Rapinoe vs Green... who you got?

Moderators: Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake

Who you got in this fight

Rapinoe
54
26%
Draymond
150
74%
 
Total votes: 204

G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,210
And1: 7,704
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#361 » by G35 » Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:58 pm

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

:nonono:

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.



Women are being propelled to the top with help from men and corporations. The whole argument is essentially women using their privilege to get things they want boosted.

Throughout history, in any category you can think of, men were not given marketing or money to create a platform...they either had to create it or through grassroots efforts, grow it.

How many years did it take the NFL, MLB, and NBA to become the goliaths they are now? The natural interest of fans created these markets and corporations took notice and they began to invest their marketing dollars into those leagues. The NFL and the NBA were not always as popular as they are today, especially the NBA. We know that the 70's was a down period and the arrival of Magic and Bird, along with David Stern helped turn things around. Then with Michael Jordan and Nike, that propelled the game to where it is now.

The rest of the world was not even close to having the level of interest in basketball, as you can attest from the 1992 Dream Team, the rest of the world was far, far behind.

This is the issue for women's sports and going forward men's sports as well:

You have to have a dedicated fanbase that LOVES, not likes, LOVES the sport more than the marketing or external factors i.e. prestige, clout, money, etc. Those types of fans will love the sport through the ups and downs...that is why the NBA kept going after Magic/Bird retired...after Jordan retired...they had fans who love the sport so much they embraced new stars like Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, KG, McGrady and they also started embracing international stars like Dirk and Yao Ming, helping to grow the sport outside of the US.

The WNBA and the women's soccer team needs to get that one individual that is transcendent to get eyeballs to pay attention to their sport...but BEFORE that, they need a dedicated fanbase that will support them throughout the thick and thin. There are multiple examples of this:

NASCAR - not my cup of tea but there are dedicated fans who will support it enough to keep the league solvent

High school football - this can be regional...I lived in San Antonio, TX for five years and I had not been to a high school football game in at least 20 years, but friends and associates got me to go because of their enthusiasm

Golf - Tiger Woods is the example of that transcendent athlete that can bring eyeballs...but even without Tiger there is a dedicated fanbase that loves the game even without Tiger

Women sports do not want to have to build anything from the ground up and have to struggle to keep it afloat. They want the fame, the money, the attention because they see what the men have. But they overlook what men have had to do to get to this point. They also keep trying to get men to support their causes while:

- criticizing and chastising men for not supporting
- not criticizing and chastising women for not supporting

Draymond Green owes his salary to players like Dennis Rodman, Bobby Jones, John Havlicek who did not get compensated to the same level he is getting now. Draymond is standing on those players shoulders and reaping the benefits. That is not how the women want to do anything, they do not want to sacrifice and grind for the future, they want it all right now.

The NBA is in danger of losing the fanbase that will keep it solvent no matter how things are going culturally. The fans that love the sport outside of those external cultural factors. The NBA are gaining fans that watch for the things that the players do off the court and not on the court. Those fans are not dedicated, they will move on to something else when/if the NBA is not popping like it is now. Remember 41 years ago, one of the most exciting NBA final games of all time was on tape delay.

Things can change and it won't be just the things you want changed, but things you may not want to change.....
I'm so tired of the typical......
SkyHookFTW
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,372
And1: 3,074
Joined: Jul 26, 2014
         

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#362 » by SkyHookFTW » Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:00 pm

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

:nonono:

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.


If you read my post, you would see that I clearly said things could change. I gave the example of MLS in this country. When I was young no person I know would have ever thought that MLS would be a thing in the US. But it is. I also never once said that girls are not as competative as boys. I also clearly stated that the economics of the sport are what they are IN THE U.S. As far as not giving a crap...I brought up my daughter's to show that I do give a crap about women's sports. I don't care for the WNBA product. But the fact is that most people don't care about it either, and unless they do the economics don't work IN THE U.S. Maybe you need a course in Econ 101.
"It's scarier than Charles Barkley at an all you can eat buffet." --Shaq on Shark Week
"My secret to getting rebounds? It's called go get the damn ball." --Charles Barkley
BK_2020
RealGM
Posts: 14,594
And1: 13,605
Joined: Sep 08, 2020
 

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#363 » by BK_2020 » Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:02 pm

Anyone think it's utterly shameful that RGM doesn't even have a WNBA board???? No wonder WNBA can't make a living.
bebopdeluxe
RealGM
Posts: 10,819
And1: 3,859
Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Location: philly

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#364 » by bebopdeluxe » Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:19 pm

Bomboclot416 wrote:
bebopdeluxe wrote:
SkyHookFTW wrote: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.


[b]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./b]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Exhibit A of "soft misogyny" right here.

It is has been true for millenia because of MISOGYNY and it it still reigns true because of MISOGYNY.

:nonono:
SkyHookFTW
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,372
And1: 3,074
Joined: Jul 26, 2014
         

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#365 » by SkyHookFTW » Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:39 pm

bebopdeluxe wrote:
Bomboclot416 wrote:
bebopdeluxe wrote:
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.


[b]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./b]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Exhibit A of "soft misogyny" right here.

It is has been true for millenia because of MISOGYNY and it it still reigns true because of MISOGYNY.

:nonono:

He is not entirely wrong, though I'm sure you didn't like the way it was worded. Biology plays a role, and you see it in the animal kingdom every day. Research also supports this. Why do you think for grades K-4 in the U.S. less than 6% of teachers are men? I assure you they apply for the positions. Are school districts across the U.S. purposely not hiring male teachers for lower grades? Are school boards inherently prejudiced against males teaching young children? (some are actually). The research shows that women are generally better with handling young children in the classroom. This is not misogyny--it's science. I've seen it for the past 30 years or so. Before you twist my words around I better put in the disclaimer that men can and often do become excellent teachers in the lower grades when given the chance. However, this is not the norm. I do not know of a single mixed gender school district in New Jersey that has more male than female teachers in the lower grades. Hell, you'll be hard-pressed to find a high school with more male than female teachers these days.
"It's scarier than Charles Barkley at an all you can eat buffet." --Shaq on Shark Week
"My secret to getting rebounds? It's called go get the damn ball." --Charles Barkley
Bergmaniac
Head Coach
Posts: 6,282
And1: 9,492
Joined: Jan 08, 2010
 

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#366 » by Bergmaniac » Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:29 pm

bebopdeluxe wrote: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/
revolution.

The economics don't work, these leagues are supported mostly by oligarch owners and other rich businessmen who don't care that they lose money - http://www.espn.com/espn/eticket/story?page=rollinginrubles

Like most owners, von Kalmanovic says he loses money on his team. Unlike most owners, his claims are believable. Spartak averaged approximately 3,000 fans a game, but the specific attendance doesn't really matter because tickets are free (the plan is to get fans hooked, then start charging admission). He says the team also pays to have its games televised. With salaries, travel, publicity, overhead and a youth basketball school his wife manages, von Kalmanovic estimates this year's expenses would run $5 million to $6 million. And how much revenue does he take in? "There is no revenue. I take in nothing."

When basketball is your passion and you're part of the new Russian oligarchy, what is $6 million over the course of a season? One person said he saw von Kalmanovic go through $1 million in a single weekend trip to France.

"I have friends who go to casinos," von Kalmanovic said. "I know friends who risk on the stock exchange. I am Lithuanian — for me, basketball is everything. It is a hobby, a pleasure, a casino, whatever you want."

"There are six or seven owners [like him] in Russia," Taurasi said. "They're hotheads who want the best women's basketball team, and that's their hobby, so they don't care how much they pay."

This is an old article, but the situation is not much different today. The current most dominant women's basketball club in Russia, UMMC Ekaterinburg, is owned by Andrei Kozitsyn, a billionaire, and is clearly losing a lot of money every year.
Perseus1966
Veteran
Posts: 2,784
And1: 1,159
Joined: Nov 29, 2018
   

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#367 » by Perseus1966 » Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:04 pm

bebopdeluxe wrote:
Bomboclot416 wrote:
bebopdeluxe wrote:
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.


[b]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./b]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Exhibit A of "soft misogyny" right here.

It is has been true for millenia because of MISOGYNY and it it still reigns true because of MISOGYNY.

:nonono:

yes they loose money ,believe it or no every club in Europe is losing money (barca has 1,1 mil euros debt,imagine the others)
the owners of Olympiakos(with PAO 6 times Champions) have to pay for 50% of the budget(they have a lot of money)
I want RoLo to be my son in law!
MelosSoreWrist
Analyst
Posts: 3,534
And1: 1,565
Joined: Mar 25, 2012

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#368 » by MelosSoreWrist » Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:18 pm

Texas Chuck wrote: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 USMNT gets a share of the giant FIFA Mens World Cup pie. The USWNT gets a share of the tiny FIFA Womens World Cup pie. And neither is controlled by the US.

You keep comparing the Mens team and their accomplishments with the Womens team and their accomplishments. And that was part of Draymond's point. That comparison isnt relevant. Your actual objection in the pie size discrepancy between the two World Cups.

Elena Delle Donne is a bigger star and relative (to their league) better basketball player than Mike Scott. Doesn't matter. Elena gets a share of the WNBA pie. Mike gets a share of the NBA pie. And the NBA pie is infinitely bigger.

So the argument is investment. But the NBA invested hard early on in the WNBA inception. They used the NBA and its influence to get TV deals, prime broadcasting timeslots, wide spread promotion, NBA stars and celebrities in attendance. Its objectively failed.

And now people are asking for more investment. From who, for where? If there were any signs of payoff, people would line up to invest. That's clearly not the case. Basic economics.
NYK 455 wrote:
greenhughes wrote:I hope Melo leaves and wins a championship and rubs it all in our face.

How does that make you better than the Lin, Gallo, and Wil fans who root for them over NY?
Spens1
RealGM
Posts: 13,865
And1: 3,878
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
     

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#369 » by Spens1 » Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:17 pm

I think that Rapinoe in a way is right that far more needs to be invested in womens sports in general.

However, salaries as it stands should be based on a proportion of gross revenue raised (NBA's is about what, 50, it should be the same here). The difference here is that womens sport should probably get investment above and beyond in other areas until they are at a level where they are more established and equal or close to equal (in the WNBA's case, until they can support the league on their own with a full fledged suite of teams, in and around the 28-32 team mark).

In the WNBA's case they need to look at how teams like the Portland Fire, Sacramento Monarchs, Houston Comets, Miami Sol, Charlotte Sting and Cleveland Rockers and why they folded over the years. Now i have no idea why this is but honestly WNBA marketing is not good at all, they need to really get more aggressive actually in pushing the game and highlighting its strengths (honestly they can play more physically and the technique they use is really good, plus the inside game still exists at that level which makes the style closer to where the NBA was 20 years ago which makes for better watching).

IIRC, the US womens national team actually draws more than the us mens team, if that is the case, they should actually be paid more than their male counterparts (especially given their success and the relative lack of success from the men) so Rapinoe ain't wrong there, if she's expecting that same level of pay at a club level though then they need to get their owners and sponsers to start investing more into the game in terms of infrastructure. facilities and marketing so that the next generation hopefully can get there. with the WSL in England getting a lot of attention, honestly that looks like they could get to a point where maybe they're not equal to the premier league (because nevermind women, almost every league that ain't the Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 or Serie A don't have a prayer of doing that) but being equal to like the Eredivisie or something of that level.
MelosSoreWrist
Analyst
Posts: 3,534
And1: 1,565
Joined: Mar 25, 2012

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#370 » by MelosSoreWrist » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:11 am

Spens1 wrote:I think that Rapinoe in a way is right that far more needs to be invested in womens sports in general.

However, salaries as it stands should be based on a proportion of gross revenue raised (NBA's is about what, 50, it should be the same here). The difference here is that womens sport should probably get investment above and beyond in other areas until they are at a level where they are more established and equal or close to equal (in the WNBA's case, until they can support the league on their own with a full fledged suite of teams, in and around the 28-32 team mark).

In the WNBA's case they need to look at how teams like the Portland Fire, Sacramento Monarchs, Houston Comets, Miami Sol, Charlotte Sting and Cleveland Rockers and why they folded over the years. Now i have no idea why this is but honestly WNBA marketing is not good at all, they need to really get more aggressive actually in pushing the game and highlighting its strengths (honestly they can play more physically and the technique they use is really good, plus the inside game still exists at that level which makes the style closer to where the NBA was 20 years ago which makes for better watching).

IIRC, the US womens national team actually draws more than the us mens team, if that is the case, they should actually be paid more than their male counterparts (especially given their success and the relative lack of success from the men) so Rapinoe ain't wrong there, if she's expecting that same level of pay at a club level though then they need to get their owners and sponsers to start investing more into the game in terms of infrastructure. facilities and marketing so that the next generation hopefully can get there. with the WSL in England getting a lot of attention, honestly that looks like they could get to a point where maybe they're not equal to the premier league (because nevermind women, almost every league that ain't the Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 or Serie A don't have a prayer of doing that) but being equal to like the Eredivisie or something of that level.

1) Regarding the difference in pay between uswnt and usmnt, which I believe the women have been paid more anyway, the structure of it has been explained in the first round of court trial and on this thread many times over.

2) Who are you thinking of making the investment in womens soccer and womens basketball?
NYK 455 wrote:
greenhughes wrote:I hope Melo leaves and wins a championship and rubs it all in our face.

How does that make you better than the Lin, Gallo, and Wil fans who root for them over NY?
Pg81
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,425
And1: 2,661
Joined: Apr 20, 2014
 

Re: Rapinoe vs Green... who you got? 

Post#371 » by Pg81 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:41 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
clyde21 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
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. :roll:

:roll:
Considering that womens NTs like the Mathildas lost miserably 7-0 to U-15 boys teams all I can say, yes the horror. As to watching habits it is precisely irrelevant because no one knows if it will ever be really profitable not in 1 year, 10 or 20. People here are asking for effectively other richer people to take a huge gamble in the faint hope that womens football will be more popular.
Hey for all you loud mouths like TC, are you willing to invest signficantly into women's sports? So far all I see is all talk and nothing more. You want it to change? Then start doing something. If you do not have money, go start fundraisers, travel around and find investors and whatnot instead of wasting our time here with your empty rhetoric.
If you're asking me who the Mavs best player is, I'd say Luka. A guy like Delon Wright probably rivals his impact though at this stage in his career. KP may as well if he gets his **** together.
GeorgeMarcus, 17/11/2019

Return to The General Board