OT: The Soccer Football Thread (USA, RBNY, PL, etc.)

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
I distinctly remember in 1994 proclaiming that by 2030 we'd win a World Cup, and that it would really pizz the world off because most Americans wouldn't really care.

There's zero indication I'm going to be right.
Doesn't look like the talent ever went to soccer. Obviously most of the talent in this country has forever gone to football, baseball and basketball. But since 1994 when Im sure soccer was hoping the US athletes would turn to soccer they have not.

But we have seen US hockey explode since that time.
 

sabremike

Friend To All Giraffes
Aug 30, 2010
22,544
33,790
Brewster, NY
After one of the Women's games a Red Bull game was on, so I watched a bit, and it was just ugly

Sure because they are bigger and faster, and can kick harder they'd beat the women. I don't know how to explain or describe it, more skills, more fluent, better team work, smarter? I really don't know but it did not look nearly as good.
The USWNT lost to a team of 14 year old boys a few years back 5-2, they would get crushed by any pro men's side in the entire world. If the Red Buls played opponents as inferior as the ones the women's team plays (remember there are very few women's teams that are even competitive because regrettably very few countries take the sport seriously) they would look like Brazil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenedictGomez

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
The USWNT lost to a team of 14 year old boys a few years back 5-2, they would get crushed by any pro men's side in the entire world. If the Red Buls played opponents as inferior as the ones the women's team plays (remember there are very few women's teams that are even competitive because regrettably very few countries take the sport seriously) they would look like Brazil.
This doesn't dispute what I said though. It backs up one of my points actually.
 

SJinNewJersey

Every single one of us, the devil inside
Dec 21, 2017
10,742
13,895
New Jersey
Doesn't look like the talent ever went to soccer. Obviously most of the talent in this country has forever gone to football, baseball and basketball. But since 1994 when Im sure soccer was hoping the US athletes would turn to soccer they have not.

But we have seen US hockey explode since that time.
It's strange because in my town Little League is dying, they can't field enough teams anymore. On the other hand soccer in my town is doing pretty good, there are dozens of teams.
 

New Jersey

(pacmanghost x) sad again
Sep 7, 2009
24,369
4,376
*intro to the sopranos*
twitter.com
From everything I'd heard on TV & read, you'd have thought more Americans watched this game than any game in history, when in reality the opposite is true & TV ratings completely collapsed in 2019 versus the 2015 victory (25.4M versus 15.6M). Is anyone else as surprised by this as I am? From everything I've heard since last week I genuinely thought (exaggerating a bit) dang near all of America was watching.

The 2015 Final was held in Vancouver and kicked-off at 7:00 pm on a Sunday on the East Coast of the United States.

The 2019 Final was held in Lyon and kicked-off at 11:00 am on a Sunday on the East Coast of the United States.

To answer your question: Not really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: devilsblood

NJDevs26

Once upon a time...
Mar 21, 2007
67,117
31,153
The 2015 Final was held in Vancouver and kicked-off at 7:00 pm on a Sunday on the East Coast of the United States.

The 2019 Final was held in Lyon and kicked-off at 11:00 am on a Sunday on the East Coast of the United States.

To answer your question: Not really.

While you’re correct (and add in unlike 2015 where they were playing a Japan team that had beaten them in big tournaments before, 2019 seemed like a fait accompli after they got through the brutal side of the bracket), it still seems like the women got infinitely more attention in general this year because they were polarizing for reasons on and off the pitch. Plus TV ratings themselves seldom go up anymore due to streaming and other reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenedictGomez

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
This doesn't dispute what I said though. It backs up one of my points actually.

Then you must not have written it as clearly as you think you did, because I interpreted what you wrote exactly as he did.

The top women are nowhere near as good as even a crappy men's league. Even if you watch the 2 best women's teams in the world (USA & France) play, you'll see more sloppy errors & cringe-worthy passes in 45 minutes than you'd see in 450 minutes of men's soccer.

And that's coming from someone who supports the women & watches most USWNT games that are broadcast, but that's just reality.
 
Last edited:

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
The 2015 Final was held in Vancouver and kicked-off at 7:00 pm on a Sunday on the East Coast of the United States.

The 2019 Final was held in Lyon and kicked-off at 11:00 am on a Sunday on the East Coast of the United States.

To answer your question: Not really
.

I read this excuse too, and I'm not buying it.

It's still a world cup final, and it's not like you're comparing 8pm versus 4am, both the 7pm & 11am time slots are highly watchable for any North American audience, especially on a weekend.

Even if we account for a slight decline in viewership for the 11am versus 7pm timeslot, which I do think is a fair point, it sure as hell aint gonna' cover the massive decline in television ratings that occurred.
 

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
TV ratings themselves seldom go up anymore due to streaming and other reasons.

You're correct for everything.........except live sports.

Which is why about the only TV advertising rates increasing today are slots during live televised sporting events, which in marketing jargon is called, "appointment viewing" as people really do want to watch it live on a TV and not streaming or DVD'd.

It's also why the NHL salary cap may increase soon, because the next TV contract is going to get a massive boost from this phenomena. There are some rare exceptions, like Game of Thrones where people really wanted to watch it 1st run broadcast on TV, but in general it's true.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
Then you must not have written it as clearly as you think you did, because I interpreted what you wrote exactly as he did.

The top women are nowhere near as good as even a crappy men's league. Even if you watch the 2 best women's teams in the world (USA & France) play, you'll see more sloppy errors & cringe-worthy passes in 45 minutes than you'd see in 450 minutes of men's soccer.

And that's coming from someone who supports the women & watches most USWNT games that are broadcast, but that's just reality.
"Sure because they are bigger and faster, and can kick harder they'd beat the women"

:dunno:
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
I read this excuse too, and I'm not buying it.

It's still a world cup final, and it's not like you're comparing 8pm versus 4am, both the 7pm & 11am time slots are highly watchable for any North American audience, especially on a weekend.

Even if we account for a slight decline in viewership for the 11am versus 7pm timeslot, which I do think is a fair point, it sure as hell aint gonna' cover the massive decline in television ratings that occurred.
Wonder what the east coast-west coast #'s look like?
 

Billdo

Registered User
Oct 28, 2008
19,358
16,185
Ocean County
This whole equal pay thing is crazy to me considering the percentage of revenue favors the women as far as pay. I guess I just don't get it. If I go work for a company that brings in a lot of money, generally speaking, I'd be paid more than smaller less profitable company.
 

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
This whole equal pay thing is crazy to me considering the percentage of revenue favors the women as far as pay. I guess I just don't get it. If I go work for a company that brings in a lot of money, generally speaking, I'd be paid more than smaller less profitable company.

Except it doesn't.

The problem is, you've been lied-to by the media, which breathlessly repeats this obvious lie & who want you to believe woman are oppressed. The, "women bring in more than the men" narrative only relies on gate receipts, and even then it's only for the last few 3'ish years when the men have absolutely blown & the women have been champs, and even then gate is supposedly only about 25% of revenue! Notice they dont mention things like corporate sponsorships?

In terms of the, "world cup pay equality", which is the recent topic du jour, while the figures for this women's world cup isnt finalized, the guesstimate is it brought 131 Million. Impressive right?

Well, not when you find out the men brought in 6,000 Million (i.e. $6 Billion, with a 'B'). Ergo, the entire "equal pay" narrative is completely absurd.
 

Devils731

Registered User
Jun 23, 2008
12,202
16,120
Except it doesn't.

The problem is, you've been lied-to by the media, which breathlessly repeats this obvious lie & who want you to believe woman are oppressed. The, "women bring in more than the men" narrative only relies on gate receipts, and even then it's only for the last few 3'ish years when the men have absolutely blown & the women have been champs, and even then gate is supposedly only about 25% of revenue! Notice they dont mention things like corporate sponsorships?

In terms of the, "world cup pay equality", which is the recent topic du jour, while the figures for this women's world cup isnt finalized, the guesstimate is it brought 131 Million. Impressive right?

Well, not when you find out the men brought in 6,000 Million (i.e. $6 Billion, with a 'B'). Ergo, the entire "equal pay" narrative is completely absurd.

Their point was the women receive a higher percentage of their revenue as pay than the men do. It was an argument that the men may be underpaid compared to the women.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
Except it doesn't.

The problem is, you've been lied-to by the media, which breathlessly repeats this obvious lie & who want you to believe woman are oppressed. The, "women bring in more than the men" narrative only relies on gate receipts, and even then it's only for the last few 3'ish years when the men have absolutely blown & the women have been champs, and even then gate is supposedly only about 25% of revenue! Notice they dont mention things like corporate sponsorships?

In terms of the, "world cup pay equality", which is the recent topic du jour, while the figures for this women's world cup isnt finalized, the guesstimate is it brought 131 Million. Impressive right?

Well, not when you find out the men brought in 6,000 Million (i.e. $6 Billion, with a 'B'). Ergo, the entire "equal pay" narrative is completely absurd.
According to this article: A closer look at the U.S. women's soccer team and pay equity

Marketing and sponsorships account for 50% of USSF's revenue. So we know the women generate more at the gate(though only slightly) but marketing and sponsorships are bundled together. So why would the men get more of that? When they stink, and are never playing a meaningful game while the women are excellent, and destroy the US men in TV ratings.

Not sure what the other 25% of revenue is.

Bottom line is I feel the women are selling themselves short by asking for equal pay.
 

Billdo

Registered User
Oct 28, 2008
19,358
16,185
Ocean County
Well, not when you find out the men brought in 6,000 Million (i.e. $6 Billion, with a 'B'). Ergo, the entire "equal pay" narrative is completely absurd.

But isn't it common sense that a product in which more revenue is generated "costs" more? (The costs I am speaking about is the pay for the men. If they bring in BILLIONS compared to MILLIONS, it only makes sense they're paid more. No?) I am genuinely am confused as to why people think they should be compensated the same when there is no financial equality as far as revenue. Regardless, thanks for that info, I have in fact been lied to by the media.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
But isn't it common sense that a product in which more revenue is generated "costs" more? (The costs I am speaking about is the pay for the men. If they bring in BILLIONS compared to MILLIONS, it only makes sense they're paid more. No?) I am genuinely am confused as to why people think they should be compensated the same when there is no financial equality as far as revenue. Regardless, thanks for that info, I have in fact been lied to by the media.
Not really, the US soccer players, both men and women, are paid by the USSF, not Fifa. So Fifa generating all this money at the world cup is kind of irrelevant.

What is relevant is USSF's revenues. As I posted above 25% of their revenue is gate receipts. The men and women are pretty even in that regard.

50% is marketing and sponsorships. Now these are sold in bundles and are not ear marked for either the men or women, but given that the men and women are even at the gate, while the women destroy the men in TV ratings, why would the men get a higher % of this?

Even if we assume the remaining 25% of revenue is from Fifa, and we want to give it all to the men, which is pretty bogus given the women should take lion share of the womens fifa revenues while the US would barely deserve the scraps of the men revenues, the current pay disparity is completely unjustified.

Is the media telling some half truths here? Ya for sure, but the "anti media" people are telling their own half truths.

Again bottom line to me looks like women should be getting more then 50%. At least in the last couple years.
 

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
Their point was the women receive a higher percentage of their revenue as pay than the men do. It was an argument that the men may be underpaid compared to the women.

Correct, and that's the shocking plot-twist.

Either the women are OVERpaid for world cup, or the men are UNDERpaid for world cup, but there no financial alternative universe where the women are underpaid.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
Here's a link which outlines the payout from Fifa to men's world cup participants.

World Cup 2018 prize money: How much do the winners get & countries' bonus payments | Goal.com

But please consider the US men did not participate. They failed to qualify. So they get none of it. Thus, how much the most recent men's world cup made in relation to the most recent women's world cup is irrelevant. But do note that whatever the payout is to the womens side, the US women received the champions share.

Edit: Just looked it up Women Champs make $4 mil.

Non qualifying men, as far as I can tell, make zero.
 

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
Not really, the US soccer players, both men and women, are paid by the USSF, not Fifa. So Fifa generating all this money at the world cup is kind of irrelevant.

Well, it's not irrelevant at all given the recent conversation about "equal pay" literally pertained to the recent world cup.

It's insanity for anyone to claim that men's & women's world cup players should make the same money (not just USA by the way, but globally this is a "thing" now as well), but yet, that's what the media did. Google for yourself, you can find scores of recent articles on this idiocy. That said, you are correct in that these are actually two separate "pay" issues: 1) World Cup 2) other stuff.

What is relevant is USSF's revenues. As I posted above 25% of their revenue is gate receipts. The men and women are pretty even in that regard. 50% is marketing and sponsorships. Now these are sold in bundles and are not ear marked for either the men or women, but given that the men and women are even at the gate, while the women destroy the men in TV ratings, why would the men get a higher % of this?

For several reasons. For starters, this massive focus on the men & women being essentially tied in recent gate receipts is a canard. Is it true? Yes. But it's also a huge anomaly; usually the men beat the women in this area too. It's a recent thing that the women are doing so well, but it coincides with Peak USA women's soccer occurring at the SAME time as Gutter-stink USA men's soccer. It's sort of like wanting to pay David Clarkson & Sydney Crosby the same right after Clarkson's 30 goal season that coincided with Crosby being hurt 60 games. Yes, that's a poor analogy, but it hits the mark in terms of comparing 2 entities with a high-water mark against the other's low-water mark. Especially when even in that climate they're basically tied. In terms of TV ratings, yeah, the women's world cup did well, but if it's a random non world cup year and it's a random November friendly, the USMNT playing Mexico is going to draw better TV ratings than the USWNT playing France.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devils731

BenedictGomez

Corsi is GROSSLY overrated
Oct 11, 2007
40,436
7,745
PRNJ
Non qualifying men, as far as I can tell, make zero.

Also consider that the men have to play WAY, WAY more games for FIFA World Cup qualifications which are brutally competitive, versus the Women.

Why?

WARNING: Potential Trigger alert (total sarcasm).

Because globally the men's game is ridiculously competitive, and the politically incorrect thing that is 100% true but that you are never, never, never, never, never going to hear in the media is that the women's game really isn't very competitive, with only about 6 teams that have a chance to win (USA, France, Sweden, England, Japan, Germany) at the start of the tournament*. Is that "fair" too? In a way, the women's game is sort of a sham at the moment. Worse than NBA basketball.


* I think I may be being charitable here too, it might be more like 4 or 5 at best.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
Well, it's not irrelevant at all given the recent conversation about "equal pay" literally pertained to the recent world cup.

It's insanity for anyone to claim that men's & women's world cup players should make the same money (not just USA by the way, but globally this is a "thing" now as well), but yet, that's what the media did. Google for yourself, you can find scores of recent articles on this idiocy. That said, you are correct in that these are actually two separate "pay" issues: 1) World Cup 2) other stuff.



For several reasons. For starters, this massive focus on the men & women being essentially tied in recent gate receipts is a canard. Is it true? Yes. But it's also a huge anomaly; usually the men beat the women in this area too. It's a recent thing that the women are doing so well, but it coincides with Peak USA women's soccer occurring at the SAME time as Gutter-stink USA men's soccer. It's sort of like wanting to pay David Clarkson & Sydney Crosby the same right after Clarkson's 30 goal season that coincided with Crosby being hurt 60 games. Yes, that's a poor analogy, but it hits the mark in terms of comparing 2 entities with a high-water mark against the other's low-water mark. Especially when even in that climate they're basically tied. In terms of TV ratings, yeah, the women's world cup did well, but if it's a random non world cup year and it's a random November friendly, the USMNT playing Mexico is going to draw better TV ratings than the USWNT playing France.
This is not a global issue, OK you can find a couple articles on the internet. But that does not mean that is the issue. This is US women vs US men. It's that in the courts, and it's that in public debate as well.

And OK the women being great does coincide with the men being terrible. So for the past 3 years,(but it truly does goes beyond that given the US women are 2 time champs and as you noted had HUGE ratings in Vancouver) the women are out generating the men, yet make way less. Who in their right minds would not fight against that?

And let's not kid out selves, this trend is going to continue for at least a couple more years. And probably beyond that.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
Also consider that the men have to play WAY, WAY more games for FIFA World Cup qualifications which are brutally competitive, versus the Women.

Why?

WARNING: Potential Trigger alert (total sarcasm).

Because globally the men's game is ridiculously competitive, and the politically incorrect thing that is 100% true but that you are never, never, never, never, never going to hear in the media is that the women's game really isn't very competitive, with only about 6 teams that have a chance to win (USA, France, Sweden, England, Japan, Germany) at the start of the tournament*. Is that "fair" too? In a way, the women's game is sort of a sham at the moment. Worse than NBA basketball.


* I think I may be being charitable here too, it might be more like 4 or 5 at best.
Irrelevant. The point is revenue vs pay, not how hard it is.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
If the WNBA were making this argument, well there would be none. But the US womens soccer team 100% has solid footing. It's more solid now then it was when it was first presented to court.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->