You either keep misunderstanding, or your writing is confused. You were the one who said that shareholders are typically "friends of management," not me. But do boards react when the share price drops precipitously? Certainly they do. And there are all sorts of ways that activist and institutional shareholders act against management. It also appears you are making the wrong distinction. I never distinguished between public and private companies; I distinguished between incentives that drive for profit and non-profit entities. Having worked at and with both types of companies, the difference in efficiency and productivity between the two is quite stark. And a major reason for that (in general) is because non-profit companies don't feel the investor pressure to perform.
"Shareholders" often come in the form of a bunch of Joe the Plumbers who own a few shares each, and the 10 people/investors/companies that own 70 percent of the shares. Which means, if you appease those 10 people, you'll probably be fine. There is the public-facing stock price, which may or may not accurately reflect the health of the company. Fluctuations in the stock price may or may not encourage better decision-making.
My argument is that for-profit companies aren’t inherently better run because they have a profit mechanism. Shareholders oversight is to maximize profits, not ensure sound business decision making. If those two things happen to intersect, it’s coincidental to their main motive, which is...profits.
This is incredibly dishonest (though I shouldn't be surprised given the source). I haven't defended anyone against anything in this thread. In point of fact, I stated that the author of the piece at issue is a top notch reporter.
I apologize if you didn’t intend to provide a contrasting article via the strauss/JK article. I thought it was clearly your intent. If that wasn’t the intent, what was the point of bringing up the Strauss article from five years ago? FWIW, I thought the equivalency point was reasonable.
Who wants to take a break from discussing the merits of publicly traded organizations vs non profits to play random Jay Berhalter fun facts with me? In 2017 Jay Berhalter made $779,922 from the federation, as the whatever that long dumb title is that he has. In 2017 the USMNT and USSF had the single greatest fu@k up in their crowded and illustrious history of F'ing up. In 2018 Jay Berhalter was on the committee to hire the guy that would eventually hire his brother, for no explicable reason considering he is on the operations side of the federation. Jay Berhalter was the Chief Executive of the Copa America Centenario. Some shady seeming shenanigans and the moving of lots of money went down at the Centenario: Copa America was successful, at least $190 million in revenue for CA2016. What is CA2016 you ask? More on that in a sec. $46 million was reported as USSF profit, USSF made a lot of money. Did they make as much money as they should have? Where did the rest of the money go? Who individually (corporations are not people), profited? https://leastthing.blogspot.com/2018/04/seven-questions-for-us-soccer-on-ca2016.html In 2014 the US Soccer Federation, a non-profit charity registered in New York, created a subsidiary non-profit related to the hosting of the Copa America Centenario soccer tournament. Specifically, on 29 October 2014 the USSF set up a single-member LLC, called The CA2016 Local Organizing Committee LLC. The CA2016 reported $190 million in revenue in 2016 (specifically $189,681,375). CA2016 reported providing a grant of $64,941,805 to the USSF (Schedule I, Part ID, d). USSF 2017 IRS 990 (PDF) reported receiving $50,000,000 from CA2016 (p. 68, Part V (1)). Question #1: Why is there a $14,941,805 discrepancy between the two numbers? CA2016 employed 24 people in 2016 and reported $5,144,749 in compensation, salaries and wages (IRS 990, Part IX, lines 5 and 7) plus $548,815 in other employee benefits (IRS 990, Part IX, line 9). This results in an average pay of $237,232 per employee. Question #2: What were each of the 24 employees actually paid? CA2016 reported “fees for services” paid to non-employees of $15,403,641 (IRS 990, Part IX, line 11a, “Management”) and $46,858,610 (IRS 990, Part IX, line 11g, “Other”). Of this latter amount Schedule O explains that $31,192,095 was for “service agreement total fees” and $15,506,572 was for “hosting agreement total fees.” Question #3: To whom (organizations and individuals) were the $15.4m in management fees paid? Question #4: To whom (organizations and individuals) were the $31.2m in service agreement fees paid? Question #5: To whom (organizations and individuals) were the $15.5 million in hosting agreement fees paid? There is plenty more in the article, like $16,328,000 in travel expenses. Maybe Wahl wants to make up for getting scooped so hard and ask some questions? LOL.
F*ckin D-bags. Been saying it all since 2007. Finally, we are getting somewhere. (beyond bigsoccer, that is...)
Who needs journalism when you get Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram? CEOs are forced out the doors because of Twitter. Entertainment goliaths go broke because of Twitter. Multinational corporations are forced to change policies because of Twitter. If fans care enough about US soccer, they can make a difference. Get on social and makes lots of noises. People will see, they will hear, they will spread the words, and things will change. US soccer fans simply haven't make enough noises or care enough to do so. Social media is the modern platform to drive changes, so get your asses on it and start working.
Your response is garbage. Their are good people in USSF who have been marginalized and bullied for suggesting that maybe we should lower ticket prices for the upper levels in an empty stadium vs nothing opponents. Jay Berhalter is a cancer.
That’s not remotely true. Board meetings still happen and are frequently more public than private companies. There are a ton of constituencies watching carefully. Generally, nonprofits are more accountably managed than companies, which often turn into closed buddy networks. I take it you’ve never been involved in working with a nonprofit. And no, the money doesn’t just come automatically
My industry and my company have had hard times these last 4 years. Both with tons of layoffs. Morale was low, people were complaining, etc... My company did a few "anonymous" surveys to get the pulse of the employees. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. "Layoff time again - who should we layoff?" "What about that guy that totally ragged on management in the last survey?" "Done."
And what the hell have either of them ever done to earn these positions? It’s farcical. I’ll give GGG the third arm mutation in the summer of ‘00 semifinal qualifier. That was astonishing as was the greatest ever goal in YS history illegally denied by Frings arm two years later but as a coach? Bruce <expletive> Arena has literally what a dozen more titles as a coach but somehow the greatness of GGG’s sub .500 track record as a HC was worth making a complete joke of the most important coaching hire search in USMNT history? Effin really? It’s beyond insulting being treated like this. It’s like when my horrific redskins announced Jim Zorn as HC a short while after announcing him as OC because nobody else in the league was stupid enough to take the HC job from the devil’s halfwit dips<bleep> little brother (Dan Snyder). Fans aren’t stupid. They know when their being fed a giant pile of b.s. and when their being fed filet mignon.
The Copa America bit reminds me of a line from Oscar Wilde about Frank Harris (considering Conmebol rejected our offer and invited freaking Qatar and Japan over this summer) after growing tired of listening to his self-aggrandizing stories at a dinner party, “Yes, yes Frank, you’ve been to every famous house in London......once.”
Those of you who are on Glassdoor, is there a pattern with the reviews? I had the limited free access and so got to read the bad reviews. It seems like they were all within the last month or so. If you go back further (from what little I could read) the reviews were so-so, a common theme of bad pay, but not so much in terms of the organization. Broadly, what are the specific issues? A suggestion of an in-group and an out-group and those who were part of the in-group got the better pay. Also, Jay Berhalter's bad people skills. Other things?
It is true that Twitter probably got this article written and it certainly got the Wahl "Carter dinner" article written.
My initial thoughts? It doesn't surprise me. Do I think the reporting is legitimate? yes. I have more faith in our news media than Trump. Do the specific comments change my opinion about specific people (Berhalters). Yes. To what extent? Not sue exactly yet but it sure will make firing Berhalter easier if any of the serious issues are addressed....if not, we could have him for quite some time.. Considering my opinion of USSF wasn't great before I'm not too sure how this will affect my opinion going forward. I'll have to finish reading and digesting.