Red Mosquito

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:Really high level of play here in the Gold Cup final. Demonstrably better than the Women's Cup.

It is genetically impossible for the women to play the game at as high a level as the men. It's as simple as that.

People know Usain Bolt holds the world 100 m record. People have no clue who the woman record holder is but they know it's not close to Bolts time.

This is a great point because like many others I too watch soccer to see who can run the fastest, you absolute fucking dolt.

Speed is a big part of the game, along with a dozen other things men are biologically more efficient at.

Don't drive around in a Prius and tell me it's faster than my sports car.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Bammer wrote:You guys are making a non-existent connection between winning and revenue generation (re: USWNT)

The USWNT is an order of magnitude more marketable than any of the men’s players. Pulisic is the closest and no ones asking him to sell Snickers like Tab Ramos in 94.

Then why don't they have the TV money the men do?

Women don’t give a shit enmasse about watching sports, men do. But every 4 years, gymnastics and figure skating crush ratings mostly selling women’s products. Women’s soccer is almost certainly the highest rated women’s sport but it’s not old enough to have consistent good market data yet and it’s more team rather than star driven like most men’s sports.

The US women are getting bigger Q scores because they’ll be everywhere for the next week but it’s not sustainable. The TV ad dollars are better for the men because men consistently watch sports and the advertisers know they can get that market.

I’m mostly talking about marketing outside of ratings.

No one is coming to the USMNT to sell anything right now.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:Really high level of play here in the Gold Cup final. Demonstrably better than the Women's Cup.

It is genetically impossible for the women to play the game at as high a level as the men. It's as simple as that.

People know Usain Bolt holds the world 100 m record. People have no clue who the woman record holder is but they know it's not close to Bolts time.

This is a great point because like many others I too watch soccer to see who can run the fastest, you absolute fucking dolt.

Speed is a big part of the game, along with a dozen other things men are biologically more efficient at.

Don't drive around in a Prius and tell me it's faster than my sports car.

You're a grade-A dipshit but even you must intuit that your boneheaded comment about the USMNT's superior level of play doesn't hold up, which is why you're reaching for these abstract ideas about biology.

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:Really high level of play here in the Gold Cup final. Demonstrably better than the Women's Cup.

It is genetically impossible for the women to play the game at as high a level as the men. It's as simple as that.

People know Usain Bolt holds the world 100 m record. People have no clue who the woman record holder is but they know it's not close to Bolts time.

This is a great point because like many others I too watch soccer to see who can run the fastest, you absolute fucking dolt.

Speed is a big part of the game, along with a dozen other things men are biologically more efficient at.

Don't drive around in a Prius and tell me it's faster than my sports car.

You're a grade-A dipshit but even you must intuit that your boneheaded comment about the USMNT's superior level of play doesn't hold up, which is why you're reaching for these abstract ideas about biology.

Are you saying the women would beat the men if they played? Because they absolutely would not.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:Really high level of play here in the Gold Cup final. Demonstrably better than the Women's Cup.

It is genetically impossible for the women to play the game at as high a level as the men. It's as simple as that.

People know Usain Bolt holds the world 100 m record. People have no clue who the woman record holder is but they know it's not close to Bolts time.

This is a great point because like many others I too watch soccer to see who can run the fastest, you absolute fucking dolt.

Speed is a big part of the game, along with a dozen other things men are biologically more efficient at.

Don't drive around in a Prius and tell me it's faster than my sports car.

You're a grade-A dipshit but even you must intuit that your boneheaded comment about the USMNT's superior level of play doesn't hold up, which is why you're reaching for these abstract ideas about biology.

Are you saying the women would beat the men if they played? Because they absolutely would not.

I'm not even remotely implying that but if I was as big of a dumbass as you I'd definitely try to redirect attention away from myself so I respect the hustle.

Electromatic wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Bammer wrote:You guys are making a non-existent connection between winning and revenue generation (re: USWNT)

The USWNT is an order of magnitude more marketable than any of the men’s players. Pulisic is the closest and no ones asking him to sell Snickers like Tab Ramos in 94.

Then why don't they have the TV money the men do?

No one is coming to the USMNT to sell anything right now.

Low T pills maybe

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:Really high level of play here in the Gold Cup final. Demonstrably better than the Women's Cup.

It is genetically impossible for the women to play the game at as high a level as the men. It's as simple as that.

People know Usain Bolt holds the world 100 m record. People have no clue who the woman record holder is but they know it's not close to Bolts time.

This is a great point because like many others I too watch soccer to see who can run the fastest, you absolute fucking dolt.

Speed is a big part of the game, along with a dozen other things men are biologically more efficient at.

Don't drive around in a Prius and tell me it's faster than my sports car.

You're a grade-A dipshit but even you must intuit that your boneheaded comment about the USMNT's superior level of play doesn't hold up, which is why you're reaching for these abstract ideas about biology.

Are you saying the women would beat the men if they played? Because they absolutely would not.

I'm not even remotely implying that but if I was as big of a dumbass as you I'd definitely try to redirect attention away from myself so I respect the hustle.

What is it you're trying to imply then? Spell it out for me.

I agree speed is a big part of the game but the US women play an attractive brand of football, the men simply don’t.

The US women are generally faster, more physical and more talented than their opponents.

They aren’t obviously on the same level physically as the men, but skill wise and tactically they are vastly better. It’s as wide a gap as the physical differences.

Watching Berhalter’s team is like watching a really hard playing rec league team.

verb_to_trust wrote:Well even though USA and Mex are both extremely mediocre national sides the level of play will be light years higher

I think my point could be summarized as follows: lmao whoops

Misogynist trolls taking another well-earned L tonight. Go USA!

I wish I was woke like you guys. Enjoy your women's sports I guess.

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Well even though USA and Mex are both extremely mediocre national sides the level of play will be light years higher

I think my point could be summarized as follows: lmao whoops

The match between two crappy teams sucked and the level of play was in fact much higher than watching any women's match you could show me. Looks like I win.

If Elena Delle Donne comes out tomorrow and starts complaining that women's basketball should be paid equally to men it would not be met with the same reception the soccer women have gotten. And I seriously doubt WNBA Stans would be coming out of the woodwork talking about fundamentals and set shots as a way to justify it.

The USMNT completely sucking is the only thing that holds the argument together. But make no mistake, even teenage boys on youth squads could beat the USWNT like a drum.

Show us on the doll where women’s sports touched you

Fragile masculinity is fragile, I know

Equality in the workplace is important. But it doesn't apply to sports. It's not their fault, but women simply can't compete at the same level.

You guys keep drinking toilet water and thinking you should pay extra for it though.

Keep fluffing those American male "soccer players", doofus.

Electromatic wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Bammer wrote:You guys are making a non-existent connection between winning and revenue generation (re: USWNT)

The USWNT is an order of magnitude more marketable than any of the men’s players. Pulisic is the closest and no ones asking him to sell Snickers like Tab Ramos in 94.

Then why don't they have the TV money the men do?

Women don’t give a shit enmasse about watching sports, men do. But every 4 years, gymnastics and figure skating crush ratings mostly selling women’s products. Women’s soccer is almost certainly the highest rated women’s sport but it’s not old enough to have consistent good market data yet and it’s more team rather than star driven like most men’s sports.

The US women are getting bigger Q scores because they’ll be everywhere for the next week but it’s not sustainable. The TV ad dollars are better for the men because men consistently watch sports and the advertisers know they can get that market.

I’m mostly talking about marketing outside of ratings.

No one is coming to the USMNT to sell anything right now.

Thank you for making the point a little more eloquently.

If the fans are there, the money will be there.

Spoiler: show

The fans aren’t there.

swan wrote:Keep fluffing those American male "soccer players", doofus.

See you in four years bruh

verb_to_trust wrote:

swan wrote:Keep fluffing those American male "soccer players", doofus.

See you in four years bruh

You mean 3 years when our team bows out in the group stage? I know you think I’m a “casual” just because I’ve been fluffing the women’s team, but you’re not the only hardcore football fan on this board. I respected your takes on this subject until you started on this stupid anti-women jag.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Well even though USA and Mex are both extremely mediocre national sides the level of play will be light years higher

I think my point could be summarized as follows: lmao whoops

The match between two crappy teams sucked and the level of play was in fact much higher than watching any women's match you could show me. Looks like I win.

I love this abstract "level of play" thing you've concocted, which your absolutely cannot quantity in any meaningful way. I'm sure the other proud boys find it quite convincing.