Who is better, Rapinoe or Matthews?
Megan Rapinoe leads with a GOAT score of 89.5 against 88.8 for Stanley Matthews — a gap of 0.7 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Megan Rapinoe above Stanley Matthews: 89.5 vs 88.8. Megan Rapinoe leads on Honours, Peak, Statistics. Stanley Matthews leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Rapinoe wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Matthews wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/megan-rapinoe-f-vs-stanley-matthews
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Rapinoe leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Rapinoe | 0 | 0 | 50 | 104 | 287 | 583 |
| 🏴 Matthews | 0 | 0 | 45 | 92 | 194 | 492 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | RapinoeRetired | MatthewsRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World Cup titles | 2 | — |
| World Cup Golden Ball awards | 1 | — |
| Ballon d'Or Féminin awards | 1 | — |
| Olympic gold medals | 1 | — |
| USA goals | 63 | — |
| Ballon d'Or awards | — | 1 |
| FA Cup titles | — | 1 |
| England caps | — | 54 |
| League appearances | — | 697 |
| Seasons played | — | 34 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 96 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 98 |
| Honours w20% | 92 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 84 |
Megan Rapinoe leads with a GOAT score of 89.5 against 88.8 for Stanley Matthews — a gap of 0.7 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Matthews scores higher on longevity. Rapinoe leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Rapinoe: 89.5, Matthews: 88.8.
Make your case for Rapinoe vs Matthews. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.