Displaying 1 - 10 of 519 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Aug 14, 2019 03:34 PM
    Last: 6d

    The Little League World Series is such a cool event. There's something about seeing young athletes battle it out in a professional setting that just makes it enjoyable to watch. I have been watching for a few years now and it looks to only be getting bigger and bigger. This got me thinking about what makes the LLWS so popular. We have a lot of other little league sports that have similar tournaments, but nothing stands out quite like this one.

    There seems to be a very special place built specifically for LLWS. They do have the name "World Series" tide in with the tournament, so maybe it just makes it seem like a bigger deal? I wonder how it would look if it were the same for other sports. For example, would something like a Little League Super Bowl be as popular? Little League Stanley Cup? I can't see either of those really catching on to the same degree, but I honestly would love to see at least those two happen.

    Every year seems to be getting more and more popular, or at least I hear more and more people actually talking about/getting excited about the tournament. Makes me wonder what it's going to look like in a few years if it continues to grow.

  • Aug 01, 2019 01:48 PM
    Last: 11d

    I don't see them taking away two preseason games without adding two regular games. Even though they're not super popular, I wouldn't think the preseason games are actually losing money for the NFL, right? I'm all for dropping to pre's for 2 actual games, but I can see it being a problem if they just drop two games without adding or changing anything. I can definitely already hear a ton of people getting all riled up if they were to do that, even if they didn't care about preseason games beforehand.

    I think it'd be a good move to convert 2 preseason games to regular games. That would make everyone happy, except for a few diva players.

  • Jul 09, 2019 02:23 PM
    Last: 1mo
    Dallasite Wrote:

    If its just a matter of performance, I would agree with you. But I think it all comes down to world wide viewership, revenue and advertising money. Basically its just a money thing. I would like to see the difference in revenue generated all told between the FIFA Women's World Cup vs the Gold Cup for example.

    If the Women's World Cup drew the same as the Gold Cup in money but the pay was this out of wack, clearly that's an injustice. But if its proportionally less, then what are you going to do. Can't pay them more just because. Money has to be there.

    Do you have any numbers on how much either sport/event generates in actual revenue? I think that's the answer here.

    Now those numbers I was able to find.

    First two revenue numbers here are according to WS Journal, though I've checked and got the exact same numbers everywhere else:

    -From 2016 to 2018 the U.S. Womans team pulled in about $50.8 million in gate revenue.

    -From 2016 to 2018 the U.S. Mens team pulled in about $49.9 million in gate revenue.

    The Womens team also had the best-selling jersey for a single season through Nike, even before they won their fourth Gold Cup.

    Another major point here is that the USSF was predicting a net-loss of around $400k for 2016. Though due to the Womens team's success, the USSF made a profit of around $17 million.

    It's incredibly obvious which team is more popular, generating more revenue, created a dynasty that keeps the sport alive and churning out cash, and obviously playing better (atleast when considering both teams are under the same corporation). They should get paid as such.

  • Jul 15, 2019 03:20 PM
    Last: 1mo

    Yeah, this course is intense. I'm happy to see it being used for this. It's way more interesting to watch the tournament when it's on a really tricky and historical course. I can definitely appreciate the skill involved in golf itself, but it gets a bit stagnant to see the same big dogs on the same courses over and over. It seems like the only time something actually interesting happens is when something out of the ordinary occurs, like Jordan Spieth winning a couple years back. Interesting courses and the known names getting knocked out fast are what makes it worth watching, at least in my opinion.

  • Jul 09, 2019 02:23 PM
    Last: 1mo

    The recent USWNT Women's World Cup win has reignited the discussion about equal pay between men and women in sports. This year's Gold Cup and World Cup are perfect examples for this discussion. Since each team/country/etc can be a little different, I'm just going keep it on the USWNT and Men's team.

    Everyone probably knows at this point that the Woman's team dominated this year and won the Cup, while the Men's team did not win the Gold Cup. So if it was left simply at that it seems like the winners should get paid more, no matter which team it was. FIFA, the governing body in control of payouts of prize money, says the winning U.S. team will receive a maximum payout of $200k per player (including all bonuses from what I understand), though the Men's team would/have received $1,114,429 per player. Disclaimer: The numbers I've been able to find have all been a little different and/or are from years 2015-2019, so I can't swear by that. But everything that I've seen regarding pay/viewership/revenue from all years says the same thing, there's a pretty substantial difference.

    If we just look at the two teams for what they are and the revenue they have produced for FIFA in general, it seems clear to me that if anything at all, either team should be allowed the exact same payout for winning the tournament. I just can't see any reason why they shouldn't be. I've seen people bringing up that the pay isn't all that different when considering viewership/wins/etc, but if that's really the case then the Womans team deserves way more than the Mens team, atleast in the past few years that they've been absolutely killing it.

    All in all, I know that it's a complicated issue. I understand that there's alot that goes into decisions like this. But I don't understand why it's not a cut-n-dry equal payout for, at the very minimum, tournament wins. Does anyone see something here that I'm missing? I've seen a bunch of people claiming that it all adds up in the end to be about the same, but I can't find any figures that show that.

  • Jul 09, 2019 01:43 PM
    Last: 1mo
    The recent USWNT Women's World Cup win has reignited the discussion about equal pay between men and women in sports. This year's Gold Cup and World Cup are perfect examples of this, at least on the women's side.
  • Jul 06, 2019 03:35 PM
    Last: 1mo

    It's crazy that they won again this year. I expected them to get far into the tournament, and was leaning toward them being in the final, but I honestly didn't think they'd win again. It definitely makes sense after looking at all the dates you posted above though.

    On a related note, I bet this win will help their case to get paid more (at least when winning the tournament). They dominated they tournament, generated a ton of publicity and made a ton of money. I was super surprised to see they only get around $4mil to split among the team after winning. They also get a bunch of bonuses and whatnot that range from 15k to 35k per person, but even still. Compared to the NFL or other professional sports, it's a bit lackluster.

  • Jun 14, 2019 04:04 PM
    Last: 2mo
    I think Oklahoma takes the win. I grew up in Texas around people who were obsessed with this matchup every year. Even if no one cared about all the other games, TX vs OU was always huge. And although I think they'd put up a good fight against OU, I just don't think they have what it takes to beat them. I see a match with numbers a bit more separated than 2018, maybe even a bit more dominating from OU.
  • Jun 13, 2019 11:49 PM
    Last: 2mo
    The Raptors deserved the win. The Warriors had their injuries and whatnot, but the Raptors killed it. Curry being mostly by himself is why I think teams need to stop building teams around specific star players. I know it's not the same sport, but just look at the Chicago Blackhawks just a couple years ago. They had so many awesome athletes that it didn't even matter if 2 of them were injured. They all complimented eachother and were almost unbeatable when it counted. NBA teams these days seem to think it's enough to have 1 or 2 star players and treat them as invincible. Curry not making that 3 pointer is a good example of this..
  • Jun 13, 2019 12:05 PM
    Last: 2mo

    I think it's a really smart move for business. Everyone knows the preseason is pretty blah. No one really cares what happens. The day the actual season starts is the day that the real NFL begins, excluding those who use it as a tool for fantasy.

    As for the players, I think they will be much more on board with this. Most of the players are dragged to the preseason games anyway, just now the guys that are forced to play those games will be doing so with a smirk. It has to suck to play preseason knowing you could get injured, but you're forced to so that the "real star" doesn't get hurt. Adding 2 season games will balance that out better. And taking away 2 preseason games will make it worth the risk of injury (assuming the pay is higher than the preseason games).

    I don't think the average players will care that much, they may even fully support it. That means more primetime for them. But there will probably be pushback by some of the star QBs and such, considering they are used to playing X amount of "real games".

    From a business point of view this will most definitely generate more revenue, so it'll be worth it.