C-Bob: Thanks for sharing your experience and pointing out that because a pre-teen and teenage girl is a female athletes does not mean they are unattractive. If this meme is eliminated it will do more to increase female participation in sports than any of the failed or failing pro leagues and probably more than anything else short of Title 9. To answer your question why girls stop playing football come there sophomore years I would all but guarantee it is because that is the age when boys body mature to be much stronger, heavier and taller than the girls. From the age of about 10 to 14ish girls on average will be taller and either the same weight or heavier but once the boys catch up and surpass these young women. I would find it hard to believe by the time that these kids are seniors that you will find one girl in a thousand that could legitimately beat out a boy for line positions. That number of female seniors that could take the beating at running back that still has the speed and skills needed would probably be around 1 in 10000 or more. For a senior female to have a good shot at competing on the field with males of that age they will probably have to be secondary or LB's where they can keep down the numbers of hits on the body.

The coach from the original piece though is on coke. I don't know if he meant to be taken seriously saying these females are more fundamentally sound than men or if it was a back handed compliment that this pharse has become to describe a small and slow player usually white. If he meant to be taken seriously though he could not be more wrong. With out ever seeing a game of these league I can say with a single doubt that this is rubbish. The guys that play in even D3 football have probably had anywhere from 5 to 8 years of coaching most over ten years of coaching let alone playing the game informally for most of there lives. With exception such as those mentioned by C-Bob there are almost no girls playing organized football in the higher levels (think HS and beyond). It is at this level where most of the players will encounter for the first time position coaches. So while a nice story when someone related to the league says something like this it turns off more sports fans than it brings in see WNBA.

Leeandra Nolting - It depends on what you mean by better athlete. If you mean who is strong, faster, bigger than with the expection of long distance swimming men are better than women. But, what you are getting at is who is the best suited to perform at there sport/task then there are some sports women surpass men. I would also add a third way to look at it with what is the more pleasing sport to watch. You mention gymnastics which I think is a great example but I can't comment as the only time I take an interest is during the Olympics and than there only female gymnastics while only watching the clips of the men. I don't know if it is because of the differences in the events or what the judges look for but the female side is much more pleasing to watch. The example I like to use though is Tennis. What I like best about this example is how the game has changed over just the last 20 years. While I have no doubt that the top 100 men will bury the best female players and the top 300 men would win against the best female player(s). The female game is much better to watch and that is partly because the men are just to strong where most games are basically serve-return repeat while the female games have volleying and return play which the men excelled at 20 years ago.

This is a big reason why the WNBA and other female leagues have failed or are failing. The WNBA has marketed itself to much on the bullshit belief that it is more fundamentally sound but even if it was true that is not what the public wants to see, they want to see play above the rim and that is why female gymnastics is vastly more popular than male version and why the average person can name a few female tennis players and only 1 or 2 male players the games are more artistic and exiting. That is also why if the female football league will never be more than glorified semi-pro as fans want to see 30 yard bombs and explosive hits.

Most of the EU has a birthrate below replacement while the US has a birthrate well above replacement. People in the US need no extra incentive to have children while in the EU they do need these perks to have the people give birth.

The taxes collected by non parents in the EU to pay for the social welfare benefits them as it guarantees a young work force that will pay for there benefits in the future. While in the US the non parents get screwed paying for parents in such forms as deductions for children. The number of dependents has little to no effect on a US parent to have a child it is taking money from these that are child free. Why should they have to pay extra for the privilege of being child free? I am not talking about paying for schools either but tax deductions where two people making a 100,000 a year one is child free so pays on most of that income while the other has 3 children and pays taxes on income of around 86,000. I don't care that it cost the family of 3 more to house or cloth the kids it was there choice to have 3 kids not mine.