EPT2018 - 2019 Football Thread - Page 266
| Forum Index > Sports |
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 27 2019 15:00 sharkie wrote: They play more games, are way way more sucessfull and prolly even play better than the men  They lost to under 15 boys for starters. Do you honestly believe that if the men's team played them they'd have a close and riveting match? | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2070 Posts
On June 29 2019 13:12 SK.Testie wrote: They lost to under 15 boys for starters. Do you honestly believe that if the men's team played them they'd have a close and riveting match? In terms of finances, it's more of a popularity contest. Being good at football sure helps, but the audience brings in the money side. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6288 Posts
| ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
Imagine the shock that the top 4 divisions of fully professionalized pay and training actually produce higher quality than the one semi pro top division prevalent in the female leagues. Or at least the retarded comparisons would fucking stop for 50 years | ||
|
sneakyfox
8217 Posts
 | ||
|
Sr18
Netherlands1141 Posts
| ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On June 30 2019 00:37 Sr18 wrote: Maybe the "retarded comparisons" would stop if people didn't demand equal (as in: same) pay and treatment. if they bring in more money, they certainly deserve better pay and treatment. why does relative skill matter? they dont play each other ever, how is that even an argument | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On June 30 2019 00:37 Sr18 wrote: Maybe the "retarded comparisons" would stop if people didn't demand equal (as in: same) pay and treatment. Yeah, because before these demands started 2 years ago no one ever made these comparisons right? That is the attitude that continues the cycle. The womens game doesn't get the respect and the viewership to become commercially competitive, because the quality is too low. And the quality is too low, because there is not enough money to improve it. Rinse, repeat and ignore any of the real causes. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18679 Posts
On June 30 2019 00:37 Sr18 wrote: Maybe the "retarded comparisons" would stop if people didn't demand equal (as in: same) pay and treatment. US women actually deserve to be paid more than men yes. You are right that they shouldnt demand equal pay | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2019 02:36 sneirac wrote: Yeah, because before these demands started 2 years ago no one ever made these comparisons right? That is the attitude that continues the cycle. The womens game doesn't get the respect and the viewership to become commercially competitive, because the quality is too low. And the quality is too low, because there is not enough money to improve it. Rinse, repeat and ignore any of the real causes. It's pretty disingenuous to argue that the only reason that the women's game doesn't have the same skill as the men's game is that they haven't had the infrastructure. Biological differences in strength and speed alone account for a huge difference in skill that will never be overcome short of biological engineering of the human body. It's also incredibly disingenuous (and quite frankly, insulting) to argue that the women deserve equal/better pay because they are "better". First off, everyone and their mother knows that they would get demolished by any remotely comparable men's team (and probably many youth teams), but this is conveniently left out of any discussion. Second, dominating the women's game and then taunting the men's team is like dominating your high school sports league and then taunting a college athlete because they aren't as dominant in their league. The women's game has pathetically little competition compared to the men; there are maybe 5 or 6 teams that can be considered pretty competitive at the WWC, and then the drop off in quality is absolutely massive. Some of the teams sent to the WC basically aren't paying their players, and many of the players aren't even professional. This issue isn't anywhere near as pronounced in the men's game. Infrastructure for the men's game is much more developed and supported worldwide, meaning that the men's team's competition is much, much more difficult than the women's. The argument of "it's a different sport" also doesn't apply because, unlike a sport like hockey, they play the exact same game. Women don't deserve equal pay because they're better (they're not) or because they make more money (comparisons of income are disingenuous at best). They deserve equal income because sports are cultural institutions and, at a national level, they should be supported equally to support and promote both men and women playing the sport at all levels. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18344 Posts
On June 30 2019 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's pretty disingenuous to argue that the only reason that the women's game doesn't have the same skill as the men's game is that they haven't had the infrastructure. Biological differences in strength and speed alone account for a huge difference in skill that will never be overcome short of biological engineering of the human body. It's also incredibly disingenuous (and quite frankly, insulting) to argue that the women deserve equal/better pay because they are "better". First off, everyone and their mother knows that they would get demolished by any remotely comparable men's team (and probably many youth teams), but this is conveniently left out of any discussion. Second, dominating the women's game and then taunting the men's team is like dominating your high school sports league and then taunting a college athlete because they aren't as dominant in their league. The women's game has pathetically little competition compared to the men; there are maybe 5 or 6 teams that can be considered pretty competitive at the WWC, and then the drop off in quality is absolutely massive. Some of the teams sent to the WC basically aren't paying their players, and many of the players aren't even professional. This issue isn't anywhere near as pronounced in the men's game. Infrastructure for the men's game is much more developed and supported worldwide, meaning that the men's team's competition is much, much more difficult than the women's. The argument of "it's a different sport" also doesn't apply because, unlike a sport like hockey, they play the exact same game. Women don't deserve equal pay because they're better (they're not) or because they make more money (comparisons of income are disingenuous at best). They deserve equal income because sports are cultural institutions and, at a national level, they should be supported equally to support and promote both men and women playing the sport at all levels. I don't think the first part is true at all. Absolute speed and strength doesn't matter at all in football. If there was some biological reason that foot-eye coordination in women was worse than in men you might have a point, but clumsy passes have nothing to do with speed or strength, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be women with the potential to be equally good at passing as Xavi or finding the right time to accelerate and then have the shooting accuracy as Ronaldo. These are obviously exceptionally talented players that there aren't many of. It's the entire infrastructure (and money involved) in men's football that finds them at a very young age among a vast population of the world (far beyond just developed nations) and brings them to facilities where they can train and develop their talents. And, in fact, hockey is an excellent example of a sport where the male and female versions have approximately equal prestige (field hockey that is). | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
The women will never be able to athletically compete directly with the men, not just in football but in anything contingent on physical attributes. However with enough funding and better infrastructure the parity and competitiveness of womens soccer can make the game just or at least almost as entertaining to watch as the mens game. The argument that women should not get more funding/pay, because they cannot compete in revenue generation is what is pissing me off. Because that is so firmly entrenched that it is impossible to change. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2070 Posts
On June 30 2019 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote: Women don't deserve equal pay because they're better (they're not) or because they make more money (comparisons of income are disingenuous at best). They deserve equal income because sports are cultural institutions and, at a national level, they should be supported equally to support and promote both men and women playing the sport at all levels. I think this approach sort of runs into issues of it's own because football itself is a very privileged sport. If it's only cultural institution that matters, surely other sports and activities deserve equal attention and resources too. At least in Finland world class speed skaters are developing their blades in garages and some ski jumpers are sewing their jumping suits. It's a rough world out there and vast majority of sports outside the few favourites are working extremely hard to develop and grow. In that sense I think popularity is the thing that counts. It's by no means ideal, but it's probably the best justification we've got. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2019 04:01 Bacillus wrote: I think this approach sort of runs into issues of it's own because football itself is a very privileged sport. If it's only cultural institution that matters, surely other sports and activities deserve equal attention and resources too. At least in Finland world class speed skaters are developing their blades in garages and some ski jumpers are sewing their jumping suits. It's a rough world out there and vast majority of sports outside the few favourites are working extremely hard to develop and grow. In that sense I think popularity is the thing that counts. It's by no means ideal, but it's probably the best justification we've got. Football is one of the least privileged sports out there. It requires less resources to play competitively than basketball, (American) football, baseball, hockey, rugby, cricket, or many, many other sports. And I said sports, not just soccer. I think all sports are important cultural institutions and women should be paid equally in every sport at the national level. In particularly imbalanced sports, this would serve as a way to make up for the lack of infrastructure due to institutionalized sexism that kept women from playing or excelling in these sports for generations. I don't think the first part is true at all. Absolute speed and strength doesn't matter at all in football. If there was some biological reason that foot-eye coordination in women was worse than in men you might have a point, but clumsy passes have nothing to do with speed or strength, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be women with the potential to be equally good at passing as Xavi or finding the right time to accelerate and then have the shooting accuracy as Ronaldo. These are obviously exceptionally talented players that there aren't many of. It's the entire infrastructure (and money involved) in men's football that finds them at a very young age among a vast population of the world (far beyond just developed nations) and brings them to facilities where they can train and develop their talents. And, in fact, hockey is an excellent example of a sport where the male and female versions have approximately equal prestige (field hockey that is). I don't understand how you can possibly make this argument. It takes a very purposeful level of ignorance. Even assuming that there is no biological difference in the cognitive (tactical), reflex, or fine mechanical abilities of men vs. women (i.e. if properly trained, women could be just as good as men at the mental, reflexive, or technical aspects of the sport): 1) Men are taller. If competing against women, they will win the vast majority aerial duels, which is an important facet of the game. It also means that male keepers are much better at stopping high shots because they can reach them better. 2) Men are stronger. This means that they will win tackles much more often. It also contributes to muscle strength in the legs (allowing for higher jumping for both headers and keeper saves), neck (allowing for stronger headers), and legs/foot (allowing for faster shots that are harder to block). 3) Men are faster. This allows them to easily outpace women and run around them or make runs behind them. It also means that long balls are less frequently lost because the ball won't outpace men as much as it will women. Yea, you can always say that any of these qualities are "on average" better in men, but being a professional athlete self-selects for the individuals that are at the extreme end of the spectrum in these categories since having those qualities (extra tall, extra fast, extra strong, etc.) allows you to excel in certain facets of the game. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2070 Posts
On June 30 2019 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote: Football is one of the least privileged sports out there. It requires less resources to play competitively than basketball, (American) football, baseball, hockey, rugby, cricket, or many, many other sports. We are not talking about requirement for playing the sport. We are talking about how much media attention, funding and all that football gets. Football gets a lot in almost every possible way. And I said sports, not just soccer. I think all sports are important cultural institutions and women should be paid equally in every sport at the national level. We are not talking about gender only here. We are talking about the funding of sports instituion in general and you're running into a massive issue where every sport deserves equal coverage and resources and there simply isn't that kind of resources available. In the end you start have to prioritizing and it usually comes down to popularity or some other equally nasty metric. If we go by cultural instituion value, everyone is going to get half a penny and a lot of the more popular sports aren't going to play along with that kind of stuff. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2019 04:15 Bacillus wrote: We are not talking about requirement for playing the sport. We are talking about how much media attention, funding and all that football gets. Football gets a lot in almost every possible way. We are not talking about gender only here. We are talking about the funding of sports instituion in general and you're running into a massive issue where every sport deserves equal coverage and resources and there simply isn't that kind of resources available. In the end you start have to prioritizing and it usually comes down to popularity or some other equally nasty metric. If we go by cultural instituion value, everyone is going to get half a penny and a lot of the more popular sports aren't going to play along with that kind of stuff. At no point did I even mention paying two different sports equally. This discussion is about gender discrimination. You haven't provided a reason why that argument should be generalized beyond gender discrimination to inter-sport comparisons. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18344 Posts
On June 30 2019 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote: Football is one of the least privileged sports out there. It requires less resources to play competitively than basketball, (American) football, baseball, hockey, rugby, cricket, or many, many other sports. And I said sports, not just soccer. I think all sports are important cultural institutions and women should be paid equally in every sport at the national level. In particularly imbalanced sports, this would serve as a way to make up for the lack of infrastructure due to institutionalized sexism that kept women from playing or excelling in these sports for generations. I don't understand how you can possibly make this argument. It takes a very purposeful level of ignorance. Even assuming that there is no biological difference in the cognitive (tactical), reflex, or fine mechanical abilities of men vs. women (i.e. if properly trained, women could be just as good as men at the mental, reflexive, or technical aspects of the sport): 1) Men are taller. If competing against women, they will win the vast majority aerial duels, which is an important facet of the game. It also means that male keepers are much better at stopping high shots because they can reach them better. 2) Men are stronger. This means that they will win tackles much more often. It also contributes to muscle strength in the legs (allowing for higher jumping for both headers and keeper saves), neck (allowing for stronger headers), and legs/foot (allowing for faster shots that are harder to block). 3) Men are faster. This allows them to easily outpace women and run around them or make runs behind them. It also means that long balls are less frequently lost because the ball won't outpace men as much as it will women. Yea, you can always say that any of these qualities are "on average" better in men, but being a professional athlete self-selects for the individuals that are at the extreme end of the spectrum in these categories since having those qualities (extra tall, extra fast, extra strong, etc.) allows you to excel in certain facets of the game. But nobody is talking about men playing vs women. So what is the point of comparing men's speed, height and strength? Sure, Robben would run circles around even a very fast female defender, but it's entirely beside the point. The point is that there is no reason why a game of women playing other women should be less entertaining than men vs men. And it really is right now as the quality of play is lower. And that has nothing to do with them being slower or weaker than men, and everything tondo with having less training in things like passing, running into open spaces, tactics, shooting, and all those other millions of things that make up a game of football as opposed to a 10 mile run. And yes, of course, I don't doubt that overall some of that is because women don't get scouted from really young ages all over the world, because there's no money in it, so the female Ronaldo is probably a school teacher or a factory worker somewhere instead of a professional football player. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2019 04:47 Acrofales wrote: But nobody is talking about men playing vs women. So what is the point of comparing men's speed, height and strength? Sure, Robben would run circles around even a very fast female defender, but it's entirely beside the point. The point is that there is no reason why a game of women playing other women should be less entertaining than men vs men. And it really is right now as the quality of play is lower. And that has nothing to do with them being slower or weaker than men, and everything tondo with having less training in things like passing, running into open spaces, tactics, shooting, and all those other millions of things that make up a game of football as opposed to a 10 mile run. And yes, of course, I don't doubt that overall some of that is because women don't get scouted from really young ages all over the world, because there's no money in it, so the female Ronaldo is probably a school teacher or a factory worker somewhere instead of a professional football player. People are talking about men vs. women because they keep using the "women's team is better than men" to justify a change in pay. I addressed that above (summary: it's a bad argument. Women should be paid equally for different reasons). The person that I quoted then tried to argue that physical differences don't make men better at the game. And yes, there is absolutely a reason that sports played at a lower level aren't necessarily as entertaining as a higher level. Sure, it's not an absolute rule, but it's a weak argument to simply dismiss people's preferences for the men's game over the women's in a given sport by pretending that the difference in quality doesn't affect the level of entertainment. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18344 Posts
On June 30 2019 05:22 Stratos_speAr wrote: People are talking about men vs. women because they keep using the "women's team is better than men" to justify a change in pay. I addressed that above (summary: it's a bad argument. Women should be paid equally for different reasons). The person that I quoted then tried to argue that physical differences don't make men better at the game. And yes, there is absolutely a reason that sports played at a lower level aren't necessarily as entertaining as a higher level. Sure, it's not an absolute rule, but it's a weak argument to simply dismiss people's preferences for the men's game over the women's in a given sport by pretending that the difference in quality doesn't affect the level of entertainment. But nobody who says "women's team is better than men" thinks the women's team can beat the men's team. Rather they're saying that they are performing far better in the tournaments they play in (and are literally only talking about the US team). If we take this to tennis, I doubt Serena Williams can beat Stan Wawrinka. That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka". | ||
| ||
