Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
mattstoller.substack.com
Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#2Varsity Brands could be Matt Stoller's big break. I saw his substack posts go from 5 comments to 100's comments once he picked up this issue.
I think a lot of people are into cheer and they are mad as hell...
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#3Varsity Brands could be Matt Stoller's big break. I saw his substack posts go from 5 comments to 100's comments once he picked up this issue. I think a lot of people are into cheer and they are mad as hell...
[deleted]
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#4Daily reminder that any young female-driven competitive venture (fashion, sports, academics, acting in the movie industry) is filled to the brim with sexual predators: coaches, judges, trainers, consultants, marketers, agents and so on.
Do not ever put your daughter in a situation where she can be pressured by older men to do what they want in order to advance. She doesn't need a gold medal or be world famous, she needs not to be raped
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#5I'm from the UK, so I don't understand how some things work in the US. We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway?
I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. I never realised it was big business.
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#6Varsity Brands could be Matt Stoller's big break. I saw his substack posts go from 5 comments to 100's comments once he picked up this issue. I think a lot of people are into cheer and they are mad as hell...
I'd never heard of this newsletter, but it's really really high quality. Thanks to OP.
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#7I'm from the UK, so I don't understand how some things work in the US. We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway? I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. I never realised it was big business.
> because what's the point anyway?
Same point as soccer: some people like it.
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#8I'm from the UK, so I don't understand how some things work in the US. We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway? I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. I never realised it was big business.
>> We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway?
We do. Not usually at sports games but it's a decent sized sport in a lot of universities these days with national competitions etc.
I didn't know a lot about it until recently I watched a Netflix series on it (Cheer). Like any other team sport there are a variety of positions with different skillsets necessary. The athleticism required is pretty incredible.
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#9I'm from the UK, so I don't understand how some things work in the US. We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway? I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. I never realised it was big business.
>> We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway? We do. Not usually at sports games but it's a decent sized sport in a lot of universities these days with national competitions etc. I didn't know a lot about it until recently I watched a Netflix series on it (Cheer). Like any other team sport there are a variety of positions with different skillsets necessary. The athleticism required is pret…
> The athleticism required is pretty incredible.
Decent risk of injury at the high-levels - so you have to be very fit.
Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
#10> The FTC won at a district court, and then Qualcomm won at an appeals court in a somewhat insane decision that revealed that the judiciary is out of control and increasingly untethered to what the law actually says.
Anyone know more about this one?