Caitlin Clark is ****ing awesome

[staylor26]

Caitlin Clark is cold af for this pic.twitter.com/ieyvCRmq1S

— Lindsey (@LuLu_Vue) April 1, 2023

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

False.

I was answering the notion that Caitlin could save the WNBA.

Ain't happening.

Then you got all uppity and women's lib on us.

He thinks the players read the board and will reward him for jousting for their honors.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by MarkDavis'Haircut

He thinks the players read the board and will reward him for jousting for their honors.

she's not going to **** you Rams Fan

[Rams Fan]

Originally Posted by MarkDavis'Haircut

He thinks the players read the board and will reward him for jousting for their honors.

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

she's not going to **** you Rams Fan

I do OK, thanks though.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

International teams are rewarded based on their performance. Men were getting paid while losing and women were not getting paid anything while winning and going further.

Not saying it should be 1 to 1, but the difference shouldn't be that dramatic.

The men's world cup generated in excess of $7 billion dollars in revenue.

Women's world generated about $160 million.

Tell me how you're going to iron out that disparity in raw dollars?

Give the last place team in the men's bracket 1% of the winnings and you're talking $75 million to split between it's players. You'd have to give the first place team 50% of the overall pool in the women's bracket to beat that.

So how the hell are you gonna touch that? The numbers simply don't work. I mean kick the numbers around and you're talking a proportional WIN by, what, 3-4 times greater revenue share for the women than the men?

And if you want to talk strict merit, take the worst team in the men's world cup and have them play the USWNT - they'd beat them by double digits.

Men's soccer yields about 4000% more revenue than women's soccer - yes, the differences should absolutely be as dramatic as they are. Truth be told, they should probably be even more extreme.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

Did you completely ignore what I said?

I never said men shouldn’t have been paid more. Just that women’s national team was underpaid based on the standards used for compensating men.

Not remotely the same discussion as WNBA.

Nope.

Not even close.

They were overpaid if you use the standards for compensating men. 25% of the overall revenue generated by the Women's world cup went into the prize pool. About 6% of the revenue generated by the mens did.

This isn't a makeable argument. Never has been.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Greatest curlers in the world, men or women, don't make near as much as your worst NFL players.

IT'S BULLSHIT!

And folks, women's basketball/soccer aren't that much less further removed from the men's product than curling is to football. They're barely the same sport.

He seems decent at soccer but is definitely not a pro and isn't even remotely close to giving it everything hes got and he's just embarrassing her. Exhibit A for why no one watches female sports outside of shit like tennis.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

she's not going to **** you Rams Fan

Listen to your own advice there, champ.

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...ht=gracie+hunt

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The men's world cup generated in excess of $7 billion dollars in revenue.

Women's world generated about $160 million.

Tell me how you're going to iron out that disparity in raw dollars?

Give the last place team in the men's bracket 1% of the winnings and you're talking $75 million to split between it's players. You'd have to give the first place team 50% of the overall pool in the women's bracket to beat that.

So how the hell are you gonna touch that? The numbers simply don't work. I mean kick the numbers around and you're talking a proportional WIN by, what, 3-4 times greater revenue share for the women than the men?

And if you want to talk strict merit, take the worst team in the men's world cup and have them play the USWNT - they'd beat them by double digits.

Men's soccer yields about 400% more revenue than women's soccer - yes, the differences should absolutely be as dramatic as they are. Truth be told, they should probably be even more extreme.

That would be on an off day for the men as well. Several years ago when the USWNT was playing in KC they played a practice game against the U-16 Sporting Academy team and lost to them by several goals.

If they played the USMNT and both teams played their best possible game it would be double digits by half.

The woman tend to have better technical skills but the lack of speed, size and strength is no match.

[Rams Fan]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The men's world cup generated in excess of $7 billion dollars in revenue.

Women's world generated about $160 million.

Tell me how you're going to iron out that disparity in raw dollars?

Give the last place team in the men's bracket 1% of the winnings and you're talking $75 million to split between it's players. You'd have to give the first place team 50% of the overall pool in the women's bracket to beat that.

So how the hell are you gonna touch that? The numbers simply don't work. I mean kick the numbers around and you're talking a proportional WIN by, what, 3-4 times greater revenue share for the women than the men?

And if you want to talk strict merit, take the worst team in the men's world cup and have them play the USWNT - they'd beat them by double digits.

Men's soccer yields about 400% more revenue than women's soccer - yes, the differences should absolutely be as dramatic as they are. Truth be told, they should probably be even more extreme.

The settlement the women’s players agreed with USWNT was to split some of the men’s earnings from the World Cup, which I don’t see an issue with since both are representing the U.S. nationally.

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

I do OK, thanks though.

The Wildcat and Scratch dolls don't count.

[BleedingRed]

WNBA will be all "men" in like 5 years anyways........

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

The settlement the women’s players agreed with USWNT was to split some of the men’s earnings from the World Cup, which I don’t see an issue with since both are representing the U.S. nationally.

So you are 100% on board with universal income.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

The settlement the women’s players agreed with USWNT was to split some of the men’s earnings from the World Cup, which I don’t see an issue with since both are representing the U.S. nationally.

Ah.

So the men should be subsidizing the women.

Why are we talking about fairness then? This isn't fairness - it's simple redistribution.

And again - the mens curling team 'represents the country' - should the Olympic basketball teams be subsidizing their prize pool?

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

WNBA will be all "men" in like 5 years anyways........

Has there been a transgender WNBA or D1 player yet?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by penguinz

The woman tend to have better technical skills but the lack of speed, size and strength is no match.

Hells - something as simple as mere stamina.

You've got Michael Bradley out there running 9 miles per match. A similar woman's player is gonna run about 6. The guys can just cover ground for longer.

And as you noted, because of the speed mismatch, the guys would be able to do more like 10-12 miles at 80% pace while the women are looking at 4-5 trying to go at top speed.

Again - it's barely the same sport.