The Soccer Thread

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member

Sports is a show of excellence - once you see how men play, then watching women doing it is boring.

In tennis at least you have nice asses and legs jumping around in short skirts - on top of seeing some feminine women moan. And even they - the number male 2000 can easily win over the No 1 among the women.

Then the financial returns - men's team getting 35 mio. $ in total for the Germans - that is nothing to most of the players - a bare minimum of low incentive. The female competition made just 73 mio. $ vs billions for the men despite being pushed everywhere.

The feminazis want now to promote female sports on equal footing claiming that you can re-educate men to watch any crap. If that happens then I can only tell them that the ratings will just go down tremendously. Men can switch off sports if they are only being served crap.
 
Man! The U.S. team sucks! How in the hell can America as big and as great as it is, and a breathing sports nation, sucks so bad at soccer? We should be able to dominate that sport. We dominate basketball, we dominate baseball, we dominate Boxing, we dominate golf, we dominate the damn Olympics, we dominate WOMEN'S soccer, why can't we fucking dominate Men's soccer? The team is trash.
 

Bienvenuto

Pelican
Gold Member
Its happening in Rugby.

We're getting their shit pushed on us non-stop by the media.

The perspective they want everyone to share is that a game between some very untalented dykes played in front of 120 people or as a curtain raiser for a men's match is just as Important as the big game in the men's league.
Pundits saying to top male players "But first.. How good were Bristol Women yesterday?" and the ex-player parroting some shit about "Oh.. Yeah.. yeah.. Simone Butch-Cunt amazing over the ball"

Women's rugby just as good.. blah blah. It isn't. It's shit and the media for our own sport is forcing it on us. Its such bullshit tokenism.

we used to have dumb blondes pitch side interviewing players, now we have female pundits and even female match commentators..

Fuck. Off.

These women are clueless. The media can do one.
 

eradicator

Peacock
Gold Member
https://summit.news/2019/07/09/equa...-9fapBl4CGaPjShO09h0gLsUgDYYs75sQ0I4YaUh7cnjg

More from Paul Joseph Watson

Equal Pay? Women’s World Cup Brings in $131 Million Compared to Men’s Which Earned $6 Billion

After the U.S. women’s soccer team won the World Cup, fans in the stadium chanted “Equal pay! Equal pay!”
For the past month, the media has also pushed the narrative that female soccer players, despite being obviously inferior to men (a team of under-15 boys beat the U.S. women’s professional team 5-2), should be paid the same.


USA star Megan Rapinoe, who refused to sign the national anthem because she hates President Trump, said about equal pay; “Everybody’s ready for it, everybody wants it, everybody’s ready for the conversation to be moved to the next piece.”

But the numbers just don’t back it up.
Forbes reports; “The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”
In other words, the Women’s World Cup earned $5,869,000,000.00 less in revenue than the men’s World Cup,
The media may have attempted to socially engineer people to embrace women’s soccer by shoving it down our throats every 5 minutes, but people just aren’t interested to anywhere near the level of the men’s game.



Nobody is saying that women shouldn’t be encouraged to play sports and celebrated when they win, but to suggest that the pressure they’re under and the quality they produce on the field is on a par with men is completely absurd.
This is yet another example of how identity politics is being used to bludgeon reality, mathematics and science.
Men are better at sports because they are physically stronger and faster than women and have better spatial awareness.
Shrieking for “equal pay” and refusing to consider basic biology will never change this fact.
 

budoslavic

Owl
Gold Member
Well...I had an immense sense of pride of not watching the Women's World Cup.

That dyke is disgusting. Eye bleach...
D--MgrLX4AgON-k.jpg:small
 

bk19xsa

Robin
I blame men ; Cucked men who go along with these sort of narratives. If men have balls, then they will laugh and bluntly tell that this stuff being pushed is horse shit. But no, almost all male athletes, media personalities, some top businessmen and even politicians slide along with this stuff. What are they afraid of? Going against the false narrative costing them their jobs and status? In that case they have sealed their pact with the devil and are a lost cause, dooming entire societies.
 

la bodhisattva

Kingfisher
I actually think if male athletes, politicians, and celebrates cite the revenue generated and percentage paid out, they'd receive much less blowback than expected. When you cite numbers, there's nothing the opposition can say, but no one outside of the right wing sphere of the internet and podcasts does this.

Twitterverse says "yaaaas, queens slay...deserve equal pay." Nothing is ever genuinely addressed. No one has the guts to just say women's soccer doesn't make enough money. Skill or no skill, success or no success. It's irrelevant. The sport simply doesn't bring in the dollars to justify even their current salaries. And this world champion therefore pay them billions is complete bullshit. They're the best at a sport no one cares about that beats up on impoverished nations whose women just got the right to partake in recreation activities outside the kitchen two months ago. (can you imagine the US Olympic BBall gloating and showing up Sierra Leone?)

The principle applies everywhere. F. Murray Abraham is one of the best actors of the last 50 years. Sure, he got an Oscar for Amadeus, but he's not a box office draw like Tom Cruise, Dwayne Johnson, or Margot Robbie, and would therefore make a LOT less for being in the same movie despite being objectively a faaaar more skilled practitioner of their shared discipline.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
perro said:
Man! The U.S. team sucks! How in the hell can America as big and as great as it is, and a breathing sports nation, sucks so bad at soccer? We should be able to dominate that sport. We dominate basketball, we dominate baseball, we dominate Boxing, we dominate golf, we dominate the damn Olympics, we dominate WOMEN'S soccer, why can't we fucking dominate Men's soccer? The team is trash.

Because you don't have enough poor people who are interested in soccer.



No, it is as simple as that. Let's be real, good soccer players are a dime a dozen even in the richest countries in the West. You can go to virtually any sizeable soccer club on a weekend and check out the under 10s or so, and you'll see at least one or two kids who have the talent. That's how common it is. And that's not counting kids who play up an age category. But at the end of the day, 75-80% of all kids who play soccer are only playing it 1-2 hours a week, and 1 of those hours is game day on the weekend.

But that's not where the professionals come from. They come from third world holes where there's too much corruption and too few consumer goods to do much else for entertainment but kick a soccer ball around. They don't have to worry about getting fat because they don't get as much food. And not only do those kids play, for hours on end, in streets, alleys, everywhere, but their parents and grandparents did the same thing, because that's literally all they've got. All that time screwing around with the ball, getting beat again and again by your slimy brother who'll go on to join a gang someday - that's where the experimentation, that's where the mastery happens. It is a full on crab bucket in soccer terms and it's a buyer's market for the big clubs who scope through these places looking for kids. For most kids who make it, that's their way out. And they'll crawl over glass for the shot at it. That's part of what generates the killer instinct that separates top class players from the jobbing ones.

It's simple. More poor uneducated flatheads from equatorial countries all living more or less on top of each other means it's easier to get teams together, have a lot of play, and develop the talent. Soccer is also a poor man's game in most of the world - hence why it's so popular outside the US - so there's a class thing going as well. And lastly, higher birth rates contribute, as with anything else. Not enough white kids with money can afford the outrageous fees to train a kid in the urbanised, pacified West, and the black kids can't afford it or don't care.

On top of that, European clubs don't give much of a toss about making sure you get educated while you're playing for them. You are to be drunk down and tossed over the shoulder like an empty beer can. Rightly or wrongly, the US doesn't really do that as such. Point being, it's more expensive to git gud at soccer in the US or other Western countries. Money can't buy you a professional spot as such, but unless you're a diversity case whom they throw a scholarship at, it's expensive. Doesn't take the same expense to get experience in cockroach hotels like Brazil.
 

Rocha

Ostrich
Gold Member
Paracelsus said:
perro said:
Man! The U.S. team sucks! How in the hell can America as big and as great as it is, and a breathing sports nation, sucks so bad at soccer? We should be able to dominate that sport. We dominate basketball, we dominate baseball, we dominate Boxing, we dominate golf, we dominate the damn Olympics, we dominate WOMEN'S soccer, why can't we fucking dominate Men's soccer? The team is trash.

Because you don't have enough poor people who are interested in soccer.



No, it is as simple as that. Let's be real, good soccer players are a dime a dozen even in the richest countries in the West. You can go to virtually any sizeable soccer club on a weekend and check out the under 10s or so, and you'll see at least one or two kids who have the talent. That's how common it is. And that's not counting kids who play up an age category. But at the end of the day, 75-80% of all kids who play soccer are only playing it 1-2 hours a week, and 1 of those hours is game day on the weekend.

But that's not where the professionals come from. They come from third world holes where there's too much corruption and too few consumer goods to do much else for entertainment but kick a soccer ball around. They don't have to worry about getting fat because they don't get as much food. And not only do those kids play, for hours on end, in streets, alleys, everywhere, but their parents and grandparents did the same thing, because that's literally all they've got. All that time screwing around with the ball, getting beat again and again by your slimy brother who'll go on to join a gang someday - that's where the experimentation, that's where the mastery happens. It is a full on crab bucket in soccer terms and it's a buyer's market for the big clubs who scope through these places looking for kids. For most kids who make it, that's their way out. And they'll crawl over glass for the shot at it. That's part of what generates the killer instinct that separates top class players from the jobbing ones.

It's simple. More poor uneducated flatheads from equatorial countries all living more or less on top of each other means it's easier to get teams together, have a lot of play, and develop the talent. Soccer is also a poor man's game in most of the world - hence why it's so popular outside the US - so there's a class thing going as well. And lastly, higher birth rates contribute, as with anything else. Not enough white kids with money can afford the outrageous fees to train a kid in the urbanised, pacified West, and the black kids can't afford it or don't care.

On top of that, European clubs don't give much of a toss about making sure you get educated while you're playing for them. You are to be drunk down and tossed over the shoulder like an empty beer can. Rightly or wrongly, the US doesn't really do that as such. Point being, it's more expensive to git gud at soccer in the US or other Western countries. Money can't buy you a professional spot as such, but unless you're a diversity case whom they throw a scholarship at, it's expensive. Doesn't take the same expense to get experience in cockroach hotels like Brazil.

Sorry man, what you are describing looks more like boxing, not football (soccer).

Plenty or many of the world class players come from middle class or even upper classes, Messi, Kaká, Beckham, Figo, Bale, Griezmann, Buffon... of course there is a lost gem here in there in the favela or in the african clay streets.. But in terms of dominance of WC the European teams dominate the sport, Germany and Italy 4 times winners, France 2 times, plus England and Spain 1 each, the other winning teams are Brazil (5) , Uruguai (2) and Argentina (2), and while some parts of any of these countries can be shitholes including the european ones...none of them are 3d world.

Plus no matter if the kid is white, or black or yellow, if the kid is good, any club will pay the expenses for having him training with them, even giving a salary to schoolboys.

Plus is not a poor person game in the rest of the world. Is the more universal sport, the one who generates more money, who generates more passion, who has more practicioners and who has more enthusiasts and fans around the world.

In my country (Portugal) is like an epidemic, everybody loves this game, rich, poor, medium... I would say 30% of tv shows are about football, and even the tv news open with a high profile transfer or with the aftermath of the weekend big clash. I can speak also for Spain which is the same.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Agree with Rocha. Also note that there are tens of millions of poor kids in Mexico, far more than in Argentina or Uruguay, and soccer is #1 sport there as well, but they haven't produced anything.

It's a matter of soccer culture/style, Mexico's is weak. The US soccer culture is a suburban/college culture, soccer moms, participation trophies and playdates won't produce world class players.

The US dominates women's soccer because the women sports culture in the US is a bull dykish, aggressive masculine culture, and with massive resources behind it (thousands of college scholarships, more than for men), so no wonder they dominate the sport.
 

DamienCasanova

Ostrich
Gold Member
911 said:
Agree with Rocha. Also note that there are tens of millions of poor kids in Mexico, far more than in Argentina or Uruguay, and soccer is #1 sport there as well, but they haven't produced anything.

It's a matter of soccer culture/style, Mexico's is weak. The US soccer culture is a suburban/college culture, soccer moms, participation trophies and playdates won't produce world class players.

The US dominates women's soccer because the women sports culture in the US is a bull dykish, aggressive masculine culture, and with massive resources behind it (thousands of college scholarships, more than for men), so no wonder they dominate the sport.

Also, the US has probably the #1 women's league for club soccer (not that i've ever seen it). Of course there's not a lot of competition, I think Germany has a pretty good women's league also, but there aren't many others I know of. So you have most of the best women from around the world who come to the US to play club soccer, giving the natives the best training partners in the world without having to leave home. Not that it's very profitable or anything, but like you said US women's soccer has massive resources behind it. Because of Title IX and gender equality rules, the US probably wastes the most money on women's soccer without ever turning a profit or getting a ROI from ad revenue or sponsorships. It's a loss leader, unless you count winning the women's world cup as ROI...

So, Club soccer performance directly correlates to international soccer of course. If the MLS wasn't a retirement/vacation league the American players might have better competition and get better quickly. But they have to go to Europe, usually England or Germany, to find high level quality competition, and only a handful of Americans like Pulisic or McKennie ever make it big overseas. It's the opposite for the women, any female soccer player knows her only chance of having a career as a pro is to make it to the USA.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I think the women's pro soccer circuit in Europe is top-notch, Rapinoe and Morgan both played pro ball in France. Some of the big clubs like OL (Lyon) invested in the women sport. That's why the gap between the USWNT and France or Holland has narrowed a bit.

I liked the Japanese women's team, they have a feminine image, their nickname is the Nadeshiko, or pink carnations, which is the embodiment of traditional Japanese femininity, and they played a nice dynamic passing style using the field well, compensating their smaller physical stature. The field is bigger in the women's game because the players are slower, so that style is a winning approach.

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-61308-post-1512264.html#pid1512264

The other winning approach is straight out physicality, sort of the equivalent of Serena Williams tennis style applied to soccer, that's a bit of the style used by the USWNT, in particular with players like Wombach or Rapinoe.
 

la bodhisattva

Kingfisher
Perhaps I don't know enough about the sport, but in my opinion, you can throw any D2 level athlete on the pitch in a high-level league and it'd take a long time for them to be exposed.

Task that same guy with bringing the ball up the court, hitting an 88 mph slider, or covering a quick slant and even the laymen sees that he's out of his element within minutes.

But perhaps a seasoned soccer fan can pick out the scrub on the pitch as quickly as I can on the court.

One thing that is exceedingly annoying for me as I try to watch the men's WC is the complete bed shitting of kicks on goal. Some of the misses are so off that it reminds me a blindfolded special olympian attempting a layup with their offhand.
 
la bodhisattva said:
Perhaps I don't know enough about the sport, but in my opinion, you can throw any D2 level athlete on the pitch in a high-level league and it'd take a long time for them to be exposed.

Task that same guy with bringing the ball up the court, hitting an 88 mph slider, or covering a quick slant and even the laymen sees that he's out of his element within minutes.

But perhaps a seasoned soccer fan can pick out the scrub on the pitch as quickly as I can on the court.

One thing that is exceedingly annoying for me as I try to watch the men's WC is the complete bed shitting of kicks on goal. Some of the misses are so off that it reminds me a blindfolded special olympian attempting a layup with their offhand.

A D2 level soccer player would fit in at a high-level league for exactly as long as he did not have to touch the ball... or make a play... or do anything other than run around on the field. The same goes for most D1 players, MLS, and lower-skilled European leagues.

Anyone at the collegiate level has the touch and presence of a baby elephant compared to the highest level of professionals.
 

rudebwoy

Peacock
Gold Member
America didn't quality for the last World Cup, despite all the money they are putting towards their team and league.

The skill level, speed and athleticism in the European and South American leagues is on another level.
 
Was contemplating copping Jaelene Hinkle's club jersey in support of her getting snubbed from the world cup dyke squad because she refused to wear the anal sex pride national jersey but, meh.
 
Top