After you get over the shock of seeing Major League Soccer listed as "one of the major US sports team leagues", this ADWEEK ARTICLE HAS SOME INTERESTING STUFF including a comment that they're considering offering MLS and WPS games over the interweb as a free service beginning next season.
"As Soccer United Marketing [the league's marketing arm] now represents the new women's league for their sponsorship sales and online advertising, that will give us two properties, MLS and WPS, [for which we] own the rights to for live games. So, we're looking at how to get creative in putting together a significant sponsorship program," said Dan Courtemanche, svp of marketing and communications for MLS and SUM.
So as always this would of course be dependent on the ability to come up with sponsors.
Later in the article they mention one of the other major stumbling blocks, ie. that current on-air sponsors may have a problem with this idea.
But the internet has always proven counter intuitive results. Increasing the availability of the product increases interest in the product, which is good for everyone, including on-air sponsors.
The new St. Louis team (franchise? I dunno any more) in the new WPS (every time I see that acronym I think it must be part of the New Deal, and expect the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional) will be known as, simply: "St. Louis"
I'm not sure how that should be used conversationally, but I like new and different, so why not?
Reportedly, if they get an MLS team in the next round of expansion, it will share the name.
On the other hand, I question THIS VIDEO FROM THE ST LOUIS WPS WEBSITE
I like the logo - suitably Joan of Arc-ish and all - but do we really want to be calling Hope Solo our "Tootsie Wootsie"? I mean, I guess I wouldn't mind dancing "the Hooochie Koochie" with Lori Chalupny, but overall I'm not sure that a song written in 1904 and popularized by Judy Garland is actually the right approach.
Maybe it's just me.