The Keapernic of female soccer

American football is not popular in continental Europe. there was a farm league that played there for a few years. it folded. there appears to be some popularity in Britain for this sport.

Jackie, how many had racial chattel slavery for 250 years and Jim Crow for 100 years?

Give them equal pay.

Let the market decide. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The women's team now generates more revenue than the men's team and that looks to only be increasing. Will the market decide fairly or is someone or something putting a thumb on the scale?

Jackie, how many had racial chattel slavery for 250 years and Jim Crow for 100 years? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

How do you derive 350 years out of the 243 years the United States has been an independent country? Or is it that you just like agitating with misinformation for propaganda purposes?

Jackie, how many had racial chattel slavery for 250 years and Jim Crow for 100 years? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Lots of fucking countries had slavery - which is a stain upon all humanity.

Women's soccer should be paid less than college football players who bring in way more money and have millions more fans.

Even the fucking Aggies make over one hundred million a year in profit, and I would much rather watch Johnny Fucking Football ran the Sooners ragged than women's soccer.

Jackie, how many had racial chattel slavery for 250 years and Jim Crow for 100 years? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Well, the Brits seemed to support it for a fair while for starters,

"The development of the trade
Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished. It is estimated that Britain transported 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries.
Britain and the Slave Trade - The National Archives
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slavery/pdf/britain-and-the-trade.pdf"

Not to mention the Portuguese and the Dutch.

Well, the Brits seemed to support it for a fair while for starters,

"The development of the trade
Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished. It is estimated that Britain transported 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries.
Britain and the Slave Trade - The National Archives
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slavery/pdf/britain-and-the-trade.pdf"

Not to mention the Portuguese and the Dutch. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

The article you cited puts the first date as "1563" when "John Hawkins, considered to be the first English slave trader, sold slaves in St Domingo." The actual end of Britain's involvement with slavery did not occur until 1838: a mere twenty-five years before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Thus, Great Britain is implicated in all the wrongs associated with slavery for a period of 275 years as compared to the U.S.'s involvement for a period of 89 years.

That is if you discount the British slave owner known as John Burnside:

Houmas Plantation in Louisiana with more than 10,000-acre (4,000 ha) ... was sold to John Burnside, a native of Belfast, Ireland, in 1857. Burnside had increased the acreage to 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) within the span of a few years and built four sugar mills to process his crop. With approx 750 slaves on it and Burnside's many surrounding plantations, it was the center of the largest slave holding in Louisiana prior to the American Civil War.

During the war, plans were made to use the plantation house as a headquarters for Union general Benjamin Franklin Butler, who governed New Orleans for about seven months following the city's capture in May 1862. Burnside, still a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, reputedly prevented this by [hoisting a British flag and] suggesting that international complications would arise if his estate was seized by Federal authorities.

(Wiki)

Burnside's slaves wouldn't be freed until 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Right on all counts.
Brevity being my aim is my only defense.

That is if you discount the British slave owner known as John Burnside: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Burnside was a smart guy. he didn't lose his property to the U.S. Feds. lol! the abolition of slavery after 1865 prolly did him in.

Dunno if this was posted:

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/new...n-a-scrimmage/

The Female US World Champion Soccer Team (kinda) lost to some HS boys 5-2. Informal match but nevertheless....

https://defconnews.com/2019/07/15/am...-wnba-players/


Amy Klobuchar Demands To Know Why NBA Players Make More Than WNBA Players




You knew this was coming. After the US Women’s National Soccer Team won the world cup, lefties were all clamoring to demand equal pay for men and women athletes. Now a pair of democrats are demanding a hearing to find out, among other things, why the men of the NBA make more money than the women of the WNBA. This is kind of asking why Robert Downy Jr. earns more than the ShamWow guy.
Minnesota Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar joined forces with Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen to write the dumbest letter ever written. Addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, these two democrats did their very best to embarrass the shit our of themselves:

We write to respectfully request that you hold a hearing in the Commerce Committee on the significant issue of pay disparity between men and women athletes in the United States.
This week, the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) united the country and inspired generations with the clinching of its fourth Women’s World Cup Championship title—making them the most successful team in international women’s soccer.

Actually the angry lesbian America-hating women of the USWNT did their best to divide this country, but whatever.

Despite the women team’s extraordinary success, reports have highlighted the fact that USWNT players have made only 38 percent of what players on the USMNT earned in previous years, and recent reports have made clear that disparities still persist.

So far this isn’t too bad, but here’s where it goes completely off the cliff like Thelma & Louise:

The gender pay gap is not limited to soccer—it spans many sports in the United States…Last year in the Women’s National Basketball Association, the maximum veteran player salary was $115,500, while the men in the National Basketball Association earned a minimum salary of $582,180.

Is this something that really needs to be explained to these two democratic lawmakers? I guess so.
The NBA is a $7.4 billion a year industry with a lucrative TV contract, corporate sponsors, and generates brisk revenue from attendance and merchandizing. The WNBW generates no money and has to be subsidized or the league would fold. They have no TV contract, nobody goes to see them play live, and sell around 5 jerseys a year to gay weirdoes.
Is it really that hard to understand why Steph Curry makes $40 million a season and some chick who nobody ever heard of doesn’t? I think it’s astounding that WNBA players make 6-figure salaries given that there is zero interest in the sport.
In drafting this ridiculous letter, Klobuchar and Rosen are demanding equal pay for men and women professional basketball players. That’s completely outside the powers and jurisdiction of the United States Congress but hardly the biggest problem with this. If democrats were able to force equal pay for men and women professional athletes, it doesn’t mean the woman are going to start making $40 million a season, it means everyone would earn $100,000 a year. That’s another way of saying it would destroy all men’s professional sports.Klobuchar also raged about the fact that men tennis players and golfers earn more than the ladies:

Despite four Grand Slam tennis tournaments in which men and women players are compensated equally, women tennis players are only earning 80 cents on each dollar that men earn in other matches. Although the Ladies Professional Golf Association this year will distribute a record of roughly $70 million in prize money, this is only close to one-fifth what the men will receive from the Professional Golf Association Tour.

Just stop it you silly democrats.
Here’s what’s going on here: Liberals love throwing out the debunked stat the women only earn 70% of what men do. The problem with that is the are comparing what all men make collectively to what all women earn collectively and men have more professional high-paying jobs while many women have minimum wage jobs. They aren’t comparing the salaries of men and women who have the same jobs, education, and experience.
What Klobuchar and Rosen think they’ve stumbled on to with professional sports is men and women who have the same exact jobs but aren’t paid the same. The problem is, sports is entertainment and entertainers are paid based on what they bring in. Superstars make more than schlubs. It’s that simple.
I do look forward to democrats attempting to regulate the sports and entertainment industries however. Entertainers have been firmly in the democrats’ corner, but that will change the instant the lawmakers start telling actors and athletes how much they are allowed to make.


Back to the topic of equal pay. Another example of Stupid DPST idiots knowing nothing of the economics of sports.

Perhaps they should now include equal pay for All Enertainers in all fields. See how Hollywood likes that.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Arya .. gonna buy one of these?

Arya .. gonna be nice?







BAHHAHHAAAA


the world awaits your next post, comrade.

Could you be any more wrong about the name of soccer? It seems not.

""Rugby football" became "rugger" for short. "Association football" became "soccer."


After these two sports spread across the Atlantic, Americans invented their own variant of the game that they simply called "football" in the early 1900s.

"Association football" became "soccer" in America, and what was called "gridiron" in Britain became simply "football" in America.

The interesting thing here is that Brits still used "soccer" regularly for a huge chunk of the 20th century. Between 1960 and 1980, "soccer" and "football" were "almost interchangeable" in Britain, Szymanski found." https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...-soccer-2014-6

Google is your friend (hard to say, used to be) Originally Posted by Ducbutter

My whole is, when you leave America the greatest most popular sport is called Football not Soccer, we were never debating the origin of the word or where it came from now were we?? All you're doing is trying to shift argument, that doesn't work on me, BOY.

Everyone who has done any research on the matter knows that Britain would have been starved into submission without American food stuff.

"Food Stuff"?? LMAO!! do your research, America entered the First WW less than two years before the war was after, AFTER England and Germany beat the shit out of each other.



Establishing that you are disingenuous liar unhinged from truth and facts isn't deflection, it's a necessary good.

You never established anything, just made shit up is all you did and can do




The point was proved to your dismay, and your denials will never change that obvious reality.



Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The point is the only thing you have accomplished in this thread is show your chauvinism, nothing more.

The point is the only thing you have accomplished in this thread is show your chauvinism, nothing more. Originally Posted by Little Monster

How can there be chauvinism when the left espouses gender fluidity...