The FIFA Women's World Cup 2019: Haway the Lasses

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5265
  • Start date
Women’s football was banned for 50 years by the FA. England’s women were getting crowds of 50k before it happened.

That fair? You can’t compare the two as though both have been given equal weighting and support in development, they haven’t.

Meh, revenue is revenue. They should get support to grow the game but just instantly giving female footballers anywhere close to equal pay would completely be irresponsible and not sustainable.
 


Meh, revenue is revenue. They should get support to grow the game but just instantly giving female footballers anywhere close to equal pay would completely be irresponsible and not sustainable.
I’m not suggesting they should get equal pay because current pay for footballers is ridiculous. Literally no-one should get paid what a professional footballer gets paid for the mere act of playing sport. I think one of the biggest cons in our generation is the notion that entertainers deserve to earn the GDP of a third world company just because they’re athletic or funny or interesting in a film.
 
Why is men’s football on tv?
Why are there channels for merchandise?
Who created the infrastructure we have now for modern football? And why?

Arguably English football was ailing at the point the PL was created. It wasn’t because it was a great form of entertainment, it was in a real crisis in the 80’s in fact, probably at its lowest ebb. It was *made* into something financially lucrative by people who wanted to make money. It was fundamentally packaged into something else and sold as that. Without that Men’s football would t be nearly as lucrative. In respect to popularity football is considerably less popular in the UK than it was in the early 1900’s. It’s not fans and customers rewarding football that makes it a billion dollar enterprise, it was millionaires and billionaires using their enormous assists and infrastructure to turn it into an expensive international business interest.

And as I’ve pointed out already there was no issue with popularity for women’s football before it was banned. There’s no reason to assume that without growth it wouldn’t have continued to be so.

For someone talking a lot about economics you seem to fail to grasp the importance of the opportunity to be marketed. Men’s football had it. Women’s football hasn’t up to this point.

So you want to correct for history then? How do you do that when the demand isn’t what it once was? Do you give them both same money and bankrupt the women’s game or do you take money from the men and give it to the women? Not very ‘equal’ is it? How about stop all that and pay them fairly with the amount of money they bring in and grow the game as the demand calls for it?

Again the reality was s that the demand isn’t there! The US has the most popular women’s team in the world and still they can’t get any significant crowds or tv interest at league games. A lot of clubs have folded.

I’m not suggesting they should get equal pay because current pay for footballers is ridiculous. Literally no-one should get paid what a professional footballer gets paid for the mere act of playing sport. I think one of the biggest cons in our generation is the notion that entertainers deserve to earn the GDP of a third world company just because they’re athletic or funny or interesting in a film.

Then don’t go to movies or sporting events.
 
Last edited:
So you want to correct for history then? How do you do that when the demand isn’t what it once was? Do you give them both same money and bankrupt the women’s game or do you take money from the men and give it to the women? Not very ‘equal’ is it? How about stop all that and pay them fairly with the amount of money they bring in and grow the game as the demand calls for it?

Again the reality was s that the demand isn’t there! The US has the most popular women’s team in the world and still they can’t get any significant crowds or tv interest at league games. A lot of clubs have folded.
I’m not sure. That’s not my point. My point is the idea that in a capitalist system the idea that a products worth is derived from its popularity and worth is utterly facile. The idea that men’s football is innately billions of dollars better than women’s football and that’s why it’s where it’s at is stupid, so I’ll call it out as such.

A products economic worth in said societies derives from the wealthiest using their economic power to open markets and advertising channels that only they have access to. That’s why men’s football is a billion dollar industry. Not because they can kick the ball harder or have better goal keepers or whatever other shitey arguments people give.

As I’ve stayed above though I think the economies of sport and entertainment in the second half of the 20th century are the biggest con going, so I’m not advocating for women to be paid tens of thousands of dollars etc a week.
 
So you want to correct for history then? How do you do that when the demand isn’t what it once was? Do you give them both same money and bankrupt the women’s game or do you take money from the men and give it to the women? Not very ‘equal’ is it? How about stop all that and pay them fairly with the amount of money they bring in and grow the game as the demand calls for it?

Again the reality was s that the demand isn’t there! The US has the most popular women’s team in the world and still they can’t get any significant crowds or tv interest at league games. A lot of clubs have folded.



Then don’t go to movies or sporting events.
I basically don’t because I’m not a hypocrite
 
I’m not sure. That’s not my point. My point is the idea that in a capitalist system the idea that a products worth is derived from its popularity and worth is utterly facile. The idea that men’s football is innately billions of dollars better than women’s football and that’s why it’s where it’s at is stupid, so I’ll call it out as such.

A products economic worth in said societies derives from the wealthiest using their economic power to open markets and advertising channels that only they have access to. That’s why men’s football is a billion dollar industry. Not because they can kick the ball harder or have better goal keepers or whatever other shitey arguments people give.

As I’ve stayed above though I think the economies of sport and entertainment in the second half of the 20th century are the biggest con going, so I’m not advocating for women to be paid tens of thousands of dollars etc a week.

I'm not sure of the figures but I'd imagine the womens game gets more funding than say boys under 15s teams or the disabled olympics football team etc.
 
I’m not sure. That’s not my point. My point is the idea that in a capitalist system the idea that a products worth is derived from its popularity and worth is utterly facile. The idea that men’s football is innately billions of dollars better than women’s football and that’s why it’s where it’s at is stupid, so I’ll call it out as such.

A products economic worth in said societies derives from the wealthiest using their economic power to open markets and advertising channels that only they have access to. That’s why men’s football is a billion dollar industry. Not because they can kick the ball harder or have better goal keepers or whatever other shitey arguments people give.

As I’ve stayed above though I think the economies of sport and entertainment in the second half of the 20th century are the biggest con going, so I’m not advocating for women to be paid tens of thousands of dollars etc a week.

And you’d be wrong.

People use to play this game for nothing back in the day...the demand for the product grew the game. You think only players make money from this product? It’s a whole industry that employs millions of people! Some kid who comes from nothing now has an outreach to make a substantial living. You seem to have a bitter and resentful attitude about people earning wealth... I say good for them, have at it!

I basically don’t because I’m not a hypocrite

No, you’re just bitter and resentful with a weird concept on fair and unfair.
 
Last edited:
And you’d be wrong.

People use to play this game for nothing back in the day...the demand for the product grew the game. You think only players make money from this product? It’s a whole industry that employs millions of people! Some kid who comes from nothing now has an outreach to make a substantial living. You seem to have a bitter and resentful attitude about people earning wealth... I say good for them, have at it!



No, you’re just bitter and resentful with a weird concept on fair and unfair.
You think it’s fair that Neymar makes more money than a nurse?

If we want to talk in boorish stereotypes you sound like a cuntish American whose own means are fine so you don’t give a shit about those who aren’t

The demand for the product didn’t grow the game at all. Football has become wealthier almost completely in proportion with shrinking crowd sizes in fact. I can recommend some books about the development of football if you like as you’re clearly not aware of it

I was in South Africa shortly after the World Cup in 2010. I don’t give a shit about the one kid who has an outreach to make a substantial living from that when the game he’ll make a living from has siphoned millions of dollars of resources away from literally millions of kids in that country for the sake of its summer product
 
Last edited:
You think it’s fair that Neymar makes more money than a nurse?

Yes I do.

People pay money to see the best players in the world and because of Neymar, people get to earn a living on the training staffs, in the front offices, at the stadiums, on tv, on radio, on the internet, shirt manufacturers, boot manufacturers, all the lower leagues and their people, pubs, marketing people...etc. Neymar and players like him actually create wealth for other people. How is that a bad thing?
 
Yes I do.

People pay money to see the best players in the world and because of Neymar, people get to earn a living on the training staffs, in the front offices, at the stadiums, on tv, on radio, on the internet, shirt manufacturers, boot manufacturers, all the lower leagues and their people, pubs, marketing people...etc. Neymar and players like him actually create wealth for other people. How is that a bad thing?
And you think without Neymar people would just hold onto money and jobs wouldn’t be stimulated by anything else? :lol:

Pubs, offices, janitors, kit men, never existed before Neymar of course. And I bet the “shirt manufacturers” are delighted with their 13p an hour that the Sainted Neymar so generously directs into their pockets.
 
Last edited:
And you think without Neymar people would just hold onto money and jobs wouldn’t be stimulated by anything else? :lol:

Isn’t it nicer to have those millions of jobs available also? Freedom of choice is a good thing...

And you think without Neymar people would just hold onto money and jobs wouldn’t be stimulated by anything else? :lol:

Pubs, offices, janitors, kit men, never existed before Neymar of course. And I bet the “shirt manufacturers” are delighted with their 13p an hour that the Sainted Neymar so generously directs into their pockets.

Neymar and players like him only make what someone is willing to spend :lol:. If you don’t like the product don’t spend money on it and he won’t make that money :lol:. It’s that easy...apparently other people enjoy the product and are willing to spend the money.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t it nicer to have those millions of jobs available also? Freedom of choice is a good thing...



Neymar and players like him only make what someone is willing to spend :lol:. If you don’t like the product don’t spend money on it and he won’t make that money :lol:. It’s that easy...apparently other people enjoy the product and are willing to spend the money.
It’s a false equivalence. I don’t believe that all the possible outcomes in history diverge into two timelines in which one has celebrities enjoying their economic monopoly they do currently and another in which people can’t think of a single other way to create jobs and spend money so do neither

I don’t think that what people spend their money on should determine it’s worth, I didn’t think that would be so complicated to grasp. Just because millions of people think spending a fortune on following football is right dosent mean that I do not does it make me wrong. I have higher values beyond what people pay money for and higher hopes for society beyond it just buying loads of shit.
 
It’s a false equivalence. I don’t believe that all the possible outcomes in history diverge into two timelines in which one has celebrities enjoying their economic monopoly they do currently and another in which people can’t think of a single other way to create jobs and spend money so do neither

I don’t think that what people spend their money on should determine it’s worth, I didn’t think that would be so complicated to grasp. Just because millions of people think spending a fortune on following football is right dosent mean that I do not does it make me wrong. I have higher values beyond what people pay money for and higher hopes for society beyond it just buying loads of shit.

Yeah you’ve lost me...good luck with that.
 
Yes I do.

People pay money to see the best players in the world and because of Neymar, people get to earn a living on the training staffs, in the front offices, at the stadiums, on tv, on radio, on the internet, shirt manufacturers, boot manufacturers, all the lower leagues and their people, pubs, marketing people...etc. Neymar and players like him actually create wealth for other people. How is that a bad thing?
No they don't. You create wealth by doing work, manufacturing something, adding value to basic resources, or by providing a tangible service to somebody, such as improving their health. Nobody's going to give a shit about anything these people do in 50 years.

Are you sure you're an economist? Where do you think the idea of wealth comes from?

At least they got the World Champions thing right for once.

Normally they're celebrating being 'World Champions' in sports that only they actually play.

We'll maybe be celebrating it on Sunday in a sport only a handful of our colonies play seriously.

Sorry, former colonies.
 
Last edited:
No they don't. You create wealth by doing work, manufacturing something, adding value to basic resources, or by providing a tangible service to somebody, such as improving their health. Nobody's going to give a shit about anything these people do in 50 years.

Are you sure you're an economist? Where do you think the idea of wealth comes from?

We'll maybe be celebrating it on Sunday in a sport only a handful of our colonies play seriously.

Sorry, former colonies.
No mate you’re wrong. Neymar playing football alone creates a global economy. He’s just that good that even if he was just playing down the park in a Sunday league people would pay a fortune to see it. That’s economics!
 
I’m not suggesting they should get equal pay because current pay for footballers is ridiculous. Literally no-one should get paid what a professional footballer gets paid for the mere act of playing sport. I think one of the biggest cons in our generation is the notion that entertainers deserve to earn the GDP of a third world company just because they’re athletic or funny or interesting in a film.

So what's your point? How much should they be paid ? Obviously it's going to be directly compared to the male dominant market
 

Back
Top