Posted on 03/12/2020 12:10:36 AM PDT by knighthawk
The fight between the U.S. women’s national soccer team and U.S. Soccer – the federation that oversees the women’s team and their male counterparts – got uglier Wednesday night.
It included strong words from a star player after the team hid their U.S. Soccer uniform logos during a national anthem protest prior to a 3-1 win over Japan in the final of the SheBelieves Cup in Frisco, Texas.
Megan Rapinoe, who led last year’s U.S. triumph in the FIFA Women’s World Cup in France, tore into U.S. Soccer and boss Carlos Cordeiro after the game, just hours after Cordeiro apologized for a federation court filing as the organization defended itself against a $66 million discrimination lawsuit filed by the women players.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This disgusting America hater should go to iran and live there.
If these idiots wouldn’t have played the ‘woke’ card they could have been drowning in personal endorsement money... instead they dump on 60% of their audience... and complain about money.
l think letting transgenders play womems soccer would fix her wagon, If winning os the point, she’ll be out of a job come monday.. Or at least she’ll be waiting tables by Tuesday.
The easy way to sort this out is not a lawsuit. Clearly the women’s team is better than the men’s team so just let the women compete at the same level and play against men’s teams. I’m sure that Rapino can show us just how awesome she is then.
If I am paying even a nickel to subsidize this America Hater’s life, I want it stopped now!
ML/NJ
Put a sock in it dike. These are serious times, no one cares what fake men have to say about anything.
If you loved women's soccer, they're taking care of that for you.
I dodged this one from the jump.
Purple hair, dont’t care
“Why play for a country you despise?”
No kidding. She should go play for Saudi Arabia or Iran.
What are they doing at a stadium, trying to spread Wuhan Flu?
Graceless on and off the field.
The core argument of U.S. Soccer is that the women are paid less because they are playing under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement they signed. It is exceedingly rare for a U.S. court to let the law override a contract — especially a labor agreement — that was signed willingly by two parties.
There has been a great deal of discussion on why professional women’s team sports are not as popular as similar men’s team sports. Popular is defined by viewership, ticket sales and sponsorship. Much of the current analysis centers on the difference in the caliber of play that is displayed to the viewers. It has been said that spectators prefer the speed, agility and athleticism of men’s team sports and are willing to pay more to see such performance rather than a similar women’s competition. I think it goes deeper than that.
What follows is a comparative analysis of men and women’s team sports or one on one, face to face competition. Examples would be soccer, football, rugby, baseball, boxing, wrestling, etc. What is not being considered is individual time trial, scored or judged events such as swimming, track and field, golf, gymnastics, etc.
So…..the foundation ancient team sports were related to military training. The training was intended to give the soldiers the best chance of surviving and victory in battle. It included strategy, tactics, and physical skills. The tactics included, introducing deception, creating fear, creating unequal advantage, and showing no mercy. These armies were men only. Why?
There is a basic observation that women have a civilizing effect on men when they are present and there is some kind of relationship. If you have ever gone camping or hunting with your buddies leaving the ladies at home, you know what I am talking about. Men’s behavior among men is much “baser” than when women are present. People expect women to be civil and even nurturers. I could discuss the effect of having women alongside men in the military in the context of the above paragraph but that is for another time.
Now, fast forward to sports of today. Team sports allow people to exhibit antisocial war-like behavior under a carefully constructed set of rules. Deception is allowed, overpowering without mercy is allowed, double teaming is allowed, taunting and humiliation is allowed. It seems to me, that this being a setting for a mach war, men are more acceptable in these antisocial roles than women. Why people enjoy watching antisocial behavior is another question.
Somehow the image of a woman linebacker clothes-lining as wide receiver does not play as well as if it is a man doing it to another man (penalty flag aside). What seems natural for a man to be doing is unseemly for a woman to be doing it.
This is why I do not watch women’s sports. It is a bunch of women trying to act like men (lesbian or not) and I do not find it entertaining. And the whole sport thing IS only about entertainment. It just a game.
so don’t give a damm
So: U.S. Soccer has a case to make, but it needs to be made on the basis of attendance and revenue streams, period. U.S. Soccer's lawyers, however, went well beyond that and introduced language that, in both substance and tone, clearly disrespected the women's game. When you are being sued in a gender discrimination case, this is just plumb stupid, especially when the women are world champions and the men can't play through those monster Caribbean teams in the CONCACAF field to qualify for the World Cup.
Yes, men are bigger, faster and stronger, which is why women's sports have to be run as a separate class competition. That doesn't stop most of us from rooting for U.S. women gymnasts, ice skaters, sprinters, swimmers, etc. in international competitions. What makes women's soccer a lightening rod? I really don't think it's Megan Rapinoe and her in-your-face antics. I think, rather, that in most of the sports where U.S. women excel, the U.S. men have also historically done very well. Soccer is the obvious exception, where the U.S. women are the best in the world while the U.S. men are chronic underperformers. This leads to the inevitable observation that the U.S. women are better than the U.S. men -- which they clearly are, in terms of class competition -- which seems to set off the knuckledraggers who think their manhood is being threatened.
Julie Foudy, one of the broadcast commentators for last night's game, is always worth listening to. She is a very sharp gal and was a great player in her day. Her frustration was palpable. She brought up the same canard that comes up on this forum regularly, that the women's national team lost to a U15 boys team. Yes … and a U15 boys team of this caliber will consist of 15 and 16 year old boys, in this case elite academy players who are top male athletes in their age group, most of whom will probably be playing major college soccer in a couple of years, and some of whom are already on the youth national team. Are boys like this going to physically dominate the women? Yes, of course. Every woman on the U.S. national team will acknowledge this. If you've ever seen pictures of that match, you will recall that the boys were all a head taller than most of the adult women, and with well developed young adult male musculature as well. Physically, they were young men, not boys; until not very long ago, they'd have been issued weapons and armor and gone off to war as adults. The USWNT plays scrimmages like this because there's not another women's team in the U.S. that can challenge them. They seek out games with boys' teams that can beat them because the boys are bigger, stronger and faster, and that's how you improve. And the women are sick and tired of idiots throwing this in their face.
Not even Megan Rapinoe would be rash enough to walk down the street in a bad part of town, alone and at night. She knows perfectly well that teenage boys, if improperly socialized, are threats to adult women. She may be out and proud and may dye her hair funny colors, but she's not stupid.
The money arguments are complicated, but they can be fenced off and discussed rationally. What does not help is for U.S. Soccer's lawyers to stumble into verbiage that clearly suggests that the management of U.S. Soccer thinks of the women's game as a second rate afterthought. Tone matters. U.S. Soccer is getting killed in the court of public opinion, and if the case ever reaches a jury, U.S. Soccer will get killed again. It takes really, really stupid lawyers to include in a court filing the claim that your world championship women have "lesser responsibilities" than the men, who can't beat Jamaica. It takes really, really stupid lawyers to jabber about the men having to face hostile crowds, when the women have just won a World Cup played in France, beating the best the Europe could throw at them. This included a French team -- the cofavorite in the tournament and a team that had beaten the U.S. in two of the three previous meetings -- that the U.S. women beat in Paris in front of a packed stadium with a crowd that could be heard across the Channel. While the men can't beat the banana republics. So what is the point about tough crowds -- that women's soccer crowds are better behaved than the soccer hooligans who thug up the men's game? Tone matters. U.S. Soccer is digging itself into a deep hole.
Sensible women, including (I'm sure) all the players on the USWNT, who have scrimmaged enough against men to know, have this in perspective. Here's a good example; it's funny, and remember that the two women here are both Olympic gold medal gymnasts: [men doing women's gymnastics] If the link doesn't work, go to "Men doing women's gymnastics" on YouTube.
What makes women's soccer a lightening rod? I really don't think it's Megan Rapinoe and her in-your-face antics.
The obvious factor in making women's soccer "a lightning rod" is the $66M lawsuit filed by the players for the women's national team. This, coupled with the success of the women on the field in the World Cup last year, has provided an inordinate amount of media coverage of a story that would otherwise be largely ignored.
Tennis has faced a similar controversy in recent years, but it's been much easier to laugh off the "equality" arguments from the women in that sport. Even something as simple as the different rules for men and women in major tennis tournaments (men play best-of-five sets, women best-of-three) exposes the "equality" claims by female players as a farce.
Even when Bobby Riggs played Billie Jean King (and Bobby threw the match, anyway), Billie Jean could use the doubles boundaries and Bobby couldn’t.
Waste of ovaries
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.