New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr Mantis Toboggan" data-source="post: 171040" data-attributes="member: 14493">This is the same argument the pro-USWNT feminists try to make. Yes, the women's team is better than the men's--relative to their respective level of competition. The men compete in the most popular sport in the world and, disastrous WCQ notwithstanding, are probably around the 25th-30th best team in the world. The women compete against like 8 other countries that actually even attempt to field competitive women's teams. As evidenced by the routine beatdowns of the USWNT by 14-year-old boys teams, the level of play isn't even comparable. This argument is akin to saying that players on the best team in a beer league should be paid better than a mid table club in the Premiership or Bundesliga. There are other differences in the pay structure for the two. The men are paid by appearance with the national team, and aside from tournament bonus money it usually isn't a lot compared to what they make from their club teams. However, any eligible player can be called into the team. The women's team on the other hand has around 30 or permanently rostered players, they are paid a salary by the US Soccer Federation which includes subsidizing their salaries at their club teams--the non-USWNT players at these clubs get less than 10k/year mostly. Their CBA also effectively freezes the team's roster by limiting the number of appearances that can be given to players outside the roster of ~30 in any given year. Not only that, the limit is so low that it would effectively prevent a non-rostered player from participating in a major tournament like the Olympics or Women's WC (I think the coach can add new players to the roster once a year or maybe every other year). So, the players' greed in effect hinders the team's effectiveness--if a new young star were to emerge in the year of a WWC, she would effectively be barred from taking part by the established players' CBA.</blockquote>

Verification