With the demise of wps, do you think the caps will bring her back?

Sydney Leroux and Soccer Without Borders

Goal: The New York Times Soccer Blog

Leroux, the No. 1 pick in the recent W.P.S. draft, is so good that she would have been a star in two countries, even if the one she chose probably didn’t need her as much as the one she left.

Maybe, deep down, that is what has some Canadians so steamed. Maybe the only problem they have with Leroux’s move is that she went the wrong way.

[read more]

Ok thanks... I was under the impression that club players weren't making any money and if the US national team was the major employer for 'eligible' soccer players then it would seem logical for someone to jump ship in order to put food on the table.

In addition, leading Canadian players get government funding. It tops out at $18,000 but it's something.

Just to be clear, the $18,000 isn't the only playing revenue the players get; it's just the maximum Olympic funding they can get through Own the Podium. They also get expenses and cash for games and training with the national team, although the numbers are kept confidential.

rich16 said: The female Teal Bunbury is going to be playing closer to home...LeJudas and Hope Solo (I think I've heard of her...) signed with the Seattle Sounders Women's team. Possibly a reason to get to Whitecaps ladies games...

http://www.king5.com/sports/sounders-fc/Sounders-Women-sign-Hope-Solo-and-Sydney-Leroux-139323503.html

I was already planning on attending Victoria Highlanders womens games this year, but I'll definitely go to boo those two.

Looking good except for the Hamburglar mask.

Bumping an old thread...

Well, I hope this woman realizes what she was cheering for today when hugging her teammates.

She defeated her own country, with a bullshit call by a ref... and celebrated this fake win with her fake country and her fake team mates.

I tolerated her up until now; now I am done with her. She is no longer a Canadian by any stretch at all.

If she has any moral code, deep within her soul, she knows she has done an evil turn towards the country that gave her so much.

lost in the chatter about "the calls" was the traitor playing a ball that was well over the line

Indeed. Like how Wambach shouted a countdown at the referee to get that indirect free kick. I would be disappointed in any player who didn't try to game a jackass like that.

Legal_Alien said:

Bad_Gones said: That's a bit much. You play to the whistle. There was no whistle, so she kept playing. I may not like what Leroux "did" to Canada, but I can't fault her for that.

Agreed!

Also, be wary of being to sanctimonious. For every Sydney Leroux there's often a Lauren Sesselmann.

LS didn't steal training from the US national program and a spot from a deserving US youth

Bad_Gones said: So the rules for her are different? Not in my world.

The circumstances for her are different.

All I'm saying is that her alleged treason against Canada has nothing to do with the rules on the pitch. She cannot be judged in a different light as far as the game goes.

Bad_Gones said: All I'm saying is that her alleged treason against Canada has nothing to do with the rules on the pitch. She cannot be judged in a different light as far as the game goes.

Ah, okay, I agree there.

prawnsandwich_sje said: If I trained to be a soccer player in Canada then was told that I could play for England (stretch though it may be) because I hold dual citizenship - I would probably choose to play for England. Because of this, I don't hold anything against Bunbury or Leroux for choosing to play for their choice of countries. They have that choice and it does not make them a traitor to Canada in my eyes... Not trying to cause a riot here - I respect your opinions on this one but want to give me perspective on it (though you probably think I'm wrong wrong wrong...) :P

Do you like England more than Canada as countries go? Or do you think England just has a better side overall? Sure they do, but England is still pretty crap at football these days. I'd say there are at least 10 countries more likely to win the World Cup. Or is it because of the media attention you'd garner? I guess if you're a glory hound, you're a glory hound. But for Hargreaves, he was never treated as an Englishman by the press. So all the potential endorsement benefits, etc. are for not. I mean Owen can't even get a contract with QPR or WBA these days. Forget endorsements.

Personally, I could play for Germany if I was any good at football (beyond the multiple urban rec championship t-shirts earned, I mean). And Germany makes England look shit like Canada when you consider chances to win trophies. Accept like Canada, Germany is also a pretty nice place to live (if you wanted to naturalize). But unless I did all that, I'd never really be German -because I'm I like living in Cascadia (er, I mean, Canada). If Canada didn't want me, fine I guess. But ultimately, I'd be living a lie. No amount of money or press clippings would change that.

And it would never be worth having to answer the question: so why did you play Germany?

1) I've always felt more German (False) 2) Canada didn't want me! (Probably false) 3) I'm an opportunistic cunt! (True, but you can't say that to the press, can you?)

ynwasouthside said:

prawnsandwich_sje said: If I trained to be a soccer player in Canada then was told that I could play for England (stretch though it may be) because I hold dual citizenship - I would probably choose to play for England. Because of this, I don't hold anything against Bunbury or Leroux for choosing to play for their choice of countries. They have that choice and it does not make them a traitor to Canada in my eyes... Not trying to cause a riot here - I respect your opinions on this one but want to give me perspective on it (though you probably think I'm wrong wrong wrong...) :P

Do you like England more than Canada as countries go? Or do you think England just has a better side overall? Sure they do, but England is still pretty crap at football these days. I'd say there are at least 10 countries more likely to win the World Cup. Or is it because of the media attention you'd garner? I guess if you're a glory hound, you're a glory hound. But for Hargreaves, he was never treated as an Englishman by the press. So all the potential endorsement benefits, etc. are for not. I mean Owen can't even get a contract with QPR or WBA these days. Forget endorsements.

Personally, I could play for Germany if I was any good at football (beyond the multiple urban rec championship t-shirts earned, I mean). And Germany makes England look shit like Canada when you consider chances to win trophies. Accept like Canada, Germany is also a pretty nice place to live (if you wanted to naturalize). But unless I did all that, I'd never really be German -because I'm I like living in Cascadia (er, I mean, Canada). If Canada didn't want me, fine I guess. But ultimately, I'd be living a lie. No amount of money or press clippings would change that.

And it would never be worth having to answer the question: so why did you play Germany?

1) I've always felt more German (False) 2) Canada didn't want me! (Probably false) 3) I'm an opportunistic cunt! (True, but you can't say that to the press, can you?)

As a friend of mine (in England) said on the weekend - it's the big egos that are killing the game. All things said I love Canada AND I love England but for different reasons/things. But given 1, 2, or 3 I would probably be lying if I didn't answer 3. WHICH is probably the reason everyone on this board feels the way they do about these 2 players - thanks for a diffrent insight into things!!!

Legal_Alien said: Also, be wary of being to sanctimonious. For every Sydney Leroux there's often a Lauren Sesselmann.

The differences between situations are really very simple to understand:

1 - There’s a male Canadian hockey player of Italian heritage, who is raised and trained within the Canadian hockey system, but has no hope of ever representing Canada on our men’s national team because he’s not good enough, and because we are the number one team in the world with more depth than he can hope to compete with. International sporting loopholes offer this person the chance to play for a national team that is less successful than Canada’s, and this person, in an action which is not detrimental to the nation that he actually belongs to (Canada), plays for that other nation to further his own professional career - he says “yes” when the Italian Ice Hockey federation asks him to represent the country of his parents’ birth in international hockey competition. Canadian media writes about him, hockey fans wish him well, and patriotic Canadians chat with his parents who wear their “Italy” jersey, because people understand that this person is has not turned his back on Canada, but rather taken an opportunity that he could not have otherwise had, and that he has, in the process, not done any damage or harm at all to his own country - Canada. It’s a feel-good story, and you’ll notice that nobody ever bothers criticising the guy at the centre of it.

2 - There’s a female Canadian soccer player of American heritage (or a male one of English heritage), who is raised trained within the Canadian soccer system, and is considered among the nation’s best and a certain member of the Canadian national team. Because Canada is not a world power in this sport, just one player of her calibre makes a real difference to the quality of the Canadian National Team, and could win trophies and inspire Canadian youth by her example. She plays on various Canadian youth teams, and/or is heavily courted by the Canadian coaches and system. Using up resources that could have been given to another person, she represents her country. However, international sporting loopholes offer this person the chance to play for a national team that is more successful than Canada’s, and this person, in a mercenary action detrimental to the nation that she actually belongs to, plays for that other nation to further her own professional career. This is not a feel-good story, but rather an example of something that is wrong with nationality rules in sport.

It isn’t rocket science to be able to see the differences in these two situations, even if your own situation as an ex-patriot with multiple allegiances causes you be sympathetic to all the Number Twos of the world. Sesselman = Number 1, LePoo = Number 2. Nobody in any country ever gets upset by the Number Ones, it’s the Number Twos that create a stink, and need to be flushed. People can use existing rules to be a Number Two, but that doesn’t make it right: and if they do, then patriots have a legitimate reason for disliking them and criticising them.

Legal_Alien said: Thanks for clarifying the reasoning behind your angst.

Demonisation: Using a label (in this case the label “angst”) on someone so that you can justify to yourself dismissing the merit of his arguments.

Glad to see you're not one of the "SL stole training from the Canadian national program and deprived a more deserving and patriotic girl an opportunity" brigade.

Feel free to point out what Canadian U-15, U-17, etc teams she played for, when she took training away from young Canadian players. Oh that’s right, you can’t, because she didn’t. This is the full adult women’s team that’s playing at the Olympics and that we're discussing.

Clearly, if she'd turned out to be rubbish and gone and played for US Virgin Islands then no worries. What's annoying is she's half decent and plays for the US. Got it!

No, you don’t get it. LeRoux is good, which is why she was part of the Canadian system, something which has been explained to you multiple times, and which you have repeatedly failed to understand the significance of. If she was so bad that she was willing to play for the USVI, then she would be like Number One in my examples above, and would not be anyone that any Canadian fan would lament losing. What is so complicated about this?

Hargreaves never played for any Canadian teams, went overseas at a young age to develop his career but gets painted with the same brush as Bunbury and leRoux?

Lord_Bob said:

chauchi09 said: Hargreaves never played for any Canadian teams, went overseas at a young age to develop his career but gets painted with the same brush as Bunbury and leRoux?

Hargreaves gets hit the hardest because, in the modern era, he was first. And, of course, the "played for England before he'd ever been there" thing was unrepentently mercenary.

If he'd chosen Germany instead, more forgiving?

I get that, but he just doesn't tick all the boxes that people wheel out when damning Bunbury male or female.

I hope some of the decisions I made as a teenager aren't cause for as much rage someday.

OldFan said:

danimal said: I hope some of the decisions I made as a teenager aren't cause for as much rage someday.

Let's derail this thread and you can tell us all about your teenage decisions!

I'd rather hear the teenage decision that led to OldFan's epic troll-dom. ;-)

chauchi09 said:

Lord_Bob said:

chauchi09 said: Hargreaves never played for any Canadian teams, went overseas at a young age to develop his career but gets painted with the same brush as Bunbury and leRoux?

Hargreaves gets hit the hardest because, in the modern era, he was first. And, of course, the "played for England before he'd ever been there" thing was unrepentently mercenary.

If he'd chosen Germany instead, more forgiving?

The primary factor is that he was first. Begovic, Bunbury, Leroux, they were all worse, but Hargreaves blazed the trail.