Well a judge felt differently and dismissed that portion of the WNT’s suit. Maybe it’ll go better for them in appeal.
If I may junior-mod a bit, this thread is just about the athletic aspects of women and men - whether the U.S. women could beat a World Cup men’s team in a soccer game; it is not about salary, equality, contracts, feminism, politics or anything like that.
This question has been asked before and answered before, so it will surely drift from the stale original topic. I’m pretty sure you even participated in one of the previous ones.
I think there is something informative to the idea that NONE of the USWNT players have ended up in the MLS, despite running the board with all the other women’s national teams.
I’d have thought that if Mia Hamm, Megan Rapinoe, Brandy Chastain, Hope Solo, or whoever were even remotely good enough to play on a MLS team, they’d have been snapped up in a second if only for the PR value of having a US Women’s national team player, and the first US woman professional sports player in a traditionally men’s league. (yes, I know about Manon Rheaume, that’s why I said “US”)
But they weren’t. Which I’m interpreting to mean that the best women players aren’t even up to the standard of the worst men’s professionals, otherwise they’d be in the pros already.
The judge decided the men’s and women’s teams operated under different CBAs and thus cannot be compared, full stop. He made no judgement, nor was there any evidence provided by US Soccer, that the contract offer made to the USWNT previously was the same as that given to the USMNT. In addition, multiple parties from both teams have stated such wasn’t the case.
Sorry for continuing the hijack. The question was answered in the second post. The USWNT got absolutely demolished by the men’s under-17 team, 8-2. Donovan was being kind, and a very telling exchange was left out of the OP, making the entire “discussion” a stretch, at best:
As a thought experiment to make the match competitive, what if the men’s team played with fewer people? How many men players would have to be removed in order for the game to be competitively even? Would the women have a chance if there were only something like 8 or 9 men on the field?
I agree with your point, but I do also want to say that 2-8 is a better result than I might have expected.
Bear in mind that in top flight men’s football, many of the best players get their start in the A team at the age of 16 or 17, and it’s often the time where they have the most pace.
So scoring twice, and only losing by a ratio 4:1…that’s actually pretty good considering how much better established the men’s game is, as well as the physical disadvantages as already discussed.
My WAG is that 8 men v 11 women might be competitive. Maybe even 7. I mean, it’s unexpected but not that unusual for 10 men to beat 11, and similarly for 9 men to hold out for a draw, albeit usually only for a few minutes. After that though it quickly becomes significantly harder to defend the space.
I think they’ve been known to scrimmage against high school teams. My nephew was on a high level youth team that scrimmaged against them and played them to a draw (he had to defend Abby Wambach as a 14 year old). I love the USWNT, but any MNT would blow them away.
How does this exact topic come up like once a year? The women would lose all 3 games if given a spot in a WC and the draw wouldn’t matter. They would be unable to qualify from any confederation. I doubt they’d qualify from any confederation for the u20 WC either. For the U17 WC they probably would, but they wouldn’t be remotely competitive for the title.
Most people in this thread are within bike-riding distance from some male team that would trounce the full USWNT. For me, there are at least 5 teams, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there are 10+ teams in a 20 mile radius.
As for what kind of handicap would make them competitive I think to win 50% of the games you probably need to go 11v7 or worse. The women would find it very difficult to break down a bunker with 6 defenders behind the ball and someone like Christian Pulisic could probably dribble through the entire USWNT multiple times a game. Not sure where that balances, but 11v7 is my guess.
The reason for this is a misguided idealism around gender equality which ignores the reality of human sexual dimorphism, especially among top athletes.
No, I think that is still far too optimistic. At 14 I was playing against adult men of a good standard and holding my own in terms of size, strength speed and skill and I was no-where near the the top of the rankings in any of those criteria.
Our under 16 team played in an adult league and we won regularly, again, we were nothing special in terms of ability but our physical abilities and skills at age 15/16 were certainly enough to be on par with adults. Isee no reason why this would not also be the case at the higher levels of competition.
You’d have to get back to an age-point where puberty is no longer having a major effect in order for the women to have a chance of winning games regularly never mind qualifying. Not sure where that is but perhaps U14 may see things start to level out.
Looking at athletics records that is the around the age where young boys start to beat the wolrd records for adult females.
I’m not saying 16 is where the US women would beat US boys. I’m saying it’s where US women would probably be 50/50 to qualify if they got to pick their confederation (probably Oceania or Asia). Yes, against the US u17 team they would be in trouble. Since those two teams play each other occasionally we can see that, but the US u17s are better than the barrier to entry. In the last couple U17 WCs we’ve seen Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Syria, and India qualify.
I can assure you, the OP does not have any idealism around gender equality. They’ve been rather clear on that. They likely brought this topic up again because it gets people tut tutting about silly idealism.
If they can’t beat the U15 academy of any random MLS club, which is mostly local players and totally unpaid (and they cannot), and the best women’s team in the world can’t beat a competitive boys high school team (and they cannot) then their chance of beating the men’s national team of even a small or historically unsuccessful country is zero.
No one seriously disputes this, so I’m joining in asking what point the OP of this thread is really trying to make by asking the question.
Except that - some of the players themselves do. Donovan, Krieger, Lloyd.
And Hope Powell, former England coach.
I think everyone understands that there are political and labor issues at play in what the members of the teams say to the media that are distinct from what people actually know and believe. Surely no one knows better than Carli Lloyd that the USWNT cannot actually beat a decent team of 15-year-old boys, because she’s been on the wrong end of any number of mismatches with 15-year-old boys herself. Again, we all know what’s going on; if your point is that “professional soccer players say things about soccer that are on their face ludicrous as part of negotiating tactics or required courtesies” then I agree, and I think, so does everyone else - what are you really trying to get at here?
Already debunked in this thread. To which I will add, active players/coaches (e.g. Krieger, Lloyd, Powell at the time of the quote you have added) will never predict that their team will lose - it’s just not part of their mentality. They were taking an opportunity to indulge in some hyperbole. And retired players can afford to be magnanimous about their colleagues who are still playing.
No, no they don’t. Lloyd said it would be a contest if you ignored any athletic differences and Donovan said it “in good fun” aka he was humoring the interviewer.
I thought one of the reasons was, the money earned from the World Cups isn’t divided among both of the teams, but is kept by the team that played, and there is far more “bonus money” for the men’s World Cup than for the Women’s, mainly because a;large part of it comes from worldwide TV rights fees.