Womens Soccer Championship.

[mu03eng]

One thing to keep in mind, in the US women's soccer is getting at worst the second best of the talent pool(basketball maybe gets the most) and from an athletic talent pool standpoint the US just natural has more depth with the population size and the general wealth of the nation. Means we're gonna get more talent AND more investment than most other countries

[brewcity77]

My only critique was when you tried to compare their success to Brazil. Got to put it all in context - competition,etc.

Like I said, Brazil, the Yankees, UConn basketball, pick your dynasty, they deserve to be in the same conversation.

And in women's soccer, you have to include 1996, 2004, 2008, & 2012. And finishing 3rd or better in 13/14 major competitions.

Did they have a headstart? Sure. So did England in men's soccer, Canada in hockey, and plenty of other teams in other sports. Have any made the most of that advantage the way the USA did? They've never gone more than 5 years without a major title.

Comparing them to Brazil? Absolutely. They're a great dynasty. Period. They belong alongside all the great dynasties in all sports.

[jesmu84]

Like I said, Brazil, the Yankees, UConn basketball, pick your dynasty, they deserve to be in the same conversation.

And in women's soccer, you have to include 1996, 2004, 2008, & 2012. And finishing 3rd or better in 13/14 major competitions.

Did they have a headstart? Sure. So did England in men's soccer, Canada in hockey, and plenty of other teams in other sports. Have any made the most of that advantage the way the USA did? They've never gone more than 5 years without a major title.

Comparing them to Brazil? Absolutely. They're a great dynasty. Period. They belong alongside all the great dynasties in all sports.

Okay.

No one is arguing against US women's soccer being a sports dynasty.

I'm arguing your specific point that us women's success > Brazil men's past success because less years to get same titles.

[muwarrior69]

Like I said, Brazil, the Yankees, UCLA UConn basketball, pick your dynasty, they deserve to be in the same conversation.

And in women's soccer, you have to include 1996, 2004, 2008, & 2012. And finishing 3rd or better in 13/14 major competitions.

Did they have a headstart? Sure. So did England in men's soccer, Canada in hockey, and plenty of other teams in other sports. Have any made the most of that advantage the way the USA did? They've never gone more than 5 years without a major title.

Comparing them to Brazil? Absolutely. They're a great dynasty. Period. They belong alongside all the great dynasties in all sports.

More accurate comparison.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

More accurate comparison.

UConn women's bball team, kin.

[MUBurrow]

But again, the headstart means a lot less now and they've won 3 of the last 4 major tournaments as the rest of the world should be in its ascendency. A record 26 goals in a World Cup, 26-3 scoring margin, the rest of the world has had three decades and they don't seem to be closing the gap.

See I think this data cuts exactly the other way. Half of those record goals were in one game, against a team from a part of the world that fields no competitive womens teams. Taylor Twellman made the point this morning on Dan Patrick that there just isn't enough investment from most international federations to consider expanding the world cup field right now, and that speaks to the "head start" conversation.

One-half of the value of a headstart is vis-a-vis the countries that will be your strongest, consistent competition.  In that respect, you're right that France, England, etc fielding better squads with more investment in their programs validates the USWNT's success. The other half of the value of a head start though, is that a greater % of your games are gimmes.  This greatly reduces the wear and tear in tournament play, and really reduces the real risk of an upset.  In the mens ranks, Ghana, Russia, the Czechs, Nigeria are all in between 40 and 50. Any of them could realistically give a T-5 team all they can handle.  Is a team ranked in the 40s going to give a T-5 women's team all they handle? No chance.

[muwarrior69]

UConn women's bball team, kin.

Got it! I guess including the Yankees put me out in left field.

[The Sultan]

There needs to be a greater planning and commitment toward equalizing men's and women's compensation if only because of the statement it makes.

[MU82]

There needs to be a greater planning and commitment toward equalizing men's and women's compensation if only because of the statement it makes.

Agree with this.

There are plenty of folks who claim that there really is no gender pay gap, but this is a perfect example of women getting paid significantly less for the same work ... and it's the women who actually excel at their jobs.

[jesmu84]

The women's pot of money is smaller because their tournaments (ticket sales and tv contracts) generate less revenue. Women actually get a larger percentage of their pot than the men.

Where should the additional money come from?

How do you equalize the pay?

I suppose you could combine the tournaments and run them at the same time. Combine all the revenue and distribute accordingly.

Any other ideas?

[warriorchick]

The women's pot of money is smaller because their tournaments (ticket sales and tv contracts) generate less revenue. Women actually get a larger percentage of their pot than the men.

Where should the additional money come from?

How do you equalize the pay?

I suppose you could combine the tournaments and run them at the same time. Combine all the revenue and distribute accordingly.

Any other ideas?

Renegotiate the TV contract.

[Pakuni]

The women's pot of money is smaller because their tournaments (ticket sales and tv contracts) generate less revenue.

Except this apparently isn't true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/

[The Sultan]

The women's pot of money is smaller because their tournaments (ticket sales and tv contracts) generate less revenue. Women actually get a larger percentage of their pot than the men.

Where should the additional money come from?

How do you equalize the pay?

I suppose you could combine the tournaments and run them at the same time. Combine all the revenue and distribute accordingly.

Any other ideas?

The organization isn't just pots of money. It has revenue and expenses. If that means the men are generating revenue that are spent on the women, that's fine by me.

[Jay Bee]

Have em play each other. Winner takes all the $$$

[jesmu84]

Except this apparently isn't true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/

My apologies for not being clear. I was referring to world cup money

[jesmu84]

Renegotiate the TV contract.

FIFA is going to renegotiate the world cup tv contract to get more money for women and less for men?

Could they? Maybe. Will they? No. Because advertisers wouldnt be on board.

[jesmu84]

The organization isn't just pots of money. It has revenue and expenses. If that means the men are generating revenue that are spent on the women, that's fine by me.

Fair.

See above. I was talking about winnings from the tournaments.

[forgetful]

FIFA is going to renegotiate the world cup tv contract to get more money for women and less for men?

Could they? Maybe. Will they? No. Because advertisers wouldnt be on board.

I'm assuming you mean advertisers wouldn't be on board world wide.

In the US, the Women's World Cup draws a much bigger TV audience then the men. The women's World Cup final beat the men's by 22%.

[mu03eng]

I'm assuming you mean advertisers wouldn't be on board world wide.

In the US, the Women's World Cup draws a much bigger TV audience then the men. The women's World Cup final beat the men's by 22%.

A womens WC featuring the US team versus the mens WC which has never featured the US team.

I'm all for paying the women the same as the men but let's at least be fair in our application of selective statistics

[Jockey]

Have em play each other. Winner takes all the $$$

Stupidity at its finest.

[Cheeks]

24 Women's World Cup teams.  Netherlands was just in their second cup ever, and made the finals.  24 is TOO MANY for the women's world cup, that's how many bad teams there are.

The men have 32 and could easily go to 48.  The men left teams like Italy, USA, Netherlands not even good enough to qualify this time around.

The disparity between the two is massive.  The revenue driven by the men's qualifiers and FIFA events is massive compared to the women.  What the USA women have done is noteworthy, but compared to UCLA, Patriots, etc....are you kidding me?  Do we say that same thing about women's USA softball?  Why not?  They dominate even more than Women's soccer team, but are also light years ahead of the world and are amongst only 3 or 4 other teams that even matter.

I'm proud of the ladies' accomplishments, but it is laughable to the highest degree to say they should be compared to any other dynasty when one considers there are so few teams at this point that can knock them off.  Need another 20 years at least for the maturity of the sport and other countries to step up where a true dynasty comparison could be used.  The context is absurd at this point.

[forgetful]

A womens WC featuring the US team versus the mens WC which has never featured the US team.

I'm all for paying the women the same as the men but let's at least be fair in our application of selective statistics

It's not selective statistics. The advertisers are paying for the audience. The Women most likely are playing in the championship, which means the audience will be much larger. It has consistently been true.

The 2019 final was the largest soccer audience since 2015, when the women played in the FIFA Women's World Cup final.

Those are facts.

It's also a fact that the women generate more revenue for the US soccer federation than the men.

[Cheeks]

Like I said, Brazil, the Yankees, UConn basketball, pick your dynasty, they deserve to be in the same conversation.

And in women's soccer, you have to include 1996, 2004, 2008, & 2012. And finishing 3rd or better in 13/14 major competitions.

Did they have a headstart? Sure. So did England in men's soccer, Canada in hockey, and plenty of other teams in other sports. Have any made the most of that advantage the way the USA did? They've never gone more than 5 years without a major title.

Comparing them to Brazil? Absolutely. They're a great dynasty. Period. They belong alongside all the great dynasties in all sports.

Laughable


How can you be a sports fan and a student of sports and make some of these claims.  So easily destroyed.  Some of this cheerleading is nothin but PC feel good rah rah.  What they did was wonderful.  End of the day, the men generate worldwide in the billions and that's where the revenue shares come from.  If the ladies want the same pay, start generating 5he same revenues.  Fill stadiums worlwide, for qualifiers,etc, etc.  Sorry if that is unfair, but payment is based on consistent eyeballs and 5he revenue associated with them...not one event.  And dynasties are based as much on who 5he completion is.  UCLA has Kentucky, Indiana, Marquette, UNC, Houston, etc, etc.   Same for other dynasties.  UConn women is a decent comp.  USA women's softball is, too....so little competition means very few dominant teams.

[The Sultan]

24 Women's World Cup teams.  Netherlands was just in their second cup ever, and made the finals.  24 is TOO MANY for the women's world cup, that's how many bad teams there are.

The men have 32 and could easily go to 48.  The men left teams like Italy, USA, Netherlands not even good enough to qualify this time around.

48?  There aren't 16 teams being left out that have a legit chance to win the World Cup.  Most of those additional qualifiers would end up being fodder for the big boys.  It's just a reason for them to televise more games and sell more tickets.  Which is fine, but let's be honest, there aren't more than a handful of teams that are going to win the World Cup in any given year.  In it's history, only eight teams, from two confederations, have won.  I think only won team outside of Europe and South America has even made a semifinal.

[The Sultan]

Laughable


How can you be a sports fan and a student of sports and make some of these claims.  So easily destroyed.  Some of this cheerleading is nothin but PC feel good rah rah.  What they did was wonderful.  End of the day, the men generate worldwide in the billions and that's where the revenue shares come from.  If the ladies want the same pay, start generating 5he same revenues.  Fill stadiums worlwide, for qualifiers,etc, etc.  Sorry if that is unfair, but payment is based on consistent eyeballs and 5he revenue associated with them...not one event.  And dynasties are based as much on who 5he completion is.  UCLA has Kentucky, Indiana, Marquette, UNC, Houston, etc, etc.   Same for other dynasties.  UConn women is a decent comp.  USA women's softball is, too....so little competition means very few dominant teams.

As I said above, it just isn't about revenue generation.