[Minnman]

The WUSA's lifesigns don't look very strong: the league's big name stars are aging, attendance is down, ratings are pathetic and, to make matters worse, now PAX has been dropped from DirecTV.

The inability of WUSA and MLS to cooperate, except for a few double-headers, seems to be hurting WUSA far more than MLS (the insanity of going head-to-head with MLS on TV each Saturday afternoon is a prime example - despite the WUSA competition, MLS ratings, post-WC, have risen somewhat, while WUSA ratings are going nowhere).

It may be too soon to discuss this, but if WUSA is on the verge of going under, does anyone think that MLS would have any interest in, somehow, saving it?

There is no inherent reason why MLS and WUSA need to be at odds. Everytime DC United and the Washington Freedom play a double header attendance is terrific; certainly, every city which hosts an MLS and WUSA franchise should do the same thing. Much has been said, as well, about how soccer specific stadiums make even more sense if both MLS and WUSA teams could use the same stadium.

Instead, MLS and WUSA seem far more intent on competing with each other, and it's becoming obvious that WUSA will lose this battle.

I remember how, when WUSA was first formed, MLS put together a proposal for its own women's league. Was MLS at all serious about doing this? Was it just a negotiating ploy on the part of the league; some way of trying to have a say in what the league would look like, to limit its competition with MLS? Remember that MLS bought the English language rights to next year's Women's World Cup, so at some level the league understands the potential that the women's game possesses in the US. Remember, as well, the "agreement" between MLS and WUSA in which each league said it would operate an expansion franchise in the other. Nothing came of that, of course, but it shows that some good will did exist between the leagues in the past.

I've always believed that men's and women's soccer could reinforce one another. Personally, I haven't watched one minute of the WUSA this year (I did watch a few games, even attended one, last year), in large measure because I perceive it as being an MLS competitor. Put the games on TV at different times; schedule more double-headers and other combined events; work men's and women's teams into the expansion and stadium construction issue, and I'd become an active supporter of women's soccer again.

In short, find some way (it shouldn't be too hard) to make SOCCER the issue, not men's soccer vs. women's soccer the issue, and I think that both MLS and WUSA would benefit. The current WUSA administration doesn't seem interested in pursuing this goal, but I can't help but wonder if MLS does.

Opinions?

[Northside Rovers]

You would think that there would be a way to make this work for both leagues. But it seems obvious now, as you stated, that WUSA needs to cooperate much more than MLS does. Having said that, I have to believe MLS has and should have little interest in supporting or taking over WUSA.

Every spare nickel MLS has should go into ensuring the success of MLS. The benefits of having doubleheaders and stadium sharing are still outweighed by the costs of running the league.

Now, if MLS decided they wanted to pursue this - I think they should align the WUSA clubs with existing MLS franchises and form a true club, like the Arsenal Lady Gunners, QPR's Lady Hoops etc... I know many femme types won't like the whole lady naming thing or being secondary to the mens teams, but it is becoming increasingly clear that WUSA cannot stand alone. Combining teams could help with stadium fees / training costs and attract fans from one team to the other, etc... It would mean moving a few teams to MLS cities without WUSA, but that would be better than having no league in a few years.

I haven't seen one minute of WUSA this season. I only watched a little last year. I wish them well - but when they start competing with MLS for viewers and media space, I can't avoid them enough. The attention WUSA and the womens' national team gets is a double edged sword for MLS. The attention is good - the perception that soccer is a girls sport is bad. This perception can be overcome but it will take time. WUSA failing will also give soccer bashers more fuel for the fire.

In this country, with Title IX and all this high profiel gender equity stuff (LPGA on TV, WNMBA, womens hockey in the Olympics) their is probably an audience enough to sustain a WUSA. But for them to survive, I think they are going to have to piggyback on MLS. Which means WUSA can't sustain themselves where they are. Which means they are losing money. Which would be money MLS would have to pay out to support them. Which is what I would prefer MLS not do.

[superdave]

Great posts so far.

Another issue to discuss is the different fanbases. If MLS tries to take over WUSA and go to an all-doubleheader format, I don't think that's going to work. Because in MLS, there's already a tension between young adult fans and families. Adding the PTHs isn't going to help that. (On the other hand, all-doubleheaders means minimal extra stadium costs, so WUSA fans are pretty much pure gravy.)

But let's face it...Hunt and Anschutz could make a profit from Columbus and Los Angeles teams. So that's two reasons right there for an MLS takeover.

But the average attendance for WUSA may not be enough to cover the costs of opening the big NFL venues (if WUSA games are mostly standalone). Esp. because a higher portion of WUSA tickets are discounted due to the age of the purchasers. And the lack of beer sales there.

I started a thread about the Courage's local TV ads, and how they disinvite soccer fans. So one of the issues MLS would have to think about, is whether or not that approach can be improved upon. Aligning a women's league with MLS puts soccer and not women's rights on the forefront. (Before you judge that statement and call me a chauvinist, please see the Courage ads.) Will that bring in soccer fans like me to Courage games, or discourage PTHs?

Another thing MLS has to think about...one change WUSA needs to make is to be like the NBA...the best players, no foreigner limit. That'd make it a better league. The flipside is that WUSA could make an even stronger claim to being the best league in the world, and the contrast with MLS (esp. if they lose Donovan, McBride, Beasley, etc.) would be all the more stark. So, MLS has to think about the contrast between the ambitions of each league within their gender realm.

To be not as high-falutin' in my prose, if WUSA has all of the best women's players, if WUSA players are all the stars of the WWC and the 2004 Olympics, will that make "feeder league" MLS look bad?

To me, it comes down to two central issues; the rest of it can be finessed. First, can the marketing plans complement each other. A) will the WUSA players be happy campers? B) Can MLS figure out a way to finesse the "feeder league" vs. "world's best players" issue? C) If all doubleheaders will increase attendance with only a tiny increase in gameday costs, can the various fanbases co-exist? If not, can WUSA games on Sundays work as standalones? D) Can SUM figure out a way to leverage the two leagues?

The other is stadiums. I think many posters might think that if the Dallas area, and the DC area, and the NY area, will cough up for SSSs to both leagues but not just to MLS, *OR* if AEG figures it can make money with both leagues, that's the sole critical issue.

I agree that it's critical. Even moreso if the equation is massive taxpayer help for stadia. But I am still concerned about the marketing issues. IMHO, they're just as big.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by Minnman
The inability of WUSA and MLS to cooperate, except for a few double-headers, seems to be hurting WUSA far more than MLS

Or it could be that WUSA would be experiencing exactly these same sorts of troubles if they "cooperated" more with MLS (and I'm not exactly sure what that would entail....you can't just play doubleheader after doubleheader after doubleheader), because their product is not all that solid.

(the insanity of going head-to-head with MLS on TV each Saturday afternoon is a prime example - despite the WUSA competition, MLS ratings, post-WC, have risen somewhat, while WUSA ratings are going nowhere).

I'm not sure they'd get substantially better ratings no matter what timeslot they were in.

It may be too soon to discuss this, but if WUSA is on the verge of going under, does anyone think that MLS would have any interest in, somehow, saving it?

I'm not sure they'd want to take on that burden. Does it make a lot of sense when MLS' number one concern should be to get its own house straight?

There is no inherent reason why MLS and WUSA need to be at odds.

Except they're different soccer factions, and one of the major stumbling blocks this sport has in this country is that rarely do opposing constituencies do any more than give lip service to "for the good of the game" --- everyone has their own agenda, and only when both sides are on the verge of financial ruin (see MISL v. WISL) do they get to the table and realize that they wasted a few years and several million bucks being at odds with each other. There's no inherent reason except for the incredible bullheadedness of most of the people who run soccer in this country, who seemingly all feel that their way is the only way to do things and that to cooperate is to admit defeat.

Everytime DC United and the Washington Freedom play a double header attendance is terrific; certainly, every city which hosts an MLS and WUSA franchise should do the same thing.

That's New England (they had a doubleheader this year), DC (they had two), San Jose (I don't think they have, I don't think they get along very well) and New York (don't think they have). I agree it should be done once, maybe twice. But you're tempting fate to try to do it three times or more.

Had to split this into two posts....

[kenntomasch]

I remember how, when WUSA was first formed, MLS put together a proposal for its own women's league. Was MLS at all serious about doing this?

I think it was just a bargaining thing. I doubt seriously that MLS had much intention of going ahead with WMLS, just like I doubt they'd prop up WUSA.

Remember that MLS bought the English language rights to next year's Women's World Cup, so at some level the league understands the potential that the women's game possesses in the US.

Well, they saw money to be made by a big event, and to wrest those rights away from WUSA and its deep-pocketed cable TV investors was a nice feather in the cap. Again, the difference between the TV rights to a WWC, which is a proven TV commodity (at least when it's in this country, I don't know how it would work out when it's in...what, China next time?) and the rights to anything having to do with WUSA is the difference between night and day.

Remember, as well, the "agreement" between MLS and WUSA in which each league said it would operate an expansion franchise in the other.

I don't think WUSA's investors have the wherewithal to operate an MLS team, and I don't think MLS investors (as few of them as there are) want to waste the energy until they see if WUSA just disappears or not.

In short, find some way (it shouldn't be too hard) to make SOCCER the issue, not men's soccer vs. women's soccer the issue, and I think that both MLS and WUSA would benefit.

Opinions?

The eternal question. What's best for the game is best for all concerned. Hopefully they'll wake up before too long. But so far, though the battle is really less than two years old, it's pretty obvious that the women's game, for all the Time Magazine covers and Brandi Chastain Gear Magazine appearances of three years ago, isn't ready to take on big brother and seriously compete just yet.

[FearM9]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
San Jose (I don't think they have, I don't think they get along very well)

The Cyberrays and Quakes actually had a DH but in Denver against the Freedom and Rapids in the WUSA preseason. The Power are teaming up with the Metros (they are playing an Open Cup game) at Mitchel tonight I think.

[Golazo]

(Please withhold the barrage of "duh" replies, but I sometimes wonder if the muckety-mucks that make decisions forget the basics.)

Anyone looking into a cooperation agreement should have a big sign in the office about "Cooperation, not competition."

1) Whoever at WUSA came up with going head-to-head with MLS on the tv should be fired.

2) If sharing space in the form of doubleheaders won't work, at least coming together (lobbying, paying, filling) on soccer-specific stadia should be top priority for any cooperation

3) Giving sponsors more value has to be a plus, even if not all sponsors are interested in both leagues (Any Venus ads gonna show up at Crew Stadium? I doubt it.)

4) Cooperating on research and start-ups for expansion would be a neat trick.

5) They'll both need a whole lotta Philisimo

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by Golazo
1) Whoever at WUSA came up with going head-to-head with MLS on the tv should be fired.

If there were any indication that anybody at either league HQ made a decision like this, I might agree with you, but there's nothing to indicate that either league had any sort of leverage in choosing its broadcast time.

[kebzach]

Originally posted by superdave
Another thing MLS has to think about...one change WUSA needs to make is to be like the NBA...the best players, no foreigner limit. That'd make it a better league. The flipside is that WUSA could make an even stronger claim to being the best league in the world, and the contrast with MLS (esp. if they lose Donovan, McBride, Beasley, etc.) would be all the more stark. So, MLS has to think about the contrast between the ambitions of each league within their gender realm.

not to try and take a very good thread off-topic, bur are you suggesting that MLS or WUSA drop any foreign player limits they have?

Because IMHO that's a move that would come back and bite you in the end. Big time.

IMHO, Americans aren't going to EVER get into a foreigner league like they would an American-based league. And yes, I know that the NBA is 1/2 Eurpoean anymore and that MLB is 1/2 dominican, etc, but still. Those leagues started out as all American players, and thus got people interested in them as such.

MLS has seemed to catch onto this here in the last 2 years, and it's seemed to work better than the previous plan. Let's not mess that up.

[jotadia]

Originally posted by Golazo

2) If sharing space in the form of doubleheaders won't work, at least coming together (lobbying, paying, filling) on soccer-specific stadia should be top priority for any cooperation

3) Giving sponsors more value has to be a plus, even if not all sponsors are interested in both leagues (Any Venus ads gonna show up at Crew Stadium? I doubt it.)

I especially agreed with this. This is a great thread. Still would like to know:

Why didnt MLS and WUSA get together esp. co-marketing, overhead sharing from the beginning.. when the WUSA was established?