We're nearly two months out from the WWC and still getting record numbers, but this is still a question that's up in the air?
My point is, it's great to be getting "new fans" at all times through the year, but at this point it's fairly obvious that it's less of a bump and more of a long-term swell. Even outside of the record numbers, the other attendance figures have also been up a fair amount consistently.
I agree with you! I think the long term swell will continue with the likes of the Budweiser sponsorship with the things they plan to do, and ESPN broadcasting the games, nationally and internationally, we are going to see a lot more name recognition for the NWSL. Games like we saw in Chicago, DC, and Red Bull Arena created atmospheres that leave impressions. The league can help by making sure that those teams continue playing in those kind of arenas even if they need to help out financially to some extent. How about having the NWSL name on a Budweiser 6,12,18,24 pack, offering some kind of 2 tickets for the price of one for your favorite NWSL team.
Well, that's your opinion. The discussion on these boards earlier was that the attention span for a potential WWC bump was two or three weeks, tops. After that, any increase would be (or, rather, has now been) a sign of a rising tide rather than a single splash.
Jonathan Tannenwald (@thegoalkeeper) keeps an up-to-date spreadsheet of US Woso attendances over 15k: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X4rEiUgqEK47vzYanOqCs-s18kOpSAwHADP07-IX_cI/edit#gid=0
Then maybe we should just all shut up about it and reconvene in 4 years? Or does "long-term" mean long enough for the numbers to show some decline (which we all realize could happen) and start with "the sky is falling" routine? The only important questions about attendance have been answered and it's been settled in women's soccer's favor. Women's soccer is here to stay. There's enough attendance for it to stay. There's going to be enough growth in the foreseeable future for it to stay. There's enough attendance that people in positions to make a difference - to invest in teams, to keep teams going - have decided women's soccer is worthwhile and here to stay. The more interesting question remaining is what and how we learn from this, from who was right and who was wrong. There is a future for women's soccer. There's a future for women's sports. And the "nattering nabobs of negativity" were wrong. All of them. And there's a lesson in that and , yes, that lesson is at least partly political in nature.
I'm not sure how "it's only been 2 months - let's not declare victory quite yet" becomes "nattering nabobs". I realize time horizons have shortened considerably since 1999 across society, but I would have thought those who have been through the wars would be a touch more circumspect.
I think it's reasonable to suggest there will be a long term attendance boost for the NWSL, on average, following the World Cup. On the other hand, I think there needs to be a lot more games before anyone reasonably can say what the size of the boost will be. In fact, I'd like to wait until the first part of the 2020 season before drawing any conclusions.
Yeah, the exact size of the boost is still TBD, but denying that the signs of a long-term boost aren't there is kinda silly IMO. I also keep getting a bit frustrated at how easily people seem to be forgetting the 2015 victory cycle. NWSL saw a noticeable increase from the first half to 2015 (pre-WWC) to the second half of 2015 (post-WWC) - and then built on that even further in the first half of 2016 (pre-OG). So it just shocks me that people talk as if NWSL hasn't already seen a permanent WWC bump before. We're already seeing the exact same pattern, except even more so now.
No one has denied there is a boost. I believe a few weeks or even months does not fit the definition of long term. I understand there was a bump in 2015. There was also one team contracted before the 2018 season and a national TV deal cancelled before the 2019 season. I would hate to see these things happen again in a few years. Players were doing TV appearances last week instead of being with their clubs and this week is another Victory Tour game. That shows me NWSL is still not a priority for USSF or USWNT players. These are great for the short term but does it help the league long term? I want the league to succeed but I will not ignore the fact that we are on our third pro league this century.
Which players were doing TV appearances last week intead of being with their clubs, of the players who were healthy? Was it just a few of them or a lot of them? I'm asking because I honestly don't know, and all four of the Thorns were with the team (including, I believe, at a season ticket holder appreciation event Wednesday evening). Further, I think it's clear the Thorns are a priority for their USWNT players, although they're obligated to play with the USWNT when called. When you post something like your post, you appear to paint all players with the same brush and thus to condemn the whole group of them. The impression you create not only is not factual, it also makes people question your objectivity and credibility. And, it gives the impression you are anti-women's professional soccer. I'm not saying you are, but that's the impression you give. Maybe you could try to be more balanced in your posts?
Saying NWSL should be the priority in a NWSL attendance thread makes me anti-women's professional soccer? Was it the part about hating to see teams contracted? Was it mentioning two failed leagues or a terminated TV deal? Is it wrong to think NWSL would benefit from a full slate of games over a holiday weekend as opposed to a USSF money grab and one league game? The contract system is being whittled down and clubs are the future of women's soccer. I care far more about getting 10K to NWSL games than 50K to Victory Tours.
Then there's the August 3rd game at the Rose Bowl. EDIT: And FIFA windows aren't mandatory. The federation could choose before the beginning of the NWSL season to not schedule any games, letting the league roll down the stretch. Yes, any foreign national teamers would still potentially get calls, but we know that no other national team plays anywhere near the number of games of the USWNT. And as the Rose Bowl game showed, even non-FIFA dates are beyond NWSL control when it comes to players who are Federation Players (which includes the full WWC team) as they are under contract directly to USSF and loaned to the NWSL.
There are plenty of things to blame on USSF, but I just don't see scheduling Victory Tour games in a FIFA window as one of them. USSF doesn't get to choose if the FIFA window falls on a holiday weekend. I think we are both in agreement on the August 3rd match, blame USSF! Has any NWSL team pushed back by not releasing players on a non-FIFA date? Surely if they didn't release them, FIFA would prohibit them from playing in the USWNT match. Or is that just asking for more problems and biting the hand that feeds you?
I seem to remember reading that the WNT negotiated into the most recent CBA (which hasn't been fully released yet) that the Victory Tour games would be on FIFA dates whenever possible. I think the Rose Bowl date was a "but we can get the Rose Bowl!" opportunity that the players agreed to. Found it: From the CBA ... https://t.co/kSiyC3OLYy pic.twitter.com/dVUMxjXbdV— Beau Dure 🇺🇦🌈🖖☮️ (@duresport) July 9, 2019 This go round, the WNT players have been *much* more positive and aggressive about pushing the NWSL and attendance at games. In 2015, it seems like they treated the league as an irritant. Now, they are mentioning their team in interviews and encouraging fans to get out. It has to be part of their overall strategy to help build & sustain the league long term.
BostonRed is correct. Plus, NWSL club owners and coaches were made aware of a non-FIFA window VT game prior to the WWC, and all agreed to it. The players did negotiate for fewer VT matches and wanted them all within FIFA dates, but the August 3 game was still scheduled. I don't like it, and I don't think all the players did either, but everyone agreed to it because they saw value in it.
I've heard rumors that the August 3rd game was a condition of the ESPN deal Paul Riley threatened not to release Zerboni, Matthias and Hinkle for the late July, 2018 friendlies as the team was playing in the non-NWSL WICC and the USWNT was already taking McDonald, Mewis, Dunn, and Dahlkemper. In the end he did release the players, but I think the point was made.
I think they realize that the hypocrisy of their "Equal Pay!" argument is coming clear to them, and the vulnerability they have on their back side that while the select group of 28 goes after USSF on USNT compensation, the fact that they unilaterally negotiated a CBA directly with USSF, excluding the NWSL and non-Federation NWSL players from the negotiations - that artificially caps what the highest paid non-Federation NWSL player can make is in stark contrast to their social media campaign. Kristen Hamilton, who is cranking away for 22-24 games, leading the Courage week in and week out is capped to less than the NWSL pay of four players who will have missed half of the season and more than half of the home games because she's not a "Federation Player". Talking about "equal pay" when players that play half as much are guaranteed higher salaries isn't particularly equal. I think we're starting to see some sensitivity to that hypocrisy from the WNT players. They also know that lawsuits usually take a lot longer than negotiations and that if they pursue their lawsuit against USSF and they either crap out of Tokyo like they did Rio, or the suit delays into the void of 2021/2022 and the WNT falls off the public's radar, or the Twitterverse has moved onto some new outrage to focus on, they'll lose their public relations backing. In the long run, the success and income streams of the anointed USWNTPA group is going to depend on having a stable and sustainable professional league. I don't think the NWSL matters that much at this stage to older players like Lloyd or even Rapinoe, but the youngsters like Pugh and Davidson need the league to be there.
Interesting article on the post-WWC attendance boost in England: https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ight-big-womens-crowds-at-etihad-stadium.html Manchester City shattered the English WSL record with 31,213 fans at Etihad Stadium on Saturday for its opening game against Manchester United. The previous record was 5,265 for a game last season when Arsenal clinched the league title at Brighton & Hove Albion. The record was expected to be broken on Sunday when Chelsea hosted Tottenham at Stamford Bridge. All 40,000 tickets had been distributed for free, but only 24,564 fans turned out. Of the 38 games played so far in England, France, Germany and Spain -- France and Germany have played two weeks -- 22 drew crowds under 1,000 and 11 were under 500. The smallest crowd: 211 fans for the Marseille-Guingamp game in France.
Yeah... that's the dangerous game you play with free (or even discounted) tickets... Easy way to get butts in seats, but at the same time the tickets *feel* less valuable, so it's a lot easier to decide last-minute to not come - the reverse of the "sunk cost fallacy", as it were.