All That and a Bag of Mail

It’s Friday. 

Austin writes:

“Let’s say no one has the 1,237 delegates going into the convention. What’s your theory on what goes down in Cleveland?”

I think there will actually be a riot if Donald Trump finishes with the most delegates and doesn’t get the nomination. I’m not even kidding about this, it will be bedlam in Cleveland.

Here are the latest 5Dimes odds to win the Republican nomination as of this morning:

Donald Trump -140 (He was at -400 last week and is rapidly losing ground.)

Ted Cruz +360

John Kasich +560

Paul Ryan +1500

A month ago I took Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan both at 100-1 to be the Republican nominee in the event a brokered convention happened. I put $20 on each so I get $2k if this happens for either. So I’m rooting for Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney to emerge as the nominee just out of self interest.

But what do I think happens?

I keep thinking that Republicans will realize that Hillary Clinton is eminently beatable and they only have two guys who can beat her — Kasich and Ryan. The odds of Trump or Cruz beating Hillary are minimal. But if John Kasich got the nomination — in his home state as a compromise candidate because Cruz and Trump supporters hate each other and won’t ever vote for the other guy — and then picked Marco Rubio as his running mate, I think the Republicans would win the 2016 election. 

So the question is this, will Republican delegates actually make an intelligent decision or not?

Regardless, this is going to be amazing television. 

B. writes:

“I know its only Friday, but… I was having a discussion with some friends and need your expert advice – Naturally, instead of working, we were on the topic of threesomes. The following scenario was presented to a buddy (worth noting most of us are in long term relationships): his girlfriend would agree to a threesome (w/ the GF and her friend) if he would also agree to a threesome (w/ another guy) at a later date.

So my question is whats the move? How many guys out there would agree to this? I can’t even ballpark a number. So many factors are at play, perceptions of yourself and your significant other could forever be altered. I like to think most guys would jump on this and have serious buyer’s remorse come round 2. Your advice is much appreciated.”

Ah, so what you’re talking about is a threesome and a threesome to be named later as part of the trade. 

This is a tough one. Many guys would eliminate it immediately because they’d be unwilling to be in the company of another naked man during a sex act, but if you’re willing to consider it, I think it comes down to this: who’s the girl and who’s the guy? Namely, how hot is the girl and do you ever have to see the guy again? If the girl is smoking hot and you’ll never see the guy again — regardless of who he is or what he looks like — I think that’s more doable. It’s a clear balancing test, you have to wager the enjoyment you’ll get from the MFF with the trepidation and fear you have for the MMF. 

Here’s another aspect to think about, you might break up with the girlfriend before you have to follow through on the threesome to be named later. Diabolically you could even have the threesome and then break up with your girlfriend to avoid ever having to follow through on her end of the bargain. That seems like bad sexual karma, but it’s also one hell of a deal.

The other thing here is, women hooking up with women is hot, you guys can touch each other, there’s a totally immersive experience. Having a threesome with two straight dudes and one straight girl is like two distinct sexual hemispheres. At no time can both men be on the same side of the woman, you’ve got to treat her body like my kids treat a table when they’re playing chase. You always have to be on opposite sides.  

Paige writes:

“In the spirit of March Madness, I thought this was an appropriate time to get your opinion on this ongoing debate my husband and I have. The question is- who would win between a WNBA basketball team and a boys high school state championship basketball team? I think the answer is multi-faceted and has a lot of variables, but my husband says hands down, it’s the boys state championship team. His argument is that guys on that team would likely be just as tall as the WNBA players. He also says that it’s likely that the majority of the starters can dunk, a skill that is only among the most elite in the WNBA.

I say that the WNBA wins in some, but not all contests. I think it’s according to the state. I think it’s safe to say that larger, more basketball heavy states could produce higher caliber high school basketball teams. But I don’t think that all 50 states have state championship teams that are as good or better than the most elite women basketball players in the country. I’m not trying to be ultra-feminist, but I just don’t think (or maybe can’t stand to think) that an 18-year-old male basketball player is better than a WNBA player. Your thoughts?”

I’m not sure that the boy’s state title team would win in every state, but they would beat the WNBA champ in the vast majority of states. Partly, as you point out, this would be a function of state populations. That is, there are only 590k people in Wyoming, for instance, and almost all of them are white farmers. How good are the Wyoming state basketball champs? The WNBA teams might be able to give the boy’s title holders a run in states like these. 

There’s also the category of champ to consider, a 5A title team, for instance, will be better than a 1A title team most of the time. Many states have public vs. private splits as well and that can impact the quality of a state champion as well. But if you just took the best state champion team in every state, I think the high school boy’s state title team would beat the top WNBA team in at least 40 out of 50 states. My rationale on this is pretty simple, the top boy’s title teams in most states would likely have a couple of D1 caliber players. (In big states it would be like five or six D1 players on team, although those players would be of different ages). They just couldn’t be defended by WNBA players, it’s a total athletic mismatch.

The only way I can see the WNBA teams winning is if they are playing small state teams, the game is played with girl’s basketballs, and the WNBA players get insanely hot from the three point line. Also, if fouls are called really, really tight because the girls would probably be better free throw shooters. Otherwise, the men win pretty big in most states because there is a massive gap in quality of player when you compare men’s and women’s basketball. 

Put it this way, I’m pretty confident I could have been a WNBA player and I’m not that great of a guy’s basketball player. But I’m 6’0″ 180 and, at my peak, I was a pretty decent basketball player. 

By the way, and I get this question a ton, every state high school basketball champion in every state would beat UConn’s women.  

Brian writes:

“Help me out with a debate I had with friends. Everyone thinks I’m doing things ass backwards because I wash my body and then shampoo my hair after. EVERYONE else said they do shampoo first and then wash body second. Is there a right way to do it? Have I been cleaning myself wrong for the 30yrs I’ve been on earth? Oh god please help me!”

I always shampoo my hair last too.

Am I a freak? Am I turning my kids into freaks too because I have them wash themselves in the bath and then we finish with the shampoo in the hair? This calls for an Outkick poll to resolve this issue once and for all. 

Vote below. 

I think you’re normal and your friends are freaks. 

“Clay-

This is probably better for the anonymous mailbag, so if you choose to run it in the regular bag please take my name off of this.

I need help from a Gay Muslim, so here goes. I was looking at some porn on the Ipad last week, which is a rather frequent occurrence as the father of two kids. In my haste to move onto something else after completing my task, I didn’t close out the browser completely and accidentally left an Ashley Madison pop-up on the screen. I opened the IPad a few days later to discover that it was still there. I had been hoping that nobody noticed as my kids have their own Ipad minis now. Wrong. My wife discovered this (while she was looking up a pie recipe to make for me on Easter, mind you) and let me know about it recently while I was away on business.

I have never cheated and do not have an account with Ashley Madison, but it does not look good. She knows that I look at porn. But I’m not sure that she’ll believe me when I tell her that certain sites have pop-up ads, including ones for Ashley Madison.

As a guru of common sense, I’m hoping that you can help a long time reader out here. I’ve learned my lesson as far as sticking to my own IPhone from now on. How would you handle this?”

I think brutal honesty is the play here. You take her to your preferred porn site and demonstrate how many porn ads can pop up when you visit the sites. It’s better to be honest than have her thinking you’re trying to meet one of the five attractive women on earth with an Ashley Madison profile.  

If it makes you feel any better you can cite Clay Travis as an authority and tell her that every husband between the ages of 20 and 45 jerks off weekly while looking at porn on the Internet. (Ladies, if you’re reading this and you don’t think your husband looks at porn, he’s lying to you.)

Or maybe you’re right, he’s not looking at straight porn, he’s actually looking at gay porn instead.  

By the way, funny line from one of Outkick’s female readers. She told me the other day that she would rather have a husband murder her than get married and then find out her husband was actually gay. Is this a common female opinion, are y’all really that terrified that your husband’s could be gay? 

Trey writes:

“I have been reading about the bathroom issue in North Carolina regarding biological gender at birth determining which bathroom to use. My mind is pretty much blown as to how this is even a real issue at this point that is somehow big enough for law makers to get involved. Am I the only one that puts his head down and makes zero eye contact with any of my fellow bathroom patrons? I just walk in, do my business (hopefully #1 only) and walk out. A lot of weird stuff could be going on in that bathroom and I would have no knowledge of any of it.

My question is this. Would any harm really be done if we did away with gender requirements for either bathroom? I mean beyond the initial shock of hearing women poop, would it really matter if women were in the men’s bathroom? I guess you might have to take away the urinals so that some girl wouldn’t have the absolute horror (sarcasm) of having to see a penis, but beyond that what really would be the big problem?

Just a thought I guess. I’ve never been to Europe but based on what I hear about their progressive attitude about almost everything I just imagine them all using the same restroom and laughing at Americans for being so prude to everything regarding gender/sexuality.”

The problem here — a small percentage of men are untrustworthy animals. I’m not sure what that percentage is, maybe 1%, but in a country with 160 million men, that’s a lot of animals.  

There would be rapes and assaults like crazy if you had women entering bathrooms where there was no one to protect them from male assailants. Sure, the vast majority of men would be well behaved and it wouldn’t be an issue, but there would be creepy dudes spending all day in the bathroom so they could flash their dicks at women; it’s just a bad idea. If I were out with my wife, I would definitely start going to the unisex bathroom with her to make sure everything was okay.  

Put it this way, I have three young kids. Two of them are potty trained. I would have zero issue with standing outside the women’s bathroom and sending them in there to go the bathroom by themselves. But there is no way I’m sending them into the men’s bathroom alone. Are they probably going to be fine? Sure. But if something happened to them in the men’s bathroom while I was standing in the hallway working on my phone — which is what I do while I stand outside their stall now — I’d never forgive myself.

We need separate bathrooms and I think we always will.  

O. writes:

“So after reading the most recent anonymous mailbag I became curious over being a grower vs a shower. I understand the concept between the two but am wondering if there is a line that dictates being a grower versus being a shower. For instance, if you were 4″ limp but 6″ erect would you still be a grower or is that a small enough difference to be a shower? What is your gay muslim stance on this?”

I think in order to be a grower you have to at least double, and potentially triple, your limp penis size when erect. 

That is, if you’re two inches limp, you need to be nearly six inches — or more — in order to classify as a grower. 

Everyone grows somewhat, but I actually think the showers don’t grow much at all. So the only negative to having a gigantic limp penis — okay, there really is none — is it doesn’t become as gigantic as expected when erect. 

Daniel writes:

“First off, I agree with the things you said yesterday regarding the US Women’s team lawsuit. I think if you generate more revenue you have a right to get paid more. Seems simple enough for me.

My question is, is it any different if you look at US Soccer as 1 entity and not split between the men’s team and the women’s team? Somewhat like the sports leagues that have salary caps.

For example, I would guess that the Spurs are generating more revenue than the Nets (Nets could be a poor example given that most of their current salaries is being paid to players not on their team but you get my point) are this season, yet their team salaries numbers are the same. Probably could say the same thing for a bad NFL team struggling to fill seats and someone like the Patriots, Packers, etc.

So should we look at US Soccer as a NFL, NBA type “league” or a MLB type where alot of those teams who generate more revenue operate with higher payrolls. I think it changes the way you feel about the lawsuit depending on how you feel about the setup.”

First, I don’t blame the U.S. Women for wanting more money. The entire purpose of capitalism is to sell your labor for the most money you can get. So if I was a women’s soccer player, I’d be trying to get more money too and I’d be willing to file a lawsuit over it too.

But here’s the deal, the vast, vast majority of money for soccer players competing for their home countries comes from the World Cup. That’s once every four years. The women cited revenue for years when the World Cup doesn’t exist, which is like owning a retail store and filing tax retures leaving off the entire Christmas season. Just like Christmas season is when the vast majority of retailers make their money, the World Cup is when national soccer federations make almost all of their money. 

The most recent comparable revenue figures we have for men’s soccer and women’s soccer shows that men generated $4.8 billion in the 2014 World Cup. The most recent numbers we have for the women’s world cup was just over $50 million produced in 2011. Even assuming the women’s world cup tripled in 2015 — which is probably generous — we’re talking about a difference between $4.8 billion and $150 million in revenue. So for all the people screaming that the women actually won their tournament, that’s fine, but you can only get paid the revenue you generate, right? Women’s world cup soccer is a fraction of the men’s revenue and the women actually receive a higher percentage of their revenue in pay compared to the men. That is, if the men received the same revenue percentage as the women, their pay would skyrocket.

From a business perspective it’s much more valuable to be one of the top 32 teams in the men’s soccer world than it is to be the best in women’s soccer. That is, if every single one of us got to own teams, we’d pay infinitely more money to own the worst men’s World Cup team than we would pay to own the best women’s. 

Remember, you aren’t being paid for the World Cup based on what America cares about — so stop with the TV ratings tweets too — you’re being paid based on what the world cares about. And the world cares much more about the men’s world cup than the women’s. The only way the women can make more money — aside from finding a way to increase national revenues outside of World Cup years — is if FIFA increases the payouts for women’s teams in the World Cup — causing FIFA to lose money putting on the women’s world cup — or the US soccer federation takes world cup money from the men and gives it to the women. That’s it.   

Neither seems particularly fair since in virtually every labor field the more revenue and profit you produce, the more money you make. And, by the way, this disparity in soccer pay happens all the time in men’s soccer too. You get paid a lot more to play in the EPL than you do in the MLS. That’s because there’s infinitely more interest in the EPL than in the MLS. I’m sure the MLS guys look at the EPL salaries and want to make that money too, but most of them can’t. Because the market isn’t there to pay them. At least not yet.   

Now here’s the issue with comparing, say, the Spurs and the Nets with men’s and women’s soccer. That’s a bad comparison because based on market size the Nets might generate more revenue than the Spurs even though San Antonio is the more successful team, but I get your point. A better example would be comparing the Jaguars, one of the least profitable NFL teams, to the Redskins, one of the most profitable teams. There are 30 NBA teams and 32 NFL teams and in order for their league to exist there have to be teams to play against. The NFL pioneered the idea that a league was only as strong as its weakest link and that’s proven to be true. But here’s the problem with your analogy — it doesn’t impact the men’s soccer team at all if the women’s soccer team doesn’t exist. They aren’t competing against each other or in the same league. (The only way you could say it matters is that, potentially, women might be more likely to watch men’s soccer if they are also women’s soccer fans. But is that really tangible to the men’s bottom line? I don’t think so.)

You also have to consider the market value that men’s players have outside of the national team games. They make a ton of money playing in other leagues. Most women’s soccer players make virtually nothing outside of their national team work. Indeed, the national team work is the vast majority of their pay. The men have to be compensated more to play soccer for the national team because they are giving up valuable opportunities to play the games, the women aren’t. 

The ultimate problem you run into here is this isn’t an equal pay for equal work situation, this is one market, men’s soccer players, having tremendous value and another market, women’s soccer, where there is limited interest and limited value. Put it this way, the NBA and the WNBA play the same sport and their players do the same jobs on the court too, but does anyone really think the top WNBA player should be paid the same as LeBron James?

That’s laughable, right?

Right now equal pay in soccer is every bit as laughable.  

Hope y’all have great weekends and thanks for reading Outkick.  

Written by Clay Travis

OutKick founder, host and author. He's presently banned from appearing on both CNN and ESPN because he’s too honest for both.

13 Comments

13 Pings & Trackbacks

  1. Pingback:

  2. Pingback:

  3. Pingback:

  4. Pingback:

  5. Pingback:

  6. Pingback:

  7. Pingback:

  8. Pingback:

  9. Pingback:

  10. Pingback:

  11. Pingback:

  12. Pingback:

  13. Pingback: