Soccer, Social Justice, and Mr. President
The U.S. Women’s Soccer team — I think they have another name, some kind of acronym, but I neither know it nor care to learn it — has won a politically correct nonsense sporting event, which sports journalists (and a few fans) around the planet are patronizingly pretending to care about, as if it had anything in common with the actual World Cup soccer championship.
Oh, I’m just kidding — I know, they could beat the pants off me. Of course they could, because I don’t play soccer, don’t care about soccer, and have a severe limp these days due to a fracture I suffered last winter. But I also know, as we all do, if they played a real match, no holds barred, against any national men’s team that did not qualify for the last World Cup, they would be trounced at least as embarrassingly as they themselves trounced Thailand last month — though I doubt the men’s team would show as much unsportsmanlike bravado toward the U.S. women as those women showed toward the Thai team, pumping their fists and putting on Super-Bowl-style victory dances after scoring their eleventh or twelfth goal.
In any case, I only make the above point as a preface to making the following one, which is that American women’s soccer stars, being socialist props, know nothing about basic economics. Thus, the Colin Kaepernick of the team, Megan Rapinoe, has recently gone on a “kill the patriarchy” rant, complaining that the Women’s World Cup prize and sponsorship money is so much smaller than the actual (i.e., men’s) World Cup money.
Gee, I wonder why that would be. It could be that women athletes are still treated as second class citizens, due to systemic oppression and male chauvinism. Or it could be that relatively few people care about women’s soccer for the obvious reason that the best women’s soccer players couldn’t survive ten minutes on the field with an actual World Cup team, not to mention that an actual World Cup match is boring enough as it is without its pace being reduced by thirty percent. It’s one explanation or the other, I guess. You be the judge.
Are any men’s college soccer players complaining that they don’t get paid as much as Lionel Messi? Of course not, because they know they are not as good as Messi, so they don’t generate the excitement he does, and therefore cannot draw the ticket sales and corporate sponsorships he does. (Though, as I’ve previously explained, I personally cannot understand how anyone but a socialist could get excited about soccer in the first place.)
For the record, I have no problem with women playing sports or having their own international events. I would also say that there are some sports — particularly long- and middle-distance racing sports (running, swimming, rowing), or sports with artistic elements, such as figure skating, equestrian, and gymnastics — in which the women’s version can, in principle, be just as entertaining and engaging as the men’s. But given that most of the biggest money in spectator sports is found in those events which emphasize the kind of skills and physical abilities which tend to marginalize female athletes as distinctly lesser, combined with the fact that most of the fans of those sports are men, it is likely that, government intervention or social justice corporate tax write-off investments aside, male athletes will naturally continue to draw more money, with occasional exceptions, than the women.
And so what? It always amuses me that progressives, with their “people before profits” hokum, are not only the ones who complain most about unfairness in society, but also the ones most likely to define fairness entirely in terms of material benefits. In short, they want your money, and if you won’t give it to them voluntarily, then they are going to take it from you by force — because the profit motive is evil, of course.
Anyway, the next step for the social justice propaganda machine that is the U.S. women’s soccer team is that they have publicly accepted an invitation to visit the U.S. Capitol (i.e., the Democratic House of Representatives), while publicly refusing to visit the White House (Donald Trump).
Which leads me to my next question, aimed at everyone, but particularly at Americans, who at one time thought they had a self-governing limited republic, rather than a monarchy: Why in the world should athletes who win games be invited to visit the halls of government? Why should the World Series champions have to interrupt their champagne shower celebrations to take a staged phone call on live television from the President?
“Hello Mr. President.”
“Well, that was a great game you fellows played out there.”
“Thank you, Sir.”
“I know all Americans are very impressed by your performance.”
“I’m sorry, I can’t hear you — hey, hey! Quiet down, guys.”
“I know when I was in high school, we didn’t win the big championship, but I can certainly imagine what a big thrill this is for all of you.”
“Um, yes, Sir. Many of our guys went to high school.”
“Well, enjoy your big day, you really earned it and on behalf of all Americans, great job.”
“Okay…goodbye, Mr. President.”
And now we see the progressive flipside of that mindlessly unrepublican tradition. (I almost said the progressive other end of the tradition.) This time the “official phone call,” which probably didn’t even come, is merely an opportunity for a bunch of self-righteous dummies (athletes and “journalists”) to moon the president and show solidarity with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I propose a constitutional separation of sports and state, if only to reduce by a smidgeon the amount of pop-star-exploiting, grandstanding, anti-thinking political blather going on these days.