The problem US Soccer runs into is that in the U.S. and perhaps Canada, US women's soccer is as popular as men's soccer and certainly is much more successful in both countries. Women's participation in the sport in the US is equal to the guys as well. And, of course, US Soccer has to comply with different laws than FIFA and national teams of other countries. In my view, it has done very poorly in that task. A simple example -- we started DA teams for the guys in 2007. It took 10 years and threatened litigation to get a similar program going for girls. If you were telling me that in 1967 we would start a national development program for boys only -- you could have gotten away with it But in 2007? For 10 years? That is just silly.

So quick to jump into personal attacks when you're arguments fail

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

And the year before that, the men pulled in triple the amount of the women, but did not get paid triple the amount. The men should sue!

Did you read the article? Seems not.

Where in your article is that statement refuted? See below, there's a chart in there for you and everything. If you have an issue with it I guess take it up with the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html

The point of the article was so much more than your lttile " rebuttal" and incidentally, the MNT supports the WNT in suing.

It took a while but you finally got the point, looking at just an individual year in revenue like your ridiculous article only tells a fraction of the story and is totally misleading. Of course the men support the suit, as long as it doesn't come out of their share.

Wow, you still didn't understand what I'm saying, or are choosing not to understand. Whichever. People like you wouldn't see why the WNT deserves equal pay no matter what.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

And the year before that, the men pulled in triple the amount of the women, but did not get paid triple the amount. The men should sue!

Did you read the article? Seems not.

Where in your article is that statement refuted? See below, there's a chart in there for you and everything. If you have an issue with it I guess take it up with the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html

The point of the article was so much more than your lttile " rebuttal" and incidentally, the MNT supports the WNT in suing.

It took a while but you finally got the point, looking at just an individual year in revenue like your ridiculous article only tells a fraction of the story and is totally misleading. Of course the men support the suit, as long as it doesn't come out of their share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

And the year before that, the men pulled in triple the amount of the women, but did not get paid triple the amount. The men should sue!

Did you read the article? Seems not.

Where in your article is that statement refuted? See below, there's a chart in there for you and everything. If you have an issue with it I guess take it up with the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html

The point of the article was so much more than your lttile " rebuttal" and incidentally, the MNT supports the WNT in suing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

And the year before that, the men pulled in triple the amount of the women, but did not get paid triple the amount. The men should sue!

Did you read the article? Seems not.

Where in your article is that statement refuted? See below, there's a chart in there for you and everything. If you have an issue with it I guess take it up with the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

And the year before that, the men pulled in triple the amount of the women, but did not get paid triple the amount. The men should sue!

Did you read the article? Seems not.

Anonymous wrote:I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

And the year before that, the men pulled in triple the amount of the women, but did not get paid triple the amount. The men should sue!

SpiritVAParent wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer is not as valuable as men's soccer

True.

Guilty: lack of audience and sponsors.

The only way it changes is for people like us to vote with our wallets. Buying season tickets to Spirit, whether or not you can attend all the games, is a good place to start.

Yup

I ran across this article and thought I'd share because it adds something to the discussion a lot of others don't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sounderatheart.com/platform/amp/2019/3/17/18263051/uswnt-equal-pay

And it answers something that some people keep bringing up about revenue for the WNT vs the MNT: "During fiscal year 2016 (April 2015-March 2016), when the complaint was first submitted, the USWNT pulled in more revenue than the men."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer is not as valuable as men's soccer

Yeah, why aren't they all barefoot and pregnant like they are supposed to be? The nerve of some people...

If value is defined as revenue then the point may be valid, no matter how relatively lousy the men have been as compared to the women.

For the MLS vs NWSL, probably, but not for the MNT vs WNT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. Nothing is more demoralizing than explaining to my daughters and neices that their work is worth a fraction of a man's.

Send them to college in STEM and forget soccer.

I am a former woman soccer player that has a grad degree in a STEM field and I was never paid less than my male colleagues. I’m 49 and I’m a Senior position.

Competitive soccer helped me not be a shrinking violet/whiner in the workplace.

I had no plans for my girls to be professional athletes. That doesn't mean they can't look around them and see inequality. Women being paid less than men for the same work is a societal problem that should be addressed with more than just an attitude of "go into this job to avoid it". Way to pigeonhole girls and women! We deserve better.

But it’s not the same work. World-class womens’ teams are routinely smoked by U15 elite boys’ sides, at least based on what I have read. Is that not correct?

Routinely, or are you talking about one game one time between the WNT and a U15 boys' team?

I’ve seen at least two reported widely. Neither of these media accounts described the results as unusual and at least some of them suggested that practice against U15 boys sides was a common thing to do to give the women’s team a good level of competition. Happy to accept that this isn’t the normal result if you can point me to a source that says so.

Someone already posted something a page or two back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women's soccer is not as valuable as men's soccer

True.

Guilty: lack of audience and sponsors.

The only way it changes is for people like us to vote with our wallets. Buying season tickets to Spirit, whether or not you can attend all the games, is a good place to start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.soccerwire.com/news/college/college-women/university-of-colorado-women-defeat-real-colorado-boys-da-team/

The boys' team was an 04 team. 14-15 year old boys in 8th-9th grade.

I think the point was that women don't "regularly" get beat by U15 elite teams - a claim made earlier. This isn't even the WNT, just a college team.

(I'm not the OP, but when I saw that, that's what I thought the context was).

I’ve seen media accounts regarding the FC Dallas youth squad beating the USWNT and an English youth academy beating the Australian WNT. Again, if this is an error and these are outlier results, happy to be corrected by an authoritative source.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. Nothing is more demoralizing than explaining to my daughters and neices that their work is worth a fraction of a man's.

Send them to college in STEM and forget soccer.

I am a former woman soccer player that has a grad degree in a STEM field and I was never paid less than my male colleagues. I’m 49 and I’m a Senior position.

Competitive soccer helped me not be a shrinking violet/whiner in the workplace.

I had no plans for my girls to be professional athletes. That doesn't mean they can't look around them and see inequality. Women being paid less than men for the same work is a societal problem that should be addressed with more than just an attitude of "go into this job to avoid it". Way to pigeonhole girls and women! We deserve better.

But it’s not the same work. World-class womens’ teams are routinely smoked by U15 elite boys’ sides, at least based on what I have read. Is that not correct?

Routinely, or are you talking about one game one time between the WNT and a U15 boys' team?

I’ve seen at least two reported widely. Neither of these media accounts described the results as unusual and at least some of them suggested that practice against U15 boys sides was a common thing to do to give the women’s team a good level of competition. Happy to accept that this isn’t the normal result if you can point me to a source that says so.