• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Why Men Get Paid More Than Women for World Cup

Just an update..........Megan Rapinoe still doesn't like President Trump. How do I know? It was being talked about on every ******* sports news channel on SXM Radio this morning. When they weren't talking about that, they were still breathless over Kawhi Leonard signing with the Clippers. I think they also mentioned the MLB ASG in passing.
 
67156215_526690791203483_7481427670618603520_n.jpg
 
Bill Maher aint got ripped abs and would get his *** kicked by that dude.
 
jitter77 said:
This is not true back in 1999 the US hosted the world cup and there was a 1.2mil total attendance. It was the third highest attendance rate only to 2015 in Canada and this year's 2019 cup. Also the final had the highest attendance of any cup at over 90k people. The US beat China that year and it was highly publicized.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they were attended by all the illegals Clinton let in [emoji16]

Rapinoe?!! I wanna Rap that Ho!


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
jitter77 said:
As for two weeks from now you are right no one will care, but that goes for any sport. No one really cares Toronto won the NBA champ anymore. No one cares who won the PGA champ anymore or the Stanley cup, it's just the way things go now.
Click to expand...

They may not care that Toronto won, but NBA free agency was all over the airwaves and will dominate every sports show along with the NFL until training camp starts. Golf will still get some highlights shown of each tournament. We won't hear anything else about women's soccer until the WNT plays its next exhibition game.

Sarge said:
Just an update..........Megan Rapinoe still doesn't like President Trump. How do I know? It was being talked about on every ******* sports news channel on SXM Radio this morning. When they weren't talking about that, they were still breathless over Kawhi Leonard signing with the Clippers. I think they also mentioned the MLB ASG in passing.
Click to expand...

I could swear half the people that hate Trump don't even know why they hate him. It also has to be hard for ESPN that they no longer have their celebrity president on constantly to talk sports.
 
oneforthebus said:
Soccer is that rare sport that is just as pointless and boring when professionals play it as it is when 4 year olds play it.
Click to expand...

Yup. My son played it for a few years. I enjoyed watching him but if he wasn't playing I'd rather watch the grass grow.
 
Vader said:
Yup. My son played it for a few years. I enjoyed watching him but if he wasn't playing I'd rather watch the grass grow.
Click to expand...

Mine all played for a little while. I wish I could say I enjoyed it but it was about as entertaining as watching grass grow. Maybe your son had a bit more talent at it than mine did. All three of mine would just run around the field for a bit, sometimes stopping to have a conversation with one of their friends or pick a dandelion or something. I guess it was somewhat entertaining as humor and cuteness but not as sport lol.
 
My son played from the time he was 4 through his senior year of high school. He plays intermural in college. I enjoy the game, when it is played right. We watch a lot of the EPL and Bundesliga, and I grow tired of all the flopping and diving the players do. The women's game is better in that regard, but they are trying to catch up to the men.

Soccer is mostly a boring game, I agree. I don't know if anyone watched the women's final against the Netherlands, but when Rose Lavelle scored that goal, the raw emotion in her face gave me chills. It was awesome to see that.

That's what makes it fun.
 
Sarge said:
My son played from the time he was 4 through his senior year of high school. He plays intermural in college. I enjoy the game, when it is played right. We watch a lot of the EPL and Bundesliga, and I grow tired of all the flopping and diving the players do. The women's game is better in that regard, but they are trying to catch up to the men.

Soccer is mostly a boring game, I agree. I don't know if anyone watched the women's final against the Netherlands, but when Rose Lavelle scored that goal, the raw emotion in her face gave me chills. It was awesome to see that.

That's what makes it fun.
Click to expand...

I did watch part of the final. The win was exciting, no doubt.
 
Soccer is great for young kids because (1) they have to run and get in shape and (2) the game is so fluid that mistakes just disappear. Kick the ball 10' over the goal? Goal kick, game back on, no big deal. Kick the ball out of bounds? Throw-in, nobody cares.

However, by age 12, I think kids can own up the fact that mistakes have consequences. Son played soccer until age 12. He is quite athletic, baseball in high school and college, 5 varsity letters in high school, but I knew that soccer's basic set-up (lots of irrelevant action, mistakes don't matter) was not something that taught life lessons like baseball. Baseball is a game of failure, and overcoming that failure to prevail.

Also, soccer is so effing boring. It is the ONLY sport where teams voluntarily give up massive amounts of yardage. Football - fight and die for 3 yards. Baseball - never give up 90 feet, work on actually stealing that land, give up outs (sacrifice) to get another 90 feet. Soccer - kick the ball backwards from the opponent's goal box back to your own goal box and give up 80 yards, no big deal.
 
I think a big part of why soccer is so popular for young kids is because they can just run in a circle and have a good time. A kid can go a whole game without handling a ball. And if the ball does come to them, they can just pass it back to the good kid. They can just blend in and still be part of a team.

Contrast that with football, basketball and baseball where kids will be put on the spot at some point.

Baseball is probably the worst for that because the game is mostly a collection of individual plays. You are at the plate alone. In the field the ball comes to you and you have to make a play.

Same with basketball. With only 5 players, all 5 must contribute. Maybe you suck at shooting but you can be good at rebounding or defense. But you have to add something or it's apparent you are bringing the team down.

Football at lower levels does have places to hide like in soccer, but eventually you will get singled out on a block or tsckle
 
I'm actually okay with National Teams like this getting paid equal amounts of money regardless of revenue generated.

Note I don't think PROFESSIONAL teams are obligated to pay the same. I certainly don't think WNBA players should get the same as NBA players for instance.

But for things like the World Cup (soccer), Canada Cup (hockey), Olympics, etc. I actually think we should strive for equal pay. To me the pot of money is kind of all the same.

It's kind of like the Tennis going on now. Wimbledon is a totality of events even if the men's ratings are higher than the women's (and some years, that's not the case). In tennis the EVENT is co-ed and all the money kind of goes into a pot and it makes sense to me that the event payouts should be the same (or very close to it). Maybe singles are worth more than doubles, but it makes sense to me to men and women at these events to get paid the same.

Now Golf events are not co-ed. The men's U.S. Open is different than the women's U.S. Open and the senior U.S. Open. Each has separate revenue streams and each gets a different payout. Hell, even the PGA is different than the LPGA (as opposed to the USTA, which is for both men and women).

It's a complex topic and I'm not afraid to say, when CLOSE or when competing for your country, the money should try to be the same for men and women. I would feel that way if my son or daughter was in the Olympics or in the World Cup or ever represented the U.S. in an athletic competition.
 
deljzc said:
It's kind of like the Tennis going on now. Wimbledon is a totality of events even if the men's ratings are higher than the women's (and some years, that's not the case). In tennis the EVENT is co-ed and all the money kind of goes into a pot and it makes sense to me that the event payouts should be the same (or very close to it).
Click to expand...

Cannot stand to watch tennis with all the stupid grunting. Also, women and men do not have the same requirements. Men play best of 5 sets, women best of 3, so men play a lot more games. If they were paid the same, men would actually get paid much less for the same work.
 
66500792_2311700199043724_1792116460496093184_n.jpg
 
Steeltime said:
Cannot stand to watch tennis with all the stupid grunting. Also, women and men do not have the same requirements. Men play best of 5 sets, women best of 3, so men play a lot more games. If they were paid the same, men would actually get paid much less for the same work.
Click to expand...

The game itself is only a small part of the "work" involved with being a professional athlete. You know that.

They both train the same. They both practice the same. The difference between 3 sets and 5 sets is kind of a stupid method of determining pay in my opinion. You can find a better argument than that.
 
IndySteel said:
Men are better at sports and are much more profitable. Fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...

I was specifically talking about Wimbledon and what you say is not true.

In America, last year's women's final drew a 2.1 rating. The men's final drew a 1.4 rating. And again, I kind of think the ENTIRETY of the Wimbledon event is what generates revenue. Not just the men's side. Not just the women's side. Both events pretty much sell out tickets. Same for the U.S. Open in tennis as well.

I think in that sport, saying because the men play 5 sets and the women play 3 sets is kind of stupid argument for deciding one side gets less than the other. Just my opinion.
 
deljzc said:
The game itself is only a small part of the "work" involved with being a professional athlete. You know that.
Click to expand...

Nobody is paid based on how much or how well they practice. Women play far fewer games - the ones televised, the ones that crowds pay to see, the ones that generate T.V. revenues.

Those are the simple, absolute, undeniable facts.
 
deljzc said:
I think in that sport, saying because the men play 5 sets and the women play 3 sets is kind of stupid argument for deciding one side gets less than the other. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think it's stupid to argue otherwise. So you're ok with someone in your line of work, actually working less than you, and getting paid exactly the same?

Fact is that men are better at sports and bring in more money than female sports on average. Which is why you're ok with NBA players making more than WNBA. Same should be true in all sports. Want more money? Bring in more fans. How anyone can think a female is anywhere near on par with a male in any major sport is laughable. I watch Serena Williams get blasted by the 206th man in the world. Hell he had been retired for awhile. Got off his couch and beat the crap out of her. Why should she be paid the same for doing less work? Makes no sense to me. If you want to fund a charity event to raise money for them fine. But charging people who watch sports to fork over more money for a lesser quality and quantity game is a stupid argument.
 
Vader said:
I think it's stupid to argue otherwise. So you're ok with someone in your line of work, actually working less than you, and getting paid exactly the same?

Fact is that men are better at sports and bring in more money than female sports on average. Which is why you're ok with NBA players making more than WNBA. Same should be true in all sports. Want more money? Bring in more fans. How anyone can think a female is anywhere near on par with a male in any major sport is laughable. I watch Serena Williams get blasted by the 206th man in the world. Hell he had been retired for awhile. Got off his couch and beat the crap out of her.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's not like a club team of boys 15-and-under could beat the greatest women's soccer team ever assembled ...
 
deljzc said:
I'm actually okay with National Teams like this getting paid equal amounts of money regardless of revenue generated.
Click to expand...

In terms of what the U.S. pays the teams, there really is no reason to not pay them the same. You figure they should have the same resources in the development and training for the national teams and both teams should be compensated the same. I don't remember how up to date the numbers were, but there were some inexcusable pay disparities in things like promotional appearances and meals. But when it comes down to it, I can't see any reason the US soccer committee, or whatever its called, can't pay the same for both teams. Now when it comes to prize money involved in each World Cup, I can see differences involved there.

Steeltime said:
Cannot stand to watch tennis with all the stupid grunting. Also, women and men do not have the same requirements. Men play best of 5 sets, women best of 3, so men play a lot more games. If they were paid the same, men would actually get paid much less for the same work.
Click to expand...

I believe men only play best of five in the majors and it has already been mentioned that these major tournaments are singular events that involve men, women, doubles, mixed doubles, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top