All Things 2019 Women's World Cup Thread

Donate To GopherHole
US Women's soccer is hard to watch to begin with. It's all size/power/speed & virtually no creativity or skill. They run it up on inferior opponents, take cheap shots when they're winning & act like it's some amazing achievement. Then they act like jerks when they lose as well.

Add to the horrible style of soccer, their poor sportsmanship, the constant whining about not earning equal pay as the men (a preposterous argument) & now politicizing the game by refusing to stand for the anthem to get at Trump, and they're a hard pass for me.

I've got high level female soccer players & I don't want them watching this team. I'm embarrassed that they represent our country.
 

I watched the game. They are strong physical and skilled. Americans are not used to watching that quality of soccer and seem confused by it. They dominated an undersized team that played scared to pass the ball, and the US took advantage.
 


Costa Rican Gopher said:
US Women's soccer is hard to watch to begin with. It's all size/power/speed & virtually no creativity or skill. They run it up on inferior opponents, take cheap shots when they're winning & act like it's some amazing achievement. Then they act like jerks when they lose as well.

Add to the horrible style of soccer, their poor sportsmanship, the constant whining about not earning equal pay as the men (a preposterous argument) & now politicizing the game by refusing to stand for the anthem to get at Trump, and they're a hard pass for me.

I've got high level female soccer players & I don't want them watching this team. I'm embarrassed that they represent our country.
Click to expand...

I'll agree for the most part about their style of play. They might be the best team, but it is mostly because of superior athleticism. Their technical skills are not as good as some of the other top tier squads in the world.

Also agree on the equal pay thing. They don't bring in anywhere close to the revenue the men's team does. I'm all for them being compensated fairly, but they don't deserve to be paid as much as the men.

Think you are mistaken on the refusing to stand for the anthem. That was one time in 2016 (before the election, so I don't know what it would have had to do with Trump), and it was by only one player and it wasn't at a national team game. It was a game for her club team in Chicago. At their game yesterday she was standing for the anthem.
 

bizzle22 said:
I'll agree for the most part about their style of play. They might be the best team, but it is mostly because of superior athleticism. Their technical skills are not as good as some of the other top tier squads in the world.

Also agree on the equal pay thing. They don't bring in anywhere close to the revenue the men's team does. I'm all for them being compensated fairly, but they don't deserve to be paid as much as the men.

Think you are mistaken on the refusing to stand for the anthem. That was one time in 2016 (before the election, so I don't know what it would have had to do with Trump), and it was by only one player and it wasn't at a national team game. It was a game for her club team in Chicago. At their game yesterday she was standing for the anthem.
Click to expand...

They're bigger, faster & stronger, but it's pretty ugly to watch. It's like rooting for the Kobra Kai dojo. I see so many female youth players emulating this style & it sucks. Sadly, it's often encouraged by the Dad's who never played the game. They wish they had boys & were at hockey or football, so they try to turn soccer into that. "Lay her out Brittney!!!" "Get aggressive Ashley, GET AGGRESSIVE!!!!". The higher level they play, the crazier the parents get.

Equal pay is nonsense. It's like saying the opening act at a concert should earn the same as the headliner.

As I recall it was a number of the women's players who decided to kneel. US Soccer forced them to stand, so now Rappinoe refuses to sing the anthem as a "F*ck you to Trump" (her words). I'm sick of entertainers injecting politics into recreation. I don't want it in sports, movies, TC, etc. That's where I go to get away from the daily grind & negativity, not to hear some knucklehead athlete, or singer opine about politics.
 


Costa Rican Gopher said:
They're bigger, faster & stronger, but it's pretty ugly to watch. It's like rooting for the Kobra Kai dojo. I see so many female youth players emulating this style & it sucks. Sadly, it's often encouraged by the Dad's who never played the game. They wish they had boys & were at hockey or football, so they try to turn soccer into that. "Lay her out Brittney!!!" "Get aggressive Ashley, GET AGGRESSIVE!!!!". The higher level they play, the crazier the parents get.

Equal pay is nonsense. It's like saying the opening act at a concert should earn the same as the headliner.

As I recall it was a number of the women's players who decided to kneel. US Soccer forced them to stand, so now Rappinoe refuses to sing the anthem as a "F*ck you to Trump" (her words). I'm sick of entertainers injecting politics into recreation. I don't want it in sports, movies, TC, etc. That's where I go to get away from the daily grind & negativity, not to hear some knucklehead athlete, or singer opine about politics.
Click to expand...

It was just Rapinoe. None of the others kneeled or really ever talked about it. I wasn't even aware of the not singing thing until I saw the article that someone posted on here. There was no mention of it during the broadcast yesterday.
 

People really seem to have a hard understanding that soccer is a very physical game on the ball. You need to be strong on the ball and that requires toughness. All the diving and faking to draw fouls has created a bad perception.
 

monk10 said:
People really seem to have a hard understanding that soccer is a very physical game on the ball. You need to be strong on the ball and that requires toughness. All the diving and faking to draw fouls has created a bad perception.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the U.S. women are both highly physical and highly skilled. That's why they pile up goals against the opposition (regardless of who it may be) so consistently. A team can't simply be one or the other but to be really successful generally speaking. Japan might be the exception, but other top teams such as England, France, Germany, etc. have plenty of both.

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
 

The most impressive thing about the women's team is that they have persevered in a literal Handmaid's Tale society to somehow break free and become a dominant team. The other teams they play are from far more enlightened places where women have had equality much longer, and so women have been playing soccer much longer. so you really have to hand it to our ladies to overcome those disadvantages.
 



This is the problem with women's team sports. The best players are very good but there aren't enough of them. When the US plays good teams, it is worth watching but a 13-0 soccer game is not worth watching. They should either cut the number of teams or impose a mercy rule of 6 goals.

Women's hockey is even worse. Canada and US win everything and games between these 2 are the only women's hockey worth watching (and they are worth watching) although Finland seems to be getting close.
 

MRJ said:
Personally, I think the U.S. women are both highly physical and highly skilled. That's why they pile up goals against the opposition (regardless of who it may be) so consistently. A team can't simply be one or the other but to be really successful generally speaking. Japan might be the exception, but other top teams such as England, France, Germany, etc. have plenty of both.

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The thing that sets the US women apart from other top teams is their speed and size/physicality. England/France/Brazil/Japan have more skill, but not as much in the size/speed category. Our goals tend to come from long balls leading to breakaways, or from corner kicks/crosses that are finished with headers or scrambles in the box. Those other teams are more about the buildup, and score their goals via "pretty" soccer. Where they create 2v1 or 1v1 situations and then let their technical ability take over.

That's not to say that the US players have no skill, but the size/speed element is what sets us apart. Heath is an exception, but she is on another level than the rest of her teammates in terms of technical skills. Morgan is a good example of the US womens style of soccer. She scores goals by being faster than everybody else and by taking lots of shots when she gets those opportunities. But she's not the type of player that is going to let the play build, or connect a bunch of passes in a row with her teammates in the final third. She's just a better athlete than everyone else and she's going to ram the ball forward until it works.
 

The US women do play very direct. There isn't much (if any) short, triangle passing or incremental movement forward. In transition or buildup, they get it to the flanks and burst into the attacking half or third of the field extremely quickly. Other teams like to utilize a gradual buildup with the occasional long diagonal. Just a difference in styles.

What the US does exceptionally well is finish plays. They've always had elite finishers, starting with Akers to Hamm to Wambach to Morgan. And she's just the latest in that long line of big time goal scorers.

Anyway, I find them plenty enjoyable to watch because they get out on the wings and run at the opposition, forcing them to commit defensively. Just a difference in styles from other national teams.



Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
 

MRJ said:
The US women do play very direct. There isn't much (if any) short, triangle passing or incremental movement forward. In transition or buildup, they get it to the flanks and burst into the attacking half or third of the field extremely quickly. Other teams like to utilize a gradual buildup with the occasional long diagonal. Just a difference in styles.

What the US does exceptionally well is finish plays. They've always had elite finishers, starting with Akers to Hamm to Wambach to Morgan. And she's just the latest in that long line of big time goal scorers.

Anyway, I find them plenty enjoyable to watch because they get out on the wings and run at the opposition, forcing them to commit defensively. Just a difference in styles from other national teams.



Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


It would be unwise to not use their superior athleticism on quick counter-attacks, so I can't blame them for style of play.
Complaining about their style, I kind of get the point, but it's kinda like blaming the 2000 Baltimore Ravens football team for not passing more.

Bizzle22,

Agreed on Tobin Heath's skills. Her technical skills are wonderful.
 



Face The Facts said:
It would be unwise to not use their superior athleticism on quick counter-attacks, so I can't blame them for style of play.
Complaining about their style, I kind of get the point, but it's kinda like blaming the 2000 Baltimore Ravens football team for not passing more.

Bizzle22,

Agreed on Tobin Heath's skills. Her technical skills are wonderful.
Click to expand...

Agree on their style. It may not be the "pretty" soccer that some other top teams play, but the style of the US team is the right fit for their strengths.
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
US Women's soccer is hard to watch to begin with. It's all size/power/speed & virtually no creativity or skill. They run it up on inferior opponents, take cheap shots when they're winning & act like it's some amazing achievement. Then they act like jerks when they lose as well.

Add to the horrible style of soccer, their poor sportsmanship, the constant whining about not earning equal pay as the men (a preposterous argument) & now politicizing the game by refusing to stand for the anthem to get at Trump, and they're a hard pass for me.

I've got high level female soccer players & I don't want them watching this team. I'm embarrassed that they represent our country.
Click to expand...

LOL yeah they have no skill. Doesn't take any skill to finish 13 goals. Zero skill to win world cups.

Besides the above worst take in history you say they have poor sportsmanship? You have no idea what you are talking about. You are a complete moron for not letting your daughters watch these insanely successful women.
 


bizzle22 said:
I'll agree for the most part about their style of play. They might be the best team, but it is mostly because of superior athleticism. Their technical skills are not as good as some of the other top tier squads in the world.

Also agree on the equal pay thing. They don't bring in anywhere close to the revenue the men's team does. I'm all for them being compensated fairly, but they don't deserve to be paid as much as the men.

Think you are mistaken on the refusing to stand for the anthem. That was one time in 2016 (before the election, so I don't know what it would have had to do with Trump), and it was by only one player and it wasn't at a national team game. It was a game for her club team in Chicago. At their game yesterday she was standing for the anthem.
Click to expand...

Is that actually true, though? Do you have the financials? Historically, yes, but the reports I've seen is that the women's team has actually generated more revenue than the men in recent years, since like 2016 or so. "Deserve" is a interesting way to put it. The women's team is indisputably more successful, and I'd argue they're also more marketable. I don't follow soccer but can name a half dozen women players off the top of my head. I don't think I could name any men. The women's brand is incredibly strong right now (sportsmanship notwithstanding) and has been for a while. So...more successful, higher revenues, and more marketable than the men. Seems like a strong case to me.
 

Nokomis said:
Is that actually true, though? Do you have the financials? Historically, yes, but the reports I've seen is that the women's team has actually generated more revenue than the men in recent years, since like 2016 or so. "Deserve" is a interesting way to put it. The women's team is indisputably more successful, and I'd argue they're also more marketable. I don't follow soccer but can name a half dozen women players off the top of my head. I don't think I could name any men. The women's brand is incredibly strong right now (sportsmanship notwithstanding) and has been for a while. So...more successful, higher revenues, and more marketable than the men. Seems like a strong case to me.
Click to expand...

I see this statistic a lot. After the women won the world cup they went on a "victory tour" around the country. It was genius from a revenue perspective. It's kind of hard to compare year vs year when they have different tournaments in different years.
 

bottlebass said:
I see this statistic a lot. After the women won the world cup they went on a "victory tour" around the country. It was genius from a revenue perspective. It's kind of hard to compare year vs year when they have different tournaments in different years.
Click to expand...

I agree small sample size. But that speaks precisely to the marketability of the women's team. What if they win it again and go on another victory tour? Does the revenue gap continue to close? Like I said, the women's brand is incredibly strong right now. And the growing popularity of girls soccer presents a tremendous marketing opportunity for things like a victory tour and sponsorships.
 

Nokomis said:
I agree small sample size. But that speaks precisely to the marketability of the women's team. What if they win it again and go on another victory tour? Does the revenue gap continue to close? Like I said, the women's brand is incredibly strong right now. And the growing popularity of girls soccer presents a tremendous marketing opportunity for things like a victory tour and sponsorships.
Click to expand...

We will have to see the revenue numbers. I'm not arguing their brand is incredibly strong. Our USMNT hasn't had the same success as the women but go try and get a ticket to the gold cup game at allianz field next week and see how much they cost. We sold our extra ones (season ticket holders got first crack at extra tickets) for a ton of money. I've been to 4 USWNT matches and never paid more than $20/ticket for them. This holds true if you look at the revenue of the men's WC vs women's. The men's sport is just on a different level. And really when you look at the salaries and compare them side by side and account for the different travel and schedules the men have (just look at the difference in trying to qualify for the world cup) there isn't that big of a difference. There is a big difference if you look at the salaries they make from their club teams but that really has nothing to do with the national team salaries.
 

Nokomis said:
Is that actually true, though? Do you have the financials? Historically, yes, but the reports I've seen is that the women's team has actually generated more revenue than the men in recent years, since like 2016 or so. "Deserve" is a interesting way to put it. The women's team is indisputably more successful, and I'd argue they're also more marketable. I don't follow soccer but can name a half dozen women players off the top of my head. I don't think I could name any men. The women's brand is incredibly strong right now (sportsmanship notwithstanding) and has been for a while. So...more successful, higher revenues, and more marketable than the men. Seems like a strong case to me.
Click to expand...

All you need to know is that the women have a clause in their CBA (and have had it in there since 2005) that says they must receive the same or better percentage of revenue they generate as the men, and if they don't then they get a bonus payment at the end of the year to make their revenue share equal to the men.

They have never exercised that clause, because they have never received a lower share of revenue than the men. And that includes the time before they negotiated a new contract. So even the previous contract that they were complaining paid them so much less than the men was actually paying them a higher share of their revenue than the men got. And they have since received a contract that pays them more double what they were receiving before, and still significantly less than the men.

So, if you read between the lines there, it's clear that their revenues are much lower than the men. Otherwise, they could just exercise that clause and get paid more. They wouldn't even have to negotiate anything, it's already there.
 

Women won 3-0 yesterday, will face Sweden in a big game on Thursday:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go USA!!
 

Good thing they beat Thailand 13-0 to ensure they have a plus 10 goal differential in case they tie Sweden.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Good thing they beat Thailand 13-0 to ensure they have a plus 10 goal differential in case they tie Sweden.
Click to expand...

It was the first game. At that point the other 2 teams in the group also still had to play Thailand. If the US let off the gas (more than the already did because they did let off the gas some and still scored 13) and only scored 5-6 goals they would absolutely increase their risk of coming out of the group 2nd instead of first. Now all we need is a draw to be first. I think Americans just aren't use to winning at this sport because our Mens team always sh!ts the bed.
 

WSJ: U.S. Women’s Soccer Games Outearned Men’s Games

In the three years after the U.S. women’s soccer team won the 2015 World Cup, U.S. women’s games generated more total revenue than U.S. men’s games, according to audited financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation.

The ability of the women’s team to generate gate revenues that equals or exceeds the men’s team is an important battleground in the U.S. women’s March 8 gender-discrimination lawsuit against the federation. In the suit, all 28 members of the U.S. women’s national team player pool allege U.S. Soccer has paid them less than the men’s team, along with denying them equal playing, training and travel conditions and promoting their games less.

U.S. Soccer has made revenue generation a key part of its defense. In U.S. Soccer’s May 6 legal response to the suit, the federation said the men’s and women’s teams are separate organizations with separate collective-bargaining agreements. It said that any alleged pay differential between the men’s and women’s teams is “based on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex.”

But U.S. Soccer’s numbers show that while men’s games used to generate millions more than women’s games, in recent years the gap in revenue all but disappeared.

From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer’s audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men. Game revenues are made up mostly of ticket sales. In the last two years, at least, the men’s tally includes appearance fees that opposing teams pay the U.S. for games.

“The event revenue from the USWNT demonstrates the potential that can be realized when investment is made,” said Becca Roux, executive director of the U.S. women’s national team’s players association. “While there is still a long way to go, I applaud U.S. Soccer, their partners, and our partners for the new marketing initiatives over the past couple of years. I hope it serves as a case study and example for other federations around the world to emulate.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600

Go USA!!
 

I'm not a big soccer fan and I haven't watched hardly any of the WC games so far, although I've recorded a bunch and fast-forwarded through them to watch the goals and the play leading up to the goals.

But last night I watched a huge portion of the Brazil vs Italy game that I recorded and I have to say it was extremely entertaining. Two very good and very skilled teams, it was a really fun game to watch. I imagine once they get past group play, the games will be closer in talent and continue to be more entertaining like the one I watched last night.
 

A nice 2-0 win today for the women...started with a quick relatively fluky goal off a corner kick just three minutes into the game.

Go USA!!
 

BleedGopher said:
A nice 2-0 win today for the women...started with a quick relatively fluky goal off a corner kick just three minutes into the game.

Go USA!!
Click to expand...

Sometimes its better to be lucky than good!

Now the real test begins. First game against Spain. They have a couple injuries so hopefully they heal up fast.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I'm not a big soccer fan and I haven't watched hardly any of the WC games so far, although I've recorded a bunch and fast-forwarded through them to watch the goals and the play leading up to the goals.

But last night I watched a huge portion of the Brazil vs Italy game that I recorded and I have to say it was extremely entertaining. Two very good and very skilled teams, it was a really fun game to watch. I imagine once they get past group play, the games will be closer in talent and continue to be more entertaining like the one I watched last night.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of the problem with almost all women's sports. The best team are very, very good but there aren't many of them. The Women's World Cup would be better competitively to have only 16 teams but then it doesn't really help grow the sport.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom