Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: World Cup

  1. #11
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,556
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Currently they are paid a fraction of what the male US team is paid. Considering that their recent Worlds Cup winning match generated the highest number of US households watching a soccer match ever they should certainly be paid as much as the men or perhaps more. Especially considering that the US men's team didn't even qualify for the world cup this year.
    Aren't both the male and female teams paid according to the collective bargaining agreements their unions negotiate with the league? I believe the male team members are paid mostly based upon bonuses based on performance where female team members are mostly paid base salaries, regardless of performance. Perhaps they should talk to their union.

    From what I've read, the revenue pool for the women's and men's teams is also different with sponsorships generating disparate revenue streams. The Washington Post did a pretty good breakdown of the differences in how compensation is awarded in the two different contract environments, along with examples of Democratic Presidential candidates tweets aimed at politicizing differences without discussing specifics. I'm guessing you follow Elizabeth Warren's Twitter account?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #12
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,856
    It will be interesting to see what happens during the next women's soccer contract negotiations. From your link it sounds like the women aren't really happy with what was negotiated for them in 2017. Presumably they are in a pretty strong place right now to get their contract improved somewhat.

  3. #13
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by oldhat View Post
    Lots of people, including me in this very forum, had exactly that response--that is, that his sputtering anger showed the opposite of what most people would consider a judicial temperament. The only people describing his behavior in positive terms were Fox News commentators.
    While you and I were certainly making that comment here, major news organizations were not. Looking at NY Times and CNN articles that were written at the time the only thing I can find where either offers up an opinion of the man is the following from the Times article: "A few hours later, Judge Kavanaugh delivered a blistering, scorched-earth defense. " That's hardly "he's too emotional and may lack the temperament to be an impartial justice." or anything even vaguely close to it.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/polit...ing/index.html
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/u...-hearings.html

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    While you and I were certainly making that comment here, major news organizations were not. Looking at NY Times and CNN articles that were written at the time the only thing I can find where either offers up an opinion of the man is the following from the Times article: "A few hours later, Judge Kavanaugh delivered a blistering, scorched-earth defense. " That's hardly "he's too emotional and may lack the temperament to be an impartial justice." or anything even vaguely close to it.
    I think those are news reports. Plenty of commentators pointed out that he looked like he was going to pop a vein.

  5. #15
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by oldhat View Post
    I think those are news reports. Plenty of commentators pointed out that he looked like he was going to pop a vein.
    You're probably right. But it took a man seriously looking like he was going to pop a vein to get to that point that he was called out for it. If Ford, during the same hearing, had gotten even remotely emotional she would have been called out for it by a wide swath of the political commentariat. Men rarely get called out for being aggressive but women in the public eye get called shrill or emotional or pushy all the time.

  6. #16
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,994
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    You're probably right. But it took a man seriously looking like he was going to pop a vein to get to that point that he was called out for it. If Ford, during the same hearing, had gotten even remotely emotional she would have been called out for it by a wide swath of the political commentariat. Men rarely get called out for being aggressive but women in the public eye get called shrill or emotional or pushy all the time.
    I listened to Ford give testimony on the radio. I Was surprised to hear her valley girl affectation and I found it annoying. I donít know why women talk like that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •