USWNT

My 26 and 24 year old boys don’t talk like that, at least that I have heard, they know better. To this day the still say it “the F-word”. Now 16 year old daughter has let it out in front on me from time to time. That’s the good thing about having boys, you can more easily “lay hands” on them.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
My 26 and 24 year old boys don’t talk like that, at least that I have heard, they know better. To this day the still say it “the F-word”. Now 16 year old daughter has let it out in front on me from time to time. That’s the good thing about having boys, you can more easily “lay hands” on them.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
Sheriff Joe said:
My 26 and 24 year old boys don’t talk like that, at least that I have heard, they know better. To this day the still say it “the F-word”. Now 16 year old daughter has let it out in front on me from time to time. That’s the good thing about having boys, you can more easily “lay hands” on them.
Click to expand...

How did you explain to your daughter that "grab'em by the pussy" is acceptable language from your favored Presidential candidate?
 
espola said:
How did you explain to your daughter that "grab'em by the pussy" is acceptable language from your favored Presidential candidate?
Click to expand...
Or " I did not have sexual relations with that women" from one of your favorite Presidents. But we all know that you're perfect E. Kinda like George Washington.. you never tell a lie.

Now what part of my post is sarcasm and what is not. I bet you know. I bet everyone knows.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine. His sister played on the WNT, won a few medals with them. Too bad you don't ride otherwise I would invite you along when we head out on our next pedal adventure, if anything just to see your expression when your lack of knowledge is exposed when it comes to the WNT.

You may think I have something against you personally but I don't. I just have something against liars in general.

Enjoy your weekend...
 
Multi Sport said:
Or " I did not have sexual relations with that women" from one of your favorite Presidents. But we all know that you're perfect E. Kinda like George Washington.. you never tell a lie.

Now what part of my post is sarcasm and what is not. I bet you know. I bet everyone knows.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine. His sister played on the WNT, won a few medals with them. Too bad you don't ride otherwise I would invite you along when we head out on our next pedal adventure, if anything just to see your expression when your lack of knowledge is exposed when it comes to the WNT.

You may think I have something against you personally but I don't. I just have something against liars in general.

Enjoy your weekend...
Click to expand...

I never voted for either Clinton.
 
For those who are interested, former NFL lineman Mike Golic has a sports talk show. He recently did a piece on the USWNT pay issue. I think it might help some see the issue without having to read dense articles...Here is the link :

 
The Golic discussion, and nearly all of the other coverage I have seen on this point, is leaving out an important element of the analysis. Let me start by saying that I think the USWNT is great and I think they have surely outperformed their contract and deserve a raise. I note contract because they have one and I have yet to hear that US Soccer is not paying them in accordance with their existing contract, but that is not the point that I think is being left out. If NFL players can renegotiate their existing contracts, why can't soccer players, right?

The real point is that they elected security over maximum revenue, and that choice does and should have real consequences. Just as it does in any other profession. If I am commission only salesperson, then I expect my maximum income would be higher than base salary plus commission, right? Who would ever take commission only if that were not the case? Here, assuming 20 games per season, the men and women are paid the same if both teams lose all their games - essentially the base line compensation for the men equals the base salary for the women. The men are bonus only (I expect they chose that because they have well developed alternative sources of income through MLS, the overseas clubs, etc. and don't therefore need the consistent security of a national team salary). The women elected a base salary for consistent, regular income for exactly the opposite reasons (no well developed alternative source of income through a still-fledgling professional league, etc.). Ok, so if the women's maximum earnings are 89% of the men's maximum earnings, it does not seem quite so egregious or sexist when one considers that the women themselves opted for the security of base salary as a result of the relative underperformance of their other professional options. Why should that not also come with a lower maximum compensation level?

Although the public opinion is already in their favor, their legal case is not so easy. Hence the maximum pressure campaign in the media on US Soccer as part of the ongoing mediation.

I would like to see them get a raise. I enjoy watching them play as much as any other athletes. But they are not telling the full story or taking full ownership of the choices they made in structuring their contract.
 
Personally I think that US Soccer should invest more in the NWSL that they had a hand in creating so that more players could have a livable wage instead of all of it going to a small group that doesn’t necessarily need it.

I’m sorry but if more players had a coach comfortable salary less players would leave the game before they reached their peak and the USWNT would definitely be better.
 
Dof3 said:
The Golic discussion, and nearly all of the other coverage I have seen on this point, is leaving out an important element of the analysis. Let me start by saying that I think the USWNT is great and I think they have surely outperformed their contract and deserve a raise. I note contract because they have one and I have yet to hear that US Soccer is not paying them in accordance with their existing contract, but that is not the point that I think is being left out. If NFL players can renegotiate their existing contracts, why can't soccer players, right?

The real point is that they elected security over maximum revenue, and that choice does and should have real consequences. Just as it does in any other profession. If I am commission only salesperson, then I expect my maximum income would be higher than base salary plus commission, right? Who would ever take commission only if that were not the case? Here, assuming 20 games per season, the men and women are paid the same if both teams lose all their games - essentially the base line compensation for the men equals the base salary for the women. The men are bonus only (I expect they chose that because they have well developed alternative sources of income through MLS, the overseas clubs, etc. and don't therefore need the consistent security of a national team salary). The women elected a base salary for consistent, regular income for exactly the opposite reasons (no well developed alternative source of income through a still-fledgling professional league, etc.). Ok, so if the women's maximum earnings are 89% of the men's maximum earnings, it does not seem quite so egregious or sexist when one considers that the women themselves opted for the security of base salary as a result of the relative underperformance of their other professional options. Why should that not also come with a lower maximum compensation level?

Although the public opinion is already in their favor, their legal case is not so easy. Hence the maximum pressure campaign in the media on US Soccer as part of the ongoing mediation.

I would like to see them get a raise. I enjoy watching them play as much as any other athletes. But they are not telling the full story or taking full ownership of the choices they made in structuring their contract.
Click to expand...
@DO3 I like a lot of what you say but I think you and most people are still omitting a big part of the story and analysis- namely the extraordinary growth of sponsorship deals for the USSF. While the USSF game revenues have not grown much, the sponsorship deals have grown 200% + in the last 5 years or so. Rough numbers. The USWNT justifiability wants to capture some of the financial upside they helped create.

For perspective, the sponsorships used to be equivalent to 50% of the game revenues. Now they have grown to be 150% of the game revenues. That’s a huge change in the economics for the USSF!

It’s like the cast of Friends. They staged a work slowdown/stoppage to renegotiate their TV contracts after their TV show became a huge hit. This is no different IMHO.

The gender pay gap is how it’s being sold. But there is a lot more to it when you look a little deeper.
 
@soccerobserver I agree with that point and that it is no different than a football player holding out to renegotiate. But there is a term to those contracts. And they have the opportunity to renegotiate when that term ends. I doubt the USWNT would be receptive to having their base salary cut during the term of their contract if they were underperforming expectations. A question for me is whether they get paid if they are dropped from the team for the balance of that year. I don’t know the answer to that. In football, contacts are not guaranteed and ownership can get out of its contract by cutting an underperforming player (other than signing bonuses or other guaranteed dollars). I think that matters. If ownership can get out of a bad contract, then a player should be able to hold out and renegotiate. If the USWNT base salary is guaranteed, then “holding out” or suing to break their contract is a choice, but it is more opportunistic than noble. If their contract did not include some participation in the growth of sponsorship revenue, then that is their fault either because they didn’t think of it or didn’t have the bargaining power to command it. I am sure we all wish we had do-overs on lots of things with better information later on. Would the conversation still be as it is if the USWNT failed to qualify for the Word Cup? Let’s not forget that prior to this World Cup, their last 3 years have been a little up and down with the Olympics, She Believes Cup, friendlies, etc.

A fair argument is that the team has outperformed, revenue has dramatically increased as a result, and they should participate in that revenue growth. But part of the reason that US Soccer is not worried about proactively rewarding its overachieving players is because there is relatively little risk that that won’t keep playing. Where else are the going to play? Do we know their names because of their NWSL careers? No, and we are soccer people. Imagine how little the casual sports fan would know.

Now, just like a company with an unexpectedly great employee is smart to reward that employee with a raise to make sure they stay happy and performing, US Soccer should be smart and reward this team proactively given what has happened and the momentum they have now to keep growing the women’s game. I have a DD and I would love to see that. The USWNT focus should be on growing the women’s game. Here and abroad. The approach they are taking is alienating a big portion of their customer base, and that is not at all in their self-interest.

Making this about sexism without context for the benefits and concessions of the contract the players themselves negotiated is not the full story. Playing on turf fields, underweighted marketing or development budgets, all screams sexism and bias and they rightly call that out. But the equal pay thing is more smoke than fire in the context of their contract. That is unless US Soccer is giving all that extra sponsorship revenue growth to the USMNT, but I at least haven’t read that that is the case. Both teams are still being paid per their in place contracts. Please correct me if that is not right.

There is also a limit to the efficacy of the dollars and cents arguments about sponsorship dollars. That at some point is about splitting a pie that is smaller than it could be. That’s fine, but shortsighted. The real arguments should be about support and development (sexism), overperforming their contract and thus a merit raise, and growing the game domestically and abroad so that the disparity in revenue and attention between the men’s and women’s game globally can continue to shrink and shrink faster. Growing the game is how they grow their league, grow their TV contracts and sponsorships, their alternative professional outlets and thus their income. Joe Montana didn’t come anywhere near the money that Brady, Rodgers, and even middling NFL quarterbacks now make. The game has grown, and with that growth has come the money.
 
soccerobserver said:
It’s like the cast of Friends. They staged a work slowdown/stoppage to renegotiate their TV contracts after their TV show became a huge hit. This is no different IMHO.
Click to expand...

Given the depth of talent in the US Women’s game, this is more like Bewitched. And the more narcissism and arrogance they display in this victory/vanity lap, the more people will be ready for Darrin #2.

They do need to focus on the bigger picture here, and instead of partying on Caruso’s boat with the USC fake crew team, how about convince the billionaire to part with $$ million to fund an LA-based NWSL team. Perhaps get the USC Trustee Chairman to help provide some facilities as well for training and games at reasonable rates?
 
Dos Equis said:
Given the depth of talent in the US Women’s game, this is more like Bewitched. And the more narcissism and arrogance they display in this victory/vanity lap, the more people will be ready for Darrin #2.

They do need to focus on the bigger picture here, and instead of partying on Caruso’s boat with the USC fake crew team, how about convince the billionaire to part with $$ million to fund an LA-based NWSL team. Perhaps get the USC Trustee Chairman to help provide some facilities as well for training and games at reasonable rates?
Click to expand...

I’m a Dick Sargent man myself. Dick York just didn’t quite do it for me.
 
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2019/07/14/megan-rapinoe-ignores-young-fan/amp
David Dunn, a former professional soccer player, said: "The more I see her the more I dislike her ! The kid should have volleyed it back in her grid !"


"The one kid in America who doesn't think that game sucks and she acts like a stereotypical movie star from an 80s movie in front of him," another person added.

"She's vile. That was disgusting there's people more famous than she will ever be who don't behave like that. Who is she? I don't know her full name and not many will, she's the USA player who won the World Cup," another critic said.

"The window to the soul is observing how someone treats someone powerless who can do absolutely no good for them. She's a piece of sh*t. Her actions over the last 3 weeks confirm it. Making eye contact and acknowledgment of a fan costs 0," another person said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top