The coach and the higher ups represent the fed, so that would be repressive. But somebody among the players should maybe explain to her that she was letting herself be used for somebody else's agenda-- not as in "don't do that" but as in "be aware."
I mean, a simple "I haven't heard anything"-- if true-- would be a sufficient answer and not commit anyone to anything nor imply that one is out of the loop. Even if the questioner claims that it does.
Maybe because if the Olympics tried to make the Women's and men's sides play under the same rules the interest for the women's matches would drop dramatically. Look at how tiny the women's Uxx matches attendance is in most countries compared to the men's in the same age group. Also I believe that FIFA not the Olympic committee actually runs soccer at the Olympics. One more thing: Personally I would like the men's side of Olympic soccer to become a competition of the full sides and not the artificial bastardized version we currently have. Or, just as good, make it a true U23 tournament. As is is now it simply is devoid of all real meaning. The "overage" players are there for one reason, to draw interest, and they actually make the matches have very very little meaning as they do not show relative strengths or qualities of the teams involved.
FIFA is the selected governing body for soccer at the Olympics, just like the IAAF is for track & field. But the IOC has the final say.
SC - since this is a "Family" Board, thank you for exhibiting class and tremendous restraint by not calling them d1p sh*ts. Everyone please take 4 big steps back from the ledge....buuuuuuuuut I searched for the 1/28 Match on my DISH programming schedule and didn't find swat - anywhere, even the non-sports channels ???????????? No TV programming listed on the USSoccer Match Day Guide either. ?????????????
I’d like to thank the Doctor’s, Nurse’s and support staff of Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas for their care and monitoring of my recovery after successfully emerging from my requested 50-day Medically Induced Coma. Since there no USWNT Matches, you don’t need to tell me I didn’t miss much.
I found this on the CONCACAF web site https://www.concacaf.com/en/olympic...oncacaf-women-s-olympic-qualifying-tournament The official draw and host cities announcement are scheduled to take place Thursday, November 7, 2019, from the Mediapro studios in Miami, FL. Fans can follow all the action beginning at 2:30 pm (ET) via Concacaf social media channels and broadcasters including OneSoccer (Canada), TUDN (Mexico) and Flowsports (Caribbean). This is all I have found. As of right now Canada, Mexico and The Caribbean have TV coverage for Olympic qualifying but the US does not. This could change but we are only eight days away from the first matches so I do not have great hopes. But I seem to remember some other tournament run by CONCACAF where the US TV rights were not settled until the day before the first match and another where the only streaming was through the CONCACAF web site. We may just have to be content with Match Tracker or some such piece of crap.
not exactly. FIFA decides who will be allowed to represent the UK ( the United Nations member entity) in the games. Their conflicts over the issue with the home countries Has resulted in Team Great Britain only entering about six times in history, never as professional senior or junior men under FIFA. in the latest iteration, FIFA a would only allow GB to enter the games if the four nations agreed on full representation and England qualified. no agreement was reached with the men, since there is no men’s qualifying process for Great Britain and men’s UEFA u20 results is the qualifier, and the four nations didn’t agree England would be the qualifying country. One was with the women, since WWC results is UEFA’s qualifying criteria. The issue became moot when neither England team made it through qualification. ( men based on 2019 u20 championship results, women based on WWC results)
Not sure how that contradicts what I said. FIFA sets the rules of the tournament, how teams qualify, what individuals are eligible, etc. The IOC tells them how many teams they can have, might limit the number of athletes/coaches per team, limits what countries are eligible for the Olympics (Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland aren't IOC members, so they had to compete as GB, regardless of how FIFA/UEFA figured out who qualified). In other sports, the IOC limits the number of medal events and might kick a sport out altogether (like they did with baseball/softball previously).
You can get also get a free VPN (Windscribe is a really good one) and watch one of the foreign streams using an IP outside the USA.
I know that is "possible" in fact I use a VPN (ExpressVPN) on my router but I use it to help make my browsing safer but I do not use it to steal feeds or services that I am not legally entitled to otherwise. I do not believe in stealing services by using a VPN or by any other illegal means. While I would really like to see the matches it is not worth compromising my beliefs to do so.
As a USWNT fan I would hate to lose the senior-level Olympic tournament, because it's the only interesting high-level competition the team has outside of the World Cup. Four years of friendlies, invitational "cups", and lopsided CONCACAF tournaments would make it hard to sustain my interest.
Is it stealing if the feed is not available in the USA (as you suggested) but is available free (or even with a paid subscription) outside the USA?
Yes. Geoblocking is often used to be sure that advertisers reach the correct audience and to assure that the people paying for it (someone pays even if the feed is free) reach the audience they want. It is also covered under civil law where the rights to stream/broadcast are limited to given areas of the world. So it is illegal even if the feed is free elsewhere. The "enforcement" is very hard and it is very unlikely that anyone using a VPN in this way would ever be prosecuted but just because you will not get caught does not make it legal. It is just not worth the drain on my morals to watch a game of any sort even if I would not be caught or in any other way punished.
Of course one "stowaway," or even a hundred does nothing to keep them from their chosen audience; but models change, while behavior once established mostly does not. So there's still a potential moral issue even if there isn't a current one.
Sooooooooo NBC is broadcasting the Summer Olympics in a few months. Next Tuesday night, the NBC Olympic Channel is showing an Alpine Skiing event and Women's Figure Skating................both programs are replays. I would offer to "live tweet" from the Match but - - I do not possess the technological dexterity to accomplish the task, and I do not know what "live tweet" means.
USWNT's Vlatko Andonovski faces Olympic dilemma that's humbled every coach before — including Jill Ellis https://sports.yahoo.com/uswn-ts-vl...ch-before-including-jill-ellis-201753915.html
CONCACAF's YouTube channel lists livestreams for the games. If CONCACAF doesn't reach a deal with a US broadcaster, I'd expect that those streams will not be geoblocked in the US (but I could be wrong). Of course, last time we didn't know until about the day before who got the US broadcast deal because CONCACAF does not seem to have its sh*t together when it comes to the women's game.
This is not at all surprising because there are only two countries in CONCACAF that even remotely treat women decently all the others seem to honor the "macho" male and really consider women as, usually, just a step above property. Even at least one of the two that are "better" have large segments of the male population that still degrade and trivialize women. The fact that the governing board of CONCACAF is unable to get things together for "minor" events like Olympic qualifying for women is not the least surprising. It just reflects what the male part of CONCACAF feels about women in general.
I'm really excited about next week's game. (Which I certainly hope we can all somehow SEE on television!) It's not that I'm expecting a great game. If the U.S. can't beat Haiti convincingly, that'll be a bit ominous for what's ahead in 2020. But that game, in my view, will be our first really important sign of how the new coach views his roster. Who will start and in which positions? Who will come off the bench and when? Who will sit throughout?
Nor sure it will tell that much; I was him I'd figure the folks I left off could win these next three games, and I'd be looking at candidates for the bubble and maybe testing variant tactics-- not really thinking in the box that will be the main approach.
While I do agree, mostly I also think that the second or third match will be a better clue as to what we have in the coaching position. Even more than that the "She Believes" cup will show even more. While the matches there will just be friendlies they exist at a point where we will be getting set for the actual Olympics where we will meat teams that can give us real problems. There is only one country (Canada) in CONCACAF that really has a chance against the US and they, right now, are way behind the US in all categories. If we meet a challenge in qualifying then we have real problems but a difficult match or two or three in the "She Believes" cup could be just what we need to find out what we are made of at this time.
FWIW: I just discovered that there is US coverage at this time. It is just not in English. Univision will be showing the matches I just do not, at this time, know if or which matches will be live or delayed or not shown at all. I sometimes watch matches on Univision because their commentators are better/more knowledgeable than the vast majority of US commentators. The only problem is that my Spanish is only OK and they get to talking so fast that I cannot keep up and my old brain scrambles.