Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

Actually, its because no one wants to watch women's sports.

And no one wants to watch male models. Get over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

When did you last call a man a whiny brat? Are men ever whiny brats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

Actually, its because no one wants to watch women's sports.

Anonymous wrote:Did you see them on 60 minutes several months ago? I was so embarrassed for them! They simply don't bring home the bacon like the men do.

Troll.

They bring home gold medals.

They have won the World Cup four times.

The men never won any big tournaments.

Are you talking about the US? The US men’s team is terrible.

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. This woman is sick and tired of other women expecting preferential treatment due solely to their gender.

No.

They want more pay due to their excellence. The men suck eggs and make more money.

Anonymous wrote:They absolutely need better contracts. Winners deserve bonuses.

The Pay to Play contract in the MNT Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) rewards winning. The issue is that the women wanted guarantees at the bottom end, for which they traded away upside. Their CBA could have been structured the same way but the players decided against it.

"The history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," the summary reads. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

Underlying this, I think, is the fact that women's professional soccer has been very rocky, and so the players don't have a secure paycheck that allows them to go for a high-risk, high reward CBA for the WNT. THe Women's United league folded in 2003 after 3 years. Then there was a four year gap, after which Women's Professional Soccer had a five or six year run, then folded. The next year NWSL formed, and it is still alive, but they were only 2 or so years in when they negotiated the WNT CBA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

You sound like a whiny misogynist.

You sound like an infantile pillock.

Agreed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

Oh, please. If this was a group of men we were talking about, you’d have no issue calling them a “nasty, entitled lot.” Once again, you think women - even badly behaved women - deserve to be treated with kid gloves. Sorry. Equality means calling out people when they do stupid things, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Deal with it.
-DP (and a minority female, btw)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

Agreed!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

You sound like a whiny misogynist.

You sound like an infantile pillock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

You sound like a whiny misogynist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

That has nothing to do with this case. They were a bunch of whiny brats trying to renegotiate their contracts through the media with deceitful tactics. Such a nasty, entitled lot.

Is that you, Donnie?

I agree with the judge. But the abusive, gloating tone of this thread dispels any illusions that cons care about women.

They don't care about women either. They are selfish and want a cartel, while hamstringing younger players and limiting their opportunities. Not to mention, people are more skeptical when legitimate claims arise because these whiny toddlers are masking their greed under the guise of "equal pay" and "equality". Their behavior and framing of this has been disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:Meh.
Sure they need to honor the current contract and then renegotiate...
But
Women and their work have been intrinsically undervalued for all of history. The idea of parity is new, and will take decades to correct. I don’t blame any women for becoming infuriated at the injustice of that.

Of course, everyone should be upset at injustice. However, in this case, there was no injustice. Each case/situation needs to be evaluated on it's own merits, not by prior history.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't they have the opportunity to negotiate the same contract as the men? And, chose not to do so?

Yes they took a yearly salaries, retirement plan and healthcare vs a game check. It’s like choosing an annuity over a lump sum.