And I'll remind you that mine isn't. I'll tune out if the pregame protocol goes on too long, if the version of the national anthem irks me - I hate vibrato, detest smug comical irony from fans - if the raising of a political tifo is shown, if too many players have too many tatoos... I do not limit my harshness to the women.
The national anthem being played regularly at sporting events is rooted in war propaganda, stemming back to Woodrow Wilson's Committee on Public Info, paid for by int'l bankers according to then NY Mayor John Hylan. The gov't still pays leagues hundreds of millions per year to play patriotic songs and stage military salutes. The Pledge of Allegiance would be another example of a political tradition seeping into other areas of our lives where it seemingly doesn't belong. It was intertwined with God in the 50's, as if to ingrain to children that everything the establishment of the U.S. gov't does is righteous by virtual definition. The Rockefellers stated in the Trilateral Commission that they aren't indoctrinating children well enough. They started the General Education Board in the early 1900's where they basically said they wanted to train the masses to be subservient. These are the types of things that only happen in dictatorships otherwise, only the tribute is more to an individual than the office or gov't as a whole. It's forced patriotism to hold the gov't in high esteem, accept their decisions more readily, and maintain the status quo, or progress in their preferred direction. My educated guess would be that's the reason for this tradition as well. It would be another example of a policy the U.S. conducts but next to nobody else they claim to respect does. This is one reason I'm for intertwining politics with sport. It's already entrenched in one direction. Thus it warrants be combated. Also, sports are comparatively meaningless, a distraction, so if you have that platform and there's an issue that's an important to you, by all means use the platform to air it. Just be right. A significant portion of people are going to lambaste you either way. It comes with the territory of standing for something. Normally it's not going to preclude the vast majority from watching still because it'll be individuals in a team sport. In this case it's the whole team. What they're standing up for is petty, self-serving, they've made bad faith arguments, and they've went out of their way to be inflammatory to people and institutions we care about here. So they should expect warranted blowback, especially from this crwod. The sacrifice they've made here is their rep for more money. Now if they wanted to make selfless stand it would be to use their platform to protest the Iran War like Vietnam was readily back in the 60's. But there's very little anti-war movement anymore. However there are no shortage of women's marches, often with a vague purpose. Go look at where these movement's funding comes from, and you may then understand why these are the angles that dominate our public consciousness instead.
Oh, hell yes. I love soccer, I love the format of the WC, so yeah, I'll be watching these games. I usually average watching about 50 games for both the men's and women's world cups, but it's going to be harder this time around with my new work schedule and the minimal time zone difference from France. Look, the women are playing as hard as they can, for a game they love. And they are not doing it to get rich or build a brand or to sell shoes. They're playing for the love of the game, and since they're not getting rich playing soccer, perhaps their motives are purer. And in regards to those who complain about "boring" matches, shit. You must have missed the dozens of boring Premiership games or previous WC matches over the past years. Anyone remember Spain v Iran last year? The women ain't going to pull that shite.
This is true. I rarely watch Premiere League matches. Mostly Just Top 5 teams or teams that have USA or Colombian players. And even that is just a handful a year.
After the first half of the Champions League final I would've gladly changed to a women's World Cup game had one been on at the same time.
If you say so, but to quote a guy on his knees in the woods... "look into your heart.... look intooo your heeeeeaaaarrrrrtttttt..."
LOL. Aside from being wrong on the face of it, billion-dollar leagues like the NFL, and all manner of college athletics, play on turf. Because only morons would think that chewed up Soldier Field, a dirt-laden Coliseum, waterlogged Caribbean cricket fields, or seam-filled overlaid sod, would be better alternatives to modern grass-like turf fields. Today's turfs are a far cry from the green carpets of 40 years ago.
Even there it's changing. I grew up in a county in Nebraska of around 10,000 people, nearly all native-born non-Hispanic whites. There were no fields, no teams, the school didn't even own a soccer ball for the P.E. classes. Now? The demographics have barely changed, but there's a field for "pee wee" soccer, and the High school has both Boys & Girls teams. They're even building a proper soccer field just for them. Times are changing.
I'll watch when I can. I'm curious how the women's game is developing internationally. I like the way France play, or at least have played in recent years. Ali Krieger is from my community, so I've got a passing interest there.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that one MLS field has turf has nothing to do with the fact that FIFA mandates grass for World Cup events for men and FIFA allows turf for World Cup events for women. As far back as 1994 in the US they required grass over normally turf fields for the men's World Cup. Now, if MLS starts a women's league on turf, and all the men play on grass...
1) Didn't the USWNT sign a CBA - in which they guaranteed salaries for their WNT/NWSL players, regardless if they are called to camp or not? Thats the issue I have with this....I'm not a fan of when players sign contracts and then go and cry saying "ITS NOT FAIR ITS NOT FAIR"...No one has a gun to their head saying "hey you have to play for your NT"...hell look at Mexico this summer. 2) If the women produce more, and more eyes are on the womens team, I have literally not one issue paying them more. Lets not forget... the womens vs mens team are way different, one has a 2 week WCQ tournament where 7k show up to see the women qualify, and the other has a 2 year hell journey through North and Central America. The women play in a lot of friendly-type tournaments that are legit just made up and they play a lot of friendlies. 3) So we're not paying Puli or MB now??? They get paid by USSF because they deserve it. Honestly.... Charter the flights, book them in the same hotels, give them the same per-diem as the men. Hell, put them on the same revenue sharing program as the men, so take away the guaranteed salaries per year and remove the funding from USSF to the NWSL and let a private investor run that league. I am 100% all on board for a system where the players receive 15% of what they produce or something like that. 20%. I don't even care. If the women produce more revenue than the men I couldn't care less if they got paid more. I couldn't care less.
However, to an extent: Barn door, open. Horse, gone. And of course it is not a simple math equation, but I was at the 99 WC. There were some people there. Some spent money. I don't know what the women's contribution to the growth of the sport, the growth of participation, the sales of shin guards and color-matching sliding shorts and pink goalie gloves has been/will be... but it's not nothing and it's not the moon. It's someplace in between.
My wife now refers to my MLS watching as nap-time because I’m usually snoozing by the 20th minute. Meaningful games with a measure of excitement are hard to come by so what more of a reason would one need to watch?
This, I wouldn't have watched anyway, but the SJW posturing and lawsuit has turned me off further. I won't actively root against any team representing the US, but this WWC is probably about as close as I can get. Would be worse if Julie Ertz wasn't on the team.
Agree 100%. If you're representing an NFL or NBA or NWSL team, do whatever you like. However, if you accept a spot onany national team representing the entire country--especially in the case of the USWNT, who unlike male players in any major sport including soccer make the vast majority of their income from the national team--you are obligated to stand for the anthem and go visit the White House if invited. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then give up your spot on the team (and the money that comes with it).
Yup. It's the UNITED STATES Women's National Team right. So a couple of the team SJWs have decided they won't visit the UNITED STATES White House because they don't like the results of the election. Fine. Just sours it for me as they represent America, not just the people they like. Sadly, a sign of the times. Not to mention the French or Brits may have something to say about Ms. Morgan's announcement that she won't be going to the White House after the WC.
Maybe 2026 when we host. If Korea can make it to the Semis and Russia can make it to the Quarters I have hope the USA can make a good run. Especially with the influx of young talent we seem to have.
Changing gears a bit This is not the Women's fault per se (more a FOX sports television marketing the team stupidity) but advertising the team as Goliath is a really dumb way to market the squad. We all know what happened to Goliath as the U20 thread against France goes into details for some strange reason. Point is it can be another reason people don't root for this team.
Exactly. But they won't give up their 7-8 figure incomes that they get from playing on the USWNT and associated endorsements, after signing a CBA that effectively locks up and coming players out of the team in favor of the core 25 or so players then immediately turning around and whining about equal pay despite the fact that their pay structure is completely different from that of the men.