Rapinoe vs Green... who you got?

[AdagioPace]

Rapinoe vs Green gives me Goku vs Godzilla vibes lol

Anyway, I got interested in female soccer exactly thanks to the last couple world cups. I enjoyed it a lot but let's not forget that national teams are agglomerates of talents. USA with a buttload of talent like Rapinoe, Press, Morgan, Lavelle etc...; Netherlands with Miedema and Martens, Sweden with Asslani, Jakobsson etc..., Germany with the girls from great teams like Bayern and Wolfsburg, etc.. etc...

Women's soccer at a club level is still a different sport (both in Europe and in the US I believe), until the average quality gets better. It's not even about a lack of stars in the end.

[thebigbird]

Women make up half of the people in the United States. 160+ million women live in the US. That's a giant market of potential fans. Yet they don't even watch the WNBA either. Are those women all sexist? The WNBA is a bad product. Men don't want to watch it. Women don't want to watch it. That's the bottom line. Go out and ask 100 random women if they'd rather watch an NBA game or a WNBA game and the majority are going to choose the NBA game.

[RRyder823]

Why are there comparisons to the NBA and NFL investing in growth overseas being made as some kind of point torwards "That kind of investment is all they're asking for"?

Those are the individual leagues investing in their own brands. Like wtf does that distinction need to be explained to people?

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[rapstarter]

It's funny because I keep getting told that women deserve no money because they don't earn it. Yet here we know the USWNT earns more revenue than the USMNT yet because other national teams earn a ton of money the US men profiting from it is a-ok. Ironic don't you think?

IF you were really about merit, you'd side with the USWNT on this issue, but you don't. I'm guessing because the issue isn't so much about merit but rather this idea that men are simply superior and thus should always get more even in instances where purely on the merits they deserve less. Interesting.

Or how nobody ever talks about how the 15th man on the roster who generates essentially zero revenue for anyone is making 7 figures and we just accept that's the scale. But the WNBA has some players who are actual draws even if the league isn't profitable these specific women definitely create more revenue than Taj Gibson or Mike Scott.

So if we are mad that women get paid anything at all, shouldn't we say that it's the stars drawing all the revenue in the NBA and we need to up the max salary considerably and lower the minimum considerably as well? Or do we accept that's been collectively bargained and just don't think about it?

I've never argued the women should make as much on average as the men. But I do think if we actually look at the economics a little closer instead of in these broad swaths we'd reach some different conclusions. Or at least we should.

The USWNT don't deserve more money because they were offered the same contracts as Men but decided to opt for one that is heavier on guaranteed income. It's only after they found out that they could have earned more money by signing an incentive-heavy contract like Men's that they started complaining. This was immediately rejected by a judge when brought to court by USWNT. This has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. I don't know why this supposed inequality between USMNT and USWNT is still being debated. It's not a case of sexism.

[MrBigShot]

These threads are always so ridiculous. People don't want to watch the WNBA and it operates at a loss. That's just the reality. Bearing that in mind, a woman being able to make a 6 figure salary as a professional working like 5-6 months each year is actually pretty generous.

Now if you want to talk about why people don't want to watch it, or what can be done to improve viewership and interest in the WNBA then there's a conversation to be had. But sexism has absolutely nothing to do with the discrepancy in pay between NBA/WNBA.

[Texas Chuck]

It's funny because I keep getting told that women deserve no money because they don't earn it. Yet here we know the USWNT earns more revenue than the USMNT yet because other national teams earn a ton of money the US men profiting from it is a-ok. Ironic don't you think?

IF you were really about merit, you'd side with the USWNT on this issue, but you don't. I'm guessing because the issue isn't so much about merit but rather this idea that men are simply superior and thus should always get more even in instances where purely on the merits they deserve less. Interesting.

Or how nobody ever talks about how the 15th man on the roster who generates essentially zero revenue for anyone is making 7 figures and we just accept that's the scale. But the WNBA has some players who are actual draws even if the league isn't profitable these specific women definitely create more revenue than Taj Gibson or Mike Scott.

So if we are mad that women get paid anything at all, shouldn't we say that it's the stars drawing all the revenue in the NBA and we need to up the max salary considerably and lower the minimum considerably as well? Or do we accept that's been collectively bargained and just don't think about it?

I've never argued the women should make as much on average as the men. But I do think if we actually look at the economics a little closer instead of in these broad swaths we'd reach some different conclusions. Or at least we should.

The USWNT don't deserve more money because they were offered the same contracts as Men but decided to opt for one that is heavier on guaranteed income. It's only after they found out that they could have earned more money by signing an incentive-heavy contract like Men's that they started complaining. This was immediately rejected by a judge when brought to court by USWNT. This has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. I don't know why this supposed inequality between USMNT and USWNT is still being debated. It's not a case of sexism.

And I addressed this already earlier itt, but it keeps getting ignored. I'd say I'm not sure why, but I'm pretty sure I do.

But one more time--the men can sign the higher upside contract because their club salaries are much higher(not arguing women's club salaries should be as high, just stating a fact). Without that same level of security, the women opted for a more secure income from the national team. And nothing prevents USA Soccer from providing the women with bonuses for exceeding some financial targets.

It would have been easy to make the women right financially especially considering their popularity/direct profitability compared to the men. This was a dumb short-sighted fight by USA soccer.

And I posted what you quoted a long time ago. I wasn't still debating it. You brought it back up not me. I had dropped it because we had already established the context of the different types of contracts and why that was.

Cheers.

[bebopdeluxe]

You are missing the point. No one is saying that there isn't a core group of fans that will support any sport. The question is whether or not that core group IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ECONOMICALLY SUSTAIN A PRO SPORTS LEAGUE.

Whether you like it or not, the answer for the WNBA and women's soccer is NO. It is was, this thread wouldn't even be on the board. This thread never would have been made. This is not a stinking pile of macho nonsense--it is economic truth. The proof is in front of your face. No one who invest hard $$$$$$ gives two poops about youth league, high school, and in most cases college. They care about the pros. That is where the money is. Money rules sports. Period. That is why women's pro leagues are not viable. Not enough viewers at the pro level. It isn't rocket science. Sorry woke people and SJW's--it's the **** truth. My oldest daughter played rugby, was a three-year starter for a team that went to the national playoffs. On average 200-300 people showed up for the games. She is a lawyer now and a crossfit trainer. She is a wonderful athlete. No one cares. My other daughter was a gymnastics competitor through high school. 50 people showed up to watch. No one cares. My next oldest brother is a MMA trainer who fought for almost 12 years. Anywhere from 500-1500 paying in-person customers. I played D1 football. Ten of thousands of fans and TV broadcasts. It is no coincidence that the sports with the most viewers rake in the cash. Again, it's not about macho, it about the cold hard fact that money is king.

All of the huffing and puffing about your family's AMAZING sports exploits aside, you STILL don't get it.



You are right that viewership for women's sports in this country does not rise to the level needed for better salaries for the athletes. The point that lobosloboslobos so excellently made - which is also Rapinoe's point - is that women's sports doesn't give a rats' azz what YOU think or what YOU watch. You are - as far as being a potential supporter of better economics for women's sports - a lost cause. You don't give a crap, and you will NEVER give a crap. That, however, does NOT mean that the current generation of girls cannot make it their future to play professional sports - and be compensated well for it. It does NOT mean that over the next 10-20 years, as people like you turn off the TV and stop going to live events, that future generations of girls AND boys - kids who will have benifitted from the INCREASED INVESTMENT, COVERAGE AND SPONSORSHIP OF FEMALE SPORTS - will value those sports WAY more than men who (perhaps not you) don't give a crap about women's sports for whatever reason that is (including, potentially, the kind of conscious and unconscious misogyny that has been clearly evident in some of the posts in this thread).

Rapinoe doesn't give a fark what YOU think. What she is trying to do is to keep people like you from setting the terms of engagement for future generations - of both female athletes and viewers of BOTH sexes - to decide if they want value women's sports more than you do. And that starts with investing NOW. Women can't wait 20 years and then come back and say, "hey - do you like watching us any more now than you did 20 years ago?"

There was probably a time, 30 or 40 years ago, when the NBA spent millions of dollars trying to grow the game outside of the United States. At the time, they may have been pissing the money away. Now? It looks like an AMAZING return on invested capital. The NFL did the same thing starting 15-20 years ago...that is coming along more slowly, but it is the same thought process. What Rapinoe is fighting for is not just GIVE ME MORE MONEY NOW, but invest in the future of women's sports, so MAYBE a 5-year-girl today will be able to see her hard work turn into a professional career - one that her boy and girl friends in the playground will watch on TV and pay to go see.

If you can't see that, because all you can do is look at this issue through your own eyes, then fine. We move on.

Did you actually read my last post?

Yes. I wonder if you REALLY read mine.

The point isn't who watches TODAY. The point is who COULD watch in the next 15-20 years. It is clear that you don't watch, and you probably never will. Does that mean, ipso facto, than a society a generation from now - with an engaged generation of great female athletes who have benefitted from both investment in women's sports as well as the increased interest that comes from not only better marketing and audience-development, but a generation of MEN AND WOMEN who won't immediately discount the WNBA because WOW DID YOU SEE THAT ZION DUNK OMG OMG isn't part of the game.

Here's a question - do you think that it is pure coincidence that women's basketball and soccer seems to do reasonably well internationally, relative to the US? Why is that? Whatever the reasons, the best women basketball players in the world have been playing overseas, making MULTIPLES of what they make in the US. Unless these leagues - who have been operating for YEARS - are paying these top players $300,000 to $600,000 a year so they can lose money, the economics seem to work:

https://theundefeated.com/features/minnesota-lynx-seimone-augustus/

We can argue until the cows come home about why women make more money outside the US, the reality is they do. In your eyes, it will ALWAYS be like that - because YOU (and millions of other people like you) don't enjoy the product and don't support it. And that is fine. But it doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be that way. Maybe - if this country could come to grips with the sexism that has existed here since its founding (question - how many Fortune 500 CEO's are women? See answer below), we could invest in breaking down those barriers and lazy misogyny that leads to all sorts of beliefs - like women aren't as "competative" as men, or women aren't "wired" for the C-Suite. And once we do that, perhaps the next generation will look at things a little differently - on the court, as well as in corporate America. But as long as the attitude is "well, I don't like to watch women's sports" or "I don't think girls are as competative as boys", what is going to change - huh?

BTW - Women make up 41 (or 8%) of Fortune 500 CEO's...which makes the 24% of the Senate that is female look like a feminist revolution.

[Texas Chuck]

The point isn't who watches TODAY. The point is who COULD watch in the next 15-20 years.

Imagine telling someone in 2000, hey millions of young people are going to watch people play video games and so do primarily on their phones. Or that network prime time lineups no longer matter at all.

Anyone speaking definitively to what watching habits will be in 20 years is talking out their ass.

[bebopdeluxe]

Women make up half of the people in the United States. 160+ million women live in the US. That's a giant market of potential fans. Yet they don't even watch the WNBA either. Are those women all sexist? The WNBA is a bad product. Men don't want to watch it. Women don't want to watch it. That's the bottom line. Go out and ask 100 random women if they'd rather watch an NBA game or a WNBA game and the majority are going to choose the NBA game.

OK - and you go to your local playground and ask the 4-to-6-year-old girls AND boys what sports they will like to watch in 15-20 years.

Deal?

[clyde21]

The point isn't who watches TODAY. The point is who COULD watch in the next 15-20 years.

Imagine telling someone in 2000, hey millions of young people are going to watch people play video games and so do primarily on their phones. Or that network prime time lineups no longer matter at all.

Anyone speaking definitively to what watching habits will be in 20 years is talking out their ass.

except that wasn't forced at all, and it wasn't done thru heavy marketing...it happened organically. also interesting to note that some of the most popular and profitable streamers are girls...because, again, it's more much about economics than sexism or w/e.

[Texas Chuck]

The point isn't who watches TODAY. The point is who COULD watch in the next 15-20 years.

Imagine telling someone in 2000, hey millions of young people are going to watch people play video games and so do primarily on their phones. Or that network prime time lineups no longer matter at all.

Anyone speaking definitively to what watching habits will be in 20 years is talking out their ass.

except that wasn't forced at all, and it wasn't done thru heavy marketing...it happened organically. also interesting to note that some of the most popular and profitable streamers are girls...because, again, it's more much about economics than sexism or w/e.

Where did I say anything about forcing people to watch? Straw men are boring mate. My point was anyone who claims they know what viewing habits will be 20 years from now is lying.

But you guys can all relax. I would never force you to watch women play sports. Oh the horror.

[clyde21]

Imagine telling someone in 2000, hey millions of young people are going to watch people play video games and so do primarily on their phones. Or that network prime time lineups no longer matter at all.

Anyone speaking definitively to what watching habits will be in 20 years is talking out their ass.

except that wasn't forced at all, and it wasn't done thru heavy marketing...it happened organically. also interesting to note that some of the most popular and profitable streamers are girls...because, again, it's more much about economics than sexism or w/e.

Where did I say anything about forcing people to watch? Straw men are boring mate. My point was anyone who claims they know what viewing habits will be 20 years from now is lying.

But you guys can all relax. I would never force you to watch women play sports. Oh the horror.

i don't mean literally forcing people to watch

i meant organic growth is organic, you can pump billions into advertising but if people don't organically want the consume the product it won't matter...there's a reason stuff like this catches on and some stuff doesn't...there's a reason why video game streaming DID (regardless of whether it's men or women) and the WNBA hasn't despite the WNBA being older than online streaming.

[thebigbird]

Women make up half of the people in the United States. 160+ million women live in the US. That's a giant market of potential fans. Yet they don't even watch the WNBA either. Are those women all sexist? The WNBA is a bad product. Men don't want to watch it. Women don't want to watch it. That's the bottom line. Go out and ask 100 random women if they'd rather watch an NBA game or a WNBA game and the majority are going to choose the NBA game.

OK - and you go to your local playground and ask the 4-to-6-year-old girls AND boys what sports they will like to watch in 15-20 years.

Deal?

I'm probably going to avoid going to my local playground and talking to a bunch of random 4 year old children. The WNBA had better attendance 20 years ago than it does now (pre-pandemic). The interest just isn't there. The quality of a WNBA game is similar to the quality of a pretty good high school boys game. The G league isn't selling out games. Minor league baseball games aren't packing 40k people arenas. And the WNBA isn't packing arenas either. People want to watch the highest quality of product. The WNBA is not that.

[Bomboclot416]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

This works for some sports but not others.

I love watching female UFC, and tennis....but I'm sorry womens bball is terrible relative to watching guys.

[Bomboclot416]

All of the huffing and puffing about your family's AMAZING sports exploits aside, you STILL don't get it.



You are right that viewership for women's sports in this country does not rise to the level needed for better salaries for the athletes. The point that lobosloboslobos so excellently made - which is also Rapinoe's point - is that women's sports doesn't give a rats' azz what YOU think or what YOU watch. You are - as far as being a potential supporter of better economics for women's sports - a lost cause. You don't give a crap, and you will NEVER give a crap. That, however, does NOT mean that the current generation of girls cannot make it their future to play professional sports - and be compensated well for it. It does NOT mean that over the next 10-20 years, as people like you turn off the TV and stop going to live events, that future generations of girls AND boys - kids who will have benifitted from the INCREASED INVESTMENT, COVERAGE AND SPONSORSHIP OF FEMALE SPORTS - will value those sports WAY more than men who (perhaps not you) don't give a crap about women's sports for whatever reason that is (including, potentially, the kind of conscious and unconscious misogyny that has been clearly evident in some of the posts in this thread).

Rapinoe doesn't give a fark what YOU think. What she is trying to do is to keep people like you from setting the terms of engagement for future generations - of both female athletes and viewers of BOTH sexes - to decide if they want value women's sports more than you do. And that starts with investing NOW. Women can't wait 20 years and then come back and say, "hey - do you like watching us any more now than you did 20 years ago?"

There was probably a time, 30 or 40 years ago, when the NBA spent millions of dollars trying to grow the game outside of the United States. At the time, they may have been pissing the money away. Now? It looks like an AMAZING return on invested capital. The NFL did the same thing starting 15-20 years ago...that is coming along more slowly, but it is the same thought process. What Rapinoe is fighting for is not just GIVE ME MORE MONEY NOW, but invest in the future of women's sports, so MAYBE a 5-year-girl today will be able to see her hard work turn into a professional career - one that her boy and girl friends in the playground will watch on TV and pay to go see.

If you can't see that, because all you can do is look at this issue through your own eyes, then fine. We move on.

Did you actually read my last post?

Yes. I wonder if you REALLY read mine.

The point isn't who watches TODAY. The point is who COULD watch in the next 15-20 years. It is clear that you don't watch, and you probably never will. Does that mean, ipso facto, than a society a generation from now - with an engaged generation of great female athletes who have benefitted from both investment in women's sports as well as the increased interest that comes from not only better marketing and audience-development, but a generation of MEN AND WOMEN who won't immediately discount the WNBA because WOW DID YOU SEE THAT ZION DUNK OMG OMG isn't part of the game.

Here's a question - do you think that it is pure coincidence that women's basketball and soccer seems to do reasonably well internationally, relative to the US? Why is that? Whatever the reasons, the best women basketball players in the world have been playing overseas, making MULTIPLES of what they make in the US. Unless these leagues - who have been operating for YEARS - are paying these top players $300,000 to $600,000 a year so they can lose money, the economics seem to work:

https://theundefeated.com/features/minnesota-lynx-seimone-augustus/

We can argue until the cows come home about why women make more money outside the US, the reality is they do. In your eyes, it will ALWAYS be like that - because YOU (and millions of other people like you) don't enjoy the product and don't support it. And that is fine. But it doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be that way. Maybe - if this country could come to grips with the sexism that has existed here since its founding (question - how many Fortune 500 CEO's are women? See answer below), we could invest in breaking down those barriers and lazy misogyny that leads to all sorts of beliefs - like women aren't as "competative" as men, or women aren't "wired" for the C-Suite. And once we do that, perhaps the next generation will look at things a little differently - on the court, as well as in corporate America. But as long as the attitude is "well, I don't like to watch women's sports" or "I don't think girls are as competative as boys", what is going to change - huh?

BTW - Women make up 41 (or 8%) of Fortune 500 CEO's...which makes the 24% of the Senate that is female look like a feminist revolution.

My god your post literally sucked the life out of me. It must be draining being around you. There are certainly industries that are male dominated just as there are ones that are female dominated (healthcare). Men like to make things, women like to care for things. Sorry if this generalization offends you but it's been true for millenia and still reigns true. Don't force everyone to change for one person wanting something.

A person should be judged on their quality, cream rises to the top regardless of sex or colour. New Zealand has a female leader and she's great. How did she get there despite zero opportunity as you claim. How are there 8% female leaders of fortune 500 companies? If it's so against them there should be zero, instead they hunkered down and achieved. True fairness is letting the best find a way themselves. Money doesn't see a sex or colour, if you are skilled and make money you will get the job. Stop with the nonsense it makes me sick.

[Texas Chuck]

Men like to make things, women like to care for things. Sorry if this generalization offends you but it's been true for millenia and still reigns true.

A person should be judged on their quality

Uh you don't see the contradiction here?

And lol at men not caring for people and women not making things. That's just not a real thing. Do men only like blue and women only pink as well?

[Bomboclot416]

Men like to make things, women like to care for things. Sorry if this generalization offends you but it's been true for millenia and still reigns true.

A person should be judged on their quality

Uh you don't see the contradiction here?

And lol at men not caring for people and women not making things. That's just not a real thing. Do men only like blue and women only pink as well?

\


I don't judge based on these things, the point is that medicine is female dominated because it's something they enjoy...the caring....

shaking my head

[Bomboclot416]

Men like to make things, women like to care for things. Sorry if this generalization offends you but it's been true for millenia and still reigns true.

A person should be judged on their quality

Uh you don't see the contradiction here?

And lol at men not caring for people and women not making things. That's just not a real thing. Do men only like blue and women only pink as well?

Also,

I never said men don't care for people and women don't like making things....what i said is statistically engineering is more male dominated because men like to make things whereas women go into nursing because they like to care for people.

Instead of trying to be a jerk why not open your eyes pink boy

[Texas Chuck]

pink boy

You are going to have to work a lot harder if you want to insult me. But thanks for making it crystal clear you aren't a serious person with regard to this topic. I'll stop engaging with you and you can bait elsewhere. It's frustrating I know when you can't catch a fish.

[Bomboclot416]

pink boy

You are going to have to work a lot harder if you want to insult me. But thanks for making it crystal clear you aren't a serious person with regard to this topic. I'll stop engaging with you and you can bait elsewhere. It's frustrating I know when you can't catch a fish.

Texas chuck...I am not baiting anyone....just stating facts.

Seems like you are the one baiting by picking and choosing points of my convo to take out of context. Clown