programs for male and female athletes are conducted on a national basis;
(7) encourage and support amateur athletic sports programs for individuals with disabilities and the participation of individuals with disabilities in amateur athletic activity, including, where feasible, the expansion of opportunities for meaningful participation by individuals with disabilities in programs of athletic competition for able-bodied individuals;
(8) provide and coordinate technical information on physical training, equipment design, coaching, and performance analysis; and
(9) encourage and support research, development, and dissemination of information in the areas of sports medicine and sports safety.​

In sum, because the Federation is not a for-profit private entity, but a public benefit corporation AND most importantly has special status as the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer under the Ted Stevens Act and therefore the ONLY organization allowed to represent the United States in the sport of soccer during the Olympics and other international competition, it must adhere to the principals of the Ted Stevens Act and remain apolitical.

To answer you other question, the rules relating to the 501(c)(3) corporations are just fine how they are. I'm fine with churches, charities, sports programs, etc., receiving federal subsidies by being exempt from taxation. I'm not fine with National Governing Bodies under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act endorsing political or religious beliefs or non-beliefs and/or advocating for anything beyond what their charter calls for.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Frank , please consider the sponsorship deals, which have grown to be much larger than the national team revenues.


All US National Team Revenues:
2011= $33 million 2018= $30 million -9.0% change

Sponsorship Deals:
2011= $17 million 2018= $49 million + 188% change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top