Megan Rapinoe fuses World Cup win with politics, equality and VAR | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World Sports

Megan Rapinoe fuses World Cup win with politics, equality and VAR

Associated Press
1383156_web1_1383156-512ba8821f2148edab71bdc3b79584cf
AP
United States’ Megan Rapinoe (left) and Alex Morgan celebrate with the trophy after winning the Women’s World Cup final soccer match against the Netherlands at the Stade de Lyon in Decines, outside Lyon, France, Sunday, July 7, 2019.
1383156_web1_1383156-2e322813f8d44de7b0a1d00491f80324
AP
United States’ Megan Rapinoe celebrates her team’s victory with the trophy after the Women’s World Cup final soccer match between US and The Netherlands at the Stade de Lyon in Decines, outside Lyon, France, Sunday, July 7, 2019.

LYON, France — A Women’s World Cup stirred by heated debates on politics, pay and technology saw the narratives fused in Sunday’s final by the undisputed and outspoken star of the tournament: Megan Rapinoe.

By opening the scoring with a penalty awarded after a video review, Rapinoe claimed a sixth goal and — thanks to her assists — finished as the top scorer of the most-watched FIFA women’s tournament.

Winning the Golden Boot provided the player renowned for her individuality and activism with a platform for both after the 2-0 victory over the Netherlands.

The forward got to collect her scoring trophy before the main prize was handed out in Lyon. But only after the introduction of French President Emmanuel Macron and FIFA counterpart Gianni Infantino for the on-field trophy presentation was followed by boos and chants of “equal pay” — thousands taking up Rapinoe’s campaign for more equitable prize money from the World Cup organizers and compensation from the U.S. federation.

“A little public shame never hurt anyone,” Rapinoe said with a winners’ medal around her neck. “So I am down with it.”

Not down with a visit to the White House, though, with a rejection of a post-tournament visit delivered publicly in a video that emerged during the tournament.

“Megan should WIN first before she TALKS!” President Donald Trump responded in tweet that lit up the monthlong tournament. “Finish the job!”

Rapinoe and her American teammates did that by defending the World Cup.

In the hours before the game, she even found an advocate for the pursuit of greater pay equality in the French president.

“We need to go progressively toward that,” Macron said. “We should progressively converge.”

That is undermined by the prize money for the men’s World Cup in 2022 jumping to $440 million when the women’s teams will only split $60 million in 2023.

This time, it is only half that.

Victory gave the Americans $4 million — double the amount earned four years ago — as part of a $30 million prize pot but lagging the $38 million earned by France for lifting the men’s trophy last July in Moscow.

On the eve of the final, sitting in the same news conference position occupied by Infantino a day earlier, Rapinoe rebuked the head of soccer’s governing body for disrespecting women as the prize-money gulf widens with the winners of the men’s World Cups.

Rapinoe chose not to confront Infantino on the field.

“There was a wry smile, for sure,” she said. “He knows. He did say we’ll have a conversation or something. I said, ‘I’d love to.’ “

Rapinoe has something to be thankful to Infantino for: the introduction of VAR, which has had a disruptive debut in women’s soccer as referees and players have adjusted to the technology.

“VAR wouldn’t miss the final, she had to show up somewhere,” Rapinoe said. “It has gotten a lot of stick in the tournament. There’s some inconsistencies but this is the first time all these referees have actually used it. So overall, I think it’s been pretty good.”

What has been less of a success were FIFA’s efforts at attracting fans to some games.

FIFA knows it has to do more to raise attendance. The sellout crowd of 58,000 on Sunday was a rarity.

In a month when FIFA challenged the world to “Dare to Shine,” efforts were dimmed by marketing mishaps around ticket promotions that saw swathes of empty seats in stadiums.

The choice of venue will be scrutinized more closely with FIFA now realizing going to stronger soccer cities — rather than Montpellier and Nice — could have produced fuller stadiums.

“A lot can be done to popularize our sport a bit more, like the men’s World Cup is kind of seen as a destination even for those that aren’t pure football fans,” said Sarai Bareman, FIFA’s head of women’s soccer. “We need to do a lot more to promote the game to attract that kind of fan.”

While the host for the 2026 men’s World Cup was picked last year, FIFA has yet to pick the destination for its next women’s showpiece and the decision could be delayed again.

The FIFA Council was due to make the pick in March but Infantino said Friday the bidding process might have to be re-opened after revealing plans to expand the tournament from 24 to 32 teams.

In a sign of soaring interest in the women’s game, FIFA already has nine countries interested in hosting in 2023: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and South Korea.

Rapinoe will be hoping players aren’t still fighting over pay by then.

“Everyone is kind of asking what’s next and what we want to come of all this,” she said. “It’s to stop having the conversation about equal pay, are we worth it, the investment piece. … It’s time to kind of sit down with everyone and really get to work.”

Categories: Sports | US-World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.