We should be talking about Lavelle and how she could be the future.
OK. You start.
We should be talking about Lavelle and how she could be the future.
Did you come up with that response all by yourself or did you need help?They already have their victory. Did you miss it?
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 sameIt appears that you are in favor of the women getting "more money", but not "equal pay". Did I misunderstand?
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
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
This was worth watching again...Lavelle's sweet goal vs Netherlands...We should be talking about Lavelle and how she could be the future.
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:
When I dont hear people talking about the games anymore yes i think it doesnt help womens soccer.
That goal was sweet!This was worth watching again...Lavelle's sweet goal vs Netherlands...
I’m assuming that was Lavelle many years ago.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:
I’m assuming that was Lavelle many years ago.
Exceptional skill.At age 11. Pretty impressive control on all parts of her body for that age!
Exceptional skill.
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.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.
Agree. Hope to see more players like her in the defense and forward line too.She’s my favorite. Has been since the first time I saw her play a few years ago. Maybe I have a vested interest in seeing those small technical girls succeed
Minus JoJo and Joe.
Wonder how much Joe would have been shitting his pants mad during the 60’s and 70’s when Black Athletes were fighting for equality?
@ 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...
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.
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.
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.