Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do so many knuckle draggers have a problem with Women's Soccer??
Manhood threatened????
As for "crickets" the last Womens World Cup Final in 2015 remains the highest rated soccer match in US history with over 25 million viewers....
Yes that's "highest rated" as in higher than any MEN'S match in US history...
By all accounts the 2019 Final will rival those numbers.....
But yeah...the women don't deserve to be paid....who cares if they are more successful, more recognizable and generate more income than the US Men's team (the team that LOST the Gold Cup to Mexico...again...the same day)
Why do so many knuckle draggers have a problem with Women's Soccer??
Manhood threatened????
As for "crickets" the last Womens World Cup Final in 2015 remains the highest rated soccer match in US history with over 25 million viewers....
Yes that's "highest rated" as in higher than any MEN'S match in US history...
By all accounts the 2019 Final will rival those numbers.....
But yeah...the women don't deserve to be paid....who cares if they are more successful, more recognizable and generate more income than the US Men's team (the team that LOST the Gold Cup to Mexico...again...the same day)
It's not really based on highest rated or how many people watch, it's based on how much money they bring in. Sports are in the entertainment profession and that is all based on how much money you bring in. Soccer players aren't doctors or engineers, they are entertainers. Winning a soccer game doesn't provide real value to anyone. They are paid a percentage of what they generate as entertainers. The women's World Cup generates significantly less value than the Men's.
"The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams."
I could see if this were a job as a nurse and a man and woman were doing the same job but earning vastly different salaries. This is entertainment and competition. Maybe they should just have one World Cup and allow the best to compete, whether it be a man or a woman and pay them the same. Would that stop the complaints?
The difference is that the men's is the best in the world and the women's is not. When you are talking about sports, that means all the difference. Triple A baseball players make about $25,000-$30,000 per year on average, while MLB players make about $4,000,000-$6,000,000 per year on average. That one tiny step means a lot when it comes to an entertainment industry. Being the best or not being the best.
Since race times are fairly concrete, let's look at the top record-breaking time for the female 100 meter dash. The top female time doesn't even crack the top 25 male times, nor does it approach the top times for boys 17 and under. The top times in history for females would be on par with 12-15 year old boys. Who is paying middle school boys to race or to play soccer? Is it fair that these middle and high school boys are running faster than women in the Olympics but getting paid nothing. Why are we paying athletes who are on par with middle or high school boys? Just because they are female?
How much money you can generate is key to an entertainment industry. Here's another example...
"But pay is hardly equal among porn stars. For a typical male/female sex scene, the average actress’s compensation is typically between $800 and $1,000. Top-tier female performers, however, can earn as much as $1,500--and sometimes $2,000 if they’re among the industry’s most sought after. (A newcomer, for comparison, could earn as little as $300.) Male performers, meanwhile, average $500 to $600 per scene or day."
This does seem to be roughly the same level of performance and men earn significantly less than women. It all has to do with how much they generate as entertainers.
For many countries, women's soccer is not taken' seriously. I've traveled to a few Latin American countries and women's soccer was taken' as seriously as ping-pong. The funding to such endeavors is proportionate. That the U.S. women's team is touting their superiority over a vastly underveloped field and crying about how they don't get as much attention or money as the men is just insane.
Why do so many knuckle draggers have a problem with Women's Soccer??
Manhood threatened????
As for "crickets" the last Womens World Cup Final in 2015 remains the highest rated soccer match in US history with over 25 million viewers....
Yes that's "highest rated" as in higher than any MEN'S match in US history...
By all accounts the 2019 Final will rival those numbers.....
But yeah...the women don't deserve to be paid....who cares if they are more successful, more recognizable and generate more income than the US Men's team (the team that LOST the Gold Cup to Mexico...again...the same day)
Maybe people are just tired of the demand they take women's soccer seriously. Or amused at hyperventilating overreactions to benign chat forum posts on the subject.
I watched much of the Women's WC and enjoyed it. But I'm being fair and open-minded when I say that technical and mental errors are about 10X higher in the women's game. That's puzzling because they don't have much to do with physical ability.
Bad give aways in the back, failed traps, botched easy passes off the dribble, very few pass completions over 10 yards, etc. In any men's league match, you might get one or two shambolic giveaways in the back, in this WC, I think each team averaged at least 5, probably saw 10 a few times.
This semi-mess is arguably more entertaining to watch, but why kid ourselves, it's bad technical soccer that can and should be improved.
I very much enjoyed each game I watched. Cheered for our US team! Was great watching Rapinoe, Heath, Morgan, Dunn, etc. on the pitch, giving their best. They did it! They are World Cup Champions again!
It's not really based on highest rated or how many people watch, it's based on how much money they bring in. Sports are in the entertainment profession and that is all based on how much money you bring in. Soccer players aren't doctors or engineers, they are entertainers. Winning a soccer game doesn't provide real value to anyone. They are paid a percentage of what they generate as entertainers. The women's World Cup generates significantly less value than the Men's.
"The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams."
I could see if this were a job as a nurse and a man and woman were doing the same job but earning vastly different salaries. This is entertainment and competition. Maybe they should just have one World Cup and allow the best to compete, whether it be a man or a woman and pay them the same. Would that stop the complaints?
The difference is that the men's is the best in the world and the women's is not. When you are talking about sports, that means all the difference. Triple A baseball players make about $25,000-$30,000 per year on average, while MLB players make about $4,000,000-$6,000,000 per year on average. That one tiny step means a lot when it comes to an entertainment industry. Being the best or not being the best.
Since race times are fairly concrete, let's look at the top record-breaking time for the female 100 meter dash. The top female time doesn't even crack the top 25 male times, nor does it approach the top times for boys 17 and under. The top times in history for females would be on par with 12-15 year old boys. Who is paying middle school boys to race or to play soccer? Is it fair that these middle and high school boys are running faster than women in the Olympics but getting paid nothing. Why are we paying athletes who are on par with middle or high school boys? Just because they are female?
How much money you can generate is key to an entertainment industry. Here's another example...
"But pay is hardly equal among porn stars. For a typical male/female sex scene, the average actress’s compensation is typically between $800 and $1,000. Top-tier female performers, however, can earn as much as $1,500--and sometimes $2,000 if they’re among the industry’s most sought after. (A newcomer, for comparison, could earn as little as $300.) Male performers, meanwhile, average $500 to $600 per scene or day."
This does seem to be roughly the same level of performance and men earn significantly less than women. It all has to do with how much they generate as entertainers.
For many countries, women's soccer is not taken' seriously. I've traveled to a few Latin American countries and women's soccer was taken' as seriously as ping-pong. The funding to such endeavors is proportionate. That the U.S. women's team is touting their superiority over a vastly underveloped field and crying about how they don't get as much attention or money as the men is just insane.
As you know....if you combined the male/female teams and only allowed the "best" to play, then there would be no women playing. But, re: the porn star thing.....you're correct that the women earn a lot more, but, their careers are very short, maybe 3-5 years. The career of a male pornstar can be 15 - 20 years...I read somewhere that popular males in porn make much more overall if calculated over the time they are involved in it.
I watched much of the Women's WC and enjoyed it. But I'm being fair and open-minded when I say that technical and mental errors are about 10X higher in the women's game. That's puzzling because they don't have much to do with physical ability.
Bad give aways in the back, failed traps, botched easy passes off the dribble, very few pass completions over 10 yards, etc. In any men's league match, you might get one or two shambolic giveaways in the back, in this WC, I think each team averaged at least 5, probably saw 10 a few times.
This semi-mess is arguably more entertaining to watch, but why kid ourselves, it's bad technical soccer that can and should be improved.
I think that's where the money comes in. With more money, the female players can devote themselves full time to improving their soccer skills; something the male professionals already do. Yes, there's a lot of room for improvement, but it has been improving steadily over the years.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57818
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner
It's not really based on highest rated or how many people watch, it's based on how much money they bring in. Sports are in the entertainment profession and that is all based on how much money you bring in. Soccer players aren't doctors or engineers, they are entertainers. Winning a soccer game doesn't provide real value to anyone. They are paid a percentage of what they generate as entertainers. The women's World Cup generates significantly less value than the Men's.
"The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams."
I could see if this were a job as a nurse and a man and woman were doing the same job but earning vastly different salaries. This is entertainment and competition. Maybe they should just have one World Cup and allow the best to compete, whether it be a man or a woman and pay them the same. Would that stop the complaints?
The difference is that the men's is the best in the world and the women's is not. When you are talking about sports, that means all the difference. Triple A baseball players make about $25,000-$30,000 per year on average, while MLB players make about $4,000,000-$6,000,000 per year on average. That one tiny step means a lot when it comes to an entertainment industry. Being the best or not being the best.
Since race times are fairly concrete, let's look at the top record-breaking time for the female 100 meter dash. The top female time doesn't even crack the top 25 male times, nor does it approach the top times for boys 17 and under. The top times in history for females would be on par with 12-15 year old boys. Who is paying middle school boys to race or to play soccer? Is it fair that these middle and high school boys are running faster than women in the Olympics but getting paid nothing. Why are we paying athletes who are on par with middle or high school boys? Just because they are female?
How much money you can generate is key to an entertainment industry. Here's another example...
"But pay is hardly equal among porn stars. For a typical male/female sex scene, the average actress’s compensation is typically between $800 and $1,000. Top-tier female performers, however, can earn as much as $1,500--and sometimes $2,000 if they’re among the industry’s most sought after. (A newcomer, for comparison, could earn as little as $300.) Male performers, meanwhile, average $500 to $600 per scene or day."
This does seem to be roughly the same level of performance and men earn significantly less than women. It all has to do with how much they generate as entertainers.
For many countries, women's soccer is not taken' seriously. I've traveled to a few Latin American countries and women's soccer was taken' as seriously as ping-pong. The funding to such endeavors is proportionate. That the U.S. women's team is touting their superiority over a vastly underveloped field and crying about how they don't get as much attention or money as the men is just insane.
This is one of the reasons the Women's team does so well. We don't have the long history of only men playing what is the major sport in most of the other countries. Despite the sport being so popular, it's always been just for men. I suspect that to also be why the Netherlands is doing so well. Like us, their girls are playing at a younger age and develop into skilled players in competitive programs and partially because we have laws such as Title IX.
It also explains why the US Men's team struggles, they don't have that same history as many other countries, it will take a long time to catch up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
