Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 294: Kim Jong ill

(+) Yeah! (+)

It was originally 100k-240k.

Which I think at this point we're gonna hit.

---

Oh definitely
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wasnt the original forecast 80,000 dead if we do everything right?

100k. He said any number under 100k and we did a good job

---

I remember it dropping from 100k-240k to 80k.

---

I think this is about as good of a response as one could reasonably give to an allegation like this (albeit one that would have ideally come earlier):

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1256375544490471425

---

2.2 mil
100-200k
60k

are the main numbers. we've already failed 60 and are on pace for 100.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think this is about as good of a response as one could reasonably give to an allegation like this (albeit one that would have ideally come earlier):

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1256375544490471425

Trump would be suing for libel.

---

https://twitter.com/kalhanr/status/1256302178010087424?s=21

---

https://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/29125363/judge-sides-us-soccer-uswnt-equal-pay-lawsuit

Also, the vice says Biden just appointed Dodd, someone who supposedly has a metoo issue if his own, to a prominent position in the campaign.

Vice is a rag site though so wouldn't read too much into it.

---

stating in his decision that the players "have not demonstrated a triable issue that WNT players are paid less than MNT players."

Huh????

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bernie Sanders had literally on camera said the opposite of what he supposedly said in this private convo.

I 100% believe that Bernie implied a woman couldn't win because Trump would employ sexism against them. Especially with how Bernie also railed against "Identity Politics". Bernie just comes short of admitting it.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Huh????

They had to play more games which caused them to reach an equal net pay as the men which the judge has equated to them being paid the same somehow.

TheRock1525 posted...

I remember it dropping from 100k-240k to 80k.

We literally had it to basically near the bottom of the uncertainty at certain points and then we went fuck it lets kill double.

Leafeon13N posted...

They had to play more games which caused them to reach an equal net pay as the men which the judge has equated to them being paid the same somehow.

What a fucking joke.

Their games bring in less viewers, so they generate less revenue, and are paid less. Basic capitalism.

HeroicCrono posted...

Their games bring in less viewers

Is this actually true
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Is this actually true

Probably? I'm open to reconsidering if not.

I would honestly be shocked if the US ratings for USMNT games were higher than USWNT games
---

Also why don't they go on strike? That's what MLB players did.

Women's finals had higher viewership than Men's last year at least.

Leafeon13N posted...

They had to play more games which caused them to reach an equal net pay as the men which the judge has equated to them being paid the same somehow.

Not what it said. It said they didn't create grounds for a TRIABLE case. He argued they negotiated this contract basically.

Though, it says they made more money per game than the men's team in the article also, due to their bonuses they hit that men didn't

---

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/04/21/usmnt-viewing-audiences-2014-17-world-cup-qualifying-cycle/

US Mens National Team average viewership for the last World Cup cycle: 826,274

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/07/13/uswnt-tv-ratings-2015-19-averaged-929k-us-english-language-television/

US Womens National Team average viewership for the last World Cup cycle: 929,914
---

"they got the same amount of money because they played more games" is not a good argument.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/04/21/usmnt-viewing-audiences-2014-17-world-cup-qualifying-cycle/

US Mens National Team average viewership for the last World Cup cycle: 826,274

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/07/13/uswnt-tv-ratings-2015-19-averaged-929k-us-english-language-television/

US Womens National Team average viewership for the last World Cup cycle: 929,914

...honestly by those numbers it generally skews towards the men. the women have a gigantic outlier in the world cup where they absolutely crush men's viewership on anything and raise the average a ton. if you look at all the other numbers, the only other time women are comparable to the men's Cup games - which seems to be like 30% of the male games - is in the olympics. friendly matches skew towards male viewership too, though men have a lot fewer games in this category. network differences play a bigger role than sex on that one: FS1 is slightly male biased, ESPN heavily male biased.


---

Wanglicious posted...

...honestly by those numbers it generally skews towards the men. the women have a gigantic outlier in the world cup where they absolutely crush men's viewership on anything and raise the average a ton.

Maybe the men should have made the World Cup then
---

i mean it would've helped.

but we don't actually have any numbers for the men in that year either. or the year before. the men's chart is 2014-2017, the women's is 2015-2019, with said outlier case being 2019. so we're running off different years, different datasets, and don't include the men's numbers in the women's strongest years. it's not the best apples to apples comparison.

if we look at the specific years they do overlap, men definitely dominate by a lot. too lazy to open excel and put both in but just at a glance it's obviously in the men's favor.


---

The contracts were presumably negotiated when it was expected that the men's team would make the World Cup. It's like how a baseball player still gets paid a guaranteed negotiated amount based on how well they were expected to do even if they suddenly start performing much worse.

Since the men's team failed to qualify in 2018, that will presumably hurt their negotiating power for the next round of contract negotiations. Since it's not a lock they will qualify.

---

Wanglicious posted...

but we don't actually have any numbers for the men in that year either.

We dont have mens numbers for that year because they didnt make the World Cup

Im not sure what about the equivalency of these data sets is confusing
---

so by failing to make the world cup there were no games for 2 years?

---

HeroicCrono posted...

Their games bring in less viewers

This was the original claim anyway, which has been disproven.
---

Wanglicious posted...

so by failing to make the world cup there were no games for 2 years?

Its a data set for the most recent full World Cup cycles for the men and for the women

The point in the cycle matters far more than the actual year. Obviously if the men were in the 2018 World Cup, their viewership for 2018 would be ahead of the Womens in 2018 who would not be in the World Cup because they dont have one. Vice-versa for 2019

Also overall viewership for TV is going down each year so if anything, having an earlier data set should be an advantage
---

Is the issue that you were assuming the World Cups were played in the same year?

EDIT: If we took just 2019 numbers, that would be MASSIVELY unfair for the mens team, for example
---

and that's something you can justify in the numbers with the same years but datasets spanning years should have the same timeframe. like if you check the data main big games being played by men had nothing to do with the world cup, it was Copa Americana and Gold Cup. the former gave similar numbers as the women in the Olympics in 2016. that's a fair comparison to make: Copa Americana for men's soccer is equivalent to Olympics for women's soccer.

the claim was that men's games draw more views than women and you pulled up data that said women, on average, did pull in more average views from 2015-2019 as opposed to men's 2014 to 2017. that doesn't actually rebuff the claim when you look at the specifics because all those games say is that in 2019 women greatly outdid the men in at least 5 years but the men outdid the women in others. if you look at the years where the two did play games and can have a direct connection between who draws more, you can see men do even in their friendly matches. you could technically correlate this to there being more tournaments out there, though that'd just end up favoring men's viewership as a result in all years that aren't a women's world cup.

Jakyl25 posted...

Is the issue that you were assuming the World Cups were played in the same year?

EDIT: If we took just 2019 numbers, that would be MASSIVELY unfair for the mens team, for example

no, the issue is that men do seem to draw more views when things are equal. the women outdrew on average due to one significant year. if the men had qualified men would've obviously outdrawn them in that year too, and the entire dataset since the world cup's numbers dwarf the women's. just that the women's world cup dwarfs the non-world cup games the men have too.

---

maybe it's clearer to just remove the organizations.

say you've two competing businesses.

Business 1 (B1) has a certain event that brings in a crapton of people in year X.
Business 2 (B2) has a certain event that brings in a crapton of people in year Y.
B1 does not expect to beat B2 in year Y.
B2 does not expect to beat B1 in year X.

these would be the outliers for their sales.

B1 typically does have mini events occur which manage to get more sales and customers than normal but B2 is still in some way competitive due to better hours/wider selection. however one year, B1 does not have its sale occur. well, when B2 launches their sale they get results so good it not only beats B1 that year but manages to topple everything up to B1's last sale.

this does not mean B2 had more customers in the previous years, B1 did.
it means B2 had something so massive it brought in a ton of new customers in their outlier period.

now this could mean B2 will get a lot more repeat customers but it's not known yet.

---

Wanglicious posted...

the claim was that men's games draw more views than women and you pulled up data that said women, on average, did pull in more average views from 2015-2019 as opposed to men's 2014 to 2017. that doesn't actually rebuff the claim

Yes, it literally does
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes, it literally does

The women's 5-year span includes 2 World Cups. The men's 4-year span includes 1 WC.

---

Wanglicious posted...

B1 typically does have mini events occur which manage to get more sales and customers than normal but B2 is still in some way competitive due to better hours/wider selection. however one year, B1 does not have its sale occur. well, when B2 launches their sale they get results so good it not only beats B1 that year but manages to topple everything up to B1's last sale.

this does not mean B2 had more customers in the previous years, B1 did.
it means B2 had something so massive it brought in a ton of new customers in their outlier period.

now this could mean B2 will get a lot more repeat customers but it's not known yet.

And which business has the highest stock price at the end point? Most likely B2
---

red sox 777 posted...

The women's 5-year span includes 2 World Cups. The men's 4-year span includes 1 WC.

If you actually look at the data setS, you will see that this is not true.
---

but we aren't talking about stock prices, we're talking about customers, the people who go there.

B1 typically has more customers but there is a clear, specific time period when they don't. just because B2 manages to do much better in that period does not mean the reality of the other years is removed. redsox's claim here would be "hey, B1 has more customers than B2" and your claim is going "hey, B2 has more customers because of this sale that happened."

nobody will argue that the sale was a huge success and if you want to make it look like B2 had more, you could.
but his claim will still be the actual correct answer.

---

Wanglicious posted...

we're talking about customers, the people who go there.

Okay so you just arent interested in the overall average, you just want to look at the average when things are equal

But things are not equal. You cant discount the addition of the Womens World Cup just because its an outlier and then men failed to qualify for theirs. I am talking about average viewers overall for both.

Yes this is a DUMB ARGUMENT TO BE HAVING but the next topic is up and I wont bleed it over to there.
---

this is a weird topic for me to discuss because I always believed the actual answer is that the men shouldnt be paid at all and the money should go into making soccer in America actually better.

(because Im an idiot who thinks playing for your country is enough)

---

But if we don't overpay the sports players, they'll have to take up jobs in the private sector!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94
---

Dancedreamer posted...

I 100% believe that Bernie implied a woman couldn't win because Trump would employ sexism against them. Especially with how Bernie also railed against "Identity Politics". Bernie just comes short of admitting it.

I said I could see Bernie saying a woman would have a harder time, but the accusation wasnt Trump will be tough for a woman, the accusation was literally Bernie said a woman cant be elected President.

The former is Bernie saying what everyone knows is true (the people saying Warren lost because of sexism are literally saying that), and the latter is way way worse.

Even you are giving Bernie the benefit here, this is not the same issue as Bidens.

---

Like I said, if they feel they are underpaid, the women's team should demand more when negotiating their next contract. If the market will bear it, they will get it.

A big part of what the men's team is being paid for is in the off chance that they not only qualify for the WC but make a deep run in it, even possibly winning the tournament - that kind of event, while unlikely, would (1) get massive ratings, and (2) tremendously boost the standing of soccer in America for a generation. It hasn't happened and it's unlikely to happen but it could happen, and when you are negotiating a contract beforehand that is part of the value.


---

If I'm looking to get an idea of who has better viewers/who has more customers I'm not going to look at when things are equal, not compare when the outlier dramatically changes the data. That's how it always works dude. You don't want an outlier to skew the data in anything.

Going forward I'd expect the men's contracts to be shittier and the women's to be better due to performance as I'd assume this would directly impact sponsorships and viewership numbers. But the claim is still true that men's viewership is higher than women's, your data actually proves this point. That women competing in the Olympics is roughly equivalent to men in Copa Americana. Just that when there's a world cup, that sex will do significantly better than the other half.

---

If the men won a world cup, their viewership would shatter the Women's into oblivion.

---

If men competed in the sweet 16 it'd do that.

But I wouldn't count it either for that claim. It too would be an outlier in data determining who watches what more.

---

Then you don't understand the argument, Wang.

Their argument is that the men get paid more for doing the same as them.

Women got paid more than men per game due to bonuses they hit in the time frame in the article.

They are arguing they don't get equal pay though because men would have gotten more if they had achieved the same.

So, when doing the argument, you have to take viewership of if they had the same results. Men's viewership would shatter women's in the same circumstances. That's the argument for paying the men more.

---

That's not what I'm arguing at all is all. I'm just supporting the claim that male viewership is higher, that's all. Not the whole difference of pay, which is a lot more complicated due to the different contracts.

---

Play Undertale

---