I'm really confused, and you bring out a point that reflects that. There IS a market for women's professional soccer. It is pretty well bracketed. Something in the neighborhood of 4,000 to 6,000 a game. Some stat guy should be able to back that up with facts, but that is what I remember off the top of my head. And that is an attendance level that works for USL Pro-level teams, for the most part. Regional - not national - schedule of games, professional players - although many have to supplement with coaching, running clinics, other side jobs. But it IS professional soccer. And it is WELL established that a professional team will draw that level of interest. Is that what MLS did? No. But MLS had anywhere from 15,000 to 20,000 average attendance for most teams in its first year. A much higher level of demand - Revenue dollars are going to be a bit different in that situation. But back to the 5k a game plan - So DO THAT, consistently, for 5 to 10 years, THEN look to upgrade. But establish the markets, the fan bases, the brands, first. At that point, an investment in more marketing dollars can be more accurately targeted at the right people to actually get a result, along with other spends. Until then, though, it is throwing good money after bad (WPS) and worse (WUSA). And look, again, certainly not bashing the players or the teams who made great efforts to make it work. To a degree, not even the leagues. But definitely the business plans for both organizations were significantly flawed. So please, let's not keep trying to beat our head against the same wall - let's work with what we have - a solid level of demand, a commensurate revenue level, and build a business plan to accommodate that. Aside - your comment about "most players/Walmart" - I'm assuming you're not including MLS players in that group. Because if you are, you need to look at this: http://www.mlsplayers.org/files/August 1, 2012 Salary Information - Alphabetical.pdf (I only mention this because I overheard someone the other day say they thought MLS players' average salary was $10,000 to $20,000....)
I used some hyperbole, yes, but look at those numbers. There are players doing pretty well. There are also players getting big minutes on less than 60k and I am sure there are good players coming out of college who can get more than the 36-45k an entry level player gets at a 9-5 job. The MLS season is about three months longer and there's a good deal of turnover in those low salary roster spots so even in MLS you are taking a calculated risk when you choose to pursue a dream to play pro soccer.
MLS league attendance averaged between 13k-15k (with a number of teams below 10k) for most of it's history. The secret to MLS was AEG losing $100's of millions of dollars. There is NO successful pro league that hasn't followed THAT model (guys losing money) while the league gets established. Leagues with owners who can't take losses litter the history books - and not just in soccer. There's a reason that the NBA owns the D-League, for instance.
I don't have the actual numbers, but I'm fairly certain that the VAST majority of those players are getting paid more than the US average household income (around $45,000). Are they getting paid less than NBA, MLB, etc.? Yes. But you can't seriously tell me that a teenager making $50,000 isn't a professional doing better than most.
Not disagreeing that deep pockets are necessary. But I am saying that there is a difference between losing money blindly and investing in something that will grow. Neither of the two previous women's pro leagues had business models that were going to grow. The costs were too high and the growth was too slow (or, in most cases, negative). You have to establish a baseline of stability and a path to growth, otherwise you're just another PDL owner throwing $20,000-$50,000 in losses at a pet project, and few to no one has enough money to do that at a Division I level for women's professional soccer.
Yes, yes I can. We also, generally, aren't talking about teenagers. There are homegrown players and GA players who make a bit more than they would normally because that market is a bit different. What you have to consider is a player coming from college at 21 or 22. Take Antoine Hoppenot, for instance, he took a risk signing an MLS deal and finding himself getting no time, injured, released, etc on a non-guaranteed $45k deal rather than putting the Princeton degree to use and making more doing something else. It's more than a comparable female player can expect, but it's not a great salary, particularly when you find yourself playing every week over guys making far more. In most MLS markets, $45k isn't going very far. That's the market here for an inexperienced player, so the decision to try pro soccer as a career is complicated regardless of sex.
Joking aside, PuttPutt, but you figure that would be a drop-dead date to announce SOMETHING for next year; whether some form of semi-pro league would come (ran by the USSF, or USL, or in some other form), or there won't be a pro league for next year (so WPSL-Elite would still be the top league, presumably). If you remember the WPSL-Elite was kind of slammed together this year, and still had a team drop out before play began, leading to a scramble to get an eighth side. (The league said that they had the idea in the works, but fast-forwarded it after WPS went down, but there still was a big "if" about getting the league going.) A semi-pro league would need a few months more lead time. The one line I found interesting from the Grant Wahl piece was the focus on a "sustainable" league rather than a "startup" league. Just what is a good long-term model? What business plan gets us past the dreaded year three? (Yeah, I know there is an onging thread here about that topic, also.) But it is good that USSF is looking at this angle. DITD: I disagree about your statement that a 4K-6K attendence is obvious. Maybe half that is a given; have to do heavy marketing (promotions, etc...) to get a steady 4K+. But that is the difference between "yeah, we can do this with 5K, even allowing for a slip-up or two" versus "man, with under 3K we can't allow ourselves ANY mistake." It's right on that line.
Absolutely. Further up-thread, we saw that even the vaunted WPS with some of the top players in the world had mid-3k's as attendance. Boston did about 2k in the WPSLE this year (about 1/2 their WPS number) and the other WPSLE teams did much worse than that. Seattle had great attendance driven by their locally-connected WNT players. Top college programs can get about 1.5-3k per game with the built-in student population and alumni connection. Here's Kenn's chart that includes attendance across the higher levels of men's/women's soccer in US/Canada: http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?p=4770
Of Portland's over 3,000 average attendance in 2011 (tops for NCAA DI women), the non-student base is about 2,800. For some schools, you are right about "built-in student population and alumni connection," but you are not right for all schools. Portland has proved that a good program, good promotion, and a soccer-loving community can produce a solid attendance base that is not dependent on students and alums.
There will always be exceptions. I wasn't trying to minimize anyone's accomplishments. But having students and a local population that's tied to the school in some way is an advantage that professional teams aren't going to have.
4 of the minimum projected 8 teams that are in: Boston Breakers, Chicago Red Stars, a newly formed team in Seattle, and New Jersey’s Sky Blue FC I would expect the Flash to be there as well.
Further updates from Beau: UPDATE: Here’s what Boston’s Mike Stoller says about the Flash: “One of the five teams that are finalizing their involvement. They have been a driving force over the last year and continue to be as we finalize all details of the new league.” MORE UPDATES: There are MLS teams involved. Also, the interested teams are planning to be fully professional — in other words, no college players. http://www.sportsmyriad.com/2012/08/new-womens-soccer-league-here-we-go/#comments
From the Flash ownership: Alex Sahlen (@alexsahlen2) Statement regarding 2013: The WNY Flash remains committed to Women's Professional Soccer in the United States and continues positive dialouge and communications with all respectable parties involved in forming a new professional league in 2013. There are still facets of the league that are yet to be disclosed or completed prior to the Flash committing officially, but WNY remain optimistic about the progress that has been made thus far.
I hope the new league is mentioned often on today's broadcast. It would be great if a pro women's league could stick around.
http://chicagolandsoccernews.com/leagues/wps2.php?article_id=10875 I am so proud of Arnim Whisler for keeping the Red Stars going after all the other owners fled.
A "newly formed team in Seattle"? That... actually kind of worries me. Getting the Sounders involved was supposed to be a big sign of league cooperation. And won't this make FOUR teams in the Seattle area (Sounders, Issaquah, Emerald City, and newbie)? =edit= Although, it is nice to hear that MLS is somehow(?) involved. They have a lot of W-League teams (only FCD is WPSL as far as I know) so maybe that's the league cooperation?
Whoa, what about Philly? The Independence did well at the gate, and almost won the last two WPS titles. And there was support from the Sons of Ben as well as they became the Daughters of Betsy...thank you Empire Supporters Club.
Well, CRS is going to lead an effort to get this done on the cheap. Honestly, I hope it (whatever come of the "new league effort") works, but when you've got the WNY Flash on the fence, and Philly saying they haven't been approached and only 4 teams at the moment, it's not a done deal. Also, there's no precedent for a league like this to actually grow. That doesn't mean it can't, but I hope we don't end up with yet another impediment to the growth of the game at the highest level in this country.