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.I never even considered going back later. Seems obvious in retrospect.
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.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.
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.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.
Here is hoping this was just something that Ellis and Hinkle agreed to prior to the tour to avoid a giant BS political distraction.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.
Just came to post the same thing.Megan Rapinoe, on the other hand, continues to GOAT
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.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.
Literally the only thing she was asked to do is wear a jersey with rainbow-themed numbers.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 USMNT and NWSL is buoyed by the LGBTQ community, so it's a business decision as well as a principled one.
Good lord. I missed this when it was posted, but what a joy to watch. That woman could ball.Rapinoe vs. this poor defender:
Well said.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
Basically to prove that the draw was legit.Why does she have to open the ball to say A4 when it's the only one left?