I do find irony in the way the players say they want to grow and promote the league but then refuse to play in certain places and hold the league hostage.
I do not find it ironic. When players say they want to grow the league I do not interpret it as a blank check for owners and organizations. The other side have to hold their end of the bargain as well. The Washington situation is baffling as this was a team prior to last year that players were happy to play for. And then in one year it all goes to shit to the extend that their franchise player put out a come and get me plea to the rest of Europe.
So you suggestion is "shut up, you're lucky to have a job"? I would also recommend against taking to seriously any PR speak or "for the good of the game" talk. These are professional athletes. They are not normal people. The sacrifices and personality defects it takes to be successful don't lend themselves to "the greater good". Putting players on a some sort of idealized pedestal has always been a problem in our society - especially with women's players. If you'd rather work at Applebee's instead of Burger King - and you had the leverage to make that happen, you'd get a job at Applebee's. Having to relocate and move across town to work at Burger King would be someone else's problem. "A rising tide lifts all boats" only goes so far. Yeah, they're trying to establish something and they want it to grow so they don't have to have part-time jobs or offseason jobs, but they're still human beings, and the same competitiveness and ego that gets them to this level is also going to be at play in taking advantages of their status.
Since this seems to be the thread where the Mal Pugh is happening, I'll drop my two cents here. I don't care that Mal Pugh is leaving college to go pro. Power to her. If anything I like the idea... as a UNC fan. I don't care that Mal Pugh wants to play for a particular team ie Portland, or that she doesn't want to play for a particular team, ie Washington. That's completely normal in the world of soccer. The part I care about: Portland. must. pay. for. Pugh. One way or another. She cannot be given a free ride to go wherever she wants & then have that team not pay for her (either through trade for her subsidization order or literally, as in against Portlands cap space). If Portland gets Mal Pugh, doesn't have to trade anything for her, & has the USSF cover her cost so that Portland pays nothing... watch out... that is lawsuit territory. That is how leagues fail. They HAVE to do this by the book or the owner of WAS, no matter how terrible a person he is, has grounds to stand on for a lawsuit. Portland. Must. Pay., & I would go so far as to say they need to pay a steeper price than other teams might have simply to extinguish any doubt they were getting preferential treatment. Two US federation players, and both a first & second round draft pick may seem high, but I personally think that is a minimum.
Just to play devil's advocate. Say Portland does not want Pugh and thus is not prepare to give up anything for Pugh. However Pugh says the only way she stays in the league is if she plays for Portland. If you are USSF and you want Pugh to stay stateside no matter what, how do you handle that situation? Why should Portland have to give up the kitchen sink if they don't want the player in the first place?
Which is you take her by her word she is willing to do. I do not think USSF which is the biggest investor in the NWSL will be too happy with that outcome though.
They don't... that is the other side of "it's just business" that people aren't talking about. Mal Pugh has every right to go wherever she wants, but Portland equally has every right to say "nah, too expensive". The USSF & the NWSL would open themselves to lawsuits from the owners of other teams if they sent her to Portland without cost.
If USSF really wanted what was best for the NWSL, they wouldn't schedule meaningless friendlies in the middle of the playoffs.
I agree with a lot of this. There are two parts I don't agree with: 1. I doubt there's lawsuit territory here, at least until I've seen the agreements between the "ownership" groups (which really aren't owners, but merely are operators) and the NWSL. And, I'm betting that the agreements with the "owners" don't give the owners rights that would allow them to sue successfully. 2. Whatever the ultimate disposition is, it should be fair. That means Portland should receive the same treatment any other team would receive. To add to the discussion about what might be fair compensation if Pugh ends up in Portland, it's probably worth remembering that Portland has the rights to Savannah Jordan. So, apart from current players and future draft picks, that's another possible piece of a trade package.
Something most people aren't mentioning is that there is a precedent already in place. I know Boston is terrible at trades, but they were willing to trade (what is essentially) Pugh for the 3rd overall pick. Can Washington really expect to get too much more than that? If I were in their place, I'd accept a first round pick for Pugh if I get the guarantee that 1) there will be no expansion teams for 2018, and 2) Andi Sullivan will enter the draft in 2018 (and not remain at Stanford for the 2018 college season) and then be allocated. Then just tank the rest of this season so you get the first overall pick next year... That seems to be the best possible outcome for both teams and for Pugh, IMHO. Heck, if Washington won't play ball on this Pugh thing... why not just have Portland trade for the #2 spot on the DSO (not sure who has it, but they'd probably be willing to trade it for less since otherwise it wouldn't be worth anything), then allocate Sullivan so Washington gets her (yes, I know she's injured and out for the season), then allocate Pugh so Portland gets her. Problem solved.
Weeeeelllllllllll there are two pretty damn big problems with this set of circumstances.... The biggest being delaying potential business agreements with uninvolved parties to make such a trade work. No way anyone lets that fly if there's even a remote possibility of a team or two entering in 2018. Second of course being that no one decides to tank an entire season, at least not this early - that usually doesn't happen until it's clearly already lost.
At this point, I don't see any real strong prospects for 2018. The Atlanta bid is (or at least should be) dead. Nobody else has expressed any interest publicly in joining for 2018. And if there are ones that are interested that we haven't heard of, I don't think it'd be a problem to announce this year that the teams will join for the 2019 season. That is actually closer what most established leagues do... You wouldn't tank a season to get Andi Sullivan? I would. Attendance is already down anyway. The chance of winning is so low, however the chance of getting Sullivan is much better. Tank this season and write it off, then make a big push next season when you announce that you will be playing in Audi Field (when it opens midseason/if it opens on time) and take Sullivan #1 overall in the draft. Sounds like great PR.
This reminds me of the end of 2003 followed by the 2004 MLS SuperDraft. There was a press conference at the Home Depot Center an hour before MLS Cup 2003 between Chicago and San Jose where 14 year-old Freddy Adu was introduced as having signed with MLS. The Dallas Burn held the first pick in the 2004 SuperDraft. It was basically assumed that Adu agreed to sign with MLS instead of overseas (this was before the FIFA age limit was imposed) only if he'd wind up with local club DC United. Dallas really got kicked in the teeth. In the end Dallas probably would've preferred to let DC have Adu as long as they still got the first pick - they wanted, and needed Chad Marshall (who is a three time MLS defender of the year). Instead, MLS made them trade away the first pick to DC in exchange for an unused "major player allocation". Dallas would end up finishing in last place in the Western Conference. DC got Adu, won MLS Cup, and Dallas got the shaft. Columbus got Chad Marshall and he became a key cog in their 2008 MLS Cup championship team. EDIT: That's not the last time MLS got involved in a player issue, but it's last time that I remember it being so heavy handed. Brian McBride's return to MLS (and Chicago instead of Toronto) involved some arm-twisting, but Adu's arrival was really the last hurrah of the league over-meddling in team roster decisions (Mathis to New York in exchange for LA getting Hermosillo, Valderrama to Miami then back to Tampa)
Any club that throws in the towel after one game will not survive. Washington isn't doing well right now, but they can still right the ship. In fact one of the biggest things against them right now is that they shipped Krieger away for "nothing". If they get something for Pugh or DRO #1 then they can say, "See! We got xyz for Krieger!" This is a big deal on the marketing side. If Portland wants her then they need to pay. I guarantee there are 8 other teams in the league that would be willing to trade something worthwhile for the rights to Pugh.
It's not really that different from the draft in that we know who the pick is for. Going into the 2017 draft we all knew how valuable those first 4-6 picks were because of the quality of seniors. This #1 subsidized spot or whatever has new found value now that we know its Mal Pugh. I think the one weird thing that rubs me the wrong way with this is how the order resets ever year even though there is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that there will be a player to pick with that spot. Personally I think the order should be set in stone & stay that way until someone actually picks a player or trades away there spot, regardless of how someone finishes season to season.
That's an interesting thought. Keeping it the same without resetting at the end of the season. I'd have to mull on that, but I think I like the idea.
The lack of guaranteed use is an issue, but I think that's minor compared to the problems you get if you set the order in stone. What happens when you have a team (or multiple teams) at the top of the order who suddenly start playing really when when the time to use the order rolls around? Should you really let them get even more stacked just because they were in the right (wrong?) position X seasons ago? In my read of the situation, since it's not a guaranteed use, the teams simply shouldn't put as much bank on it compared to the college draft. Any team ended last season on a low should get first crack at potential subsidized players - just they shouldn't also assume a new subsidized player will appear. Basically, trading for allocation order is high-risk, high-reward, and that's fine.