posted by wkfan

The fact that the USMNT could beat the USWNT is irrelevant.

What would be relevant to this discussion is to see the profit generated by the USMNT (tickets, merch, expenses, etc.) versus that generated by the USWNT....THAT would determine if the USWNT should be paid the same...or more or less than the USMNT.

Sam process as in the real world....

 

 

I agree.  The economic factors are much more relevant to the argument.  I was just throwing that extra argument in.

posted by like_that

I agree.  The economic factors are much more relevant to the argument.  I was just throwing that extra argument in.

But doesn't the US Women's team attract more interest/viewers than the men's team, because of their success?

I think the original argument was that the USOC paid them less.  Based on success, and on economic factors, that's wrong.  Maybe I'm wrong on the economics, but the US men's team got a $5.4M bonus for losing in the round of 16, while the women's team got $1.7M for winning the cup.

posted by gut

But doesn't the US Women's team attract more interest/viewers than the men's team, because of their success?

I think the original argument was that the USOC paid them less.  Based on success, and on economic factors, that's wrong.  Maybe I'm wrong on the economics, but the US men's team got a $5.4M bonus for losing in the round of 16, while the women's team got $1.7M for winning the cup.

I thought that was paid out by FIFA based on their revenue and how the team does.  Even if it isn't you can argue the Mens WC  generates more interest/revenue than the Womens WC and thus they get paid more.   You're talking about a difference of less than 100M vs billions.  The women making the finals is simply not equal to a round of 16 match in the mens WC.  The US women generate good interest, but I doubt it is more than the men.  The men even have a solid following during the WC qualifier matches.  Solid enough where they have/had a contracts with networks to televise their qualifier matches.  There aren't many people tuning into a random October women's WCQ match.

posted by like_that

I thought that was paid out by FIFA based on their revenue and how the team does. 

OK, well that article I read then was [unsurprisingly] deceptive.  I agree with you if FIFA pays the bonus, because the men's cup generates a lot more interest than the women.  I was talking specifically in the US, and had wrongly assumed the bonus was paid by USOC.

I guess I'd like to know what USOC is paying the teams out of it's actual budget (excluding re-distributions that come from FIFA revenue sharing).

posted by gut

OK, well that article I read then was [unsurprisingly] deceptive.  I agree with you if FIFA pays the bonus, because the men's cup generates a lot more interest than the women.  I was talking specifically in the US, and had wrongly assumed the bonus was paid by USOC.

I guess I'd like to know what USOC is paying the teams out of it's actual budget (excluding re-distributions that come from FIFA revenue sharing).

They are run by the US Soccer Federation, so they would be paying them.  Just like most non profit sports orgs it is not much.  The athletes rely on their pro leagues and endorsements. Now I believe the USWNT filed a discrimination lawsuit against the federation due inferior facilities offered and medical care.  In that case, they have an argument. 

posted by like_that

They are run by the US Soccer Federation, so they would be paying them.  Just like most non profit sports orgs it is not much.  The athletes rely on their pro leagues and endorsements. Now I believe the USWNT filed a discrimination lawsuit against the federation due inferior facilities offered and medical care.  In that case, they have an argument. 

What is their argument? Wouldn’t it still be based on who drives revenue for them? And it still isn’t close? Lol Jewels Hill tried saying the women’s team was more popular and that no one on the men’s team was more popular than Morgan. Not even close. Pulisic is an actual pro and the women’s team advances further, but popularity isn’t close.

Hey why dont you start a soccer thread somewhere else?

posted by Spock

Hey why dont you start a soccer thread somewhere else?

Relax, there are only so many dipshit electable people to talk about in here anyway.

posted by iclfan2

Relax, there are only so many dipshit electable people to talk about in here anyway.

Only outcome I'm truly rooting for is a divided Congress - the less Congress does, the less they fuck things up.  The unfortunate outcome of that is the POTUS seizes more power, but not much a POTUS does is permanent (as Trump demonstrated erasing almost everything Obama did in less than 2 years).

Well, it's official. I'm never voting for Tulsi Gabbard.

https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1139471088755380224

Also, Grandpa Commie said that he thinks people would be "delighted" to pay more taxes.

wat

Who?! Who would be delighted to pay more taxes? 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Also, Grandpa Commie said that he thinks people would be "delighted" to pay more taxes.

wat

Who?! Who would be delighted to pay more taxes? 

Fucking delusional. They can volunteer to pay more whenever they want, Mr. 3 houses.

posted by iclfan2

Fucking delusional. They can volunteer to pay more whenever they want, Mr. 3 houses.

I love how all the Dems are complaining "the tariffs are being passed on to the little guy - it's a tax".

It's almost as if they actually know that taxes trickle down...

They all seem to love higher taxes, except when they don't.

posted by justincredible

They all seem to love higher taxes, except when they don't.

Socialism is a fantastic deal for those on top of the pecking order. 

If one, in spite of the most basic knowledge of economics and/or history, believes that the goals of socialism can be achieved here, they are perfectly free to pool everything they own with like-minded people and create a perfect, voluntary society. If it's as great as they seem to believe, coercion should not be necessary.

posted by queencitybuckeye

If one, in spite of the most basic knowledge of economics and/or history, believes that the goals of socialism can be achieved here, they are perfectly free to pool everything they own with like-minded people and create a perfect, voluntary society. If it's as great as they seem to believe, coercion should not be necessary.

I disagree. These people are among the smartest to have ever lived and they just happen to know what's best for every single person in our vast, diverse country. 

posted by justincredible

I disagree. These people are among the smartest to have ever lived and they just happen to know what's best for every single person in our vast, diverse country. 

You have a point. How rude of me to assume I know a fraction of how to live my life as compared to them.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Also, Grandpa Commie said that he thinks people would be "delighted" to pay more taxes.

wat

Who?! Who would be delighted to pay more taxes? 

If I know one thing, it's that my hand is not raised at this point in time.

Who cares what Bernie says....he is never going to be president....ever.  He is really good at taking Dem money and wasting it though

I knew there was a debate soon, but had no idea it was this month. It is being split into two nights, the 26th and 27th. 

Night 1: 

1. Sen. Cory Booker 2. Sen. Elizabeth Warren 3. Rep. Beto O’Rourke 4. Sen. Amy Klobuchar 5. Rep. John Delaney 6. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 7. Sec. Julian Castro 8. Rep. Tim Ryan 9. Mayor Bill de Blasio 10. Gov. Jay Inslee

Night 2:

1. Sen. Sanders 2. Sen. Harris 3. Former VP Biden 4. Mayor Buttigieg 5. Sen. Bennet 6. Ms. Marianne Williamson 7. Rep. Swalwell 8. Sen. Gillibrand 9. Mr. Andrew Yang 10. Gov. Hickenlooper

Seems like night 2 is the bigger hitters and more likely to be the nominee. 10 people on a stage is still a shitshow. 

posted by like_that

Socialism is a fantastic deal for those on top of the pecking order. 

This simple truism is completely lost of the Left, but that's what happens when you train people to react based on emotions rather than logic and pragmatism.

I have a hard time believing that corruption and "dark money lobbying" is going to do anything but become much worse when you have the govt taking over huge chunks of the economy.  Healthcare is on it's way to 20%, Energy (if the climate alarmists get their way) is like another 10%....throw in "too big to fail" financial industry and you get pretty close to 50% of the economy controlled extensively by the govt.   But But But that's not socialism, I'm told, so long as the govt doesn't actually sit in the Board room telling the CEO what to do.

Some of the popular "socialist" economies liberals love to cherry-pick actually rank higher than the US on economic freedom.  Someone should do their homework, and when Bernie Sanders strats pontificating on Switzerland or Denmark, respond with a laundry list of economic policies those countries have in direct opposition to what Bernie wants to do.

The challenge is how do you communicate that in 60 seconds in a debate?  Political discourse in this country is, by design, completely superficial.  The idea there's any sort of public intellectual debate on any of this stuff is laughable.  Like there was never a real debate on climate change, and anyone who attempts to start one is immediately dismissed as anti-science.

Sort of unrelated note, but it struck me the other day about how toxic and divisive Trump's rhetoric can be.

And most don't disagree.  But can you get any worse or lower than calling the POTUS a criminal?  And this is something Dems do - Harry Reid deliberately lied about Romney being a tax cheat, from the floor of the Senate where he was immune to slander charges.  Despite Trump's low-brow ethics, one of the things that really irritates the Left is that he doesn't sit there and take it like most Republicans would.  Bill Maher is always saying "Repubs fight dirty....Dems have to start fighting dirty".....lol, yeah Bill, you got that bass ackwards.

posted by gut

Sort of unrelated note, but it struck me the other day about how toxic and divisive Trump's rhetoric can be.

And most don't disagree.  But can you get any worse or lower than calling the POTUS a criminal?  And this is something Dems do - Harry Reid deliberately lied about Romney being a tax cheat, from the floor of the Senate where he was immune to slander charges.  Despite Trump's low-brow ethics, one of the things that really irritates the Left is that he doesn't sit there and take it like most Republicans would.  Bill Maher is always saying "Repubs fight dirty....Dems have to start fighting dirty".....lol, yeah Bill, you got that bass ackwards.

Yes. The language by some of the Ds about Trump is just dumb. However, that language is the same language we have been using now for over 25 years. I'd disagree with you saying Rs just take it. If you look back: to the Clinton's being called criminals, to Bush being called a war criminal, to Obama is a shady criminal, to Hillary is a criminal and lock her up, to now Trump. The rhetoric is sad and depressing, but is not new and used by both extreme sides. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yes. The language by some of the Ds about Trump is just dumb. However, that language is the same language we have been using now for over 25 years. I'd disagree with you saying Rs just take it. If you look back: to the Clinton's being called criminals, to Bush being called a war criminal, to Obama is a shady criminal, to Hillary is a criminal and lock her up, to now Trump. The rhetoric is sad and depressing, but is not new and used by both extreme sides. 

I don't think Hillary having potentially committed a crime was a lie.  Dems for 2 years were calling Trump a criminal, even guilty of treason.  I'm not sure you can get lower than a unfounded accusation of treason....calling Bush a war criminal is loaded with hyperbole, but wasn't as equally baseless.

Also, I'm referring specifically to the actual politicians, and not their mouthpieces on tv and radio.  I don't remember many Dems openly calling Bush a war criminal, or Repubs calling Obama a "shady criminal"