FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 - Australia/New Zealand

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Lionel Messi was born into poverty,  he is now rich,   I think you are conflating the marxist narrative that class based society is the same for everyone but it fails to answer for why many work themselves into middle upper  middle class from the base.    I do think it is important to bring the people at the bottom up to the level of others,  but that is not done by any affirmative action or equity pushes,  it is done by finding the issues at the bottom and redressing those problems.   

Where it is a problem is that it comes down to the politically elected neglecting the needs of these people and using the money toward more upmarket areas,  this is certainly common in the US in Baltimore and certain areas in Michigan, Illinois, California, Washington State, Georgia, Carolina, Virginia where the righ areas take all the money that would be allocated to lower class areas,  then pander for the needs of these people during election time.

On the topic of the US team,  they are all paid more money than many league 1 and 2 or lower players will ever earn. 

Lionel Messi becoming wealthy is an outlier to a country reaching record levels of poverty. For you to pick Lionel Messi as an example of people finding wealth in life when the average Argentine is poorer than ever is shockingly out of touch. The dominated trend of life is that people live and die in the circumstances they were born into, everyone should be able to improve their conditions but that just isn’t true sue to circumstances outside of their control.

https://apnews.com/article/argentina-inflation-poverty-676bb33e19ef11944fde696a24aabd29#:~:text=Poverty increased to 39.2% of,three percentage points to 54.2%.

8 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

not on ESPN, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, BBC, Sky UK or any other major media house. 

No, just on all the others. Fox News, New York Post, WJS, and all the conservative media which dominates western culture. 

 

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

Fair enough. But as the game grows (and it has done significantly so in the past decade), I don't blame them to be wanting to be paid more. 

No, it is a bullshit excuse. Now as a cricket fan think of it like this, would you want the West Indies to as great as they were in the 70s and 80s again? Would you feel okay with England or the IPL investing money into WI cricket to advance the number professional players? Because if you don’t do it where will WI cricket be in twenty years? It is the same bloody thing, the community is meant to help each other build up to ensure it is in a constant state of growth not regression.

[Tommy]

I do wonder what Russell Brand thinks about this. 

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

No, it is a bullshit excuse. Now as a cricket fan think of it like this, would you want the West Indies to as great as they were in the 70s and 80s again? Would you feel okay with England or the IPL investing money into WI cricket to advance the number professional players? Because if you don’t do it where will WI cricket be in twenty years? It is the same bloody thing, the community is meant to help each other build up to ensure it is in a constant state of growth not regression.

I'm not sure where I've disagreed with this?

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

I'm not sure where I've disagreed with this?

You haven’t mate lol  I was just rubbishing the idea of revenue should be tied to pay. They will never have equal revenue if the game isn’t invested in, it is in a state of amateurism. 

[Redcanuck]

25 minutes ago, Stan said:

Fair enough. But as the game grows (and it has done significantly so in the past decade), I don't blame them to be wanting to be paid more. 

Nobody does.  But they will never reach pay parity with the Men's game.

[Whiskey]

20 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

Nobody does.  But they will never reach pay parity with the Men's game.

+1

[Reluctant Striker]

I know American sport is almost nationalised compared to Britain. But women's football has been given a vastly increased platform in Britain, because they have offered up a viable product. And a very competitive England team.

But wherever in the world, more money in women's football, or any sport, surely needs more fans & sponsors. And that is something that is not provided on an equality basis. It's earned by the methods of supply & demand for the product.

[Spike]

10 minutes ago, Reluctant Striker said:

I know American sport is almost nationalised compared to Britain. But women's football has been given a vastly increased platform in Britain, because they have offered up a viable product. And a very competitive England team.

But wherever in the world, more money in women's football, or any sport, surely needs more fans & sponsors. And that is something that is not provided on an equality basis. It's earned by the methods of supply & demand for the product.

But mate you have to create a product that meets a demand. The product is quality football, how do get quality football? Women can’t commit their lives to a sport that is barely above amateur level. We wouldn’t have players like Lionel Messi if they had work a regular job to survive. If the players can survive playing the sport, more players will devote their time to it, the more players, the more competitive, the more competitive, the higher quality the product. This is the exact same thing that happened to association football and ruby in the late 19th century and early 20th with the professional and amateur split.

[Redcanuck]

25 minutes ago, Spike said:

But mate you have to create a product that meets a demand. The product is quality football, how do get quality football? Women can’t commit their lives to a sport that is barely above amateur level. We wouldn’t have players like Lionel Messi if they had work a regular job to survive. If the players can survive playing the sport, more players will devote their time to it, the more players, the more competitive, the more competitive, the higher quality the product. This is the exact same thing that happened to association football and ruby in the late 19th century and early 20th with the professional and amateur split.

Stanley Mathews never earned more than 50 pounds a week, and he was still playing for Stoke when I first started watching football.  They played for the love of the game and the average player would have had a second job.  Women sports have to put in the time, ask me another 20 years if I am still alive and I will probably agree that they should get massive salaries.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Redcanuck said:

Stanley Mathews never earned more than 50 pounds a week, and he was still playing for Stoke when I first started watching football.  They played for the love of the game and the average player would have had a second job.  Women sports have to put in the time, ask me another 20 years if I am still alive and I will probably agree that they should get massive salaries.

That was over 70 years ago, the sport isn’t amateur anymore it is completely professional. That is a very harmful way of thinking, 70 years ago people had to fight for worker’s rights to not be killed or injured on dangerous work sights, should I cut my finger off to earn that equal treatment? 70 years ago women had to fight to vote, should modern women have to fight for that?

To suggest that the women that are being paid very little aren’t playing for the love of the sport is patronising. More men would be playing just for money than women, because the women aren’t getting paid!

[Reluctant Striker]

27 minutes ago, Spike said:

But mate you have to create a product that meets a demand. The product is quality football, how do get quality football? Women can’t commit their lives to a sport that is barely above amateur level. We wouldn’t have players like Lionel Messi if they had work a regular job to survive. If the players can survive playing the sport, more players will devote their time to it, the more players, the more competitive, the more competitive, the higher quality the product. This is the exact same thing that happened to association football and ruby in the late 19th century and early 20th with the professional and amateur split.

In America, nearly all sports have that college-draft route. If it is not the same for womens soccer it probably should be.

In Britain, every 4 years many watch a group of Scottish women who become the GB curling team at the winter Olympics. I think they & many niche sports receive National Lottery funding. But I would guess it is largely a televised hobby.

Soon after the England women won the Euros, some new guidance was brought in for all school girls to be able to play football at school. And many of the leading football clubs have a womens team. 

There is a real chance women's football could become much more profitable than it is. And like the mens game, there will likely be many generations of former players looking on as the numbers keep increasing.

Karen Carney seemed to get it right recently. She was chosen to lead a review into women's football. And in the findings, was asking for minimum standards to be raised. And it seems sponsors are listening. An advert campaign around Wembley today was for girls football.

[Rucksackfranzose]

13 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

Stanley Mathews never earned more than 50 pounds a week, and he was still playing for Stoke when I first started watching football.  They played for the love of the game and the average player would have had a second job.  Women sports have to put in the time, ask me another 20 years if I am still alive and I will probably agree that they should get massive salaries.

Completely other times. Assuming the British inflation rate from then to nowadays is comparable with the German one.When Matthews played a loaf of bread and a pint of beer in a pub costed 10 Pfennig, which is 0.05 Euros. Now a loaf of breed is 4.6 Euros and 1/2 a pint in a pub is 3.7 Euros. The put it short Matthews playing for 50 pounds has much more to do with money having a much better purchasing power those days than with him being moderate.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Reluctant Striker said:

In America, nearly all sports have that college-draft route. If it is not the same for womens soccer it probably should be.

In Britain, every 4 years many watch a group of Scottish women who become the GB curling team at the winter Olympics. I think they & many niche sports receive National Lottery funding. But I would guess it is largely a televised hobby.

Soon after the England women won the Euros, some new guidance was brought in for all school girls to be able to play football at school. And many of the leading football clubs have a womens team. 

There is a real chance women's football could become much more profitable than it is. And like the mens game, there will likely be many generations of former players looking on as the numbers keep increasing.

Karen Carney seemed to get it right recently. She was chosen to lead a review into women's football. And in the findings, was asking for minimum standards to be raised. And it seems sponsors are listening. An advert campaign around Wembley today was for girls football.

Oh mate, college sports are a whole new can of worms. They don’t get paid at all! Even the men playing American football smashing their bodies and brains into mush!

 

[Redcanuck]

19 minutes ago, Spike said:

Oh mate, college sports are a whole new can of worms. They don’t get paid at all! Even the men playing American football smashing their bodies and brains into mush!

 

There are now NIL rights,( Name, Image and Likeness) in college sports, some if the football players are making big money.

[Stan]

43 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

Women sports have to put in the time, ask me another 20 years if I am still alive and I will probably agree that they should get massive salaries.

It's not their fault they've been held back by society. Not like women's football has only just been formed. It's been around for decades. 

[Spike]

13 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

There are now NIL rights,( Name, Image and Likeness) in college sports, some if the football players are making big money.

Some earn, all train, play, and hurt just the same.

[Reluctant Striker]

26 minutes ago, Stan said:

It's not their fault they've been held back by society. Not like women's football has only just been formed. It's been around for decades. 

I'm not at all against the idea of Lauren James earning as much as Reece James or Raheem Sterling.

But, who should be doing more to make that happen? Broadcasters? Clubs? Fans? Sponsors?

Why is this thread nothing compared to Qatar ? Are all the not-even-here posters part of the issue ?

[Tommy]

See, if it wasn't for Megan Rapinoe, we wouldn't even have that discussion right now. So she certainly did a lot of things right. 

And those who wrote these initial insulting posts about her, never really justified why they feel that way. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 hour ago, Reluctant Striker said:

I'm not at all against the idea of Lauren James earning as much as Reece James or Raheem Sterling.

But, who should be doing more to make that happen? Broadcasters? Clubs? Fans? Sponsors?

Why is this thread nothing compared to Qatar ? Are all the not-even-here posters part of the issue ?

Nobody demands them earning as much as the likes of James or Sterling, all these equal pay demands are about equal bonuses for the women teams qualifying for tournaments from their federations as the men are receiving for the same achievements. That's only fair since the federations are , at least nominally , non-profit organisations and should treat their teams equally. Nothing to do with somebody demanding women football clubs should pay their players like PL clubs do.

[Whiskey]

1 hour ago, Reluctant Striker said:

I'm not at all against the idea of Lauren James earning as much as Reece James or Raheem Sterling.

It shouldn't be a token wage increase though, it should be earned via talent, revenue, marketability etc.

[Tommy]

8 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

It shouldn't be a token wage increase though, it should be earned via talent, revenue, marketability etc.

Yea, only men had like a 100 year head start while women were being suppressed. And still now, they don't have the same opportunities. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

17 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

It shouldn't be a token wage increase though, it should be earned via talent, revenue, marketability etc.

Why exactly should football federations orientate their bonuses on marketability? The opposite is true, since men earn more because of the revenue their clubs earn the don't need to rely on performance-related bonuses and should actually receive less. If they complain, don't cap them and they will see their market value derives from multiple origins- their International performances being one of them, although not the most important one.

[Whiskey]

12 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Yea, only men had like a 100 year head start while women were being suppressed. And still now, they don't have the same opportunities. 

The world isn't as bad as you make out.

[Tommy]

Just now, Whiskey said:

The world isn't as bad as you make out.

Huh?