News Article: Leafs, Flames come together to help out CWHL players.

[The Apologist]

In the context of the conversation though the bias was very important to the other side. Choosing the writing of an alt-right christian who is old fashioned in his views would have more inclination to go against the women's game. He also skews the stats to his narrative. For instance he is right in saying their are highly paid female athletes, but the discrepancy in pay comes from the mid-bottom earners. Finally I said it earlier and I'll say it again; I didn't discredit his points on the FIFA payouts, I agree with those points; the thing is they are not the argument the women are having, the women are talking about US soccer, Walsh expands it to FIFA.

Walsh does not go into the numbers of the Women verse Mens team in strictly an American setting which is ultimately the main issue I have been arguing about. He also does not discuss the lack of financial backing the Women's team has in comparison to them Men's when it comes to training facilities, food,etc; basically all the stuff that is outside of the physical game checks.

For the US, yes the revenue has seen a good increase over the past couple years due to the Women.

here are some articles to look into: All have some flaws as well, but they also add a different narrative to the conversation:
World Cup in hand, US women's soccer team moves to fight for equal pay - CNN
These stats show how the USWNT leads in soccer -- and how far it lags in compensation - CNN
Team USA’s Women’s World Cup Final Victory Ratings Score For Fox – Deadline

excellent reads, thank you! Theres still some info to be fleshed out but at least its a rebuttal.

And Im not trying to single you out but sometimes people hide behind attacks and labels to avoid addressibg valid issues.

 

[The Apologist]

I discredit points that are outwardly sexist and off the topic, which have i discredited outside of that?

Discard, not discredit. Your argument for not accepting the Walsh artucle being a prime one.

 

[robertmac43]

Discard, not discredit. Your argument for not accepting the Walsh artucle being a prime one.

I dunno I thought i handled that one pretty well personally.

 

[robertmac43]

excellent reads, thank you! Theres still some info to be fleshed out but at least its a rebuttal.

There is plenty more discourse out there.

Just got to remember to look for the American equality gap and not get that deluded with the FIFA wage gap; two very different things!

 

[Go4soda]

Great on these two organizations for doing a good deed. It’s their money, they have a lot of it, they can use it anyway they want.
Having said that, it was absolutely a PR move. There’s no way an organization in the entertainment business takes a bath like that for no reason.
The argument that the women’s game deserves traction, is so tired. Every time a product/program goes to the public, it’s sink or swim. That’s the way it is. It works the other way around too. The kardashians has a huge audience for crying out loud. Society can’t dictate what people want to watch. People do. Advertisers will support what eyeballs are watching, whether it’s HNIC , Big Bang , or .... the kardashians.
Money talks, and it’s a business. Most hockey viewers are men. Most men have no interest in watching women play hockey on a basis that would make the game viable.
It’s not sexist. It’s the way it is. Calling men sexist for not wanting to watch women’s hockey is the same as calling someone racist because they don’t enjoy hip hop. They’re not against it existing, they just don’t watch/ listen to it.

 

[The Apologist]

There is plenty more discourse out there.

Just got to remember to look for the American equality gap and not get that deluded with the FIFA wage gap; two very different things!

I think the gap gets overblown everywhere and feel that any genuine discourse often gets buried under the 'sexism' rhetoric. I appreciate the actual civil tone to this discussion. I agree that in general we still have a ways to go and in the case of soccer we may actually be getting closer than most others.

I dunno I thought i handled that one pretty well personally.

Agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[moon111]

Let's ask the question, does the reputation of an organization matter?

Remember the Ford Pinto? Ford decided the cost of simple, preventable measures weren't worth the cost associated with their customers being burned to death.
When the EPA stated automobile manufacturers would have to meet emission standards, they balked. When Honda showed how they could do it, G.M. stated,
"Well, I have looked at this design, and while it might work on some little toy motorcycle engine…I see no potential for it on one of our GM car engines."
When this gets back to Soichiro Honda, he buys an Impala, ships it to Japan and has his engineers make it better than GM could do themselves, so much so the
car passed without even having a catalytic converter installed. For small car buyers, the reputation of Ford cannot touch Honda. One is a leader, the other is talking
about stopping all car production completely.

The money the Leafs put towards this is pocket change to them. Does it improve the reputation of the organization? Does hiring a Sports Illustrated top 25 toughest
athlete who happens to be a woman hurt the organization? The Leafs can draw people into their organization based on their current reputation and being a class act.
Try doing that in the `80's, it didn't happen. People are people, whether they're sports professionals, millionaires, etc. I've been part of organizations with great and
horrible attitudes. If I were in a foxhole, I'd rather fight beside Heyley Wickenheiser then Phil Kessel. You might win a battle, but you'll lose the war if you end up
pulling a pin and blowing both of you up.

The Leafs are a class act.

 

[JayfromNB1219]

this thread started off brutally (being one of the first posters I have been here for the entire thing) but it really has become a discussion, I love it...the name calling for the most part has died off and we are discussing issues, appreciate the civility that has found it's way to the discussion!

 

[JayfromNB1219]

...

Do people here really think that that women and their little tournament are bringing in more cash than the World Cup and FIFA?

Not what anyone has said lol

 

[diceman934]

Great on these two organizations for doing a good deed. It’s their money, they have a lot of it, they can use it anyway they want.
Having said that, it was absolutely a PR move. There’s no way an organization in the entertainment business takes a bath like that for no reason.
The argument that the women’s game deserves traction, is so tired. Every time a product/program goes to the public, it’s sink or swim. That’s the way it is. It works the other way around too. The kardashians has a huge audience for crying out loud. Society can’t dictate what people want to watch. People do. Advertisers will support what eyeballs are watching, whether it’s HNIC , Big Bang , or .... the kardashians.
Money talks, and it’s a business. Most hockey viewers are men. Most men have no interest in watching women play hockey on a basis that would make the game viable.
It’s not sexist. It’s the way it is. Calling men sexist for not wanting to watch women’s hockey is the same as calling someone racist because they don’t enjoy hip hop. They’re not against it existing, they just don’t watch/ listen to it.

No one was called sexist for not wanting to watch women’s hockey. It was the sexist comments that got the poster the comments he did.

 

[robertmac43]

No one was called sexist for not wanting to watch women’s hockey. It was the sexist comments that got the poster the comments he did.

Nailed it! I have no problem with people not wanting to watch Women's sports, do what you will with your own free time. Just don't make things out to be the 1920s cause we have progressed since then !

 

[Go4soda]

No one was called sexist for not wanting to watch women’s hockey. It was the sexist comments that got the poster the comments he did.

Yes, I’ll admit, the tone of some posters is a bit alarming. I think my argument is clearly stated. At no point do I make the argument that women should stay clear of competitive sports, or even that women shouldnt engage in sport as a profession. I believe it’s every woman’s right to Pursue sport if she wants to. I’m just against the notion that women’s sport should be force fed to the general sports audience without any regard for its viability on the landscape simply because the viewing public should be inclusive to them. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it. Most people don’t watch it, so there’s no money in it.