The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Given that they already got to get half of the money the men earned from their World Cup, could it be that they threw the match to avoid having to give half of what they earned to the men?

I was absolutely right when I said the new deal involves taking the money the men earn and giving it the women.  Spider and Hoodie both said I was wrong, but I was right.

I don't why anybody in their right mind would sign up for such a deal, but woke pressure can be huge.  

Can you imagine earning almost 6 million dollars for literally doing absolutely nothing?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-women-soccer-team-earns-202726199.html

Here's the link that literally proves everything that I was saying correct.

Prize money is money the teams earned.

They have to split it between the two teams now.

The men earn far more in prize money.

Therefore, the money the men earn goes to the women.

No

No, the rest of the world is just catching up to us in terms of women's soccer. We were elite for a long time because few other countries gave a shit. Now, they do and it's harder.

Here's the link that proves that some people just want everything to be a conspiracy:

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=28060.msg392357

No, this team was stuck in a transition period and had a horrible coach. I don't think they put together the best possible roster. Morgan should have probably been on the squad but I don't think has been in great form and Rapinoe should have never been on the squad (purely based on form and not a political opinion).

Also, teams lose.  You can't win the World Cup every single time.

And not only that .. they lost in PKs after a 0-0 draw .. PKs are a roll of the dice.

They lost because they aren't as focused as they used to be. They used to have one agenda as a team but now I don't think soccer is first and foremost for some of them and I'm not just speaking about politics.  Just speak with some former players and ask them. Off the record they have been furious with some of these women even before this WC started. I'd like to think this is a wake up call but it is a new generation so who knows.

I don't follow, so my opinion is useless, but we saw this with Men's Basketball.

They won by default, then the world caught up and created teams that played together regularly.  So, when you threw the all-star team together, they didn't add up to more than the sum of their parts and took too long to gel, so they got bounced.

Then they did the "redeem team" stuff and made these guys commit to playing together for a longer term.  I imagine that could be part of it.

The USWNT is still currently the #1 ranked women's national team in the world.
The lowest they have ever been ranked is #2.  The last time that happened was over six years ago.

Failing to win a third-straight World Cup does not necessarily mean the team has collapsed due to a "lack of focus."

Let's not play the they are still number one card. That's only because this isn't like college football with weekly updates. Rest assured you will not see our ladies ranked 1 or  2 when FIFA updates.

Again, they have never been ranked lower than 2nd in their history.  What rank do you think they will fall to?

That's really ignoring the obvious and only focusing on the positive just like many soccer moms. It was far from just failing to win. They didn't play very well in 4 games and got knocked out earlier than at any time in history. This team completely underachieved from game one and continued to spiral. If the Chiefs only win 1 game in their division against the weakest team I think most people would feel the same way.

"Getting knocked out in the round of 16" is not remotely similar to "winning 1 game in a season."
A better comparison for a 1-win season would be something like, say, failing to make the World Cup at all... which is what happened to the USMNT in 2018.  Strangely enough, I don't remember any posts about "spiraling due to a lack of focus" at the time, nor do I remember Democrats blaming Trump and his xenophobia for why the USMNT missed the World Cup for the first time in over 30 years.

Ah, but I'm sure that it's a coincidence that this thread appears as Trump is bashing the USWNT and insisting that Joe Biden's wokeness is what caused them to lose.

The round of 16, you say?
Interesting, as that's the same round the USWNT made it to.

Nowhere in your link does it state, or even imply, that the USMNT "made more money" by losing in the round of 16 than the USWNT did by achieving the same thing.

But if we are to discuss which team is unfairly profiting off of the other, in 2015 and 2019 the USWNT won the World Cup, while the USMNT didn't even make the World Cup in 2018.  This is a major reason why US Soccer agreed to start splitting the money 50/50 between both teams.

Correct.  So even though the USWNT has been far more successful and should honestly be entitled to more than half the money, they are only getting half.

I think your position on this subject can be summed up neatly by the following sentence:

The USWNT lost in the round of 16 in the 2023 World Cup, finishing in 9th place.  You categorize the pay they receive for this result as "6 million dollars for literally doing absolutely nothing."

The USMNT also lost in the round of 16 in the 2022 World Cup, finishing in 14th place.  You categorize the pay they receive for this result as "money the USMNT national team EARNED."

The reasons for the USWNT failure are many but 1st and foremost in my opinion is injuries.

Mallory Swanson was the best US player for the 1st couple months of 2023. She had scored 7 goals in 5 games I think it was before she got injured. The minute she went out, I knew they were in trouble. Sophie Smith is a good goal scorer, but she had a bad tournament and I think part of the reason is that the other teams keyed on her and made sure she didn't hurt them. Trinity Rodman and a few others tried to take Swanson's spot but they aren't even close to what Swanson is. Had Swanson been on the other side I think they would have been able to score more goals and all they really needed was a couple here or there and everything would have been fine. The 2019 team that won the world cup was one of the most loaded women's teams they have ever had and they had a lot of close games so close games aren't the issue. Not scoring at all is.

Next is Catarina Macario. She's also be nursing an injury and there was speculation that she would be recovered in time for the World Cup but that didn't happen. I'm 99% sure that if she's available, Morgan isn't starting. Morgan was a non factor the entire tournament and honestly I don't think she should have been playing. Instead she started and played damned near every minute of every game. She was a great player at one time, but not anymore. Netherlands were so convinced that the US starting forwards were not a problem they started 3 defenders in the back. This would have been suicide against a typical USWNT team, but it worked flawlessly in the first half as having an extra mid fielder allowed them to run right through the USWNT midfield. They sort of ran out of steam at half time but the US never really recovered from the 1st half. Again if Swanson and Macario are in the game there's no way that Netherlands is this daring. Not on your life. If they would have been Swanson would have had 3 goals by halftime, I'm certain of it.

Then there's the fact that Rose Lavelle was coming off of injury and she didn't look good either. She didn't have the same explosiveness that she normally does. Now maybe that wasn't because of the injury, maybe she just was a little off or perhaps her conditioning wasn't where it needed to be or maybe she had to do a lot more defending and spent less time in the offensive end of the field where she really excels but regardless she didn't have a good tournament in my opinion.

Finally we come to Becky Sauerbrunn who also was injured just before the World Cup. Personally I'm not a huge fan of hers. She's terrific tactically but she's a liability physically in my opinion. If she's not in a good position she can be easily beat. Even if she is in position she doesn't have the speed to keep up with most forwards. Now she's in position most of the time so it's not a huge issue and Julie Ertz did a terrific job in her place, but if Sauerbrunn is healthy, maybe Ertz is moved up to the 6 spot where she could impact the offense more? What I was really baffled about though is that I like Alana Cook and have no idea why she never played a minute. Something must have happened. I'm not sure what, maybe we'll find out. Maybe she got hurt or maybe the coach just lost confidence in her but why even take her to the cup if she's not going to play a minute? Something doesn't feel right about that.

Add all of this up and you had a REALLY shaky team going into the world cup. I was actually shocked they still had the USWNT ranked #1 before the cup started. They didn't deserve it. Not this roster.  If they had all these players, sure they'd deserve that #1 ranking, but not with some of their best players either not at the world cup or not fully healthy.

Then there's the coaching, but I'm not gonna get into that That's a whole discussion all to itself. Lets just say that he didn't do the team any favors and didn't put them in positions to succeed. Everyone could see that. This isn't speculation, it's fact.

Then there's the fact that other teams have gotten better. This is by far the best roster that some of these teams have fielded in a world cup. We didn't just see the US team falter, you saw Brazil, Germany and Canada all fail to make it out of the group stage. If the US just played bad then how do you explain these other high ranked teams also ended up going home early? No, the other teams have caught up and it's going to be much more like the mens world cup from here on out where a lot of different teams have the ability to win it all and you're going to see plenty of upsets. I wouldn't expect the USWNT to ever again show the type of dominance they have in the past. The other teams have just gotten too good for that.

No lower than 4 or 5 but talking about past ranking means nothing about the current squad.

Seems like a relevant detail!

I'm wondering how you determined how much of the "6 million dollars for literally doing absolutely nothing" is a result of the men's 14th place finish when you have no idea (or, apparently, even any interest in determining) how much of it is from the women's 9th place finish.

What it means is that a team with such a sustained history of excellence has earned, I think, some leeway before being absolutely crucified the first time they stumble... especially in comparison to the sad history of the USMNT.

So, it's unfair to give to a roster I find lacking and a coach many have questioned? Nothing I have said falls under crucifixion

I'm not necessarily evaluating your individual comments, but the USWNT has been getting absolutely murdered in the media.  You could argue that a large chunk of that are partisans trying to settle political scores with the players, which is a fair take... but I'm just pointing out that USWNT has been one of the single best teams to wear the Stars & Stripes over the last decade.  It's reasonable for people to criticize them for an upset loss without turning it into all this talk about a humiliating display that exposes the rot at the core of the organization.

I never said one win in a season. I said one win in the division. Never mind. You completely disregard anyone's use of symbolism for any semantics you can find. Then you go and bring in Trump right on cue. Does the guy ever not reside in your head? No one should have that kind of control over you. Move on.

The men's and women's are two separate issue. The men actually suck as far as the world stage goes. Messi is proving that right now. Our men will never be in the top because our kids can't live soccer like academy kids. They have parents who fork out a ton of money so that winning at a young age is much more important than actually learning to play the game correctly.

If the Chiefs win one game in the division, but still win the division and the top seed... no one will care?  I thought you meant a one-win team that wins its only game against the weakest division foe because the analogy doesn't make sense otherwise; no one gives a damn about "division record" except as a subset of your actual finish.

You are dead wrong.

The money goes to the federation (US Soccer). They can dole out money to players however they see fit. In practice, US Soccer has collective bargaining agreements with both USNSTPA and USWNTPA to determine how the players should be compensated (paid) for the work they do.

US Soccer gets money from all sorts of things, including sponsorships, prize money, tournament participation fees etc. Some of that money is paid to administrative staff, some of that money is paid to players.

It's quite common for businesses to give bonuses to all employees if the company does well overall, without regard for how much each individual employee or department contributed.

Sure, you could make the argument that the "Men's department" of US Soccer brings in more money, but that's not the same as the *players* having *earned* that money. If my department earns my company a billion dollars, that doesn't mean *I* earned a billion dollars or that the employees of my department earned a billion dollars. No, the company got that money and the employees are paid according to their individual contracts or collective bargaining agreements.

Instead, your argument should be that since the "Men's department" brings in more money, they should *earn* more money. However, that's not how their salary is structured. And, frankly, it isn't how my company structures pay, either - or pretty much ANY company. Disney has been losing billions (well, only half a billion last year) on Disney+, but that doesn't mean employees of that division are going to be paid a lot less than employees of other divisions doing substantially the same work.

They might not fall out of 1st place and if they do it probably won't be too far. With the rankings going into the world cup the US was ahead pretty comfortably over #2 ranked Germany which did even worse than the US in the World Cup. #3 ranked Sweden got past the US on PK's, won 1 more game and then were knocked out by Spain. They may/may not jump the US. Hard to call. #4 ranked England is in the final and have a good chance to win it. If they do, I expect them to jump the US, but if they don't who knows. #5 ranked France didn't help themselves much and #6 Spain has a chance I guess to jump the US too but they were pretty far behind going into the Cup so I doubt even if they win it they'll jump the US. My guess is that the US will drop to #2 or #3 overall with England, Sweden and Spain being the best shots to overtake the US, but that's probably as far as they fall.

Coach got fired today but I guess everyone saw that coming. They hope to have a permanent replacement named by the end of the year in order to begin preparations for next summer’s Paris Olympics. Hopefully the next coach will have more authority of the team.

US drops to 3rd behind 1st place Sweden and 2nd place Spain in FIFA world rankings. Only a 1/2 point behind Spain so very nearly maintained 2nd place. If they don't lose to Sweden on PK's after 3 players miss they would have retained the number 1 spot even without winning another match. I'm actually kinda shocked that England lost points, but they did lose to Spain in the final and it's not just about where you place in the tournament it's about who you beat and who you lose to. US lost to Sweden so they drop behind them. England lost to Spain so they drop behind them. Sweden lost to Spain, but they beat the US so I guess that makes sense.

If England wins the final I think it would have been England #1 and US #2 with Sweden and Spain 3rd and 4th.