Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 21 2025 20:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yeah that's true. It's important to distract for as long as possible, and being blatantly racist is certainly a core part of the Trump/MAGA identity.
MAGA is not well defined though. Its like people throwing around the word "woke". By using "woke" or "maga" you can then begin to ascribe any number of imaginary things to it.
During Ronald Reagan's tenure the % of non-white people in America rose substantially. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". People have said right winger Hazel Mccallion was racist because she said a couple of rude things. The composition of Mississauga went from almost all white to 55% non-white during her tenure as mayor. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". I imagine you can just replaying in your head the 2 or 3 sentences she said for ever though and continue to convince yourself she is a "blatant racist" though.
They absolutely seem some pretty bigoted comments that she doubled down on and didn’t provide receipts for.
I’m no expert on the powers and remit of mayors in that neck of the woods, I’m pretty sure they’re not able to block migration to their locale on ethnic grounds. So the demographic change happening has nothing to do with her and her views.
Real ‘Donald Sterling can’t be racist as he pays a bunch of black guys a lot of money’ vibes here.
I think both the wider right and left have similar problems when it comes to racism or general bigotry, albeit it manifests differently. If there’s a person alive who doesn’t have some kind of generalised prejudice for some group or another, that may or may not manifest in actual bigoted behaviours, I’ve yet to meet them.
Rather than ‘hey we’re all a bit bigoted, let’s call it out but cut a degree of slack, it’s part the human condition’, the wider left can be rather unforgiving to say the least, and the wider right will deny pretty blatantly bigoted behaviour is bigoted:
On July 21 2025 19:10 Sadist wrote: The name thing is just his latest attempt at a distraction to try to get the epstein stuff out of the news cycle.
The name change stuff is never going to happen for Cleveland or Washington.
Agreed. When Trump is trying to distract everyone from something he considers to be bad for him, I wonder why he doesn't change the subject to something more positive or better supported, like if there was a small economic victory somewhere for him to brag about, as opposed to him just whining about wanting something so stupid and bigoted.
I think you guys mean that the Epstein stuff is a distraction?
From all the fascism, regressive politics, removal of civil rights, and destruction of America's future? Fair point.
On July 21 2025 19:10 Sadist wrote: The name thing is just his latest attempt at a distraction to try to get the epstein stuff out of the news cycle.
The name change stuff is never going to happen for Cleveland or Washington.
Agreed. When Trump is trying to distract everyone from something he considers to be bad for him, I wonder why he doesn't change the subject to something more positive or better supported, like if there was a small economic victory somewhere for him to brag about, as opposed to him just whining about wanting something so stupid and bigoted.
Anger and controversy get more attention then some small victory. Say something stupid on a theme that your base agrees with, watch the media react and state how stupid it is, watch your base defend you because the media called them stupid, and no one talks about how you fucked little girls anymore.
Being rabidly anti-PC is part of Trumps platform. Teams changed their names due to political correctness, and the people who are angry that they cannot even say the N-word anymore dislike this. And the people who don't like Trump love talking about how stupid the thing he just said is.
Meanwhile, who is going to talk abot some small positive for more than 3 minutes?
Yeah that's true. It's important to distract for as long as possible, and being blatantly racist is certainly a core part of the Trump/MAGA identity.
Well Dershowitz says Maxwell knows everything and would testify, and that the grand jury records in NY need judge's approval to release, but also the grand jury testimony doesn't contain that much compared to depositions and all kinds of other stuff, but those include recanted accusations as well. And claims no conveniently annotated felon list.
I would pay PPV prices for Maxwell testimony in congress and I'm not even an American.
Given that Dershowitz is onboard with the testimony makes me a little queasy about how much of that testimony would be carefully curated, but it would certainly be interesting.
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
The difference is that the women opted for a different pay structure. The men's team made no salary but the women's team made $100,000 salary. The men's team has bigger bonuses for world cup victories. But you only hear about the latter: how men get paid more for winning a world cup match. You never hear about the women players earning a $100,000 salary while the men get diddly squat for salary.
So the women opted for a CBA with guaranteed salary but they realized that if they had taken the mens deal that gave more money for victories they would have earned a lot more since the US women's team is very dominant. The judge in one of their lawsuits mentions that the women were offered the same pay structure as the men but they declined it. They wanted to retroactively get the pay structure of the men's CBA even after declining it when they were offered it.
Of course all that is aside from the point that the women actually earned more $ per match than the men's team during the contested years.
Also have no idea why you keep mentioning health insurance. The women's CBA guaranteed health insurance for the players while the men's CBA made no mention of health insurance. Also your implication that they were holding health insurance over their head as a way "to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty" is ridiculous. They are making well into the 6 figures. What do you think poverty is?
This wild misrepresenting of facts is exactly what I'm talking about. The cbas that the men had and the women had represented the different situations both teams had. They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take and tried to get them to take with the misinformation campaign, thus the lawsuit was nessisary. Trying to argue for the old cba while the debate was for the next cba doesn't make any sense.
Yes they needed the salary to remain out of poverty while still being soccer players. That 100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, and health care that for athletes costs more than regular Jane. Calling it six figures is a classic misinformation line that was used to demonize them. Regular people don't have the same costs professional athletes do, no idea why you would think they would in good faith. The basic mechanics of sports and national teams do not function in the same way as an office job.
Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance. This would have also set the president for the next generation to make much less as counting on constantly winning world cups while the men failing to qualify wasn't realistic to expect to continue. Fighting for the next generation is what you're supposed to do in a good society.
Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't. If us soccer just cuts their health insurance they then have to start paying for it themselves, while also not getting those "six figure contracts" anymore. The idea that you are confused about why I keep mentioning it while then explaining why I keep mentioning it is just werid. Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court? Do you think that the justice system just sided with women because society is just tilted against men for the love of the game?
It's amazing how little you manage to get right.
"100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, health care"
100k was the base salary before bonuses for games, per diems, travel reimbursements. The actual amount was double or triple that. If you think these are poverty wages you're delusional. If you want to ignore the bonuses for games won then remember that the men's team had $0 salary so then they are basically slaves.
"Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't."
All of then women were guaranteed health insurance through their CBA and they received health insurance through the olympics because they are considered olympic athletes. The team can't "take away" their health insurance because they are not even the ones providing it - the olympics are providing it.
"Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court?"
They didn't lose in court. Their equal pay lawsuit was dismissed by judge Klausner for the 2 reasons of 1) the women actually earned more and 2) they were offered the men's deal but they turned it down. They then filed an appeal and it was ultimately settled out of court.
"They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take"
You yourself contradict yourself on this one when you acknowledge the women were not paid less 2 seconds later: "Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance."
If you don't believe me and you don't believe yourself, you can believe your favorite player Megan Rapnioe who said
"What Judge Klausner said is that we earned more than the men over X amount of years. And yes that is true. For every $100 we earned the men's team earned $90 but in order to achieve that we had to win 9 games while the men's team only had to win 3 games."
Which, again, is something I agree with but this is not an argument for equal pay. It's an argument for unequal pay. "We earned more but we should have earned WAY MORE." In other words the 2 pays should be LESS equal.
On July 22 2025 03:11 Jankisa wrote: I would pay PPV prices for Maxwell testimony in congress and I'm not even an American.
Given that Dershowitz is onboard with the testimony makes me a little queasy about how much of that testimony would be carefully curated, but it would certainly be interesting.
I still genuinely think we are all still in a theatrics stage of this whole thing. I think everything from Epstein's death to Maxwell's imprisonment is a carefully orchestrated attempt to make it appear the whole operation has collapsed.
1: Donald Barr (Father of Trump's former AG, Bill Barr) was the headmaster of the prestigious Dalton School from 1964 to 1974.
2: Donald Barr hired Jeffrey Epstein as a math and physics teacher. The hiring was notable because Epstein was only in his early twenties and had dropped out of college, lacking a degree. Donald Barr reportedly hired him after being impressed by his intelligence. Donald Barr went on to write a book about aliens using humans as sex and labor slaves. In the book, the alien aristocracy justifies their use of sex slaves as a fundamental component of society, saying it is their right as the genetically superior ruling class.
3: Donald Barr's tenure as headmaster ended in 1974, the same year Epstein was hired. Epstein left the school in 1976.
4: Ghislaine Maxwell's father (Robert Maxwell), officially, built a vast publishing empire after serving in the British Army during World War II. Former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh both independently claimed Robert Maxwell worked with Mossad. They alleged that he used his global media empire for intelligence operations, including spreading propaganda and facilitating the sale of bugged software to other countries.
5: Keep in mind, officially, Robert Maxwell did not work for Mossad: Robert Maxwell was given a remarkably high-profile funeral and buried on the prestigious Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. The funeral was attended by multiple heads of Israeli intelligence and government leaders. Then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir delivered a eulogy stating that Maxwell had "done more for Israel than can today be told."
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
The difference is that the women opted for a different pay structure. The men's team made no salary but the women's team made $100,000 salary. The men's team has bigger bonuses for world cup victories. But you only hear about the latter: how men get paid more for winning a world cup match. You never hear about the women players earning a $100,000 salary while the men get diddly squat for salary.
So the women opted for a CBA with guaranteed salary but they realized that if they had taken the mens deal that gave more money for victories they would have earned a lot more since the US women's team is very dominant. The judge in one of their lawsuits mentions that the women were offered the same pay structure as the men but they declined it. They wanted to retroactively get the pay structure of the men's CBA even after declining it when they were offered it.
Of course all that is aside from the point that the women actually earned more $ per match than the men's team during the contested years.
Also have no idea why you keep mentioning health insurance. The women's CBA guaranteed health insurance for the players while the men's CBA made no mention of health insurance. Also your implication that they were holding health insurance over their head as a way "to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty" is ridiculous. They are making well into the 6 figures. What do you think poverty is?
This wild misrepresenting of facts is exactly what I'm talking about. The cbas that the men had and the women had represented the different situations both teams had. They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take and tried to get them to take with the misinformation campaign, thus the lawsuit was nessisary. Trying to argue for the old cba while the debate was for the next cba doesn't make any sense.
Yes they needed the salary to remain out of poverty while still being soccer players. That 100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, and health care that for athletes costs more than regular Jane. Calling it six figures is a classic misinformation line that was used to demonize them. Regular people don't have the same costs professional athletes do, no idea why you would think they would in good faith. The basic mechanics of sports and national teams do not function in the same way as an office job.
Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance. This would have also set the president for the next generation to make much less as counting on constantly winning world cups while the men failing to qualify wasn't realistic to expect to continue. Fighting for the next generation is what you're supposed to do in a good society.
Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't. If us soccer just cuts their health insurance they then have to start paying for it themselves, while also not getting those "six figure contracts" anymore. The idea that you are confused about why I keep mentioning it while then explaining why I keep mentioning it is just werid. Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court? Do you think that the justice system just sided with women because society is just tilted against men for the love of the game?
It's amazing how little you manage to get right.
"100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, health care"
100k was the base salary before bonuses for games, per diems, travel reimbursements. The actual amount was double or triple that. If you think these are poverty wages you're delusional. If you want to ignore the bonuses for games won then remember that the men's team had $0 salary so then they are basically slaves.
"Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't."
All of then women were guaranteed health insurance through their CBA and they received health insurance through the olympics because they are considered olympic athletes. The team can't "take away" their health insurance because they are not even the ones providing it - the olympics are providing it.
"Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court?"
They didn't lose in court. Their equal pay lawsuit was dismissed by judge Klausner for the 2 reasons of 1) the women actually earned more and 2) they were offered the men's deal but they turned it down. They then filed an appeal and it was ultimately settled out of court.
"They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take"
You yourself contradict yourself on this one when you acknowledge the women were not paid less 2 seconds later: "Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance."
If you don't believe me and you don't believe yourself, you can believe your favorite player Megan Rapnioe who said
"What Judge Klausner said is that we earned more than the men over X amount of years. And yes that is true. For every $100 we earned the men's team earned $90 but in order to achieve that we had to win 9 games while the men's team only had to win 3 games."
Which, again, is something I agree with but this is not an argument for equal pay. It's an argument for unequal pay. "We earned more but we should have earned WAY MORE." In other words the 2 pays should be LESS equal.
Yeah its very clear you don't have much idea on how any of this works and I'm going to save everyone time by ending this. Please get better with engaging with what people post instead of just repeating the wrong things you keep insisting. This is not how anyone discusses anything with real people.
If you think "yeah but they can have their health insurance through the Olympics" is somehow a good point I can't help you. I do not have the time and patience to walk you through the mechanics of world cups, Olympics, player pools, prize money structures for competitions, and the basic premise that the Olympics are every 4 years. You're not even at the point in my posts where you find out that the deal that you're arguing for isn't the deal that they were negotiating for. Yes, it was a great deal for everyone for the world that they were in, I'm glad they took that deal and they found the great success that came with it. Its not the deal they were being offered nor would it reflect the world they were approaching. I was also arguing that they should receive equal compensation for the revenue they were generating, and explaining how that wouldn't work.
If you pay two people the same money, and one ends up making more due to them getting money from some other source, that doesn't mean that you're not paying them the same money. The same if they receive an equal amount of pay, even though they get more money from some other source, means that you're not paying them the same money. If you were able to engage with what she said in good faith instead of going off what you read from someone trying to make you hate them you would understand what shes saying.
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps.
Alternatively we could just not bother and leave women’s sport to wither on the vine. Negatives of that approach would include disenfranchising whole generations of young girls and women to pursue sport. Positives would include owning the libs.
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps.
That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see:
On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote: But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans
Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts.
On July 22 2025 10:46 WombaT wrote: Alternatively we could just not bother and leave women’s sport to wither on the vine. Negatives of that approach would include disenfranchising whole generations of young girls and women to pursue sport. Positives would include owning the libs.
Pick your poison.
Plenty of Republicans would consider that to be a positive, actually.
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps.
That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see:
On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote: But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans
Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts.
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps.
That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see:
On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote: But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans
Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts.
How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly?
Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports?
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote: My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
The difference is that the women opted for a different pay structure. The men's team made no salary but the women's team made $100,000 salary. The men's team has bigger bonuses for world cup victories. But you only hear about the latter: how men get paid more for winning a world cup match. You never hear about the women players earning a $100,000 salary while the men get diddly squat for salary.
So the women opted for a CBA with guaranteed salary but they realized that if they had taken the mens deal that gave more money for victories they would have earned a lot more since the US women's team is very dominant. The judge in one of their lawsuits mentions that the women were offered the same pay structure as the men but they declined it. They wanted to retroactively get the pay structure of the men's CBA even after declining it when they were offered it.
Of course all that is aside from the point that the women actually earned more $ per match than the men's team during the contested years.
Also have no idea why you keep mentioning health insurance. The women's CBA guaranteed health insurance for the players while the men's CBA made no mention of health insurance. Also your implication that they were holding health insurance over their head as a way "to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty" is ridiculous. They are making well into the 6 figures. What do you think poverty is?
This wild misrepresenting of facts is exactly what I'm talking about. The cbas that the men had and the women had represented the different situations both teams had. They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take and tried to get them to take with the misinformation campaign, thus the lawsuit was nessisary. Trying to argue for the old cba while the debate was for the next cba doesn't make any sense.
Yes they needed the salary to remain out of poverty while still being soccer players. That 100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, and health care that for athletes costs more than regular Jane. Calling it six figures is a classic misinformation line that was used to demonize them. Regular people don't have the same costs professional athletes do, no idea why you would think they would in good faith. The basic mechanics of sports and national teams do not function in the same way as an office job.
Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance. This would have also set the president for the next generation to make much less as counting on constantly winning world cups while the men failing to qualify wasn't realistic to expect to continue. Fighting for the next generation is what you're supposed to do in a good society.
Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't. If us soccer just cuts their health insurance they then have to start paying for it themselves, while also not getting those "six figure contracts" anymore. The idea that you are confused about why I keep mentioning it while then explaining why I keep mentioning it is just werid. Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court? Do you think that the justice system just sided with women because society is just tilted against men for the love of the game?
It's amazing how little you manage to get right.
"100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, health care"
100k was the base salary before bonuses for games, per diems, travel reimbursements. The actual amount was double or triple that. If you think these are poverty wages you're delusional. If you want to ignore the bonuses for games won then remember that the men's team had $0 salary so then they are basically slaves.
"Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't."
All of then women were guaranteed health insurance through their CBA and they received health insurance through the olympics because they are considered olympic athletes. The team can't "take away" their health insurance because they are not even the ones providing it - the olympics are providing it.
"Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court?"
They didn't lose in court. Their equal pay lawsuit was dismissed by judge Klausner for the 2 reasons of 1) the women actually earned more and 2) they were offered the men's deal but they turned it down. They then filed an appeal and it was ultimately settled out of court.
"They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take"
You yourself contradict yourself on this one when you acknowledge the women were not paid less 2 seconds later: "Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance."
If you don't believe me and you don't believe yourself, you can believe your favorite player Megan Rapnioe who said
"What Judge Klausner said is that we earned more than the men over X amount of years. And yes that is true. For every $100 we earned the men's team earned $90 but in order to achieve that we had to win 9 games while the men's team only had to win 3 games."
Which, again, is something I agree with but this is not an argument for equal pay. It's an argument for unequal pay. "We earned more but we should have earned WAY MORE." In other words the 2 pays should be LESS equal.
Yeah its very clear you don't have much idea on how any of this works and I'm going to save everyone time by ending this. Please get better with engaging with what people post instead of just repeating the wrong things you keep insisting. This is not how anyone discusses anything with real people.
If you think "yeah but they can have their health insurance through the Olympics" is somehow a good point I can't help you. I do not have the time and patience to walk you through the mechanics of world cups, Olympics, player pools, prize money structures for competitions, and the basic premise that the Olympics are every 4 years. You're not even at the point in my posts where you find out that the deal that you're arguing for isn't the deal that they were negotiating for. Yes, it was a great deal for everyone for the world that they were in, I'm glad they took that deal and they found the great success that came with it. Its not the deal they were being offered nor would it reflect the world they were approaching. I was also arguing that they should receive equal compensation for the revenue they were generating, and explaining how that wouldn't work.
If you pay two people the same money, and one ends up making more due to them getting money from some other source, that doesn't mean that you're not paying them the same money. The same if they receive an equal amount of pay, even though they get more money from some other source, means that you're not paying them the same money. If you were able to engage with what she said in good faith instead of going off what you read from someone trying to make you hate them you would understand what shes saying.
The difference between you and me is I can provide sources for the things I write.
The women’s CBA guarantees health insurance while the men’s teams CBA makes no mention of it. www.espn.com
The men's CBA also makes no mention of health insurance, unlike the women's CBA, which guarantees it.
This one from CBS also mentions the bonuses women got in addition to their $100k salary and the guaranteed health insurance, dental insurance, maternity leave. www.cbsnews.com
An American woman received $52,500 for being on the roster for the five World Cup qualifiers last year plus $147,500 for her time at the World Cup, including a $37,500 roster bonus and $110,000 for winning the title in France.
Women receive 75% of salary on maternity leave for up to one year, and a player has the longer of three months or two training camps to return to full fitness. A player can receive 75% of salary for up to three months when adopting a child and a $50 daily stipend for child care during training and play. The USSF also pays for health, dental and vision insurance for the women.
Here’s where their lawsuit was dismissed because they actually earned more en.wikipedia.org
In May 2020, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed the unequal pay portion of the lawsuit, while allowing the claims of discriminatory work conditions to proceed. Judge Klausner found that the USWNT were paid more in total and more per game than the USMNT during the contested years. The Judge also noted that the USWNT were offered a similar “pay for play” agreement but rejected that offer
Everything I’ve said is all very clearly written in black and white from reputable sources. You on the other hand never source anything you write. I can go through your entire post history and not find a single hyperlink to anything. You can just insist they were paid poverty wages of $100k minus expenses and they were being denied health insurance and they were compensated worse than the men but as soon as it comes time to back up what you say you suddenly don’t have the time or patience to do so. If you don’t have the time or patience to source your claims then you probably shouldn’t interject at all.
On July 21 2025 10:16 Sermokala wrote: [quote] The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps.
That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see:
On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote: But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans
Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts.
How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly?
Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports?
How is acknowledging that the men’s game in this instance is considerably more lucrative chauvinistic?
On July 22 2025 10:46 WombaT wrote: Alternatively we could just not bother and leave women’s sport to wither on the vine. Negatives of that approach would include disenfranchising whole generations of young girls and women to pursue sport. Positives would include owning the libs.
Pick your poison.
Plenty of Republicans would consider that to be a positive, actually.
The overlap between people who shit on women’s sport, and those who complain that trans women are ruining women’s sport is also not insignificant.
I’m sure they’ll dispute that, or worse the useful idiot centrists will, it’s the most patently obvious observation one can make. Perhaps it’s not something one encounters regularly unless you’re a sports nut but it’s crazy prevalent.
‘Hurhur women can’t dunk, but I’m also outraged if a trans women might be able to dunk’
On July 21 2025 10:16 Sermokala wrote: [quote] The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well.
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC?
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps.
That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see:
On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote: But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans
Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts.
How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly?
Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports?
No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context:
"Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line."
All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans"
That's not even a complete sentence.
There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me.
EPT
