U.S. Soccer hits rock bottom with shameful legal argument against USWNT

In a filing, a lawyer for U.S. Soccer made the argument that women’s players were inferior to men. There’s no coming back from there.

Forget the United States men’s national team missing out on qualifying for the 2018 World Cup. We have found a new low for the U.S. Soccer federation.

This week, legal documents in the equal-pay lawsuit brought against U.S. Soccer by the USWNT were made public. In them, attorneys for U.S. Soccer made the argument that women were inherently inferior to men when it came to the game.

Writing on behalf of U.S. Soccer, attorney Brian Stolzenbach made the argument that the job of a USMNT player requires a greater level of skill than does a player for the USWNT.

The attorney also argued that men’s national team members have a greater responsibility to U.S. Soccer than the women’s team does.

It was shocking. U.S. Soccer was echoing the sentiments of toxic trolls you block on Twitter. It was saying the quiet part, the part you always feared they may feel deep down, out loud.

U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro offered an apology after the document was made public and everyone, from USWNT players to journalists to federation sponsors Coca-Cola, expressed their shock at the legal argument. Coca-Cola has publicly demanded an immediate meeting with U.S. Soccer to “express their concerns.”

In the statement, Cordeiro wrote: “On behalf of U.S. Soccer, I sincerely apologize for the offense and pain caused by language in this week’s court filing, which did not reflect the values of our federation or our tremendous admiration of our women’s national team.”

Cordeiro can try to distance U.S. Soccer and make the claim that the attorneys were the ones who made the argument, but it’s a horrifying look either way. He’s either so incompetent that he was unaware of arguments his own legal team was making, or he approved those arguments, and is now trying to cover his tracks. (Especially after major sponsors got involved.)

There are arguments to be made against the USWNT lawsuit. FIFA pays out higher prize money for men’s tournaments than women’s tournaments, and U.S. Soccer could easily deflect some of the USWNT claims onto the higher authority.

Instead, they went scorched earth. They made the argument you can’t come back from, one that gets at the heart of all this. U.S. Soccer is no longer arguing that economic realities or FIFA’s backwardness make it impossible to guarantee equal pay. U.S. Soccer is now arguing that women don’t deserve equal pay because they aren’t equal.

This is sickening.

Part of the reason this is so sickening is how short-sighted this all is. The USWNT is U.S. Soccer’s most successful product by a long shot. They’ve got four World Cup titles. They draw consistently bigger crowds than the men’s team does.

In making this argument, U.S. Soccer is not only risking forever alienating that women’s team, the organization is also sending a message to potential fans — potential customers — that this isn’t as good as the men’s game. It’s an inferior product. 

This is not only morally repugnant, it’s bad business. 

On top of that, U.S. Soccer is now undoubtedly making the men’s team furious, who are suddenly being held up against their will as a superior team to the women’s, even though the men haven’t had even an iota of the success internationally. It also links them to a sexist argument that the men’s team itself almost certainly doesn’t want to make.

Over at SI, Grant Wahl made the argument that U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro needs to resign. I don’t see any other way out of this, myself. This is a dark, dark day for U.S. Soccer, and unless there are wholesale changes, top to bottom, I don’t see a way out of this.

[vertical-gallery id=900569]

Myles Garrett’s ‘indefinite suspension’ allowed NFL to have it both ways

Myles Garrett was reinstated to the NFL on Wednesday, after serving an “indefinite suspension” that turned out to be six games.

The Browns’ Myles Garrett was reinstated into the NFL on Wednesday, after missing six games during an “indefinite suspension” for hitting Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph in the head with a helmet during a game last season.

Garrett met with Commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday, two days before his reinstatement, per ESPN.

The six games that Garrett served is probably fair based on other punishments doled out by the NFL, but it is interesting to look back and note that the NFL didn’t call it a six-game suspension, or a suspension for the rest of the season, including playoffs — which is what it likely would have been, had the Browns made the playoffs. (By Goodell scheduling their meeting after the Super Bowl, it seems fair to guess that was where we were headed.)

If that was the case … why not just say that? Why did the NFL insist that the suspension was “indefinite?”

The reason, I pretty strongly suspect, is that it allows the NFL to have its cake and eat it too. If the league declares a specific number of games as his suspension, pundits and fans can get furious, declaring it too high or too low. When you come up with a specific suspension, the NFL basically has to guess at what’s appropriate and what will draw the least amount of ire from fans, owners, coaches, players, etc.

But with an indefinite suspension, there’s none of it. How can you get mad about an indefinite suspension, however? You can’t. You have no idea what it means. It is by definition … indefinite. Right there in the name.

[lawrence-related id=870531]

For people who wanted Garrett thrown out of the league or, like, put in jail or whatever, an “indefinite” suspension sounds appropriately severe. An indefinite suspension could go on forever, technically! For fans who thought the whole thing was overblown, there is no huge number that they can get mad at, or compare the suspension to suspensions for other infractions, and point out how unfair and hypocritical it all is.

It’s just a blob, a meaningless amount of suspension, that no one can fixate any feelings on, which is exactly what the NFL wants.

The biggest thing an “indefinite suspension” buys the NFL is time. By making an amorphous suspension that could be anything, the league gets to wait until things settle down, people have moved on, then reinstate the player say, on a random Wednesday in the offseason.

That’s what happened here. It worked exactly how the NFL wanted it to work.

[lawrence-related id=873022,872507]

[jwplayer UuWS1Fkp-q2aasYxh]

Why this season can be considered a success for the Broncos

The Denver Broncos are sitting at 5-9 and will miss the playoffs again, but it hasn’t been all bad.

The Denver Broncos are 5-9 and there are two games left in the season. They will finish with a losing record for the third year in a row. That’s a total disaster, right?

Sure, if you choose to look at it that way. Many fans of the Broncos will do just that. After all, the fanbase expects success year in and year out. But let’s be honest, this season wasn’t going to be successful.

There were fans and guys on radio stations making outlandish predictions such as the team going 11-5 this year, but what was that based on other than being a total Broncos “homer”?

The team was coming off two very poor seasons in which they were hardly competitive for the most part. The team had a first-year head coach and a brand new quarterback.

That’s not a team that is likely to go 11-5. And of course, they didn’t even sniff that level of success.

However, for one reason and one reason only, this season can be considered a success. You guessed it: Drew Lock.

The fact that the team put Lock in to see what he had was a big move, even if the organization wasn’t completely sold on him starting this season. It gave them the chance to see what he had.

Playing Joe Flacco or Brandon Allen was not going to bring about any talk of the future, since one of those guys is at the end of his career and the other is a backup, at best.

The success Lock had in his first two starts made one thing quite clear for the Broncos . . . they don’t need to worry about a quarterback with an early pick in next year’s draft.

That gives the team something it hasn’t had since Peyton Manning was the starter and that is the ability to build around a quarterback. That doesn’t mean that Lock is guaranteed to be the quarterback of the future, but it does mean the team has a guy that could be.

Trevor Siemian wasn’t that guy. Brock Osweiler wasn’t that guy. Paxton Lynch proved to not be that guy. Case Keenum wasn’t that guy and Flacco wasn’t that guy.

Lock possibly could be.

That’s exciting. Because going into the offseason, the organization and the fans don’t have to be worrying about who the quarterback is going to be. Instead, the team can use its picks to give Lock a better offensive line or to give him another talented target to throw the ball to.

A 5-9 record is no good. Being eliminated from the playoffs is certainly no fun. But looking at things from a realistic perspective, the Broncos did have some good come from the 2019 campaign.

As a result of this and things like the development of Courtland Sutton, the play of safeties Justin Simmons and Kareem Jackson and other promising rookies such as Noah Fant and Dalton Risner, the Broncos are a franchise with the arrow pointing up.

[vertical-gallery id=629497]

How many more games will Broncos win this season?

The Denver Broncos are sitting at 3-6 following their bye week. How many more games will they win?

The Denver Broncos are ready to return from their bye week and sit at 3-6 heading into the second half of their 2019 season. Fans are still riding high after a win over the Cleveland Browns, which featured a new quarterback in Brandon Allen.

Several questions remain for the rest of this season, including how many more games the team will win. But before we get into that part, let’s look at some of the other key questions.

How much longer should Allen hold onto the starting job? Much of that answer likely lies within what the team decides to do with Drew Lock. Will the second-round pick play at all this season?

Will the offensive line, specifically Garett Bolles, ever start to play at a consistent level, or will this unit again be one of the big question marks going into next season?

When are the quarterback and offensive line spots not going to be big question marks for this team? How many games can the team win with those question marks the rest of this season?

Going over the team’s remaining schedule, we attempt to answer that final question.

Week 11 at Minnesota Vikings

(Ron Chenoy-USA TODAY Sports)

Despite the Broncos being well-rested coming off the bye week, they have to travel to Minnesota to face a surging Vikings team.

Minnesota has a stout rushing attack and a good defense. This looks and feels like an unlikely win for the Broncos.

Prediction: Vikings 24, Broncos 13

Record: 3-7