Social US Women's National Team Just Want To Be Treated Fairly - The Men's Can't Even Qualify For World Cup

So not yet? then i find your claim that USians dont flop suspect.

The game rewards flopping and lying, that's why i refuse to watch said sport. Once video replay comes and people get yellows for flopping then the sport will really change.

MLS is good to go, they're fully expecting the IFAB to give the final approval in August.

We don't have a flopping problem, what we do have is a mediocre reffing epidemic.

Professional Soccer is a relatively young sport in the U.S, so the American players and teams knows they can't afford to play safe or flopping around like the Euros and risk killing the sport. That attitude is what won over people's hearts in the last World Cup.

It's almost like how the women always bring it in the UFC, whereas the established guys choose to run around the Octagon for a safe W despite the boos.

Once instant-replay is in place, we can safely assume that the quality of play would remains high, even after the U.S team catches up with the rest of the world, and bullshit ref calls will be dratically reduced:

----

INSTANT REPLAY AND MLS
By Jason Davis – FEBRUARY 8, 2017

major-league-soccer-mls-logo.jpg

US Soccer Players - Major League Soccer’s plan to introduce instant replay continues unabated. The system, called video assistant referee (VAR) by FIFA, is under review by the International Football Associations Board. The IFAB is the body that changes the rules of the game. With testing underway during preseason, the league is pushing towards a full introduction of video refereeing after the August 2 All-Star Game in Chicago.

The league now has a noted referee in charge of the program. The Professional Referees Organizations, the body the handles refereeing for each of the US and Canada’s three professional competitions, announced on Tuesday the hiring of former Premier League and UEFA referee Howard Webb to oversee the VAR initiative. Webb is perhaps most famous for manning the middle in the contentious 2010 World Cup final.

Webb arrives in the United States to aid in the education of VARs after a stint overseeing referees in the Saudi Arabian league. Like many referees, he seems to welcome the arrival of technology on this scope within the professional game. As recently as last October Webb penned a piece for CityAM.com supporting the introduction of the process. At the time, Webb suggested that video replay needed significant testing and questioned when to use it.

FIFA’s approval of video replay limits its use to “game-changing decisions”, which it identifies as goals, penalties, direct red cards, and cases of mistaken identity.

MLS has been at the forefront of the movement to bring tech into the refereeing process since the concept began to received traction with the IFAB a few years ago. Commissioner Don Garber has long positioned MLS has a willing test market for video technology if and when IFAB and FIFA approved its use. Left out of the advancement on goal line technology because of the expense (reportedly as much as $250,000 to install), MLS is obviously eager to jump on board with VARs.

Video replay gives MLS and PRO, two organizations regularly criticized for refereeing issues during league play, an easy way to improve their officiating. Without spending a single cent on referee education, MLS will cut down significantly on the number of instances that cause controversy when referees make the wrong decision.

Or so goes the hope. There remains a human element even in the VAR process. Even with super slo-mo and multiple views of an incident, it’s difficult to come to a clear decision. Referees who support video replay as a means to take the burden off themselves can’t help but have their decision-making process affected by the specter of video review.

This is the breach into which Webb steps. Whether or not he’s the best man for the job, his experience and fame are boons to PRO and MLS. Make no mistake: the hiring of Howard Webb, a man with over 500 games refereed in the English Premier League and Football League and a name many soccer fans know from his high profile match work, is a public relations win for both of the organizations with an interest in the improvement of refereeing in North America.

For skeptics, video replay looks to be little more than a potential impediment to the natural flow of a professional soccer game. Even beyond concerns about breaks in play, video replay seems to offer little more than the illusion of certainty in a sport that often fails to allow for any. Kicking the refereeing process up into a booth where officials in darkened rooms rush to view replays and radio down decisions makes officiating less transparent, not more.

But this is progress. MLS recognizes that the game will move in the direction of technology regardless of their participation. In a country already accustomed to video replay playing a role in the officiating of other major sports, there’s little reason not to bring the process here as soon as possible.

While PRO goes about the longer, harder business of developing and improving American and Canadian referees, MLS gets an immediate boost of credibility thanks to the VAR initiative. Come August, soccer will change dramatically. Webb's responsibility in MLS is making sure it does so in an effective way.

https://ussoccerplayers.com/2017/02/instant-replay-and-mls-video-assistant-soccer.html
 
Last edited:
well, when U 15 boys beat Women's Gold, its pure LULz thinking they deserve more money but, female victimhood knows know limits or bounds.


Exactly.

While no where close to the same level - when I was young we used to play pick-up baseball on a local field in the summer (12-16yr olds). We could play until the women's rec. softball teams showed up for practice.

One day we proposed a scrimmage against the ladies and beat them 19-7. That same team won the USSSA state tournament and place 3rd in the SE regional. We were just the kids that lived in the neighborhood around the field.
 
How much revenue did that boys team (or any other teams that you're going to spam in this thread) brought in for U.S Soccer? Corporate endorsement? Ticket sales?

It's almost like the basic concept of economics is lost with you children, I swear.

It's almost like you don't understand economics either. The suit took 1 year in which the women played in both a major tournament and the World Cup and compared it to a year that the men only played the CONCACAF (the men took 2nd btw)

Do you want to compare numbers for the 4 yr period? If you did you would understand why they make so much less. Btw- the new contract they signed isn't going to put them on par with the men, but it may double the salary for a handful of the girls.

For crying out loud the women played Mexico in Cali in '15 and had 27,000 in attendance. The men played Mexico in Cali in '15 in front of 93,000.

There is just no way to justify a claim that the women draw significant interest or money.
 
Exactly.

While no where close to the same level - when I was young we used to play pick-up baseball on a local field in the summer (12-16yr olds). We could play until the women's rec. softball teams showed up for practice.

One day we proposed a scrimmage against the ladies and beat them 19-7. That same team won the USSSA state tournament and place 3rd in the SE regional. We were just the kids that lived in the neighborhood around the field.

Dude, there are awesome women athletes but, its this victimhood mentality that is so BLM cringe worthy. Its step up like a man but, when put the fuck down, she is a victim.

Its what is so disgusting about a significant amount of the female population. You see it evident in the dating world whereby, tinder bios read "proud single mom" as if this is a badge of honor. You see it with the women skiing down cawk mountain, running through "bad boys" and then, when her SMV (sexual market value) has cratered (fast as fuck, baby fever, unattractive now etc), suddenly, its white picket fence + good girl act to rope in some schmucks.

This doesn't depict all women as there are the Lauren Southerns or that Roaming Millennial etc. sadly, it doesn't depict a significant amount of the female victimhood when it all falls down.
 
It's almost like you don't understand economics either. The suit took 1 year in which the women played in both a major tournament and the World Cup and compared it to a year that the men only played the CONCACAF (the men took 2nd btw)

Do you want to compare numbers for the 4 yr period? If you did you would understand why they make so much less. Btw- the new contract they signed isn't going to put them on par with the men, but it may double the salary for a handful of the girls.

For crying out loud the women played Mexico in Cali in '15 and had 27,000 in attendance. The men played Mexico in Cali in '15 in front of 93,000.

There is just no way to justify a claim that the women draw significant interest or money.

Well, when 14yr old boys troll and clown the women's team, they deserve a pair of clown shoes not more wages. They should be winning a one way ticket to a boot camp for training hard.
 
It's almost like you don't understand economics either. The suit took 1 year in which the women played in both a major tournament and the World Cup and compared it to a year that the men only played the CONCACAF (the men took 2nd btw)

Do you want to compare numbers for the 4 yr period? If you did you would understand why they make so much less. Btw- the new contract they signed isn't going to put them on par with the men, but it may double the salary for a handful of the girls.

For crying out loud the women played Mexico in Cali in '15 and had 27,000 in attendance. The men played Mexico in Cali in '15 in front of 93,000.

There is just no way to justify a claim that the women draw significant interest or money.

...and with that argument, which parts of the new deal that both sides agreed on are you actively opposing, and why?


As reported by the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, some of the most important parts of the deal are:
  • A “sizable increase” in base pay for the USWNT players and bigger bonuses, which could lead to some players doubling their incomes and earning $200,000 to $300,000 per year — and even more during World Cup years.
  • Improved travel accommodations and working conditions — a category that likely includes field quality.
  • Union control over some of the USWNT licensing and marketing rights.
  • Greater support the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), with a continued commitment to pay NWSL salaries for allocated USWNT players, additional field and stadium oversight, and greater bonuses for players who don’t have a USWNT contract.
  • Per diems that are equal to the ones the men’s nation team receives.

The team is happy with the new CBA. The league is happy with the new CBA. Why are some of you guys are still arguing in circle long after the negotiation has yielded a fairer and mutually-satisfactory compromise? Do you actually think the previous CBA was better or what? o_O
 
Last edited:
...and with that argument, which parts of the new deal are you actively opposing, and why?


As reported by the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, some of the most important parts of the deal are:
  • A “sizable increase” in base pay for the USWNT players and bigger bonuses, which could lead to some players doubling their incomes and earning $200,000 to $300,000 per year — and even more during World Cup years.
  • Improved travel accommodations and working conditions — a category that likely includes field quality.
  • Union control over some of the USWNT licensing and marketing rights.
  • Greater support the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), with a continued commitment to pay NWSL salaries for allocated USWNT players, additional field and stadium oversight, and greater bonuses for players who don’t have a USWNT contract.
  • Per diems that are equal to the ones the men’s nation team receives.

The team is happy. The league is happy. Why are some of you guys not happy?

I don't understand your question as it pertains to what I posted:

The women draw significantly lower attendance and viewers which means they make less. They want to use 1 irregular year to claim that they contribute more revenue to US Soccer.

What exactly are you asking?
 
I don't understand your question as it pertains to what I posted:

The women draw significantly lower attendance and viewers which means they make less. They want to use 1 irregular year to claim that they contribute more revenue to US Soccer.

What exactly are you asking?

Its called 'female logic.'

Partly the girl power fad is to blame. There is the same mentality with diva behavior in youth, entitled as fuck during peak SMV. Once playboy stops calling, plan B is marriage and or baby rabies.

When SMV craters, the babes want to use the victim card and play up the pity party. Obv, these are the sorts of women you avoid like the plague.
 
I don't understand your question as it pertains to what I posted:

The women draw significantly lower attendance and viewers which means they make less. They want to use 1 irregular year to claim that they contribute more revenue to US Soccer.

What exactly are you asking?

The question is right there in the OP: "Should the U.S Women's National Team get better pays and working conditions base on their contributions to US Soccer?"

It's a very simple question, actually. But for some strange reasons, people are taking detours anywhere from Sweden to the WNBA. Shit that has absolutely nothing to do with the USWNT.

The WR is similar to the Heavies that way.
 
Last edited:
It is ridiculous how women get paid in relation to men. Glad to see these women make a stand. I wish the women of the WNBA would do the same. Their pay compared to NBA players is much more ridiculous
The WNBA can't even give away all the seats. If pro women's sports wants to succeed, the women have to look good and you can't have too many butch lesbians on the roster. That's just how it is. Guys (and girls who are non lesbians) won't watch a bunch of women that look like men.

sp-mystics7-07_1341626881.jpg
 
The question is right there in the OP: "Should the U.S Women's National Team get better pays and working conditions base on their contributions to US Soccer?"

It's a very simple question, actually. But for some strange reasons, people are taking detours anywhere from Sweden to the WNBA. Shit that has absolutely nothing to do with the USWNT.

The WR is similar to the Heavies that way.

The post you replied to was about relevance and having a following which the women's team doesn't; relatively speaking.

As for the OP, no they really shouldn't get more money when on avg they contribute 1/3-1/4 as much as the men's team does.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone getting more pay - I do dislike the fact that it usually comes at the expense of the men's programs in sports while women complain of the pay discrepancy without noting the lack of interest in their sport - ie NBA keeping WNBA afloat and I'd wager that the money from USMNT keeps the women's team afloat in typical years.
 
The last Women's World Cup brought in $19 million in ad revenue. The last World Cup brought in $579 million.
 
The WNBA can't even give away all the seats. If pro women's sports wants to succeed, the women have to look good and you can't have too many butch lesbians on the roster. That's just how it is. Guys (and girls who are non lesbians) won't watch a bunch of women that look like men.

sp-mystics7-07_1341626881.jpg


On that note, US Women vs Mexico in NY:
0b063-brent1.jpg

vs Netherlands in Atlanta:
US_20Womens_20Soccer_20_3_20of_207_.0.jpg


vs Columbia in Edmonton:
150622220900-03-wwc-us-colombia-0622-super-169.jpg


Megan Rapinoe (USWNT) during National Women’s Soccer League game:
CrmCVfqWAAE0rOC.jpg
 
On that note, US Women vs Mexico in NY:
0b063-brent1.jpg

vs Netherlands in Atlanta:
US_20Womens_20Soccer_20_3_20of_207_.0.jpg


vs Columbia in Edmonton:
150622220900-03-wwc-us-colombia-0622-super-169.jpg


Megan Rapinoe (USWNT) during National Women’s Soccer League game:
CrmCVfqWAAE0rOC.jpg
They are losing tons of money during those games.
 
MLS is good to go, they're fully expecting the IFAB to give the final approval in August.

We don't have a flopping problem, what we do have is a mediocre reffing epidemic.

Professional Soccer is a relatively young sport in the U.S, so the American players and teams knows they can't afford to play safe or flopping around like the Euros and risk killing the sport. That attitude is what won over people's hearts in the last World Cup.

It's almost like how the women always bring it in the UFC, whereas the established guys choose to run around the Octagon for a safe W despite the boos.

Once instant-replay is in place, we can safely assume that the quality of play would remains high, even after the U.S team catches up with the rest of the world, and bullshit ref calls will be dratically reduced:

----

INSTANT REPLAY AND MLS
By Jason Davis – FEBRUARY 8, 2017

major-league-soccer-mls-logo.jpg





https://ussoccerplayers.com/2017/02/instant-replay-and-mls-video-assistant-soccer.html

How would FIFA rig matches with instant replay though?
 
Are they as good as the men?

I would watch those babes over some sissy fruity dudes any day. In America, the only real country, soccer is a woman's sport. That is why our women's team is one of the best if not the best.
But soccer for men????? A Quaker would not even do that. You have to go to a parade in NYC or SF to find a man that will do that.
No tackling. No hands?????
If our society was based on no tackling and no hands on balls....well.....let's just say there would be a serious population shortage....

Ok, it is my bed time.
 
Back
Top