Eric Reid Demanding Investigation and Revote on CBA

[GG]

1 minute ago, Mango said:

 

Being treated differently because of the color of your skin has nothing to do with income. 

 

Also Frederick Douglas ended up being pretty wealthy. So were his complaints and views no longer valid? 

 

Where did I mention the color of anyone's skin?

[C.Biscuit97]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Classic TBD. Somehow turning a bash-Eric-Reid thread into a bash-womens-team thread while they're at it. Almost like there is a theme there.

 

Anyways...

 

Good for Eric Reid for being willing to stand up for former players.

Yup, this thread is beyond predictable.  I’m starting to think this board doesn’t cater to a diverse group of people. ?

20 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Did you just compare slavery to free men who sign $100 million contracts?

 

Again, they have the full freedom of expression.   On their own time and on their own dime.

So were you fine with Rex Ryan and RI campaigning for Trump?

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Every grievance starts off on a personal basis.  You seem to make the immediate jump that Kaep's and Reid's grievances with the system are scocietal and institutionalized.  Many people disagree.  The two had an opportunity to mobilize more players, but couldn't even get consensus within the NFLPA, let alone the public at large.  But thanks to favorable press coverage, we're supposed to accept their personal opinions as a matter of fact.  

 

They are not. Reid & Kaepernick are still free to voice their opinion and organize more people to their cause in the way countless others have done in centuries that have preceded them.  Yet, they aren't making any progress.  Why is that?

That’s a topic for a different forum, which you’re surely aware of. Suffice to say the irony of you turning this particular issue into your personal grievance is lost on you, which is unfortunate and not at all surprising.

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

How many teams in the Women's World Cup have legit chances to win the World Cup? Maybe 3 or 4? A lot more Men's teams can legit win the world cup.  In addition there are only 24 entrants in the Women's World Cup versus 32 in the Men's which is soon to be 48.

 

In the women's qualifying group for CONCACAF, basically only 2 teams had any chance whatsoever to win the region, US and Canada. The US won their group outscoring teams 18-0 and Canada won theirs outscoring teams 17-1. In the semi-finals the US beat Jamaica 6-0 and Canada beat Panama 7-0.  Great competition huh?  Then the US beat Canada 2-0 in the final. Compare this to US Men's CONCACAF Qualifying.

 

The Women's team routinely loses to high school boys teams.  How good can they really be?

 

 

Your claim about their competition as being in it's infancy, for 30 years, was clearly wrong.

 

I didn't to include CONCACAF, because.... why bother?--it doesn't include any teams from South America or Europe (where the best non-US teams hail from) or Asia.  Only the US and Canada are ranked top 20 in the world.  But I can see why you limited your response to that.  It's a poor dodge. 

 

In 25 years, USMNT has only beaten Panama 5 times in 10 games, by the way. 

 

As for losing to "high school teams"  these aren't high schools they were US Soccer Academy teams and they weren't games but essentially scrimmages.

 

This should help you understand better:

 

But this article went on to describe the event as part of a structured practice undertaken primarily for the benefit and development of the boys’ team:

 

https://www.90min.com/posts/4833646-some-people-think-it-s-funny-that-the-usa-women-s-national-team-were-apparently-beaten-by-u15-boys

Of course, this match against the academy team was very informal and should not be a major cause for alarm. The U.S. surely wasn’t going all out, with the main goal being to get some minutes on the pitch, build chemistry when it comes to moving the ball around, improve defensive shape and get ready for Russia.

The game will, however, serve as a great anecdote for the kids on the FC Dallas squad to tell their grandchildren about one day. It also speaks highly of the level of academy development MLS teams are doing these days.

[Mango]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Where did I mention the color of anyone's skin?

 The ‘Personal social grievance’ that you keep referencing (and think should only be addressed in their own time) is people of color trying to bring light to racial inequalities and injustices. 

[GG]

7 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 

So were you fine with Rex Ryan and RI campaigning for Trump?

 

If they did it on the sideline of a game?  You betcha.

  

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

 The ‘Personal social grievance’ that you keep referencing (and think should only be addressed in their own time) is people of color trying to bring light to racial inequalities and injustices. 

 

It's not that difficult.  Most of the people wouldn't have cared if the players didn't bring the protest onto the field on game day.  Do whatever you feel is right on your own time.

 

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That’s a topic for a different forum, which you’re surely aware of. Suffice to say the irony of you turning this particular issue into your personal grievance is lost on you, which is unfortunate and not at all surprising.

 

Nearly every player in the league is involved in a cause.  None of them bring it to the field of play, because the league prohibits it.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

If they did it on the sideline of a game?  You betcha.

 

 

Typo or hypocrisy?

[Mango]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

If they did it on the sideline of a game?  You betcha.

  

 

It's not that difficult.  Most of the people wouldn't have cared if the players didn't bring the protest onto the field on game day.  Do whatever you feel is right on your own time.

 

 

Nearly every player in the league is involved in a cause.  None of them bring it to the field of play, because the league prohibits it.

You probably hated Tommie Smith and John Carlos. 
 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Mango

[GG]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Typo or hypocrisy?

 

Did they wear MAGA hats on the sideline of a game or something like that?

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, GG said:

 

Did they wear MAGA hats on the sideline of a game or something like that?

 

I dont know. Doesnt matter. The question was: Were you fine with coach and player campaigning for Trump?

 

And you said If they did it on the sideline of a game? You betcha.

 

So that's either the opposite of what you've been arguing, or you mistyped something. Youre the one who mentioned the sideline and then said you had no problem with it. Just giving you a chance to clarify.

[GG]

1 minute ago, Mango said:

You probably hated Tommie Smith and John Carlos. 

 A one-time symbolic act that's a photo-op is not similar to what Reid & Kaepernick were doing.  

 

A better correlation is Ali's anti-draft stance, for which he also paid the price.  At least get the right references.

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I dont know. Doesnt matter. The question was: Were you fine with coach and player campaigning for Trump?

 

And you said If they did it on the sideline of a game? You betcha.

 

So that's either the opposite of what you've been arguing, or you mistyped something. Youre the one who mentioned the sideline and then said you had no problem with it. Just giving you a chance to clarify.

 

Stay on topic.   If you want to derail this topic into an anti-Trump tangent, there's a forum here where people are perfectly happy to take you up on your stance.

 

Players can do whatever is in their rights off the field.  Reid & Kaepernick brought their cause on the field, against the league rules.  Nobody would have an issue with them rallying for their cause on their own time, just like nobody should have a beef with Richie & Rex supporting Trump on their own time.

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 A one-time symbolic act that's a photo-op is not similar to what Reid & Kaepernick were doing.  

 

A better correlation is Ali's anti-draft stance, for which he also paid the price.  At least get the right references.

 

Stay on topic.   If you want to derail this topic into an anti-Trump tangent, there's a forum here where people are perfectly happy to take you up on your stance.

 

Players can do whatever is in their rights off the field.  Reid & Kaepernick brought their cause on the field, against the league rules.  Nobody would have an issue with them rallying for their cause on their own time, just like nobody should have a beef with Richie & Rex supporting Trump on their own time.

 

 

 

Has nothing to do with Trump specifically, Im asking YOU to clarify YOUR stance.

 

The question was:

Were you fine with coach and player campaigning for candidate?

 

YOU answered:

If they did it on the sideline? You betcha (I'm fine with it)

 

So you either misunderstood the question, or mistyped your answer, or are being hypocritical to your previous stance. I dont think youre a hypocrite, so I was trying to give you a chance to correct your confusing answer.

 

Did you mean to say "As long as they DIDNT do it on the sideline"?

[GG]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Has nothing to do with Trump specifically, Im asking YOU to clarify YOUR stance.

 

The question was:

Were you fine with coach and player campaigning for candidate?

 

YOU answered:

If they did it on the sideline? You betcha (I'm fine with it)

 

So you either misunderstood the question, or mistyped your answer, or are being hypocritical to your previous stance. I dont think youre a hypocrite, so I was trying to give you a chance to correct your confusing answer.

 

Did you mean to say "As long as they DIDNT do it on the sideline"?

 

Sorry.  Yes if those two wore MAGA hats on a sideline, that would be an idiotic thing to do, and should result in heavy fines.  If they continued to do it, then suspensions would be appropriate.

Edited March 31, 2020 by GG

[GoBills808]

21 minutes ago, GG said:

 A one-time symbolic act that's a photo-op is not similar to what Reid & Kaepernick were doing.  

 

A better correlation is Ali's anti-draft stance, for which he also paid the price.  At least get the right references.

 

Stay on topic.   If you want to derail this topic into an anti-Trump tangent, there's a forum here where people are perfectly happy to take you up on your stance.

 

Players can do whatever is in their rights off the field.  Reid & Kaepernick brought their cause on the field, against the league rules.  Nobody would have an issue with them rallying for their cause on their own time, just like nobody should have a beef with Richie & Rex supporting Trump on their own time.

 

 

Nobody should have a problem with Incognito publicly supporting a politician who campaigned on boycotting the NFL and denigrating his fellow union members? Is that a joke?

[GG]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Nobody should have a problem with Incognito publicly supporting a politician who campaigned on boycotting the NFL and denigrating his fellow union members? Is that a joke?

 

You may have a problem with his opinion, but I hope you don't have a problem with his rights to express a differing opinion on his own time and on his own dime.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You may have a problem with his opinion, but I hope you don't have a problem with his rights to express a differing opinion on his own time and on his own dime.

Yeah I don’t think you understand the concept of union membership or collective bargaining. Like at all.

[DrDawkinstein]

9 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You may have a problem with his opinion, but I hope you don't have a problem with his rights to express a differing opinion on his own time and on his own dime.

 

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Yeah I don’t think you understand the concept of union membership or collective bargaining. Like at all.

 

In GG's defense, I'd say RICHIE is the one who doesnt understand the concept of union membership. But he is completely free to campaign and vote against his best interests. Most union voters did in the last election anyways.

[GG]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Yeah I don’t think you understand the concept of union membership or collective bargaining. Like at all.

 

Did the union sanction the protest?

[C.Biscuit97]

42 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Did they wear MAGA hats on the sideline of a game or something like that?

https://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/2016/10/rex_ryan_doesnt_think_his_support_of_donald_trump_is_dividing_bills_locker_room.html  
 

fact is there are a lot posters who love to bash Kaepernick and Reid who would love it they had pro Trump Cleats or something like that.  Personally, I’m fine with all of it.  And absolutely blows my mind that people whine they way they do about a guy silently protesting yet are fine supporting women beaters and other scumbags.  Seems a little backwards to me but to each their own I guess.  I also find it odd that people get upset about speaking about social issues that are affecting others.  What happen to empathy?  And like it or not, athletes have huge platforms more than most human beings to make social changes.

[billsfan89]

18 hours ago, Bferra13 said:

Haha yes, because the millionaires are so much better. Let's see what happens here before making accusations 

 

Call me crazy but I side with the players putting their health and well-being on the line over billionaires playing with a toy they acquired. I agree that we can't jump to conclusions but I think it would likely be the 32 billionaires who would try and pull a fast one over a union of players in the several hundreds with more scattered priorities and representation. 

[GG]

14 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

https://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/2016/10/rex_ryan_doesnt_think_his_support_of_donald_trump_is_dividing_bills_locker_room.html  
 

fact is there are a lot posters who love to bash Kaepernick and Reid who would love it they had pro Trump Cleats or something like that.  Personally, I’m fine with all of it.  And absolutely blows my mind that people whine they way they do about a guy silently protesting yet are fine supporting women beaters and other scumbags.  Seems a little backwards to me but to each their own I guess.  I also find it odd that people get upset about speaking about social issues that are affecting others.  What happen to empathy?  And like it or not, athletes have huge platforms more than most human beings to make social changes.

 

When a topic hits an emotional nerve it derails into a tangent.  The bottom line with Kaepernick's protest was that he broke his employer's rules of conduct.  The underlying cause is irrelevant.

[GoBills808]

24 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

In GG's defense, I'd say RICHIE is the one who doesnt understand the concept of union membership. But he is completely free to campaign and vote against his best interests. Most union voters did in the last election anyways.

Of course he's free to do it. I never suggested otherwise. But just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean I'm not going to rightly call you an ####### for doing it.

[Big Turk]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Your claim about their competition as being in it's infancy, for 30 years, was clearly wrong.

 

I didn't to include CONCACAF, because.... why bother?--it doesn't include any teams from South America or Europe (where the best non-US teams hail from) or Asia.  Only the US and Canada are ranked top 20 in the world.  But I can see why you limited your response to that.  It's a poor dodge. 

 

In 25 years, USMNT has only beaten Panama 5 times in 10 games, by the way. 

 

As for losing to "high school teams"  these aren't high schools they were US Soccer Academy teams and they weren't games but essentially scrimmages.

 

This should help you understand better:

 

But this article went on to describe the event as part of a structured practice undertaken primarily for the benefit and development of the boys’ team:

 

https://www.90min.com/posts/4833646-some-people-think-it-s-funny-that-the-usa-women-s-national-team-were-apparently-beaten-by-u15-boys

Of course, this match against the academy team was very informal and should not be a major cause for alarm. The U.S. surely wasn’t going all out, with the main goal being to get some minutes on the pitch, build chemistry when it comes to moving the ball around, improve defensive shape and get ready for Russia.

The game will, however, serve as a great anecdote for the kids on the FC Dallas squad to tell their grandchildren about one day. It also speaks highly of the level of academy development MLS teams are doing these days.

 

Got an explanation for this one?

 

Mens U-17 Team smoked the USWNT 8-2. Want to claim its a scrimmage again and they weren't "trying"? There are several more recorded instances of  the USWNT playing high-school aged boys teams and everytime I have looked at the results they have lost and usually lost badly.  Clearly at some point they should have won regardless of how hard they were trying? 

 

Your argument that there is as good competition in Women's soccer as there is in Men's is just ridiculous and so far from the realm of reality you must be talking about some alternate universe where this holds true.  Anyone who follows soccer even a little bit knows that Women's soccer while having an increase in talent around the world, still pales in comparison to Men's soccer...precisely because many of these countries don't or didn't even have Women's sports until recently and/or don't bother funding them.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by matter2003

[Turk71]

5 hours ago, Turk71 said:

I get that. Football players are only supposed to play football, not stand up (or kneel down) for social causes. Hilarious.

 He's right to stand up for the disabled players.

 

4 hours ago, GG said:

 

The discussion may have eluded you in the past, but the point is that the players were pushing their personal social causes on their employer's time and using their employer's platform to send a message.  Then they got indignant when the employer asked them to stop.  The players are perfectly free to pursue their causes on their own time, using their own resources.

  Seeing as how I no longer live in a cave at 8000 feet in Utah like I used to, it would be pretty hard to elude that discussion.

  Life was so simple living in the cave. Ski in  and ski out in the wintertime, mountain biking all summer, no television, internet, bills to pay, I didn't even have a phone. Were cell phones even a thing in 1987? I can't remember, I know I didn't have one. No mail either, unlike Bugs Bunny I had no mailbox outside the cave. No overload of information to cloud my mind. The good old days. 

   The term 'personal social causes' was considered an oxymoron back then I think, and I'm pretty sure 'social justice warrior' was not yet a pejorative term. I can't remember though, so long ago.

  

   

[Mango]

44 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

Got an explanation for this one?

 

Mens U-17 Team smoked the USWNT 8-2. Want to claim its a scrimmage again and they weren't "trying"? There are several more recorded instances of  the USWNT playing high-school aged boys teams and everytime I have looked at the results they have lost and usually lost badly.  Clearly at some point they should have won regardless of how hard they were trying? 

 

Your argument that there is as good competition in Women's soccer as there is in Men's is just ridiculous and so far from the realm of reality you must be talking about some alternate universe where this holds true.  Anyone who follows soccer even a little bit knows that Women's soccer while having an increase in talent around the world, still pales in comparison to Men's soccer...precisely because many of these countries don't or didn't even have Women's sports until recently and/or don't bother funding them.

 

 

 

Dude, the women brought in about $1M more in revenue in 2018 than the Mens team. They are also at the top of their field internationally. There isn’t a special NGB for the men and another for the women. It all goes into the same pot and is managed by the same board of directors. 

 

Your point about losing to a HS team is dumb. It’s a Junior National Team camp/squad. There are dozens of sports where these camps would put together a team of HS kids that would be ranked in the top 20 in the NCAA.

[DrDawkinstein]

47 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

Got an explanation for this one?

 

Mens U-17 Team smoked the USWNT 8-2. Want to claim its a scrimmage again and they weren't "trying"? There are several more recorded instances of  the USWNT playing high-school aged boys teams and everytime I have looked at the results they have lost and usually lost badly.  Clearly at some point they should have won regardless of how hard they were trying? 

 

Your argument that there is as good competition in Women's soccer as there is in Men's is just ridiculous and so far from the realm of reality you must be talking about some alternate universe where this holds true.  Anyone who follows soccer even a little bit knows that Women's soccer while having an increase in talent around the world, still pales in comparison to Men's soccer...precisely because many of these countries don't or didn't even have Women's sports until recently and/or don't bother funding them.

 

 

 

Boys are better at sports than girls in head to head competition. No duh. Even the Williams sisters said they would get beaten by the lowest ranked man. Does that mean they arent good at tennis? What are you even arguing in this CBA thread?

[Mr. WEO]

52 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

Got an explanation for this one?

 

Mens U-17 Team smoked the USWNT 8-2. Want to claim its a scrimmage again and they weren't "trying"? There are several more recorded instances of  the USWNT playing high-school aged boys teams and everytime I have looked at the results they have lost and usually lost badly.  Clearly at some point they should have won regardless of how hard they were trying? 

 

Your argument that there is as good competition in Women's soccer as there is in Men's is just ridiculous and so far from the realm of reality you must be talking about some alternate universe where this holds true.  Anyone who follows soccer even a little bit knows that Women's soccer while having an increase in talent around the world, still pales in comparison to Men's soccer...precisely because many of these countries don't or didn't even have Women's sports until recently and/or don't bother funding them.

 

 

 

 

 Men's international soccer is loaded with far more dogs than exist in women's.  And I wasn't claiming it's a scrimmage, the US Soccer rep was saying it was.  Go read it again, but this time, step closer to your Gateway.

 

I've said your claim that the USWNT has dominated for decades due to the poor competition (which is due to all of those countries being new to soccer and ?sports in general ) is total BS and proven so.  They have taken on the best in the world for decades and routinely beaten them in the 2 biggest tournaments (WC and Olympics).  Go look at the top 20 countries for women's soccer---how many "didn't have women's sports until recently"? 

 

If you "follow soccer even a little bit", you wouldn't watch the top women's teams in the world and conclude "Man, none of these teams can play soccer very well"...

 

You fail to understand that it doesn't matter how more teams the men let into the WC tournament, the bottom half are insignificant.  And think of how hard it must be to get past Timor-Leste, Mongolia, Libya, Armenia, Congo, Russia, Kyrgyz Republic...

 

I bet the U-17 men's team would take at least 1 "real" game off the USMNT out of 5.  I'm certain that a McDonald's All-American Basketball team could, after practicing together for a few weeks, beat any UConn women's team that has ever played, and probably some WNBA teams.    It's women against grown men.  So what?

 

Anyway, the point is that the top competition for the women has been well established for many years and they have dominated nonetheless, whereas the men cannot compete against the top men's teams.  Nothing can be more clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[Hardhatharry]

Think it's time for him to just retire then.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Hardhatharry said:

Think it's time for him to just retire then.

 

Profound assessment of the treatment of retired and disabled players. Well done.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

7 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

Don't rile them up. Social justice as a valid and important subset of American civic life triggers some people who don't wish to hear complaints from historically marginalized peoples. Let's just stick to the NFL. 

 

I find it very odd that when Kaepernick does it, they say he's a millionaire and a football player, but when Trump whines like a B word about everything, the millionaire spoiled rich kid gets heaped praise like slop to a pig. 

3 hours ago, GG said:

 

When a topic hits an emotional nerve it derails into a tangent.  The bottom line with Kaepernick's protest was that he broke his employer's rules of conduct.  The underlying cause is irrelevant.

 

Irrelevant if you're white.

[Sig1Hunter]

Is it possible to keep this thread on there main board, or are certain people dead set on injecting their political views into it? Just curious..

[LB3]

I love these threads. An awesome study in emotion vs logic. Thanks all. ?

 

[DrDawkinstein]

37 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Is it possible to keep this thread on there main board, or are certain people dead set on injecting their political views into it? Just curious..

 

The first two words in the title are "Eric Reid". It's no surprise TBD would immediately turn it into a ***** show.

[Mr. WEO]

20% of the NFLPA members didn't think the new CBA was important enough to bother voting on it.  So why give them another bite at the apple?

 

They won't care about this small detail.  Where was Reid's outrage after the vote numbers were announced?

[Tenhigh]

1 hour ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

Irrelevant if you're white.

Irrelevant if you are employed.  

[GoBills808]

40 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

20% of the NFLPA members didn't think the new CBA was important enough to bother voting on it.  So why give them another bite at the apple?

 

They won't care about this small detail.  Where was Reid's outrage after the vote numbers were announced?

I would guess that 80% membership accounted for is pretty good tbh

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I would guess that 80% membership accounted for is pretty good tbh

 

It's pretty bad.  This is a rank and file vote on the financial future of every player that will be in force for 10 years.  If 500 of 2500 total players who were eligible to vote specifically chose not to, that's poor solidarity.

[Meatloaf63]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 Men's international soccer is loaded with far more dogs than exist in women's.  And I wasn't claiming it's a scrimmage, the US Soccer rep was saying it was.  Go read it again, but this time, step closer to your Gateway.

 

I've said your claim that the USWNT has dominated for decades due to the poor competition (which is due to all of those countries being new to soccer and ?sports in general ) is total BS and proven so.  They have taken on the best in the world for decades and routinely beaten them in the 2 biggest tournaments (WC and Olympics).  Go look at the top 20 countries for women's soccer---how many "didn't have women's sports until recently"? 

 

If you "follow soccer even a little bit", you wouldn't watch the top women's teams in the world and conclude "Man, none of these teams can play soccer very well"...

 

You fail to understand that it doesn't matter how more teams the men let into the WC tournament, the bottom half are insignificant.  And think of how hard it must be to get past Timor-Leste, Mongolia, Libya, Armenia, Congo, Russia, Kyrgyz Republic...

 

I bet the U-17 men's team would take at least 1 "real" game off the USMNT out of 5.  I'm certain that a McDonald's All-American Basketball team could, after practicing together for a few weeks, beat any UConn women's team that has ever played, and probably some WNBA teams.    It's women against grown men.  So what?

 

Anyway, the point is that the top competition for the women has been well established for many years and they have dominated nonetheless, whereas the men cannot compete against the top men's teams.  Nothing can be more clear.

 

 

 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 

“As recently as the 1980s, four of the twenty-four countries involved in the 2019 World Cup had imposed outright bans on women’s soccer. In general, many of the countries involved are still trying to recover from the myopia of past regimes and the sexism of current federations in order to field competitive teams on the pitch, which is part of the reason we see nations who embraced women’s soccer early and invest time and effort into fielding world-class teams succeed at this tournament.

Decades of foolishness are still impeding four countries with recent bans on women’s soccer, to varying degrees.” 
Not many countries have supported their woman’s  teams as much as the US  has until recently. The only thing clear is that you are wrong...

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Meatloaf63

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Is it possible to keep this thread on there main board, or are certain people dead set on injecting their political views into it? Just curious..

 

A Kaepernick thread?   How it's made it to 5 pages without being shipped off to PPP is a miracle!  

 

 

p.s.  Reid is douchebag.

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

A Kaepernick thread?   How it's made it to 5 pages without being shipped off to PPP is a miracle!  

 

 

p.s.  Reid is douchebag.

 

How dare he fight for old, disabled players, right? What a dbag...