Can you compare women soccer with men soccer?

[noname223]

It is European championchip in women soccer. My friends watch it, I don't watch it and we had a debate how one can compare it.

In media there were many reports the men U15 of Luzern a city in Switzerland won a test Match against the Swiss women national Team 7:1. My friends said this does not prove anything and that the coverage is unfair. They don't know that much about soccer though


I see a couple of advantages in women soccer.
Less drama, the players are fairer and they don't behave like actors after fouls
Less homophobia
Less corruption, it is more about sports and less about money

However, when we look at the pace, the techniques men soccer simply is better. Not all of that stems from biologically. Women could also Do the same tricks and have the same shooting techniques. But there are less Investments in women soccer. Money makes a diffefence.
If society cared more women soccer could become way better. And I think there are signs that women soccer makes faster progress than men soccer.

Personally, I almost only watch men champions league soccer in finales. And I could imagine here on the highest levels physics plays a bigger role to push the limits. I cannot compare men soccer on lower levels with women soccer.

In general I am also not a soccer expert but I certainly know more about soccer than my friends.

I think they are right not a few men Look down at women soccer. I am pretty sure I could never be better than any women you can watch on TV. Also if I trained without end from my childhood on. Some men think they are superior just because male professional soccer teams probably can beat female teams on similar levels. But it does not say much about the skills of an average male Player.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

The funding is probably bad and there is a lot of hate towards it from dumb idiots for sure.

I personally think sports and their fans are usually too toxic or backwards thinking to have any kind of benefit going into; especially when you are a woman. Obviously , it doesn't and shouldn't stop you from pursuing it but you are still going to face numerous hurdles and bullshit.

Even as a man, if you are not the cookie cutter type man which the industry demands and some things about the activity fundamentally piss you off; you are unlikely to want to do sport or soccer as a profession even if you have the capability for it.

And again as previously stated, there won't be any significant funding in the current society. We should focus on getting women to be treated like normal people and then we'll be able to address these issues better.

 

[Dejected 55]

You can compare anything to anything. Why compare women's soccer to men's soccer? Why not compare men's soccer to men's target shooting? The men with rifles in target shooting would literally kill the men's soccer team... no competition!

The point of the humor there is... why compare?

There are valid reasons sometimes... like when women aren't paid proportionally as much in their sports as men are in theirs... especially if you consider the worst men's teams that aren't winning anything getting paid more than the best women's teams who are winning. That's a fair question to ask why a winning team isn't more valuable in their similar sport than a losing team in another?

And what does it even mean if a men's soccer team beats a women's team? What would it mean if the women's team beat the men's team?

Back when the USA decided to switch to professional basketball players for the olympics instead if using college players since they were not winning anymore reliably... in one of the first outings a group of college all-start beat the pants over that first "Dream Team." Of course, the Dream Team beat the crap out of them in a rematch and everyone else they played that year... but if you want to pin it all on one game. that first match the pro players were embarrassed by the college kids.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't know much about football. It doesn't really interest me. Although, I believe the UK women's football team is performing better than the men's in respect of their individual league tables. Would the men beat the women in a match? Maybe. Who knows?

I'd imagine some of it might well be down to strength and stamina though. I imagine men and women are genetically predisposed to be able to be better in certain areas. So- while a competition between the sexes is interesting, I'm also not too sure that it's all together fair. Which touches on the trans debate I suppose. If it can be proved that some trans women retain their biological male advantage, is it all that fair to let them compete against cis women?

Take a hypothetical scenario. Would we pit a fully grown silverback gorilla against a man in weight lifting? They are capable of lifting 800kg. The world record for a human is 501kg. The gorilla could lift the weight and the weight lifter combined. Lol. We wouldn't even consider it a fair match because the gorilla is simply capable of being stronger. Similarly, with all the training, correct diet, exercise in the world, are there some things some people will simply never physically be able to achieve? I don't know but, I inagine so. In a lot of events that rely on strength, men beat women. I think therefore, they need to be judged on their own merits or in a serious competition, competing against their own gender.

As to who you prefer to watch. I expect that's down to personal preference. I expect men and women may enjoy watching the opposite or same gender play sports because they think they're hot too. Lol.

What's the argument here though? Which is 'better'? Do they deserve more money then? It reminds me of 'Battle of the Sexes'. The 2017 film that examined women's struggles to be recognised in tennis- especially financially.

To put it to you in terms of finances. How should athletes be paid? Equally or, by how much money they generate? Their popularity? I imagine in that case, men would take the edge although, maybe not always by that much.

It's not to call you out for being sexist. I don't believe you are. It's just that sport is wrapped up in money and equality issues- just like everything else. Comparison between the sexes and deciding one is better than the other invaribly must lead to questions on who deserves more money/ funding to begin with.

I don't watch much sport but I suppose I'd be more likely to watch men compete. I suppose generally because they are stronger, and have more power to do things. Depends on the sport though really. For Gymnastics, men and women look equally amazing to me.

 

[Dejected 55]

I'd imagine some of it might well be down to strength and stamina though. I imagine men and women are genetically predisposed to be able to be better in certain areas. So- while a competition between the sexes is interesting, I'm also not too sure that it's all together fair. Which touches on the trans debate I suppose. If it can be proved that some trans women retain their biological male advantage, is it all that fair to let them compete against cis women?

...

That's where the actual debate about trans athletes should be. There is a valid scientific conversation that could be had there IF people wanted. Unfortunately, that's not the typical conversation people want to have. At least here in the US, the folks you hear railing on TV about how "unfair" it is for men to "pretend" to be women to excel in sports are the same people who either actually did OR definitely would have fought against Title IX in support of women's sports in schools. These people don't care one shit, much less two shits, about actual women's sports. They only "care" in theory because it gives them a wedge to rail against trans women for yet another unfounded reason.

There are cis women who have unfair advantages over other women. There are cis women who have higher testosterone naturally than trans women or cis men too. Is it unfair for the tallest women to compete in basketball because they are so much larger than all the other women in the sport? Why not, they are technically aberrations and have an "unfair" advantage over all the other women.

Also... you never hear anyone saying it is "unfair" for trans men to compete in men's sports. Why is that? Because women are always perceived as weaker so nobody gives a fuck about trans men. It's funny, the anti-trans crowd would absolutely tell you that a trans man is still a woman, then they would talk about how the want to protect women, then they don't give an actual fuck about trans men who they would say are women. Their whole house of cards is so easily dismantled.

They don't give a flying fuck about actual trans men or women... they only use them as a wedge to distract people and rile up people because "different = bad" and they don't care about women's sports at all.

Also, there are zero issues in actual reality of men "pretending" to be women in order to excel in women's sports. There are near-zero issues of trans women dominating their competition and taking all the records and whatnot.

...

To put it to you in terms of finances. How should athletes be paid? Equally or, by how much money they generate? Their popularity? I imagine in that case, men would take the edge although, maybe not always by that much.

And here is the rub where women have been getting short-changed.

Nobody can reasonably suggest that the women in the WNBA should get paid the same as men in the NBA. You just can't make that case because the WNBA doesn't bring in near the revenue that the NBA does. So, even if you can (and actually can if you are a fan) that women's sports are just as entertaining with the top talent in their respective leagues and that the best women in sports are as entertaining and impressive as their male counterparts... if the fans and the money isn't there to support it... you can't demand equal pay for equal work.

This isn't a scientist situation where the woman curing cancer is somehow "worth less" or the female-invented widget isn't as valuable as it would had a man invented it... No, those are absolutely equal pay for equal work situations that we NEED to fix in society... but sports and entertainment... it has to be tied to the revenue.

IF people want to see Caitlin Clark play as much as they want to see Stephen Curry and they are willing to pay just as much and the team and the league generates the same revenue... then by damn pay her the same as Curry too! 100%... but that's not current reality, so the dollar amount can't be the same.

BUT the percentage can. If you can make the case (and you can) that Clark brings (random number here) 20% more revenue to the league then she better be paid reflective of that. I always argue that for men too. Whenever people complain at what athletes and actors make... I always say, people pay to see the performers, so the performers should get the lions' share of the profits. Sure, others are important and should be paid too... but take the stars out of the leagues or the movies, and the revenue tanks... so pay your star performers proportionally to what the league brings in.

And... in most cases of female professional sports, this doesn't happen. The leagues aren't bringing in the same as the men... except every once in a while actually in women's soccer sometimes the more prominent women's team in an area IS bringing in more because they are winning more than their male counterpart team in that area... and IF the team is bringing in the money, the women should be getting paid.

Tennis had this issue recently... where I can't remember if it was Wimbledon but I'll use that as an example... where the women's tennis matches were bringing in more revenue than the men's and the ratings were higher for the women players... but the prize for the women's champion was not as high as the men... and the argument there was hey, wait a minute, how do the women bring in more money for the sport but get paid less than the men?