The Soccer Thread (Version 9)

Or women's hockey. There's the U.S. and Canada, the everyone else.

 

They better win. They probably will. But they're going to look like first class morons carrying on like that after meaningless goals if they choke later on.

 

It's kind of entertaining seeing all the social-media takes on the U.S. blowout today. I missed the game, but just seeing a 90-second highlight clip, with all of the goals shown, I could tell Thailand is a really bad team.

I don't blame the Americans for scoring all the goals, with the way the goal differential rule is set forth (how do they know the other teams in the pool aren't going to run it up on the Thais?), but whooping it up after the last eight-or-so goals really wasn't a good look. They looked like Cosmo Kramer after he beat up the 12-year-olds in karate class.

The one I just loved was the whole "would you be criticizing the men's team if they did this?" narrative. Um, we have MLB hitters getting yelled at by opponents because they took two extra seconds to watch their home run clear the fence; we have all sorts of hand-wringing over NFL players' touchdown celebrations. Yes, the male soccer players would be catching shit from people if they acted like that.

 

Agree that it is not an issue of gender — male players would face the same hot take criticism.

Nor should it be some sort of proof in the USWNT’s lawsuit, which I am seeing on Twitter a lot.

 

In Brussels yesterday during Scotland-Belgium. Y’all, the Tartan Army might be the drunkest and nicest group of fans on the planet. Though I might be biased.

Also, too, much tsk-tsking of the USWNT over here.

 

I was most maddened by "the USWNT have scored more goals in this game than the USMNT have in the last two World Cups..." Yeah, because they're playing eleven random women from fucking Thailand.

 

That should definitely be the temporary solution. Had these two played a friendly before? Some other match? Because that is an obscene score for a World Cup game. I mean, whaddya do, though? Put in backups and play keep away? I guess you could (and that other countries would). But at the end of the day, this is an elite competition. Either be on the level or don't be in it. The competition committee needs to save these subpar countries from themselves. But that wouldn't be the financially savvy move, now would it? Fewer countries means fewer eyeballs on the matches, and we all know what that means.

 

To repeat myself, the only way these countries can even start to improve is to play the best and get the snot knocked out of them.

 

And right on cue, Sally Jenkins chimes in with the $10 words version of a hot take.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...70f78c156e8_story.html?utm_term=.3fe23cf12663

 

They looked stupid celebrating their goals in the 70th minute. 80th minute. Stoppage time.
This is the LAST of Morgan's five goals. In the 87th minute, and it made the score 12-0.

 

Jenkins is entitled to every bit of her opinion. Pay the USWNT what the men make as a sheer statement of what America thinks of women's equal labor. Go for it.

I think she weakens her argument - considerably - when she writes:

"You think American networks and corporations are paying large rights fees and sponsorship deals for a USA men’s team that couldn’t even qualify for the World Cup field and hasn’t won an Olympic medal since 1904? You think Fox and ESPN got into a bidding war for the English language rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups all for a men’s squad that gets whipped by Venezuela?

No. The women’s program is the entire backbone and inspiriting force of soccer in the United States — and has been since 1996. “A crown jewel,” is what one Fox executive called its telecast of this women’s tournament."

You think Nike committed $120 million to USA soccer back in 1997 because of a men’s team that finished 10th in the Atlanta Olympics with a 1-1-1 record? Or do you think the company’s interest had something to do, just maybe, with Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy and Michelle Akers commanding an audience of 90,000 at the Rose Bowl and 40 million on TV?

For one thing, the 90,000 at the Rose Bowl happened in 1999. So the 1997 investment had nothing to do with something that hadn't happened yet.

For another, Fox and ESPN got in a bidding war for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup after the 2010 men's World Cup. Fox secured the 2026 rights after the 2014 men's World Cup - before its contract (which started with the 2015 women's world cup) had even begun - because it rightly believed the USA would host the men's World Cup in 2026. (which it is.)

The argument for paying women equally succeeds on its merits alone. Why insert arguments that I'm sure Nike and Fox would like everyone to believe, but actions show were far more tied to men's soccer than women's soccer.

Just pay them equal on the merit of their play and commitment.

 

USA beat Thailand 9-0 in a friendly leading up to the last Olympics, IIRC