Ladyball

[perrykneeham]

Aug 16, 2023 16:13:04 GMT Repat Van said:

Aug 16, 2023 11:57:16 GMT perrykneeham said:

The BBC femagandists couldn't help themselves though, could they?

".... and England, for the first time since 1967, in a World Cup Final."

They should probably have made clear they’re talking about Football, but apart from that, it’s accurate.

Nah, had the women been playing in football World Cups since 1967, that might be correct. As it is, it's constructive bullshit. The whole tournament has been marked by an undertow suggesting that the women should be paid like male Premiership stars, as of right.

[perrykneeham]

I'm all for professional sportsperson being paid their worth, on merit.

It's worth considering letting the women play in the open leagues or indeed entering an open World Cup. In the former, they would find their commercial value and in the latter, we would get a good impression of their merit as footballers. There were some silky skills on display today and it would be fascinating to see how they got on against the men. Of course, the womens' event should continue in isolation,.although maybe you could break that result out of an open event.

[mids]

I see the England men and chicks get paid the same in match fees and bonuses.

[flatandy]

Good. The ladyballers get paid a lot less as professionals from their domestic teams, which is where they make most money and where their value is different.

For international football, the FA should probably pay the same to both.

[mids]

Yeah, it's probably right that the men subsidise the chicks. Gentlemanly although not very feminist I suppose.

[perrykneeham]

It seems reasonable that the little women get the same compensation for internationals as tournaments are a bit of a farce commercially.

I was amused by the Ladyball PR claiming that they all hold down full time jobs, such as "doctors, nurses and teachers". That was a bit of a reach.

[mids]

Lady footballers and the Calais Boat People- holding the public sector fort.

[voice]

Well they are more successful than the men, so should get winning bonuses

[perrykneeham]

If that's a thing, and they win, then yes. Absolutely.

[Repat Van]

Aug 16, 2023 16:40:02 GMT rick49 said:

the aussies were favored to win, weren't they? i wanted to watch it and missed it. :(

I don’t think they were?

[Repat Van]

Aug 16, 2023 17:14:33 GMT perrykneeham said:

Aug 16, 2023 16:13:04 GMT Repat Van said:

They should probably have made clear they’re talking about Football, but apart from that, it’s accurate.

Nah, had the women been playing in football World Cups since 1967, that might be correct. As it is, it's constructive bullshit. The whole tournament has been marked by an undertow suggesting that the women should be paid like male Premiership stars, as of right.

Eh?

That makes no sense. It’s the first time England has been in a [football] World Cup final since the 60s.

No part of that statement is inaccurate.

[perrykneeham]

Oh dear. Do you need a bit more time?

[Repat Van]

Aug 16, 2023 17:37:07 GMT mids said:

I see the England men and chicks get paid the same in match fees and bonuses.

Makes sense considering how successful the women consistently are.

Technically if bonuses are linked to individual performance they should get even more.

[perrykneeham]

How would you measure that, technically?

[voice]

finals won I suppose, the med, one win in 66 for the blokes, the women the Euros last year, and didn't they win the Olympics once (not certain about that iih)

[perrykneeham]

That's not individual performance though, is it?

[flatandy]

Yeah. Individual performance bonuses make no sense in football. It's always seemed weird to me in a team sport where you often benefit from passing to team mates, where you getting substituted (or not even playing) is a tactical choice and no reflection on your performance, to have individual bonuses, particularly for - say - scoring goals. That would make you take potshots from wild distances rather than help your team mate score.

[perrykneeham]

Agreed, but I expect it goes on to some degree, greed having no boundaries in professional sport.

[voice]

has to team based, no other way. And also includes subs and players on the squad who may not have even played as they still were part of the success of the team

[mids]

What's wrong with bonuses for individual performances? Not everyone gets paid the same in club football. Football teams are very much not socialist organisations. I get that it might be different in internationals and that they get the same fee (although is it the case across the board?) but that's kind of an unusual case given that most professionals don't play at international level.