Female Co-Hosts Tag Team Don Lemon For Daring To Defend Men’s Soccer Team

[Ubiquitous]

Anchor Don Lemon apparently stepped in it on Thursday morning when he
argued — against “CNN This Morning” co-hosts Poppy Harlow and Kaitlan
Collins — in defense of the U.S. men’s soccer team making more money
than the women’s team.

Collins and Harlow argued that because the women’s team had
traditionally done better in international competition, they should be
paid accordingly. Lemon agreed that the members of the women’s team
should be paid more than they were, but countered that the men were
paid more because more people were interested in watching them play —
and therefore willing to shell out more money for tickets and
merchandise.

WATCH:

Don Lemon raises legitimate points here, and gets tag-teamed
for his trouble. pic.twitter.com/F8F8IYMHl7

— Virginia Kruta (@VAKruta) December 1, 2022

MORE;

Don Lemon leaves his CNN colleagues perplexed by stating the
obvious about pay in US soccer:

“Everyone’s going to hate me … I’m not sexist…the men’s team
makes more money, the men should get more money.”
pic.twitter.com/iZiwSHVBhd

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) December 1, 2022

Harlow began by suggesting that media and Big Tech were somehow
responsible for suppressing public access to the women’s team, saying,
“Until big media companies, Big Tech companies, advertisers, invest and
put them on their airwaves more —”

“I understand what you’re saying,” Lemon interjected, but Harlow
continued.

“No-no-no-no-no! And allow people to see it more and gain more fans,
then you will push toward more equality,” she asserted, arguing that
more visibility would make people like women’s soccer more. “But if
they are blocked in so many ways and not invested in as much —”

“You guys are — I’m not sexist,” Lemon tried again.

“I know you’re not!” Harlow agreed. “But they don’t even have a shot.”

“I grew up the only boy in a family of all women, I understand what
you’re saying,” Lemon said, pivoting to make his point. “But not
everybody, honestly, has the same skill. Not everybody has the same
interest in the sport. I think the women should be paid more, I do. But
if the men —”

“You’re right that not everyone has the same skills because the women
are better skilled,” Collins interrupted, prompting Harlow to respond:
“Mic drop.”

Lemon continued, however, noting that the women were certainly very
skilled in competition — against other women. “But if the women played
the men, they wouldn’t be winning the way that they win.”

“Why?? What??!!” Harlow was clearly taken aback by Lemon’s statement.
“I’m not going to get into that argument.”

Following a lawsuit demanding equal pay, the U.S. Women’s National Team
will receive half of the prize money the U.S. Men’s National Team
brings home from the ongoing World Cup, including some $6.5 million
from their advancement into the Round of 16.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[BTR1701]

On Dec 2, 2022 at 1:56:53 AM PST, "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> Lemon continued, however, noting that the women were certainly very

> skilled in competition-- against other women. "But if the women played

> the men, they wouldn't be winning the way that they win."
>
> "Why?? What??!!" Harlow was clearly taken aback by Lemon's statement.
> "I'm not going to get into that argument."

Good move not to get into that argument, Poppy, because forget how they'd do
against male professionals, the women's team lost a match to a high school
boys soccer team.

Lemon's right-- against other women, they dominate. Against men, they'd lose
every time.

[Ed Stasiak]

> BTR1701
> > Ubiquitous

> >
> > Lemon continued, however, noting that the women were certainly very
> > skilled in competition-- against other women. "But if the women played
> > the men, they wouldn't be winning the way that they win."
> >
> > "Why?? What??!!" Harlow was clearly taken aback by Lemon's statement.
> > "I'm not going to get into that argument."
>
> Good move not to get into that argument, Poppy, because forget how they'd do
> against male professionals, the women's team lost a match to a high school
> boys soccer team.

The U.S. women's professional soccer team has _repeatedly_ lost against
boy's high school soccer teams.

[moviePig]

That's not the -- nor maybe even *a* -- measure of their dollar value.

[Rhino]

Clearly, they need to get some ex-men (trans-women) on the team....

--
Rhino

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > The U.S. women's professional soccer team has _repeatedly_ lost against
> > boy's high school soccer teams
>
> That's not the -- nor maybe even *a* -- measure of their dollar value.

True, their value is based on how many tickets they sell, what kinda tv ratings
they get and how much merchandise fans buy, all of which is a fraction of what
the men's soccer team generates yet for some reason, these chicks are getting
half the winnings from the MEN'S tournament, that they literally didn't take any
part in (presumably additional money, not half the guy's winnings but it wouldn't
surprise me).

Yeah, that's totally not sexist at all...

https://i.postimg.cc/kgwHT2nd/1552115763687.jpg

[moviePig]

I think the question might come down to the (estimated) cost of *not*
giving the women an equal share of the whole pot. E.g., it's not wholly
inconceivable that the men ultimately make *more* this way.

[trotsky]

What the fuck does "Tag Team Don Lemon" mean? But what you said is
funny, since Don Lemon has probably lost to other women a bunch of times.

[trotsky]

More proof that sockpuppets suck ass.

[trotsky]

Dude you really should quit while you're behind.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Yeah, that's totally not sexist at all...
> >

> I think the question might come down to the (estimated) cost of *not*
> giving the women an equal share of the whole pot. E.g., it's not wholly
> inconceivable that the men ultimately make *more* this way.

Do you honestly believe fans are going to _stop watching_ men's soccer
because the women's team didn't get handed a bazillion dollars for
literally doing nothing?

[moviePig]

No, I was guessing that the USSF was trying to enhance its image.
Current indications are that I may have been wrong...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>moviePig
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>The U.S. women's professional soccer team has _repeatedly_ lost against
>>>boy's high school soccer teams

>>That's not the -- nor maybe even *a* -- measure of their dollar value.

>True, their value is based on how many tickets they sell, what kinda tv
>ratings they get and how much merchandise fans buy, all of which is a
>fraction of what the men's soccer team generates yet for some reason,
>these chicks are getting half the winnings from the MEN'S tournament,
>that they literally didn't take any part in (presumably additional
>money, not half the guy's winnings but it wouldn't surprise me).

Hold it.

Professional soccer, generally, is poorly marketed in the United States,
even though it's a reasonably popular participation sport among boys and
girls. The United States doesn't have soccer programs developing
talented children into top athletes like the rest of the world.

We don't actually know what the potential market is as it's never been
properly exploited.

That being said, those couple of years that the women performed very
well on the world stage and became media darlings, they actually did
have more attention and a bigger audience than the men did that year.
Under those circumstances, the women's team was more valuable among the
relatively small audience for this sport.

>Yeah, that's totally not sexist at all...

>https://i.postimg.cc/kgwHT2nd/1552115763687.jpg

Ok.

In years in which the women perform well on the world stage, they
actually do achieve something based on their own hard work. Your cartoon
isn't applicable.

Also, you're ignoring the obvious that the point of throwing a few more
bucks at the women -- it isn't costly -- is part of exploiting an audience
that's yet to be built for soccer. They're doing it because it's a
pittance. They're avoiding the enormous cost of building up a soccer
infrastructure in the United States to improve training for the top
players. Right now, all that happens is if the United States ever
accidentally develops a decent player, he gets hired off to play in
Europe.

Even if the soccer infrastructure were built up, whether professional
soccer would be marketed properly to an American audience is another
issue.

The American women's team can be competitive on the world stage 'cuz few
in the rest of the world care to develop the best in female soccer players.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed, you are being an idiot.

Women's salaries range from $35,000 to $75,000. This is up from $13,000
minimum salaries till the mid 2000s. I can't find what the bonus they'll get
from the men performing well on the world stage, but it won't be "a
bazillion dollars".

[Ubiquitous]

gms...@email.com wrote:
> On 12/2/22 10:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2022 at 1:56:53 AM PST, "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>> Lemon continued, however, noting that the women were certainly very
>>> skilled in competition-- against other women. "But if the women played
>>> the men, they wouldn't be winning the way that they win."
>>>
>>> "Why?? What??!!" Harlow was clearly taken aback by Lemon's statement.
>>> "I'm not going to get into that argument."
>>
>> Good move not to get into that argument, Poppy, because forget how they'd
>> do against male professionals, the women's team lost a match to a high
>> school boys soccer team.
>>
>> Lemon's right-- against other women, they dominate. Against men, they'd
>> lose every time.
>
>What the fuck does "Tag Team Don Lemon" mean?

Reading comprehension problem noted.

>But what you said is funny, since Don Lemon has probably lost to other
>women a bunch of times.

Homophobia noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

[Ubiquitous]

Perhaps it's just me, but I find it amusing that these women are dependant
on men for their money.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > True, their value is based on how many tickets they sell, what kinda tv
> > ratings they get and how much merchandise fans buy, all of which is a
> > fraction of what the men's soccer team generates yet for some reason,
> > these chicks are getting half the winnings from the MEN'S tournament,
> > that they literally didn't take any part in (presumably additional
> > money, not half the guy's winnings but it wouldn't surprise me).
>

> Professional soccer, generally, is poorly marketed in the United States,

Soccer has been promoted (without success) in the U.S. for decades.

There have been pro and semi-pro soccer teams in Detroit since the 1920s
and when I was in elementary school (I'm 55 years old) the school district
set up soccer fields at all the schools to get us kids to play the game.

We used it for football and smear the queer instead.

> even though it's a reasonably popular participation sport among boys
> and girls.

Exactly, it's popular for little kids because boys and girls can play together
while being equally competitive and not hurt each other but beyond high
school, most kids don't care about soccer.

Sports is deeply historical and cultural, you can't just plug-in a new sport
and get upset because it doesn't generate interest. Americans like football,
baseball, basketball and hockey while Brits like soccer and Indians and
Pakistanis are crazy for cricket, etc.

There is nothing nefarious about the unpopularity of soccer in the U.S.,
we just don't give a shit.

> The United States doesn't have soccer programs developing talented
> children into top athletes like the rest of the world.

Nonsense. There are soccer leagues for toddlers all the way thru college
and all kinda pro/semi-pro leagues in just about every American city. The
fact that you're unaware of this isn't because The Man is hiding the game
from you, you just have no interest in the game.

These leagues are all small time when compared to the Big Four American
sports leagues because again, we just don't give a shit about soccer and I'm
not a sexist, racist, ignorant knuckle-dragging homophobe because I ain't
interested.

> > https://i.postimg.cc/kgwHT2nd/1552115763687.jpg

>
> In years in which the women perform well on the world stage, they
> actually do achieve something based on their own hard work. Your
> cartoon isn't applicable.

Sure it is, the woman's pro-team is getting a welfare payout simply because
they're women and complained about the men's tournament.

Which is perfectly in-line with the soccer mentality...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/4d/d7/164dd7ec06ac82b4fc0bbfdd0851a5c5.gif

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >

> > Do you honestly believe fans are going to _stop watching_ men's soccer
> > because the women's team didn't get handed a bazillion dollars for
> > literally doing nothing?
>
> Ed, you are being an idiot.

Adam, you're a dumbass.

> Women's salaries range from $35,000 to $75,000. This is up from $13,000
> minimum salaries till the mid 2000s. I can't find what the bonus they'll get
> from the men performing well on the world stage, but it won't be "a
> bazillion dollars".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup#Prize_money

$9 to $42 million per team depending on where they finish.

[Adam H. Kerman]

The individual players get what?

[Adam H. Kerman]

If the parents pay for it, yeah, these leagues exist. In other sports a
lot more popular in the United States, the top kids are trained on
someone else's dime.

>. .

[RichA]

They need to adopt skimpy uniforms like women's tennis. That way, even though the play is
inferior, slow and boring, at least there might be something to look at. Except for the more "rough" looking
females in that sport...

[trotsky]

Again, this post doesn't make a lick of sense, and I believe it's either
advanced syphilis, dementia, Alzheimer's or a chemical imbalance in your
brain that's causing these nonsensical remarks.

[Ubiquitous]

Pendantry noted.


[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]

[Ubiquitous]

In article <tmfsnu$3cfh6$5...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>True, their value is based on how many tickets they sell, what kinda tv
>>ratings they get and how much merchandise fans buy, all of which is a
>>fraction of what the men's soccer team generates yet for some reason,
>>these chicks are getting half the winnings from the MEN'S tournament,
>>that they literally didn't take any part in (presumably additional
>>money, not half the guy's winnings but it wouldn't surprise me).
>
>Hold it.
>
>Professional soccer, generally, is poorly marketed in the United States,
>even though it's a reasonably popular participation sport among boys and
>girls. The United States doesn't have soccer programs developing
>talented children into top athletes like the rest of the world.
>
>We don't actually know what the potential market is as it's never been
>properly exploited.
>
>That being said, those couple of years that the women performed very
>well on the world stage and became media darlings, they actually did
>have more attention and a bigger audience than the men did that year.
>Under those circumstances, the women's team was more valuable among the
>relatively small audience for this sport.

Well, until what's-her-name ruined it.

[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >

> >Nonsense. There are soccer leagues for toddlers all the way thru college
> >and all kinda pro/semi-pro leagues in just about every American city. The
> >fact that you're unaware of this isn't because The Man is hiding the game
> >from you, you just have no interest in the game.
>
> If the parents pay for it, yeah, these leagues exist. In other sports a
> lot more popular in the United States, the top kids are trained on
> someone else's dime.

I asked on a sports forum and Europeans and S.Americans said youth soccer
is funded by the parents, just as it is in the U.S. but in many cases the local
government builds and maintains soccer fields but that's also not much
different then local schools and city park depts. building and maintaining
baseball diamonds and basketball courts here in the U.S.

Professional soccer clubs will also fund youth soccer "academies" but this
isn't open to all kids, the clubs cherry-pick the best players for additional
training in the hopes they eventually go pro, which is pretty much the same
as jr.high, high schools and colleges acting as "farm clubs" for pro teams
here in the U.S.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup#Prize_money
> >$9 to $42 million per team depending on where they finish.
>
> The individual players get what?

I read somewhere that there are 55 players total on each World Cup
soccer team (which I believe includes coaches) so do they math but
either way, the WOMAN'S team did absolutely nothing to get the
welfare payout from the Men's World Cup organization.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed, can you ever fucking make an explicit statement without
mischaracterization and exaggeration? It's a bonus based on total
performance of the men's and women's team, not based on individual
performance. That's no different than a company paying an annual bonus
to every employee based on overall performance of the company.

It's not fucking welfare, and quite frankly, you damn well understand
the difference.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >

> >I read somewhere that there are 55 players total on each World Cup

> >soccer team (which I believe includes coaches) so do the math but

> >either way, the WOMAN'S team did absolutely nothing to get the
> >welfare payout from the Men's World Cup organization.
>
> Ed, can you ever fucking make an explicit statement without
> mischaracterization and exaggeration? It's a bonus based on total
> performance of the men's and women's team, not based on individual
> performance. That's no different than a company paying an annual bonus
> to every employee based on overall performance of the company.
>
> It's not fucking welfare, and quite frankly, you damn well understand
> the difference.

No, a bonus is a pre-existing contractual obligation, this is a straight up
welfare payout to the women's team because they bitched that the men's
team makes more money, even though the women's team contributed
absolutely nothing to the men's teams success and the men's team
brings in more revenue because it's more popular.

"Following a lawsuit demanding equal pay, the U.S. Women’s National Team
will receive half of the prize money the U.S. Men’s National Team brings
home from the ongoing World Cup, including some $6.5 million from their
advancement into the Round of 16."

https://i.postimg.cc/QMpSrW7q/6846546584.png

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>No, a bonus is a pre-existing contractual obligation, . . .

Forget it. You're not listening. Plenty of employees who aren't
contracted for get bonuses.

How the hell do you know this isn't contractual, given that this was
negotiated for?

[moviePig]

How is that any less fair than that each man gets equal pay regardless
of whether he set foot on the field?

[The Horny Goat]

While he's definitely been quite annoying it's surely obvious which of
the mens' and womens' teams gets more fans particularly where the
World Cup finals are involved.

Commercial Drive in Vancouver became wall to wall dancing in the
streets for 3-4 blocks when Italy beat England in the last world cup
final and I can guarantee the bars there sold a few drinks after the
last womens' event but that was about it.

Even if you went down there I can guarantee that EVERYONE in the bars
knows who won the last World Cup and also guarantee at most 3 of 10
would know who won the womens' event.

That isn't discrimination - just fan base.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > "Following a lawsuit demanding equal pay, the U.S. Women’s National Team
> > will receive half of the prize money the U.S. Men’s National Team brings
> > home from the ongoing World Cup, including some $6.5 million from their
> > advancement into the Round of 16."
>

> How is that any less fair than that each man gets equal pay regardless
> of whether he set foot on the field?

All the men on the team are part of the team and had to be good enough
to make the team, even if they might not play in the tournament.

The women are sitting on the couch at home watching on tv, yet they get
a bazillion dollar welfare payout because they bitched on Twitter...

[moviePig]

All the men and women on the teams were hired to represent the U.S. in
their respective World Cups, without distinction for proficiency or
results. Although you and I may find that counterintuitive, it's almost
certainly not the only thing we'd think was. Yeah, there was probably
some P.C. arm-twisting ...but, then, remember that this *is* America.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > All the men on the team are part of the team and had to be good enough
> > to make the team, even if they might not play in the tournament.
> >
> > The women are sitting on the couch at home watching on tv, yet they get
> > a bazillion dollar welfare payout because they bitched on Twitter...
>
> All the men and women on the teams were hired to represent the U.S. in
> their respective World Cups, without distinction for proficiency or
> results. Although you and I may find that counterintuitive, it's almost
> certainly not the only thing we'd think was. Yeah, there was probably
> some P.C. arm-twisting ...but, then, remember that this *is* America.

Huh? Players on both the mens and women's World Cup teams were picked
for their proficiency in soccer, the issue here is the women getting a ton of
money because of the success of the MEN'S team.

What contribution did the women's team make to the men's team and will
the guys also be getting a windfall payout based on the success of the
women's team when they play their World Cup tournament?

[moviePig]

Yeah, I'd certainly assume the latter ...which, given the women's world
ranking, stands every chance of being relevant, btw.

I don't know the actual theory of the suit, but it might lie in the
definition of the players' employment. E.g., if their contract doesn't
mention a fielded team getting its own prize money, then some sort of
"community property" presumption might apply.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > What contribution did the women's team make to the men's team and will
> > the guys also be getting a windfall payout based on the success of the
> > women's team when they play their World Cup tournament?
>
> Yeah, I'd certainly assume the latter ...which, given the women's world
> ranking, stands every chance of being relevant, btw.

While I'd say it's a safe bet that the men's team will get nothing from the
women's tournament and that it would be "sexist!" to even suggest that
they should.

> I don't know the actual theory of the suit, but it might lie in the
> definition of the players' employment. E.g., if their contract

> mention a fielded team getting its own prize money, then some sort of
> "community property" presumption might apply.

The 2019 women's tournament paid out from $750K to $4 million per team.

[moviePig]

On 12/10/2022 1:00 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> What contribution did the women's team make to the men's team and
>>> will the guys also be getting a windfall payout based on the
>>> success of the women's team when they play their World Cup
>>> tournament?
>>
>> Yeah, I'd certainly assume the latter ...which, given the women's
>> world ranking, stands every chance of being relevant, btw.
>
> While I'd say it's a safe bet that the men's team will get nothing
> from the women's tournament and that it would be "sexist!" to even
> suggest that they should.

Well, it might've been "sexist" before this suit.

>> I don't know the actual theory of the suit, but it might lie in
>> the definition of the players' employment. E.g., if their contract
>> mention a fielded team getting its own prize money, then some sort
>> of "community property" presumption might apply.
>
> The 2019 women's tournament paid out from $750K to $4 million per
> team.

With $4m to the winner? (The U.S. will likely be favored...)