I think most owners cut there losses and call it a day... because you would be starting completely over without the meager name recognition WPS has. Once WUSA folded, the fans did not exactly go running to see W-League and WPSL games
WPS needs to just accept either the CT team and/or the group that wants to bring the Sol back and save the league!
It is my opinion, if this league is to survive (providing they get passed this huge hurdle of getting sanctioned), the model may need to change. A womens professional soccer league is not going to be a top sport in this country in the foerseable future. We now know that. But it is a reasonable size niche sport that CAN make it if taken in the context that it is. Those days when the 99ers were dreaming of filling 60,000 stadiums with the start of the WUSAhave become only a dream and an illusion. But we don't need to fill out 60,000 stadiums. Heck we don't need to fill out 20,000 SS stadiums to make this work. Make a small stadium affordable and cozy and they will come. We have figured out that playing in MLS stadiums or other larger, expensive venues will not work (ask the CRS). Paying players large, unrealistic salaries will not work. Having large office staffs is not needed. You can still have sponsor signs, media booths, food courts, etc without playing in big stadiums,(unless the team also owns the stadium). Players should be payed decent wage, but to have players earning $90,000, $100,000, $150,000 is ridiculous, IMO. I don't care if they are the most popular players on the USWNT. Doesn't matter. A strict salary structure and cap should be established so that players make a decent salary but others aren't making the curve go out of whack. Also get rid of the high bond fees and security fees for new owners. What is it now, 1 million, 2 million?? Who the hell wants to pay that!? If you get venue costs and labor costs in line, you won't need the ridiculous security fees, or whatever they call it. Make the entry bond fees more reasonable and more attractive for new investors/owners. In my opinion the league needs to restructure and maybe redefine its goals if it wants to succeed and expand.
A blog by former President of the Chicago Red Stars and one of the people who helped create the WPS, Peter Wilt on pitchinvasion.net, tiltled Fixing Pro Women's Soccer in the US: A proposal: http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2011/12/02/fixing-u-s-pro-womens-soccer-a-proposal/
Can you correct the link? It thinks what's showing IS the link - i.e. including the '...' where the rest of the URL should be. =edit= Nevermind, I see you posted the link in the other thread as well. =-)
Part of sustainability is fans buying merchandise from clubs. Other, established leagues make good coin selling shirts, hats, etc to fans. Online petitions are great and all but put actual money where your digital signature is. On that note during this gift giving season, check out the various twitter & fb feeds of WPS teams for sales on gear. For example, today (12/8/11) you can buy a WNY Flash jersey for $12 plus $5.50 for shipping (add $5 for names on the back) if you call the WNY Flash office between 10am & 4pm eastern. If you live outside the USA, shipping is $10. Seriously. $17.50 total for a jersey. That's a better price than the legendary Eurosport warehouse sales. You <3 Sinclair? $22.50 gets you a shirt w/ her name on it. Just call their front office.
There's just no scenario where Wilt's idea makes any sense (not to mention that it wouldn't pass the US Soccer certification test he's advocating using to kill WPS), unless you just don't want women's pro soccer - because what he's suggesting is NOT a pro league and is at precisely the level that has been unsustainable on the men's side. You want to count franchise "wins and losses" in terms of sustainability in D2 of the USL?? They haven't even been able to make a LEAGUE last, let alone individual franchises. Instead of letting fat cat owners lose millions trying to make it the only way any league ever has, he's arguing for letting relatively poor owners lose $100's that they don't have in the first place copying the unsustainable D2 model the men have repeatedly failed at. Using administrative fiat to tell big investors their not wanted . . . this may be Wilt's dumbest idea ever - and he's not exactly a guy who bats 1.000 anyway.
I want the LA Sol back too!!! That was the best team in the whole world and they took it away from us faster than Metta World Peace getting kicked off Dancing With The Stars!
This is a few days late, but I just saw this tweet (emphasis mine): I hadn't ever heard of this before*, so maybe I'm late to the party in that sense, but it certainly adds an interesting element to the discussion.
pretty sure he was talking in terms of one deep pocket owner owning multiple teams. it was part of the twitter convo he was having w/ Dure about mls circa 2001 when 3 owners owned 10 teams.
Excuse me, I bolded the other half of the tweet - the part that mentioned how the WPS structure forbids having owners like that. That's the info I was unaware of until now. I'm well aware of how shaky MLS was in its early years and who was responsible for keeping it afloat, thank you very much. =edit= I just realized I forgot to explain my little asterisk from earlier. I know MLS is single-entity while in WPS each team is basically on its own; is what Foley said a consequence of that distinction? My gut says 'no', but I'm no owner, so...
Yeah, I haven't looked into it, but I'd have to think it would be because WPS is NOT a single entity (unlike MLS) and likely has rules against owning multiple teams as Anschutz did and Hunt still does.
i'm sure the wps couldn't stop an owner with 3 different corporations, in which each corp would own a team. but i doubt a guy like buffett would be interested. what about majority steak in one team and minority in one or two others?
In the early years of MLB there was no such restriction, and it became fairly commonplace for a second place team owner to buy another team and trade all its best players to his initial team in order to catch up. That, for example, is how Honus Wagner came to Pittsburg. The abuse was so raw that most leagues set up restrictions to prevent that sort of thing right from the start...
It wouldn't be. A 5 team league isn't really sustainable at any level, but at D1 more so than the lower levels. Hell 6 was pushing it. And the minimum requirements do call for 8.
People keep saying this and other than repetition there's NO evidence for it. . . the NHL lasted for quite some time with 6, and as a growing league you could certainly make an argument that not diluting your talent level and having a footprint that avoids cross country travel is a great way to build. A LOT more leagues have folded from over-expansion than by being conservative and making sure that each franchise is strong. And who cares what SocFed's "requirements" are - they've twisted and turned them inside out to suit all kinds of things. Why exactly should it matter what the President of WAGS thought 15 years ago anyway?
Morris, being strong includes being now down to 2 original franchises? Strong includes losing several teams after every season? There's a reason that USSF has minimum standards. Standards that to date WPS has yet to meet. Instead they've been getting further and further away from the minimum.
If they're so weak, why does SocFed need to kill them? If SocFed "has minimum standards" that WPS (and WUSA and lot's of other leagues) never met, a) why do they matter? do you get a special prize at 8 teams? Is there research about the stability and beauty of 8 team leagues that shows when you drop to 7 or 6 or 4 you suddenly are damaging the game? If you've got folks who've spent $25 million or more and are willing to keep spending . . . WTF? If SocFed kills this league administratively, what is the argument for it helping the women's game? Could that argument make any sense to anyone? To me the answers are obvious even if you disagree. Arena football started with 4 teams, and they've done ok. Indoor soccer has had it's "1st division" league(s) at 16+ teams and below 6 . . . and SocFed never (to my knowledge) threatened to un-sanction them - and if you want to talk about impermanent franchises . . .
As I thought, they went bankrupt a few years ago. The Arena football we see today is not the same league that played 5 years ago.
Depends on your definition of "collapse". Yes, the league stopped play a few years back. Then, after one year off, started up again. And JOS was one of the people who led the AFL through that tough year.
