These women are showing themselves to be weak crybabies and bad sports. You haven't yet been able to counter that, so you have to misrepresent my talking points as "incel shit" or "it's because of their political viewpoints" or "because you don't want them to negotiate for more pay".
False moral superiority is a helluva drug. Cheering for wealthy celebrities has always been the domain of deficient thinkers.
It's not. The soccer industry has grown in the US over the last 10 years. And it's largely due to women. Your 'clear example' is horse shit.
“Right now, we are seeing incredible momentum for women in sport, as athletes lead a movement of health and wellness. We are more committed than ever to using our brand as a catalyst, celebrating athletes, supporting sports and building the best products for women. The landscape of sport is expanding, and Nike is invested in inspiring the next generation of female athletes.”
I am arguing against their petulant tantrum and their poor sportsmanship. You are making assumptions instead of reading, as usual.
Because I am not cheering for the women along with you sycophants, you leap right to the conclusion that I am against their negotiations for more pay. You could have cleared up your own incorrect assumption merely by reading what I posted, but that would be too challenging for your tribalism-addled brain. Instead, you keep doubling down on your own ignorance because feeling like you're right is more important than being right.
As an aside, I am also pointing out the women aren't hurting for money, largely due to corporations like Nike pumping cash into this manufactured outrage. You have a soft spot for billionaire corporate cocksucking, so I don't expect you to see this as a suspicious thing.
You think this is "right" because you are being told to think it is right. When asked to explain your justification, both you and @ConnorDuffy1977 can only shriek and insult and shift attention to irrelevant things. It's unfortunate that your leash-holders haven't given you better talking points for your selfless white-knighting on the internet. With a bit of effort, you might even convince people to your side.
Now, will I need to correct you a third time, or will you slow down and read? My opinion is these women are poor sports. They shouldn't be using the world cup nor their fans as leverage for out-of-cycle contract negotiations. It's a bad business approach. It will likely harm other female sports teams in soccer and in other sports.
Some definitely do, I remember serena Williams saying she wouldn't stand a chance in the men's league. Of course that's after everyone saw her get destroyed by men in the intergender matches that were nobodies, so there's not really any denying it.
My opinion is these women are poor sports. They shouldn't be using the world cup nor their fans as leverage for out-of-cycle contract negotiations. It's a bad business approach. It will likely harm other female sports teams in soccer and in other sports.
Bristol rovers players are doing the same job as Barca players by this logic they should be earning the same even though one is one of the biggest sports teams in the world and the other just celebrated erecting a tent as their new stand.
I'm not upset at the women, but dealing with brats that can't hold their own in an argument is a bit irritating, yes.
What if I said "yes" I've been this upset when a man did the same thing in sports? Would that mean I'm justified in being upset at these women? What if I said no? Would it mean I am not justified in being upset at these women? Earlier you claimed it was because of "politics" without actually backing that up. Will that be your explanation here again?
You're begging the question because you're outclassed by a stranger on a videogame forum. I can't imagine how frustrating that must feel. At any moment you could slow down and reply with a valid point, but you keep spinning the [emotional outburst] wheel 'o fun.
I have offered plenty of relevant talking points, otherwise you wouldn't keep pounding your feet and replying to me. [
The problem is that you don't have any counter-arguments, so you repeat the mantra "you haven't offered anything factual nor relevant" like the unthinking NPC you are. Maybe mix it up and go back to the part where you were implying people were sexist.
The heart of the problem is you've already lost the argument. A few sentences was all it took to unhinge you. Now you're trying to salvage whatever ego that I've robbed from you (how dare I!) when I didn't agree with the women's behavior. It wasn't my fault that you blundered into an argument you can't seem to comprehend, let alone win.
Which insult comes next? I am a sexist. I have not offered anything factual nor relevant. I am a joke. I'm bitter. Wow, you're blowing me away with these one-liners.
So what is the exact problem. The amount of money that the US national team gets paid by some US body compared to the men or the revenue split for the World Cup? If it is based on what this US based body pays then sure a case can be made that the US men's team hasn't performed well at all and failed to even qualify so naturally the women's team has generated more revenue between the two since not existing has to be less of a draw. If it is based on the revenue split from the actual World Cup event they already get a higher share. The pie just isn't as big.
I feel like this thread is arguing two different points.
How much do the men make vs the women as a base salary minus any sort of revenue split from the WC?
I've said like 50 fucking times this doesn't cover private club wages or the MSL and the NWSL. You have to be a fucking moron not to be able to comprehend their male counterparts are the USMNT. Congrats?
You're suffering from TDS again and that's your problem, not mine. I don't have to demonstrate my outrage toward Trump nor toward male sports teams to justify my opinion here. It's funny to watch you grasp for relevance when your argument gets stomped. Please, which of my talking points were bullshit?
- Do you think the women are demonstrating good sportsmanship?
- Do you think the women are improving or damaging the situation for other female athletes?
- Do you think it is justified to leverage fans and the world cup for their contract negotiations?
- Do you think the women are being unfairly paid?
- Do you think popularity or support from the public is relevant to the truthfulness of a claim?
These aren't my only points, but with you I really need to start simple. I hope that you'll be able to read my whole reply before spinning into another conniption fit.
You believe the American women’s national team generates more money than the French men’s national team? Or the UK's team or Messi by himself? Again it’s hard to understand your argument you keep repeating yourself without actually responding to the points people bring up. For example:
'The women's team, does however, make more money than the men's team'
That isn't true is it? Unless you mean the American men's team, which I don't know if that's true but why would it matter in a collective bargaining agreement in an entirely different tournament? And how do you go from that to the American women's soccer team is being discriminated based on their sex? I honestly can't follow your reasoning at all please clear it up for me if you can.
Unfortunately, it (assuming I read same one) appears to be part good points and part WaPo bullshit propaganda as usual. And the suing players are doing the same thing it seems to me. The article seems fairly written with respect to payments unrelated to the international body's payments that are based on revenue, and I understand the suing player's position if they exclude that income. But they don't, and the WaPo is playing along for social justice points.
"Jeffery Kessler, the female players’ attorney, said via email: “The USSF has an obligation under US law to provide equal pay regardless of how FIFA discriminates. The discrimination against the women occurs in both Non- World Cup games and World Cup games.”"
"The new agreement has provisions that may reduce the difference in bonuses for friendly games and tournaments, but there is — without question and for whatever reasons — still a massive gap between men’s and women’s World Cup bonuses."
Whatever reasons is what they call a massive disparity in revenue. I'd like to hear them repeat that while they strike until the day comes when everyone with a blog gets paid the same as their senior reporters.
The article seems fairly written with respect to payments unrelated to the international body's payments that are based on revenue, and I understand the suing player's position if they exclude that income. But they don't, and the WaPo is playing along for social justice points.
Thanks. LOL, any source that I can actually read. You didn't need to keep dropping sources but I appreciate it. I was going to go look for one myself if I was to participate any further in this thread.
Did someone hijack your account when I took a break from the internet? Kind of stunned to see you call this garbage a good job:
"Many won’t find these claims surprising. Women athletes are notoriously underpaid when compared with their male counterparts, and the U.S. women’s national soccer team represents just one sport where this dynamic plays out. In the WNBA, player salaries start at $50,000, while median salaries are $71,635. Meanwhile, NBA players earn a minimum salary of $582,180. "
The fact is, women soccer doesn't generate the same revenue that men soccer does, and still, women receive a higher percentage of that revenue than men do.
Well, there is a sizable difference in the revenue available to pay the male and female teams. According to Mike Oznian, a writer for Forbes, the 2015 Women’s World Cup “brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.”
Last year, the men’s World Cup in Russia generated more than $6 billion in revenue; the participating teams shared about $400 million. That is less than 7 percent of overall revenue. Meanwhile, the 2019 Women’s World Cup made somewhere in the region of $131 million, doling out $30 million, well more than 20 percent of collected revenue, to the participating teams. It seems a pay gap does exist, after all.
So yeah, according to their respective capacity to generate money, women are being paid more than men.
Eh, now I know why I usually skip The Atlantic articles. Lots of stupid shit in there (wage gap lie, comparing NBA to WNBA like everything is equal except one is men and the other is women) that has nothing to do with this particular case and they still couldn't nail down the current wage gap of these exact scenario. Years back the men were making 3x as much but doesn't give an updated value.
"And though a new collective-bargaining agreement was reached in 2017 that reportedly bumped up the women’s salaries (the exact numbers are not public), the pay from the USSF to its male and female athletes is still not equal. "
Is the closest to finding the actual number. Does any of these other paywall articles give exact values? If the current value is even remotely close to the mens it is not worth the bad publicity to have them be different tbh. We could be talking a couple thousand dollars per player per match. If the USSF can't handle that they should fold.
As a % of revenue, yes, these women are already getting paid more . The issue people need to understand is that the free market decides these things. Economic SJW engineering has no place in a free market system.