So Tim Stillman says that the US women's soccer team deserve wage parity with their

male counterparts because they win more than the men (:hehe:) and now bring in more revenue too.

After about 5 minutes of looking into that highly dubious claim, I point out that the revenue figures he cites don't *actually* include sponsorship or TV revenue, which if they did would still put the men's game way ahead.

His response? He unfollows me on Twitter :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

male counterparts because they win more than the men (:hehe:) and now bring in more revenue too.

After about 5 minutes of looking into that highly dubious claim, I point out that the revenue figures he cites don't *actually* include sponsorship or TV revenue, which if they did would still put the men's game way ahead. And he responds by unfollowing me on Twitter :rolleyes:

---

I blocked and reported him on twitter when he kept banging on about chick's football, on the grounds that he must be a sexual deviant to get excited about birds playing football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

I blocked and reported him on twitter when he kept banging on about chick's football, on the grounds that he must be a sexual deviant to get excited about birds playing football.

---

You could argue that positioning yourself as an authority on the women's game is a helluva a shrewd move financially speaking, given that affirmative action is likely to give birds' football a huge boost over the coming years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

You could argue that positioning yourself as an authority on the women's game is a helluva a shrewd move financially speaking, given that affirmative action is likely to give birds' football a huge boost over the coming years.

---

Well yes, but how fúcking depressing must it be, watching that shít and pretending it matters?

Christ, even for a soulless, money-motivated Jesus-killer like yourself, the thought of living such a lie must be difficlut to imagine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Well yes, but how fúcking depressing must it be, watching that shít and pretending it matters?

Christ, even for a soulless, money-motivated Jesus-killer like yourself, the thought of living such a lie must be difficlut to imagine?

---

I don't disagree :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

You could argue that positioning yourself as an authority on the women's game is a helluva a shrewd move financially speaking, given that affirmative action is likely to give birds' football a huge boost over the coming years.

---

Nah. He'll just get replaced by some dykey bird nobody's ever heard of who used to play for the Doncaster Belles or something. :shrug:

During the world cup, I got in trouble with the wife for pointing out that having some broad on the panel talking about top-flight men's football was the equivalent of getting me in to do punditry on test matches. She could have no insight into what these games were like, since the football she plays is utter dogshìt by comparison. It was tokenism of the worst sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Nah. He'll just get replaced by some dykey bird nobody's ever heard of who used to play for the Doncaster Belles or something. :shrug:

During the world cup, I got in trouble with the wife for pointing out that having some broad on the panel talking about top-flight men's football was the equivalent of getting me in to do punditry on test matches. She could have no insight into what these games were like, since the football she plays is utter dogshìt by comparison. It was tokenism of the worst sort.

---

That doesn't work I'm afraid, otherwise it would be impossible to become a manage unless you have played the game, so whu does a pundit have to have played the game to a certain level? You have a number of ex internationals at all sports who seem to know diddly squat about what they are talking about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pokster

You gate a numbhe rof ex internationals at all sports who seem to know diddly squat about what they are talking about

---

:jamiecarragher:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

male counterparts because they win more than the men (:hehe:) and now bring in more revenue too.

After about 5 minutes of looking into that highly dubious claim, I point out that the revenue figures he cites don't *actually* include sponsorship or TV revenue, which if they did would still put the men's game way ahead.

His response? He unfollows me on Twitter :rolleyes:

---

Well, I think the argument is that US men's football fvcking sucks, whereas the US women's team is the world's best. And I can see this: the chicks are hot amazons (albeit not as hot as, say, the Swedes. Not by a long shot), whereas the US men are oafish, incompetent jerks. Why should the latter be paid anything just for being turds.

Excellent work Monty.

To be honest I’m surprised twitter didn’t ban you like they’ve done so many who simple point out the truth. Seems to be the way the platform has been going.

Anyways...my particular gripe with this is that’s it’s Economics 101. It’s pretty much the very 1st fundamental idea that any GSCE student would learn. No doubt Jorge is trying to justify why they should all be on Ozil money.


Fact is women’s football simply doesn’t have anywhere near the same numbers as men’s football let alone other male sports.

My feeling is this is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy from them (released on International Women’s Day) to get more focus and attention on them by playing the inequality card which they know full well people will lap up all day long.

They’ve got no chance and they know it.