EPTOn February 20 2022 04:46 plasmidghost wrote:
What a wild finish to that Spurs game
What a wild finish to that Spurs game
Fuck sake, I had to leave the pub at 89 minutes and missed all that?!
2021 - 2022 Football Thread - Page 89
| Forum Index > Sports |
New Thread Is Live - Click Here | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
Fuck sake, I had to leave the pub at 89 minutes and missed all that?! | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1973 Posts
On February 20 2022 04:53 WombaT wrote: Fuck sake, I had to leave the pub at 89 minutes and missed all that?! It's City - Spurs. That was roughly what you could expect out of the extra time  | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Good entertainment and probably the right result, i do fear for Leeds though, way too many injuries, cannot defend at all and have to score 3 to win a game. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8718 Posts
| ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1973 Posts
| ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3983 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8718 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On February 22 2022 00:46 evilfatsh1t wrote: women deserve equal pay they said Speaking of… | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18481 Posts
| ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
edit: Yin meet Yang. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14023 Posts
On February 23 2022 05:53 Kotreb wrote: Weren't they offered equal pay years ago but they refused? They weren't and they refused the bad faith offer that pretended it was. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
On February 23 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote: They weren't and they refused the bad faith offer that pretended it was. Well I got my information from this video a couple of months ago. In it seems that they got even better terms. But granted, I didn't delve much deeper into this topic so I'm not taking any sides. Can you provide more information and documentation? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14023 Posts
On February 23 2022 09:35 Kotreb wrote: Well I got my information from this video a couple of months ago. In it seems that they got even better terms. But granted, I didn't delve much deeper into this topic so I'm not taking any sides. Can you provide more information and documentation? Yeah US soccer hired two lobby firms to try and convince the public that the women are wrong. Its been regarded in the us as a "bad move". Its a complex financial package because they are both separate organizations that have vastly different circumstances and production for the USSF. WNT is paid a salary and health care by the federation because their professional teams in the US can't compete with European clubs when the euro clubs don't have to pay for health care because of universal healthcare.. This means either that they let womens soccer in the USA die as the ones currently on the national team flee to Europe and the ones that can't are forced to stop playing so they can live. Next we come to the competitions. According to their collective-bargaining agreements, the men’s team earns $3,000 more for a loss in a World Cup qualifying game than the women earn for a win. . The men play in more competitions like the gold cup and less friendlies that are more intended for match fitness and squad building for the team. The women play in more friendlies that are intended to generate money. Both teams making equal pay for equal games when the men play less friendlies, and less friendlies in the USA for money, means that even tho "USSF OFFERS EQUAL PAY" is technically true that they would be paid the same for the games they pay, it means that the women get paid less This might not seem like much but in the last cycle the US women had won the world cup and the gold metal in the Olympics while the men hadn't qualified for the world cup even and didn't remotely come close, even tho the men's world cup is under 23 except for 3 overage players. In this circumstance, the US women made more then the men but wild overwhelming success vs abject failure isn't guaranteed and even in this case the difference was minimal. Even now though this lawsuit doesn't mean anything has changed. They have to negotiate a new CBA with both the Men and the womens teams so they don't end up in an identical lawsuit in a few years. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8718 Posts
On February 23 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote: They weren't and they refused the bad faith offer that pretended it was. they were literally offered the exact same terms as the men and they rejected it. then they lost their shit when they realised , with the benefit of hindsight, that they actually would have been paid more had they agreed to those terms than what theyre being paid now because of how successful they ended up being on the pitch. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14023 Posts
On February 23 2022 15:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: they were literally offered the exact same terms as the men and they rejected it. then they lost their shit when they realised , with the benefit of hindsight, that they actually would have been paid more had they agreed to those terms than what theyre being paid now because of how successful they ended up being on the pitch. Offering the same terms does not mean they had an equal offer to the women. You're repeating the lines that the lobby groups US soccer hired to tell you. They would have not been more sucsessful and would have been paid a lot less. Math isn't hard. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1973 Posts
So far the attempts at deeper analysis & discussion I've seen have not looked particularly favorable for the WNT. I can see there being interest for downplaying the issue, but I don't think I've seen the WNT presenting their case well enough past the initial hashtags either. | ||
| ||
