hypochondriac

Don't think we have for the money paid.

Lol. How can it be a bit disappointing? It's still open for weeks yet!

"As an article in Forbes points out, the 2015 Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73million, of which the players got 13 per cent. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which only nine per cent went to the players. Last year, the men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion total in revenue but the participating teams shared only $400 million of that – less than seven per cent of the overall revenue. Meanwhile, the 2019 Women’s World Cup made somewhere in the region of $131million, doling out $30million – well over 20 per cent of collected revenue – to the participating teams." So proportionally the woman already make more than their male counterparts.

Yes I had to change it so it goes to latest post rather than last unread.

Poor old downtrodden USA women's footballers. They are the modern day Rosa parks, how can they possibly survive on a mere 48 million for winning the world cup?

Sorry but I don't believe we won't bring in someone in defence.

Haven't fifa trebled the prize money for this world cup with plans to continue to increase it? So how has is the financial situation not being addressed?

Essentially they are trying to put pressure on fifa to use the success of football to subsidise the women's game and get paid equally to the men. Not sure what the justification is though other than some perceived unfairness.

Tbf I think the main beef for the US women's team in particular is the amount they are paid by their FA and the amount of prize money on offer for winning the world cup, not necessarily their weekly wage from their club. It's still a mad argument but it is a bit different.

Exactly. Of course the pay gap between a male footballer and a female footballer is real but it's utterly absurd to suggest that this is down to sexism. The women still get tens of millions of pounds and the large gap can be more than justified by factors such as performance, level of interest, global competition etc. It's good that women's football seems to be doing well abd I hope they continue to be successful but why certain female footballers and media personalities feel the need to either compare it to the men's game or even disparage men's football in the process I truly have no idea. Succeed on your own merits and I'm sure you'll have a lot more support.

Thought you had me on ignore soggy? Odd that you keep responding to me if that's the case.

Yep just incredibly thick people or blinded by agendas that they can't see the obvious differences between the mens and womens teams. I said e rloernon the tournament that I watched a few enjoyable games but that they would have a much better chance of keeping fans if they kept gender politics out of it and just focused on the product. Sadly its only got worse.

Sorry I meant subscription tv like sky has now, not on demand services like Netflix, hulu, amazon etc. That's the future.

Hoping for at least 7.

A subscription tv service is outdated. Free view has hundreds of channels and is free bar the licence fee.

I don't think we need the BBC for that, I just don't think much of the British public would put up with the obvious extreme bias from the likes of fox news and cnn. It's all opinions though and I don't see the BBC going anywhere soon but I don't think news on its own can justify the license fee and I don't think the BBC has done much worthwhile programming that you wouldn't get elsewhere bar wildlife documentaries in the past decade.

Yep. I find it hard to believe that there is literally no club willing to take a chance and a small amount of wages on an ex England keeper. We managed to send out the likes of hoedt and carillo on loan and imo they are worse than forster.

Nope it's a pretty silly thing to say but the fact that so many are fuming about it all on social media and all the usual people are up in arms about how racist it is means she's already won and the speech has entirely served its purpose.

But in my scenario he still gets his full wage but also gets to play and potentially get a new contract elsewhere.

Yep I don't really know why we haven't done that earlier. Even if we paid 75% of his wages that takes a bit off the wage bill. The alternative is to pay up a fair amount of his contract and get him to accept a lower pay packet elsewhere.

I would be surprised if no one comes in for him.

Is channel 4 or itv much less impartial than the BBC? I mean all three of them have a certain amount of bias but I don't think one of them is much worse than another one. I'm a former supporter of the BBC since I could see clear benefits even a decade ago. Now with the technology available and seeing the BBC eat itself in the way it has, I just don't think you can justify the cost any longer.

I think that's a rubbish team. Rubbish CB pairing which will leak goals and no protection from an average midfield. Adams could do well but no guarantees yet and admittedly we have improved our attacking options but I would expect any team like that to lose most weeks and end up probably about 14th.

I thought according to some on here we only give players stick or dislike them because they are black?

Personally I'm very glad that a portion of the BBC licence fee goes towards groundbreaking content like BBC pidgin: https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-48861677