What Does WPS Need To Do To Survive?

Discussion in 'NWSL' started by Mister Crossbar, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I say WPS should look for relationships with USL and NASL, not a economic relationship, they are as broke as the WPS, but just exchange of ideas, cross marketing, etc.

    Just an idea.
     
  2. socfandan

    socfandan Member

    Jul 30, 2000
    Eastern Mass
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  3. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    You so sure of all that - that more money spent on marketing, etc., will bring in enough revenue to offset the cost? You're more right than a guy who spent time in multiple (i.e., more than two) professional soccer leagues - including WPS - in Sr. Wilt?

    Okey-dokey, smokie. Although don't look up Einstein's definition of insanity - I'd hate for you to add another educated individual whose opinion you ignore....
     
  4. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    As stated above, this population alone isn't enough. Whether it is the USSF and the WNT or WPS teams or WUSA teams, too many professional women's soccer organizations have tried to go too far towards that population as a stand-alone market. That is the same mistake as MLS made with the youth market for over a decade.

    News flash - that is an added population, one that brings more to the table. But that population alone will not sustain a league.
     
  5. Morris20

    Morris20 Member

    Jul 4, 2000
    Upper 90 of nowhere
    Club:
    Washington Freedom
    I bow to your superior snark and the obvious wisdom of simply not having a pro league. Obviously Peter Wilt, god and savant amoung mere soccer mortals, has never been wrong about anything in his entire life and the temerity to question his revealed wisdom and business acumen is beyond my station in life. And Einstein's extensive research into women's pro sports clearly . . . sheesh, I don't have the energy and you don't have enough money to be worth convincing . . .

    Of course you have to misrepresent what's been said to argue with it . . .
     
  6. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I saw in your post that I replied to, you were saying that WPS just needed to stay the course, invest more money in marketing, etc., and it would turn around. Truly, if I misunderstood that, please accept my apologies and clarify as you see fit.

    But I think what that model - and WUSA - misses is that you have to walk before you can run. You mention MLS, and they had the A-League and the USISL with a variety of teams, some of which were playing at a II+ level. It is a lot easier - hard as it was - to go from that to MLS than where women's soccer has been (i.e., without any sort of consistent pro league).

    All I'm saying is that having a USL Pro/NASL style league for a few years - which would be a pro league, btw - would allow teams to learn their markets, develop a brand and fanbase, so that when they market, when they go out and sell, they are doing it in a way that is based on experience of what works rather than walking around in the dark. Frankly, the information necessary to spend marketing dollars and effort, etc., simply isn't developed enough to justify a true Division I pro league at this point. That isn't WUSA's fault or WPS' fault - it is just what it is.

    The mistake both leagues made is that they didn't over-engineer their models enough. WUSA by leaps and bounds. WPS wasn't as bad, but it wasn't good enough. And the more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that you probably can't have a Division I pro league (call it minimum 10,000 a game paid attendance?) at this time because the market isn't developed enough. That does NOT mean it isn't possible. I'm 100% convinced that it IS possible. It just isn't very realistic right now and will stay that way until that Division III/II league is operated in enough markets to learn how to build a fanbase beyond just the narrow demographic they've been targeting to date.
     
  7. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'd like to get something straight: are you saying MLS organically grew out of A-League, USISL, Div II/III teams and leagues?

    Hey, I haven't been a soccer fan as long as that so I could easily be wrong! But that's sure not the impression I have.
     
  8. Morris20

    Morris20 Member

    Jul 4, 2000
    Upper 90 of nowhere
    Club:
    Washington Freedom
    Actually the USISL began its modern incarnation in '97 - so you could argue that the A-League/D3 Pro League/PDL grew organically out of MLS, which started in '96 (and was on the drawing board from '92 on).

    It's a great example of the fact that without a top level pro league, the "low cost options" just aren't viable. I'm pretty concerned about the WPS teams moving into the WPSL-elite league - and that concern is only somewhat allayed by the general competence of the WPSL folks. If the WPS teams remain basically professional and play in the "elite division" they're going to lose MORE money than they would have in WPS this year. So either they're going to cut payroll to the point they're not "pro" or they're in for bigger losses.

    The way you build a league in a "niche market" (like soccer) is that you exist over the long haul and grow your niche. The argument is this: you say "the league/teams will lose a lot of money over the next decade with no sure-fire point where they reach break even/profit" - the correct answer to that is yeah, no kidding. MLS hasn't hit that point in year 18, it's going to take a generation to build this, and the only way is to invest. MLS came about a decade after the NASL (followed by the ASL and WSA), the NASL was pre-dated by a number of other attempts at pro leagues . . . The Seattle Sounders exist on the ashes of how many failed Sounders franchises (I can think of 3 or 4 off the top of my head).

    WPS (or a successor) will find owners who, for a variety of reasons, are willing to put $10's of millions into this. If they can hold out for a decade or so, they'll start to see the light at the end of the tunnel, especially if they can get public stadium funding through partnerships with other organizations to build SSS's of appropriate size.

    Without an fully professional league, you're talking about a bunch of teams that simply can't develop elite level players, stars, or a larger audience.
     
  9. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well the one thing you are missing is the while MLS may not (who really knows) be turning profits over all, the value of the teams has gone up a lot since their low point in 2002.
     
  10. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    No - I was saying that the A-League and USISL existed before MLS. A lot of MLS players came from those leagues - supplemented with US and other internationals, etc., as well as keeping the excitement from the '94 World Cup going.
     
  11. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    What?

    No. Not by a long shot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USISL


    • 1986 Established as Southwest Indoor Soccer League
    • 1989 Added an outdoor league known as the Southwest Outdoor Soccer League. This was soon changed to Southwest Independent Soccer League which included both the indoor and outdoor leagues.
    • 1990 Renamed Sunbelt Independent Soccer League
    • 1991 Renamed United States Interregional Soccer League
    • 1995 Renamed United States International Soccer League
    • 1995 Renamed United Systems of Independent Soccer Leagues and formally established professional Pro League and amateur Amateur Premier League
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Professional_Soccer_League


    In 1989 Fort Lauderdale Strikers, the winners of the American Soccer League defeated San Diego Nomads, the winners of the Western Soccer League in a play-off game and as a result were declared United States soccer champions.[5] In 1990 the two leagues merged as the American Professional Soccer League. However during its inaugural season, in order to avoid high travel expenses, the APSL remained essentially two separate leagues. The ASL became the American Soccer Conference and featured teams from the East Coast, while the WSL became the Western Soccer Conference and featured teams from the West Coast. Teams only played other teams from within the same conference and it was not until the title decider, between Maryland Bays and San Francisco Bay Blackhawks that teams from the two different conferences actually met in a competitive game. [6][7] Throughout its existence the league would struggle financially and it’s roster of teams quickly dropped from 22 in 1990 to just 5 in 1992. However in 1993 the league received a lifeline when following the demise of the Canadian Soccer League, three former CSL clubs - Vancouver 86ers, Montreal Impact and Toronto Blizzard - joined the APSL.


    The USISL, later to become the United Soccer Leagues, had initially confined itself to organising regional leagues. However by 1995 it began organising on a national level.... In 1996 the A-League and the USISL Select League agreed to merge. Six of the seven remaining A-League teams - Montreal Impact, Colorado Foxes, Seattle Sounders, Rochester Raging Rhinos, Vancouver 86ers and Atlanta Ruckus - and two planned A-League expansion teams Toronto Lynx and Hershey Wildcats effectively joined the USISL Select League.



    That is a LOT of soccer being played, lots of pro and semiprofessional players.
     
  12. Morris20

    Morris20 Member

    Jul 4, 2000
    Upper 90 of nowhere
    Club:
    Washington Freedom
    Actually, thanks for proving my point so comprehensively. So by 1992 there was a company selling regional amateur leagues (Marcos/SISL), and the ASL/WSL thing was down to 5 dying teams. With the announcement of MLS coming, you got the Canadian teams and with the actual arrival of MLS, the USISL goes national and sucks them up.

    1. There were a lot of guys claiming to be pro/semi-pro and almost nobody cashing checks in any of these leagues (the APSL at least paid some folks)

    2. These teams no longer exists (although names have been recycled). Most of them played in front of "crowds" in the 100's (the ASL Washington Stars played at Fairfax High School, the Maryland Bays played in a park in Howard County with some temporary seating).

    3. Until MLS came in and gave them a reason to exist, they were dying. When MLS came on the scene (and real pro teams in Open Cup), the survivors started playing in front of their first "real" crowds which still weren't anything to you know, "sustain a business model."

    The existence of these leagues had ZERO influence on the founding/development/success of MLS. In fact, according to some folks on the board the graveyard should've deterred AEG in the first place.

    One other issue that I don't remember seeing addressed:

    If WPS is "saved" by not playing players, what EXACTLY is the benefit here?? You've now removed the key thing pro leagues provide the game, the ability for players to aspire to making a career of it.
     
  13. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    You so funny. Even if all we're talking about are the APSL, all you have to do is pull the MLS rosters from 1996 and see all the players from the APSL to see how little of a clue you have about which you speak on this. (Do your own research - don't make me embarrass you by pulling out the full list. It ain't short.....)

    Well, for me at least, I wasn't advocating an amateur league. I'm advocating a Division II (professional, not college) level of play - based on paid attendance of 3,000 to 4,000, heavy community involvement (camps, appearances, etc.), modest paychecks, modest budgets as a whole, and for the love of all things good and true, reasonable geographic planning - ideally, four divisions of eight teams (North, South, Central, Midwest/Pacific or somesuch).

    This will help build a brand - especially for the individual teams and the league, but also for individual players - as well as establish what a stable business model is at that level, from which you can then model out what a Division I budget could look like. Ideally, this would allow for the top eight to 12 teams to move up to a full Division I at the right time.

    The WPS teams will only lose more money at this level if they continue to overpay on budget items and player salaries.

    Some of this is really simple math - if your average crowd is less than 5,000, why are some teams paying to play in facilities that hold six TIMES that amount? First, your cost will be too high. Second, the impression is AWFUL. Nothing in professional sports (or professional entertainment, for that matter) is as powerful as the words "Sold Out." Nothing in professional sports is more draining of positive energy than having a crowd less than 30% capacity of the facility.

    ESPECIALLY if you are foregoing the traditional sports entertainment usual consumer - young males, 18-36, who want to drink beer ($$$) and get rowdy (usually within reason, sometimes not, and that has a hassle-aspect to it).
     
  14. Morris20

    Morris20 Member

    Jul 4, 2000
    Upper 90 of nowhere
    Club:
    Washington Freedom
    ------
    Answering a stupid personal issue first: If you think because some of MLS' squad players had played for APSL, teams MLS "came out of the APSL" you're missing the point. The existence of the APSL did NOTHING make MLS viable or build their business, or provide a foundation, etc. If anything, it's existence was a barrier (a low one, since 6 guys going broke can't put up much of a fight). You can wiki all you like . . . I'm sure all the MLS guys drank water, does that make water a contributor to their success?

    ------- now, have you thought about this?
    Where you make some sense, and I think misunderstand the nature of the disagreement, is that you have to scale your business within reason to existing revenue. WPS teams need to play in 5k-15k seat stadiums (hence the difficulty in finding appropriate venues) . . . fwiw, MLS had/has the same problem. Also, WPS can't afford to pay over $100k to anyone (or just about anyone) unless sponsors are picking up the tab.

    BUT, you have to be able to pay most of your roster more than $20k or you're charging people to watch a product that won't be that attractive, and you're not providing any incentive to develop talent. Once you're paying that much, I don't see much advantage to callling it "D2." Now, can your business model require employees to train/promote/do youth stuff in addition to training for their $20k - ABSOLUTELY. Also, should you forgo "sports fans" (the 18-25 males drinking beer)? Not if you're a business, that's the biggest slice of the sports viewer pie and you've got to break in and get a little slice. Tennis has it, golf has it, soccer has it at times - that's the opportunity to grow.

    Also, you have to question people's management skills when you've got 20 well-educated and personable employees who can get out and sell in the community . . . they've got to make their nut. They've got to be running clinics, coaching camps, working to run ECNL-type teams, there are revenue streams that women's pro soccer (lowercase) has to tap to balance the books. But it CAN be done, it CAN grow, and if the aim is to get folks to play for free, that's certainly not a sustainable business model either.
     
  15. billf

    billf Member+

    May 22, 2001
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's not completely true. The USISL was around in the early to mid-90s. It merged with the APSL/A-League after the APSL lost out on the division 1 license. There was pro soccer around, in the form of the APSL and WSA going back to 1985 after the NASL folded. These teams did include USNT players in many cases too, but it did exist in a market and an environment closer to what we see in the W-League and WPSL than what we see from MLS today. These were small time shoe string budget operations. To a degree, I think many lasted longer than they deserved because there was nothing like MLS and no easy access to leagues overseas.

    I disagree with any assertion that MLS grew organically from the A-League, USISL, etc, but I do think they filled a void and allowed pro soccer to exist at an appropriate level until MLS was formed and found its legs. We've seen MLS succeed at the expense of the D2 and D3 pro leagues for the most part.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with Women's soccer using lower profile leagues as a way to bide time until the investors and market mature enough to make a bigger splash and a better shot at long term success. It was in the weeds, but there were a number of smaller entities that filled this void after the NASL failed. No one is suggesting that small time is the future of Women's pro soccer, but that might be where it is for the time being.
     
  16. Morris20

    Morris20 Member

    Jul 4, 2000
    Upper 90 of nowhere
    Club:
    Washington Freedom
    What WPS does NOT need is a thread about it's survival to devolve into a pointless discussion of men's semi-pro arcana from 20 years ago.

    How about the 2nd part of my post . . . (not to bump myself or anything, sorry)
     
  17. billf

    billf Member+

    May 22, 2001
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You can't make a statement that MLS gave the rag tag group of pro leagues filling the post NASL period a reason to exist and not expect to be called on it. That just isn't the case and doesn't make logical sense since they predate MLS.

    If there is a parallel for women's soccer, it's that smaller leagues like WPSL can give players a place to play until we are at a point where we can support something bigger. I saw players like John Harkes, Dominic Kinnear, Marcelo Balboa, Eric Wynalda, Bruce Murray, etc play in a league that makes the PDL look big time. It's not a death sentence playing at a more sustainable level.
     
  18. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Sep 20, 1999
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I am still trying to figure out how DITD's model would work AFTER the split occurs.

    Just to work off of his idea... Start with his eight Midwest (since I'm a Detroiter) "D-II" teams. When the time comes for the top teams to become the "D-I" league (say, four of the eight), there is no reason for the lower four teams to still exist. Ditto that scenario for the East and South (so now we have 12 D-I teams, and 12 teams folding). I would argue that the West is so expansive, it would only make sense for all eight teams to go D-I (or maybe six teams on the West Coast stay, and any teams in the Rockies / Arizona / Texas would fold). So say 18-ish "D-I" teams (at the high end).

    And, no, there is no way the lower teams would continue playing their "D-II" status without any chance of competing against the "big cities" or trying to win the title at the highest-possible level. They would just cease.

    So what was gained? 32-ish D-II teams become 16 to 18-ish D-I teams, and the rest fold. What is the benefit of that scenario? (And I feel that I had chosen the most reasonable route that would happen... if you have a compelling arguement otherwise, be my guest).
     
  19. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Those not willing to learn from the past....

    This is the business of soccer in the US. Two womens leagues have tried to ignore the objective conditions of that universe and both have failed rather miserably. No, it isn't a direct comparison, but there are more similarities than not.

    So go ahead, ignore the past. I've got news for you - third time ain't the charm in this situation - not if you keep beating your head against a wall.
     
    kenntomasch repped this.
  20. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Dude... Seriously? The following players were able to get paid to play the game at a professional level for years before the beginning of MLS: Marcelo Balboa, Ted Eck, Tom Soehn, Robin Fraser, Mark Santel, Shawn Medved, Jean Harbor, Paul Wright, Marcus Hahnemann, Danny Pena, Bryan Haynes, Dominic Kinnear, Jeff Agoos, Mark Dodd, Pat Onstad, Steve Trittshuh, Brian McBride, Manny Lagos, Tony Sanneh, Dan Calichman.

    If you think these guys could go from an amateur league to playing against international players like Tab Ramos, Leonel Alvarez, etc., then, well, speaking of stupid...

    And yes, if they didn't drink water, they'd all be DEAD, so of course it contributed to their success in MLS.

    Ok, joking aside, the reality is that so did the two pro indoor leagues. In fact, most of the players who were full-time professional players played both outdoor and indoor or both indoor seasons.

    And it isn't just the players. It is the front offices where people learned what it takes to sell a ticket to a buying customer, operate a professional team, get media coverage, sell sponsorships, etc.

    For all intents and purposes, WPS was basically trying to go from a college/very high level amateur league to a fully pro league with little to no transition. I have a problem thinking that is anywhere near the same transition MLS made with the hosting of the World Cup in '94, two pro indoor leagues and a number of pro outdoor teams - even if they weren't at a First Division level.

    Huh? You're worried about nomenclature? You're right about paying more than $20,000 for some players relative to charging for admission, but let's not get sidetracked by what descriptor is given to the level of play.

    Lookit - start with a budget similar to the USL Pro ($500k to $1M with $100k-$150k player salary line item), work up to a budget of $1-2M, with
    $300k-$400k for player salaries. Eventually, as you develop the player pool and business professionals, ideally the fan-base and overall revenue streams will grow beyond 5,000 a game and get to 10,000 or more. You can call all of that the First Division if you want. But only if you stay within those (or, at least some general semi-successful business model based on actual revenue) parameters will the league survive and grow.
     
  21. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Huh? Absolutely not. You bring up two new markets from a division below them.

    Example - let's stick with your midwest idea. For 2013, you'd have (hypothetically based on markets, not on current teams) Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. Assume that the high-level amateur/semi-pro level below the league in question has another eight teams - Cincinnati, Fort Wayne, Akron, Dayton, St. Louis, Columbus, etc. So Detroit and Chicago move up to the First Division. Move Cincinnati and St. Louis up from the amateur league to the Second Division we're talking about.

    Remember, there are 70 teams in the WPSL and 30 in the W-League. You can easily break that into two levels with room for a third to grow out of it.

    *With the right budget.*
     
  22. Morris20

    Morris20 Member

    Jul 4, 2000
    Upper 90 of nowhere
    Club:
    Washington Freedom
    yeah, seriously . . . look, I get it, you really think you're right. I think your argument is missing the point. MLS didn't come about because the crowds/infrastructure/etc. of the APSL created demand for a higher level league - the truth was the opposite, it made it LESS attractive to start a top pro league. MLS came out of the bid process for the '94 World Cup . . . or you can believe that MLS owes it all to the leagues that housed Shawn Medved between graduation from Evergreen State & the '96 DCU team, dude you CAN think that.

    Here's the divergence . . . You've got to pay AT LEAST $20k, so you're looking at a salary line around $600 - 700k at a minimum, and you're back to pretty much where WPS is on that line.

    Without that, and a "D1" designation, I'm afraid there's no way to "grow beyond 5k" attendance, no national sponsorship, no media, and no incentive for players who have better career options elsewhere (and little incentive to invest time/energy at sub-minimum wage with no pro payday in sight). Honestly, soccer at the D2/semi-pro level doesn't draw because it's not worth watching unless you have a friend playing (which is their market). At least in indoor they can play music and make it kid friendly (and play at night).

    The REAL USL-Pro business model is the "another sucker" model, where, once one group runs out of money you look for another sucker somewhere else. In 30 years, they haven't grown attendance or revenue or developed stable franchises. Why copy that?
     
  23. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well like some one pointed out before, also add medical insurance and living accomodations.

    From an interview by the railhawks (NASL) president average salary is between 2,750-3,250K per month for their mens team.

    So say the same for women on a 6 month season.

    3K * 6 months * 23 players = 414,000 USD

    Add insurance (Not sure how much, I will use 50K-100K) and rent of dorms (4 players per house/apertment) add another 50K-70K (6 month rent for say 6 houses)

    You are talking 514K-584K for just the players. (if we use 2K per month we get to 376K-446K.

    On top of that travel and stadium rentals, plus staff (coaches, trainers, medical, sales, etc).
     
  24. dtid

    dtid Member

    Sep 6, 2010
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Ah ha! I see how we've gotten off base. Sorry I wasn't clear -'cuz obviously I wasn't. No no no, I'm not saying MLS happened because of the existence of the APSL. Far from it.

    I was just trying to say that the existence of current professionals - both players and administrators, etc. - made it easier to staff those MLS teams with people who weren't going from a purely amateur perspective.

    Sorry about that.


    Uhm, no. First off, other than MLS, most lower division US pro teams don't pay all their players. They do pay their top players - say their top 10 to 15, depending on the team - but unless you're playing in MLS or one of the US WNT regulars, if you're a professional player in the US, you're doing something to supplement your income or you are one of a rare top tier.

    And remember, most of the US WNT players that are so key to the popularity of the game in the US ARE paid by the Fed - pretty well. So they don't need significantly higher salaries than that. IIRC, Steve Goff reported a while ago that they were making between $30k and $60k. Add the low end of that to $20k and now you're talking about being in the top 25% of America....

    There is a way to make it work - you just have to be willing to look at what has (and hasn't) worked for other pro leagues in the US and learn from their experience.

    Obviously, you're not from Orlando.

    Hey, I'm not going to sit here and try to argue that the NASL or USL Pro have anything resembling a successful model as a league, but there are a handful of exceptions in those leagues: Orlando, Charleston, Rochester, Wilmington (?WTF?), Ft. Lauderdale and Carolina. Those are teams that - barring stupidity from their management or ownership - have the attendance wherewithal to make a good go of it.

    Funny, those are all in the 3,000 to 6,000 range. Their budgets should be between $750k and $1.5M and they should be able to make them work.

    And what I'm trying to say is that there is a model that can work for womens professional soccer until the talent pool of players - but more importantly, business professionals and brand equity - can be developed enough to support and operate and fully functional Division I league.

    Granted, you're probably not talking about major sponsors and major television coverage, but there ARE sponsors willing to pay legal tender for access to/exposure to 3,000 people a game. Hell, minor league baseball is full of sponsors like that.

    And frankly, if WILMINGTON can make it work, really now....
     
    kenntomasch repped this.
  25. Katreus

    Katreus Member

    Jul 3, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Note that most European leagues, esp. the top 3 or so, is based on a similar system. They def. pay less overall but they are stable and they develop a larger pool with depth of players. One of the things I most admire about the Frauen Bundesliga is that while they grab internationals, the base of the pool is young German players. The development is pretty good and their base is a pretty high quality in doing so. You bring in internationals to spice it up but they should be bonus as opposed to them being the point of the league.
     

Share This Page