Cheryl Bailey said last year that the USNT players were being paid $30k to play in the league. Since its just part of what they get paid on their NT contract I dont see any reason to vary it from player to player.
NT bonus money is based on being on a roster not field time. A good example of this is Sauerbrunn. She was in the top three for pay from March 2012-March 2013 even tho Sundhage hardly ever played her.
I don't want to discuss the numbers here, but the amounts that certain national team players were making were a lot more than that. If we're talking $50k to $60k per player I'd say definitely pay everyone the same so they don't skip town. However, I can definitely see someone like Morgan Brian accepting 40% of what Sauerbrunn's contract was for. It's still a lot of money for a rookie.
Lets say ur Alex Morgan who makes the max on her NT contract (This is known) and compare her to Crystal Dunn who is prolly making the minimum on her NT contract. If u use the 2006 numbers then Morgan makes $70k plus bonuses and Dunn makes $30K plus bonuses. Now while these numbers have likely gone up the NWSL pay is still a constant because it seems to just be part of the CBA contract number. If it is just part of the money they were already earmarked to get, it really doesnt matter what that number is.
Right and thats why its hard to speculate...Morgan made over $250K from USSoccer in the last bedget statement but because we dont know how the pay tiers and bonuses have evolved, it impossible to break it down.
I think the system breaks down if someone like K Mewis made a small fraction less than lets say what Lloyd made, especially when we get to the upper pay limit.
Sauerbrunn played in 22 of 32 games in 2012 and 12 of 16 in 2013. Were they all before March 2012 or after March 2013?
Sundhage coached 26 games before leaving in Sept 2012. In those 26 games, Sauerbrunn played in 15, starting 5. She played 788 minutes, averaging 31 minutes per match. When Ellis took over Sauerbrunn played an additional 467 minutes for the remaining 7 matches, starting 4 and averaging 66 minutes per match.
Well Mewis' base salary is prolly tier one while Lloyd is tier three. Other than that, if Lloyd and Mewis r on the same number of rosters, their pay would be similar. Thats the problem when up to 75% of someone's pay is based on team bonuses.
She played a third of the minutes and that much surprised me. She did get three games in CONCACAF during the 38-0 rout of the western world. Sundhage didnt like her because she didnt hit the long ball well out of the back...Sermanni made her a starter because who wants her hitting the long ball out of the back anyway
Now there's a difference. See, I thought it obvious that pia didn't play sauerbrunn because, like most coaches, she did not want to mess around with the central defense - the trickiest part of a team. Most coaches decide on that central triumvirate earliest, and then stick with it! Had nothing to do with sauerbrunn not being able to hit the long ball. If pia had stayed on, rampone would be on the bench and Becky starting - exactly as ts did it.
You guys must have missed Pia's comment about Sauerbrunn early on ... She said something to the effect that Sauerbrunn was a nice defender but she had things she needed to work on . One of the something was making play out of the back. Pia thought when she got the ball, Sauerbrunn, too often , would pass the ball to the other backs instead of looking up field and try to make play. If you watched her in the early days, that was exactly what Becky did.
Maybe but it would have been Sauerbrunn and Van Hollebeke if she made the change at all. Most likely though, Rampone would have started with Van Hollebeke until she became unable to continue. Press would be there but glued to the bench. Maybe Dunn gets a shot but never Brian or any of the other young ones.
No, you pad over-the-hill veterans' sheets and don't develop the youth. Ops, they have to have stats to develop. No stats means not enough time on the pitch to develope properly. With FC USWNT, the old timer got years but the young/new generation only got games.
This is a very valid point. I think that Brian, Dunn and Press are shoe-ins for making the WC roster. However, with only 14 months left before the WC, if other young players are called in then they need to stay with the team for the entire duration. How is it going to help team chemistry if Tymrak, Hagen, Brooks, Johnston, etc. are called in for a 1 or 2 month span, but cannot continue with the NT due to contractual restrictions? Sermanni pretty much already called up any young player that had a chance at making the WC roster. It's now time for the new coach and the USSF to decide whether or not some existing contracts need to be terminated in lieu of others, or if calling up new players for short stints is not really productive. If the game plan moving forward is to keep bringing in new talent in a revolving door type format, I don't exactly see how this would help the team gel or the assistant coaches to make the proper adjustments?
Then the USSF should concentrate on changing the contract agreemets. Did Hagen's 19 minutes of play at the Algarve Cup really give her or the coaches a chance to hone her skills and mesh her with the rest of the team? Are Johnston and Tymrak now important staples on this squad based on their brief stints with the team? Is Killion a shoe-in to make this team based on her zero minutes of play at the Algarve Cup tournament? I don't care if the USSF brings in the biggest advocate for young talent as the next head coach, I can't see how they'll be able to skirt around the contractual restrictions when players like Boxx and A-Rod still have contracts.
It matters to other teams, why should USA be different? If you focus only on the upcoming WC without developing young players then what will you do after when veterans will retire and you have no one to replace them? Also next WC means more games and they're gonna play on turf. This is completely different to the previous ones, not to mention that other teams improved physically. Looking at some of these veterans it's tough for me to imagine that they can play the whole tournament. There is also bigger risk of injuries. You need each of 23 players to be ready to play with every other teammate and that means some younger ones too. And even if they spent most of their time on the bench, this kind of experience cannot be replaced and will pay off in future WCs.
All very valid points. However, unless the contracts issue is resolved it's sort of like asking for world peace. Perhaps the USSF can expand the number of contracts to 35 during peak years (WC qualifying to Olympics) and then drop them down to 20 during off peak years as some players retire and others (bench players) are considered replaceable anyway.
These contract rules are a big problem IMO too. It's hard to evaluate a player based on 6 weeks and decide if she's good enough for WC, especially when you play opponents like Russia. Not to mention that some players need more time to adapt and in this situation they're always gonna lose. That way you can also overlook some good talent. In the long run these contract rules might affect US results at WC. I'm not sure though if USSF is willing to change it.
It's really frustrating. It can also have a negative impact on some young players like Tymrak or Hagen even though they were solid in their brief stints with the team. Perhaps, Hagen is kicking herself for not scoring in the Denmark match even the though the poor girl had only a few minutes to prove herself. I really hope that the next coach comes in knowing what they want and gives the USSF an earful. For instance, let's use Wambach as an example since she's such a hot topic. If the next coach comes in and right away tells the USSF that they're very impressed with Hagen and would like to give her a legitimate shot at making this team by giving her a contract so she's present at all subsequent camps (I realize Hagen has obligations overseas, but I'm just using her as an example), then this approach may work. The new coach then proceeds to give both Hagen and Wambach equal time over the next year to see which player performs better, and the makes their selection accordingly. However, if the new coach comes in looking to provide a challenge for Wambach at her spot, but decides to skirt around the contract issue by bringing in Player W in one camp, then Player X in the next, then Y and Z, I'm not sure how this helps anyone. All it does is create confusion for the players and coaches while not really challenging Wambach for her spot at all!