Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Breakfast with Gazza (with Sachmoneious Bullcrap)' started by SoxFanInCali, Aug 16, 2015.
If sufficiently motivated, you don't even need to go back later. Professional soccer is obviously a demanding occupation in a variety of ways, but it does leave you with more free time than most jobs. Tons of people in this country complete degrees while working full-time jobs, so there's no reason soccer players can't do it too. You do miss out on The College Experience and you may have to sacrifice some academic prestige, depending on your options. MLS partnered with Southern New Hampshire, which does a lot of online education, in a deal in which SNHU gives MLS players/alumni scholarships to finish their degrees. SNHU isn't exactly UCLA, for example, but it's a path to a degree. I doubt the NWSL has any official partnerships because so few of their players leave school early, but there's Pugh or anyone else could certainly do that sort of thing independently.
After working her way back into playing shape after her pregnancy, Amy Rodriguez tore her ACL.
So a note on earnings.
Pugh is a top tier USWNT member. Under the old CBA (when she decided to go to college) she could make 128,000 a year. Under the new one she could make between 200k and 300k from the USWNT for playing in NWSL. Adding in the endorsement deal and there is no way college made financial sense.
Edit- Also she could sign a USWNT contract then sign for Lyon and PSG for an extra 6 figures. My guess is she forces her way to Portland to stay closer to home and passes up the bigger payday in France, but just for money maximization her best would be go pro, take 200k+ from the USWNT, then take another 6 figure salary to play in France, plus a Nike or Adidas deal for another 6 figure payday.
How many women right now are likely to hit fuck-you money (~$10M) over their careers, across all channels? I figured Alex Morgan was the only one, with all of her endorsements and commercials and whatnot. I don't even see Carli Lloyd on TV that much, and she's probably a better player.
I think Pugh can cross $10m soon. There's never been more money in women's sports or more interest in developing superstars on behalf of domestic leagues, cable networks, and major brands.
At 18, Pugh has the potential to be he next great women's soccer star and a face of women's athletics for the next 15 years. It also helps that she looks like a Disney princess. Pugh already has Nike and Adidas at the table. I am sure other "prestige brands" for athletes will also try to get in early with Pugh - Gatorade, McDonalds, etc. - to position themselves for her potential superstar breakout at the 2019 World Cup.
What will be interesting is how Nike and Adidas approach the NWSL vs France question. Do either or both see staying stateside as much more vaulable than playing in France? Enough to effectively buy her out of the higher salaries Lyon and PSG can offer? The answer to that is a proxy for how Nike and Adidas view the NWSL in light of the USWNT agreement and the TV deal with Lifetime.
Yeah the hierarchy of earning potential for female athletes appears to be:
1. Tennis top-10 or 20
2. Basketball top 10
3. Soccer top 5
4. Golf top 10-20
5. Tennis top 50
6. Olympic superstars catching lightning in a bottle, like swimmers or Misty May
7. Basketball top 100, if you're willing to go to Russia
8. Soccer top 30-50, if you're willing to top up earnings in Europe
Eugenie Bouchard may make a fortune mostly for being hot and also a top-ish player for a period of time, even if she never works hard enough to sustain that level of success. Nationality also matters: Madison Keys, a top-10 player entering her prime, will probably out-earn, say, Aggie Radwanska, mostly because the former is American. The rules are very different for women still when it comes to marketability.
Marta. Globally she's been in a ton of Puma commercials, including co-starring with major men's athletes like Usain Bolt. She also was at one time making $500K a season in Europe, she's probably made well over $10M in her career.
Edit- Also Mia Hamm made a shit ton of money in endorsements back in the day when she was the face of women's soccer. It's rare, but salaries and endorsement opportunities are growing as the USWNT becomes a moneymaker, and European super-clubs who don't care about losing money if it gets good press and bragging rights enter the picture.
In tune-up for games against Russia the USWNT scrimmaged the FC Dallas U15 boys and lost 5-2.
It's never too surprising to see children of athletes continuing their family's athletic success, but I didn't see this one coming:
USWNT making a swing through scandinavia. They beat (avenged themselves against?) Sweden this past week, and they play Norway at 1:15pm ET today. Nice warmup for the big match tonight. Ellis is largely playing the young guns, with a mix of Lloyd, Rapinoe etc just to keep people happy.
Only really interesting thing is that Jaelene Hinkle pulled out at the last minute for "personal reasons" which are heavily rumored to be that she refused to wear the special jersey's for this tour that feature rainbow numbers. It will be interesting to see what happens with her going forward, she's a promising defender and pretty young (24) but given how deep the squad is, and how tightly the USWNT is tied to the gay community (only 1 "out" player, but many more who are gay, and the gay community was a major driving force in women's soccer's fanbase for a long time), and a last minute pull-out that leaves the team a body short for the tour.... well I wonder if her time as a USWNT player is done already.
Here is hoping this was just something that Ellis and Hinkle agreed to prior to the tour to avoid a giant BS political distraction.
Here are a couple of links from either side:
USWNT just lost to Australia for the first time ever (1-0). It's the 3rd loss at home this year (others to England and France).
2 more upcoming games against Brazil and Japan.
What is Ellis doing keeping 2 of the best 5 players in the world on the bench for 65 minutes in a scoreless tie?
What's the point of 6 subs if you keep all of them for the last 25 minutes plus it?
Finishing was poor
Defending was poor
Ref that missed the nose job was worse than poor
It's the defending that lost the game, though. Every fan of the USWNT should watch this embarrassing display that led to Australia's goal. I know one thing: Julie Johnston Ertz never would have stood for that shit back there. I feel even worse about Sauerbrunn, who was right in the middle of it and is usually a rock.
Also, nobody wants to hear it, but an in-shape Hope Solo charges that through ball and maybe gets a save. I guess she's moved on to a TV career now, but as much as I'm rooting for Boston girl Alyssa Naeher, she's not in the same class.
Didn't see the Australia match, but this one is an absolute howler by Naeher.
Megan Rapinoe, on the other hand, continues to GOAT
Just came to post the same thing.
I just saw the highlights. Fuck...that outside of the foot through ball on the second goal was gorgeous. Even her goal- the keeper was way off the post, but Rapinoe's first touch into that blast?
She's a beast, she's just too old to play 90 more than occasionally. Incredible field vision.
Naeher looks like an amateur out there. Jane Campbell is coming for her job, and fast (let's hope).
Putting Rapinoe into what's supposed to be a develop-the-kids sort of tournament is a bit like Kevin Durant just dropping by Rucker Park unannounced to play some pickup summer ball.
edit: Julie (Johnston) Ertz is still awesome. Naeher gets beat on a touch around her, Ertz cleans the shot off the line.
Rapinoe vs. this poor defender:
A bit of controversy: Jaelene Hinkle is back with the NT for the first time since turning down a call up because she refused to wear a rainbow kit for pride month.
I was legit shocked that Ellis went to her. They're thin at her position so it came down to whether Ellis pissed of a significant chunk of the fanbase (and likely some of the other players) and went with Hinkle, or brought Krieger back except she refuses to bring in Krieger no matter what. It's really baffling.
There's something to the idea that professional athletes shouldn't be forced to show support for certain political ideas as a prerequisite for playing their sport. Like, I'm not sure Hinkle wouldn't win in court if she sued over the issue. Though as we're seeing with the NFL and kneeling for the anthem, when this is collectively bargained it throws usual expectations out the window.
That said, I get the extent to which the USWNT and NWSL is buoyed by the LGBTQ community, so it's a business decision as well as a principled one.
Literally the only thing she was asked to do is wear a jersey with rainbow-themed numbers.
I agree in principle that players shouldn't be asked to promote political ideas, but I object to framing showing basic respect for the humanity of the LGBTQ community as a "political issue" as though there are two legitimate sides of the argument.
Good lord. I missed this when it was posted, but what a joy to watch. That woman could ball.
I generally don't buy that basic respect for people's rights is political, but beyond that.... she didn't just decline a callup, she went on 700 club which is a vile program of hate to talk about how "brave" she was to oppose gay rights.
Edit- also what is she going to sue for? USSF is a private organization, they don't have to employ her, and she's a fringe player anyway, she'd have no way to prove she was kept out for her statements.
Her call up irks the hell out of me. Not enough for me to not pay attention and not still try to go to France next summer for some USWNT games, but enough for me to write a formal letter to the team/federation and also to cal them out on Facebook.
So your argument is that because she was sincere in her beliefs in which she opposes the goals of a political movement*, and took actions confirming such, that makes her employer even more justified in firing her for not going along with being forced to make a political statement contrary to her beliefs?
IANAL, but generally speaking, you can fire someone for pretty much any reason, or no reason, but if it's on a list of specifically prohibited reasons - they're pregnant, they're a race you don't like, they're old, etc - then they have cause for a discrimination claim or wrongful termination suit. Likewise, you can't impose job requirements that have nothing to do** with performance of the job, e.g. I can't fire someone for not wearing revealing enough clothing to my liking. This of course depends on the state in which USWNT employment contracts are considered to be domiciled (and what they consider protected classes there, e.g. California and Louisiana I know protect workers from discrimination regarding their political views***). It also, as you say, depends on what evidence Hinkle has that her contract was terminated specifically for her refusal to wear rainbow jerseys (e.g. she was going to be on the roster until that was made an issue). But depending on that, she could have a case.
Anyway, as to her being reinstated here, it's ultimately the smart business move, because the matter is a PR hot potato. It's like the NFL and the kneeling stuff - if you're looking at being forced into a decision between two options, one of which will infuriate half the country, and the other of which will infuriate the other half of the country, then it would be much preferable to never have it become an issue that garners public attention. The NFL was ham-handed with it like 4 different times, when they could have made it go away but instead loudly doubled down in one direction or the other, and it's cost them each time. USSF just giving her another shot, and presumably making actions like the jersey thing voluntary, solves the problem for them.
* ...and I support them, but the LGBTQ movement is seeking to change laws and how society treats them - that's politics. It'd be like saying "Basic respect for a woman's sovereignty over her own body shouldn't be 'political'!", when you're talking about abortion. No matter how self-evident you consider your position, if you have to get votes, sway officials and fight court cases, it's a political matter.
** Analogy: Filling prescriptions is the fundamental nature of a pharmacist's job. If you don't like birth control, and try to refuse to fill those prescriptions on religious grounds, your employer would be well justified in firing you - you can't perform the basic functions of the job. But wearing uniforms designed to make a certain political statement, no matter how innocuous that statement might seem to those of us who already agree with it, is inarguably not a basic function of the job. It's not like "talking to the media", or "traveling to away games".
*** Case study: Murray Energy, led by a total asshole, forced its coal-miner workers to attend a Mitt Romney rally during the 2012 campaign, and give up their day's pay to do so. Those who attended were given bonuses, those who refused faced varying degrees of retribution. The FEC received a complaint, but split along party lines and closed the case without action... is that the sort of thing you think your employer should be able to do?
If you wrote for storm front about how black people were inferior your employer would indeed be more justified in not bringing you back than just if you refused to acknowledge black history month.
Also she Is not an employee, she's a contractor who refused a job offer, which is fine, it doesn't mean that they have to offer her a new one.
Edit- beyond that your framing is weird. The rainbow jersey is no different than the Latino heritage jerseys many teams wear or the negro league throwbacks, various patches etc. Declaring that the recognition of a group of people's very existence as always political and shouldn't be allowed is ridiculous.
From a business perspective, one key difference is that the NFL's fanbase is dominated by racist white people, whereas the USWNT's fanbase has a significant progressive & LGBTQ following.
Hinkie one of the 2 cuts to get to 23
So the ladies are playing their CONCACAF qualifying tournament for the world cup. They finished pool play 3-0 with a +18 GD, 5-0 6-0 7-0, pretty much 'nuff said. They're due to play Jamaica in the semis with a World Cup spot on the line (though given the increase to 24 teams in the WCF, they have 3.5 bids, so the stakes aren't super high).
I went to look up when that game would be, since it'd be fun. Answer: tomorrow (Sunday) night, 8:00pm. Head to head not just with the ALCS Game 2, but with one of the marquee matchups of the NFL season, Patriots-Chiefs.
Fucking tone deaf. Way to go, USSF. Any prayer of having an audience from, well, most of the country - poof, gone. You put USA-JAM in the 5pm game, you get plenty of people looking for something to warm up their sports evening with. But no.
It's doubly stupid because precisely at 5 they have Canada v. Panama on that same channel (FS1). No one cares about that one. At first I thought it was just a case of Fox not wanting to go up against their own Fox NFL games, but they only have 1 late game. LA @ Denver. LA, Denver, KC (and NYC) where the NFL game is also being shown, are good soccer markets, but i don't think it's that.. Just shortsightedness. You're right Insta.
US is up 5-0 on Jamaica in the CONCACAF semifinal now in the 32nd minute.
Good thing the US didn't draw Cuba in the group stage. Jamaica beat them 9-0.
The draw for the 2019 Women's World Cup is Saturday at noon ET. It's on FS2, but if you are one of the many (like me) that don't get that channel, it will be streaming on FIFA's website.
If you're watching the draw for the women's world cup, at noon on a Saturday, rather than EU pro football or, like, going outside or something crazy and then just checking it later, you are a bigger women's footie fan than I, and I salute you. But man, that is pretty far down the rabbit hole.
Well, a draw is the kind of thing you can have streaming on a laptop and keeping an eye on while watching something else on TV. And it's on at 9AM my time, so chances are I will not be outside doing something.
Some background details for France '19:
4 making their first appearance, including Scotland, Chile, South Africa and Jamaica. The latter of which was financed by Cedella Marley (Bob's daughter).
9 cities hosting games are: Paris, Lyon, Montpellier, Nice, Reims, Rennes, Le Havre, Grenoble, and Valenciennes.
Starts June 7th in Paris
Final is on July 7th in Lyon (semis also in Lyon - largest stadium)
The 6 #1 Pots/Seeds are:
the 4 anglophone powers, US, Canada, England, Australia, plus the host, and Germany. Jamaica is the worst ranked team, #53, to qualify.
Has women's soccer arrived when the WC draw is just as drawn out and bloated as the men's?
Thank you DrewDawg and thank you FIFA, totally spaced on this.
aside: French is a such a beautiful language
USA draws Sweden as their main competitor in group play.
Sweden to USA's group.
England and Scotland in same group.
Scotland's WWC debut, and they open against England.
US gets Thailand for opening game.
YES! USA draws Thailand.
The US might actually have a player win the Golden Boot with that Thailand draw.
Why does she have to open the ball to say A4 when it's the only one left?
Basically to prove that the draw was legit.