Hats off to the USWNT

[ALR-bishop]

I went to college in the late 60s and early 70s at SLU. In the 60s and 70s SLU was as dominant in soccer as UCLA was in basketball. National Champions in 59, 60, 62. 63, 65, 67, 69,70, 72 and 73. All with local players. Then other colleges began recruiting foreign players. They have never been a power since

I enjoy watching the women's team play. As for pay, my view is it should be tied to revenue generated not success on the field.

[MULLINS5]

I thought this was about playing for and representing your country rather than making gobs more money than they're making now.

From my understanding, the women players make a higher percentage than men, but ends up in less dollars because men's soccer brings in 45X more revenue than women.

It's like WNBA vs NBA salary. The average starting salary for a WNBA player is $75k vs $850k for NBA.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

I thought this was about playing for and representing your country rather than making gobs more money than they're making now.

From my understanding, the women players make a higher percentage than men, but ends up in less dollars because men's soccer brings in 45X more revenue than women.

It's like WNBA vs NBA salary. The average starting salary for a WNBA player is $75k vs $850k for NBA.

Patrick--Actually, it is worse in the WNBA. The rookie starting salary is under $40,000 and the max salary is about $117,000. That is why the WNBA season is the offseason for most of the stars. They make a lot more money playing in Russia and China.
Again, the revenue comes into U.S. men's soccer because people want to see the teams we play, not us. If you paid the men the same as the women you probably wouldn't lose one men's player, and even if you did it wouldn't impact the W-L record.

[rhettyeakley]

3.6 billion people watched the 2018 Men’s World Cup, compared that to 750 million for the 2015 women’s World Cup (and the ratings are down this year vs then). That is why they are paid what they are around the world.

Jay, you obviously have an issue with the Men’s Soccer team, that being said the rest of the world cares infinitely more about the men’s game than the women’s game. It may seem unfair but that is the reality.

I agree the accommodations should be the same for the two teams but the pay disparity is due to the difference in demand for the two sports. Similar to the NBA vs the WNBA... not very many people care about the WNBA and a strong argument can be made that if they weren’t helped by the NBA they probably wouldn’t even exist today.

You can complain about the lack of success that the men have had all you want but the reality is that they are playing a game (Men’s soccer) that has many more fans in the world and have a higher rate of competition than the other game (women’s soccer). The Trinidad loss was an embarrassment for the men’s team for sure but they do not lose to teams like that regularly.

Celebrate the Women’s victory, it is a source of pride for the country as a whole, I was rooting hard for them the whole time. That being said I just don’t know why you have to make it a point to ridicule the men’s team in the same breath.

[oldjudge]

Rhett-I was not saying the woman's sport is more popular than the men's sport worldwide. What I was saying is that the U.S. men's team is not why it is popular. I continue to believe that both teams should be paid based on performance.

[oldjudge]

Rhys--As I was reminded by Leon, I think you need your name on your post.

As for the U.S. just taking men's soccer seriously, we won two medals for soccer in the 1904 Olympics. Our team is not good, it's piss poor. We got knocked out of the 2018 World Cup by Trinidad and Tobago, a team that had lost seven games in a row. I don't know what their training facilities are like but I don't think they rival ours. We have several hundred times more people than they do. The truth is that very few people in this country care about men's soccer and if they do it is as fans of various foreign professional teams. We don't have to compete in every sport. We should just admit that as a country we don't care about men's soccer and direct the funding to sports we do care about.


"If they played the mens team and they tried their best for 90 minutes, Vegas would have to set the line at 20-0 or more. Not a disrespectful statement, just the flat out truth."

We both know this is an incredibly stupid comparison. There are physical differences which do not allow woman to match men in speed or strength. The relevant comparison is how they perform relative to their peers and here the women win and the men lose.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As for the U.S. just taking men's soccer seriously, we won two medals for soccer in the 1904 Olympics.

Umm... 1904 was mostly a sideshow for the worlds fair, most of the competitors were from the US.

In Soccer, yes, we earned two medals.
Silver and bronze, in a field that had at total of three teams.....

Canada represented by Galt F.C. won 7-0 and 4-0 over Christian Brothers College and St. Rose Parrish.

St. Rose "won" the Bronze by going 0-2 and scoring no goals.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Posting a card(her first). What other women are considered elite players?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Posting a card(her first). What other women are considered elite players?

Marta, from Brazil. She has ridiculously sick ball skills (to this day).

I'm late to the party, but I watched almost all of the games for the women's world cup (not just the US). I actually really enjoy watching the women's game much more than the men's game. The women are tougher and are less prone to flopping and diving. There was some of that going on in the women's world cup, but it wasn't nearly as painful as it usually (always?) is when watching the men fall and clutch onto their ankle to waste minutes of time (that should get added on as extra time anyway, but that's besides the point) only to get up moments later to do the same thing two minutes later. It's such a let-down when the momentum is shifting, etc. Buzz kill.

Also, the game is more spread out in the women's game (perhaps due to their size and skill compared to the men) so, to me, it's more tactical and more fun to watch.

Great debate on pay. What do you think some of these women bring in for sponsorship money and advertising compared to the U.S. men? I'm sure Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe and a few others are far more popular sports figures than most (all) of the U.S. men's soccer players. They are household names, but I don't think my wife (or kids) could name any of the current U.S. men's team soccer players.

And yes, I still hate Michael Bradley, even though he played pretty darn well throughout the Gold Cup. Who is the "face" of U.S. men's soccer today? Altidore (who didn't even start in all of the games)? Bradley? Pulisic was awesome (and will be a star), but he's certainly not a household name. Landon Donovan, Alexis Lalas, Cobi Jones, Clint Dempsey from years past. Meh. Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Brandi Chastain (yep, that one)...they are household names (at least in my house).

I have to imagine that many of these women are doing quite fine for themselves. The solid players that aren't household names, now that's where the compensation debate should really matter. Crystal Dunn, Sauerbrunn, Lavelle, Dahlkemper, Tobin Heath, Ertz, Carli Lloyd. Should they be paid less than the no-namers on the U.S. men's team? For me, the answer is no. But I totally get the other side of the coin with respect to the amount of revenue generated. Tough call. Great debate.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Marta, from Brazil. She has ridiculously sick ball skills (to this day).

I'm late to the party, but I watched almost all of the games for the women's world cup (not just the US). I actually really enjoy watching the women's game much more than the men's game. The women are tougher and are less prone to flopping and diving. There was some of that going on in the women's world cup, but it wasn't nearly as painful as it usually (always?) is when watching the men fall and clutch onto their ankle to waste minutes of time (that should get added on as extra time anyway, but that's besides the point) only to get up moments later to do the same thing two minutes later. It's such a let-down when the momentum is shifting, etc. Buzz kill.

Also, the game is more spread out in the women's game (perhaps due to their size and skill compared to the men) so, to me, it's more tactical and more fun to watch.

Great debate on pay. What do you think some of these women bring in for sponsorship money and advertising compared to the U.S. men? I'm sure Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe and a few others are far more popular sports figures than most (all) of the U.S. men's soccer players. They are household names, but I don't think my wife (or kids) could name any of the current U.S. men's team soccer players.

And yes, I still hate Michael Bradley, even though he played pretty darn well throughout the Gold Cup. Who is the "face" of U.S. men's soccer today? Altidore (who didn't even start in all of the games)? Bradley? Pulisic was awesome (and will be a star), but he's certainly not a household name. Landon Donovan, Alexis Lalas, Cobi Jones, Clint Dempsey from years past. Meh. Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Brandi Chastain (yep, that one)...they are household names (at least in my house).

I have to imagine that many of these women are doing quite fine for themselves. The solid players that aren't household names, now that's where the compensation debate should really matter. Crystal Dunn, Sauerbrunn, Lavelle, Dahlkemper, Tobin Heath, Ertz, Carli Lloyd. Should they be paid less than the no-namers on the U.S. men's team? For me, the answer is no. But I totally get the other side of the coin with respect to the amount of revenue generated. Tough call. Great debate.

+10

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Marta, from Brazil. She has ridiculously sick ball skills (to this day).

I'm late to the party, but I watched almost all of the games for the women's world cup (not just the US). I actually really enjoy watching the women's game much more than the men's game. The women are tougher and are less prone to flopping and diving. There was some of that going on in the women's world cup, but it wasn't nearly as painful as it usually (always?) is when watching the men fall and clutch onto their ankle to waste minutes of time (that should get added on as extra time anyway, but that's besides the point) only to get up moments later to do the same thing two minutes later. It's such a let-down when the momentum is shifting, etc. Buzz kill.

Also, the game is more spread out in the women's game (perhaps due to their size and skill compared to the men) so, to me, it's more tactical and more fun to watch.

Great debate on pay. What do you think some of these women bring in for sponsorship money and advertising compared to the U.S. men? I'm sure Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe and a few others are far more popular sports figures than most (all) of the U.S. men's soccer players. They are household names, but I don't think my wife (or kids) could name any of the current U.S. men's team soccer players.

And yes, I still hate Michael Bradley, even though he played pretty darn well throughout the Gold Cup. Who is the "face" of U.S. men's soccer today? Altidore (who didn't even start in all of the games)? Bradley? Pulisic was awesome (and will be a star), but he's certainly not a household name. Landon Donovan, Alexis Lalas, Cobi Jones, Clint Dempsey from years past. Meh. Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Brandi Chastain (yep, that one)...they are household names (at least in my house).

I have to imagine that many of these women are doing quite fine for themselves. The solid players that aren't household names, now that's where the compensation debate should really matter. Crystal Dunn, Sauerbrunn, Lavelle, Dahlkemper, Tobin Heath, Ertz, Carli Lloyd. Should they be paid less than the no-namers on the U.S. men's team? For me, the answer is no. But I totally get the other side of the coin with respect to the amount of revenue generated. Tough call. Great debate.

Good take on the situation. I also enjoy watching the women play almost as much as I enjoy watching the men. Definitely two very different styles of soccer/football. The women tend to have more time with the ball and that is why it seems more tactical, the men play at a faster pace and it can seem a bit frenetic, like a more spread version of a hockey game, this mainly due to the speed at which they are closing space and collapsing on the player with the ball.

All that being said and as someone that has played soccer for 35+ years I can’t stand the flops! That may be the biggest reason that soccer has never caught the attention of the average American sports fan, just terrible to watch (I can’t stand Neymar as a player for that reason)

[Orioles1954]

Penalty kicks should be moved back 10 yards. That will discourage much of the flopping in the penalty box.

[Leon]

That is my kind of bronze! I think I still have a bowling perfect attendance trophy somewhere.

Originally Posted by steve B

Umm... 1904 was mostly a sideshow for the worlds fair, most of the competitors were from the US.

In Soccer, yes, we earned two medals.
Silver and bronze, in a field that had at total of three teams.....

Canada represented by Galt F.C. won 7-0 and 4-0 over Christian Brothers College and St. Rose Parrish.

St. Rose "won" the Bronze by going 0-2 and scoring no goals.