Fortunately for them they have contracts with USSF. It's time we moved from aging declining players and their grasp on the team.
The USWNT players get paid very well from my understanding, in the hundreds of thousands. The "stars" probably in the millions with endorsemements. Sure, not like the men, but still a very nice living playing soccer. IMO, some of these "veterans" milk this as long as they can. And because of the "click" they form among themselves you can't get them out with a crow bar. I also believe Jill Ellis has done a fairly good job of breaking up this "click" because she has more power due to her long standing in the company than let's say, Pia or Tom or even Greg had. IMO, Lloyd should be gone or on the bench at best, give Krieger a game or two to say goodbye, say goodbye to Kling and O'Hara. Rapinoe has earned more looks but after the next WWC say goodbye to her. There is too much talent and skill in these United States in the women's game and in the pipeline coming up fast to hang on to mediocre players just because they are on a contract.
Looking at the UNWNT roster, here's a list of experienced players who may not be on the roster for the WC in 2019. Krieger. She's almost certainly gone. Klingenberg. Looks like she's on her way out. Leroux. Not much of a comeback so far. Long. With Ertz a likely midfielder, I don't see a future for Long Lloyd. Lloyd may be showing her age already. Brian. Like Rapinoe, she has to prove that she's still good. O'Hara.. Least likely to be retired, because she's versatile. Rapinoe. Age and injuries may catch up to her.
You do realize that Lloyd was world player of the year the last two years? Isn't that carrying "What have you done for me lately" to a bit of an extreme?" IMO O'Hara is playing the best soccer of her life right now. She just turned 29; that's really not so old...
Let's be honest here, most people wanted Lloyd benched during the Group Stage. She won the award in 2015 because her two great games were the semis and final and glossed over her many subpar performances before that. No clue how she won in 2016 when there were plenty of better players at the Olympics.
I'm not sure who is under contract or what the new rules are about phasing people out but my concern is most of the roster is already set.
Yes, Sauerbrunn was >$200k under the last CBA/MOU. Probably similar under the current one. For star(s) making millions, Morgan ... and possibly Pugh via Nike (although I've seen next to nothing in Pugh-related ad blitzing). I can't think of another vet who commands that much for commercials, not even Ertz. Press and O'Hara have like 1 commercial each, which does not suffice. There's still not much individual recognition, although it's better than a few years ago, and better than most other USA female team sports. "click" ==> clique, n. the complete graph K_n, comprising every pairwise edge between any two distinct nodes. Think social networks: then a clique in the graph is precisely a tightly-knit subgraph. (See also: Ambrose Bierce's ally ) I reject the claim that any clique of players can empower each other to keep getting called in. Call-ups for players in contract is written into the CBA/MOU, hence the coach is legally bound (in that egregious violations could result in lawsuits, and the coach would lose). Players don't call each other up, and don't have veto power over the coach's decisions. (I don't comment on whether they have veto power over the coach's tenure ) Krieger, Klingenberg: Partially agree. Lloyd, O'Hara: Disagree. I'm never going to bet against Big Game Lloyd scoring again in a big game. There is too little $$$$ in NWSL to justify eliminating contracts in the next CBA negotiating cycle (after WWC'19). You'd drive all of that talent into real jobs in 2020. As for USWNT contracts today, they're in the current CBA that both sides ratified, and so they're governed by existing labor laws. Pro/NT tensions are endemic throughout sports (not just USA women, not just USA). Labor law tensions are endemic throughout, including Boeing, GM/Ford, and the Port of Puget Sound Nonetheless, we can't just pretend that the current contracts will magically disappear tomorrow. Welcome to the sausage factory, sausages come individually wrapped in tiny CBA-sized skins
Sorry for misspelling a word. Second, go ask April Heinrichs and Tom Sermanni about the "cliques" and players not having enough power or think they have enough power. IMO, as long as the USWNT players are under a contract, they will always have the coach and the fed by the you know what's. They want to get paid like the men, let them earn their CAPS like the men do and get paid per game. That will give the Coach the freedom to call up anyone they want per game and not necessarily the player that soccer dad and his daughter are there to get an autograph from.
Some will always make the same arguments regardless of the circumstances. I think this is not the WNT of 15 years ago nor the WNT of 5 years ago. Under the new CBA, Ellis has more freedom than ever before to call up whoever she wishes, and the number of full contracts are dwindling. From what I understand (and I haven't seen the CBA, of course, this is just from what I've seen reported), there are no limits on how many floaters (players without a contract) Ellis can bring into camp. Yet the professional league is still not at the point, where we can completely forego the WNT contracts. Honestly I don't see how anyone on the roster can have a stranglehold on the team. The only argument I can possibly see would be for Lloyd. Krieger already seems to be on her way out; Ellis has felt free to not call in other players with contracts like Klingenberg, and Morgan has been on the bench a lot. O'Hara is still in her prime and playing well, and Rapinoe is playing the best of her career. Why would you not call them in? Brian still has the ability, I think, but she's been injured. However, she's still young, and should be in her prime. As for Lloyd, like Gilmoy, I'm not going to count her out. She always has had swings in consistency, but rises to the occasion in the big game. But feel free to bring back the "The trouble with Lloyd" thread; I loved having that thread and the WWC final thread on the same page.
there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is true. rather, there seems to be evidence, despite the meme, that the roster is in fact in the process of being changed. ...and (again in spite of a persistent belief) there is no set of "aging, declining players" who have a "grasp on the team".
So how long does it take to legally phase out a player? Is there still a rule that limits how many consecutive days a non contract player can be with the team? Is a player's marketable value still a consideration for contracts? Why should their be a process of changing the roster? I would like specific answers to these questions because I do not know them.
Mostly, we don't know the details. IIRC, the new CBA has still not been fully published. Only excerpts of it were released or discussed. 1. "Phase out" may not have precedent. The coach is, of course, free to not call in some players under contract, because we've always had more than contracts than roster spots for FIFA majors. Ellis could probably just choose to stop calling in certain veterans, despite their contracts. We won't know for sure until it counts, probably around 2019 SheBelieves. 2. Dunno. The previous CBA/MOU's restriction that I recall in detail was that a non-contract player could be called in only 6 times on a trial basis, and thereafter had to be offered a contract. That basically made it impossible to put a non-contract player on a major roster, because no way you'd take somebody with 0-5 caps. Evidently, that part of the old CBA has significantly changed (maybe eliminated entirely?), and now we're seeing caps galore. SheBelieves and Tournament of Nations aren't continentals or majors, but they must be near the top of most difficult friendly tourneys, so getting caps in them is still a pretty good achievement. 3. No, contracts are given for perceived ability to help team win majors, either the next one or future ones. Marketability is not US Soccer's problem. (Proof sketch: Most players still have no marketable value even after a few consecutive contracts, so evidently it's a lousy indicator with close to zero correlation.) Now, clever corporations may realize that a wunderkind earning a contract could become a marketable commodity ... but that's just Nike reclaiming attention share from UA's Curry fad and that Big Mouth Brand disruption Also, the direction of causation is outside-in, not inside-out.
1. From what I've read, players' contracts are up for consideration biannually, meaning a coach has 2 chances a year to drop a player from contract. The coach can also decide not to call in a contracted player and then could drop her at the next opportunity. 2. From all reports, the CBA has significantly changed the rules on floaters (I've read 'no limits' on the number of floaters in camp), and the number of contracts has also dropped and is supposed to continue dropping, but no one knows how quickly and what the bottom floor of that will be. I think that would mean the limits on consecutive days for floaters has also changed, but since none of us have seen the new CBA, we don't know. 3. When has a player's marketable value driven contracts? 4. Not sure what you mean on the 4th question? Aren't you asking for the roster to change? Not entirely related, but this all makes me think: some seem to think "Why is so-and-so still getting called in?" would no longer be a discussion point if the WNT didn't have contracts, but don't also realize that there are many people who argue against Dempsey, Altidore, Bradley, et al. continuing to make rosters (go over to the MNT forums, if you don't believe me). Why do those players still make rosters even though the MNT does not have contracts? First, it's always good to have experienced veterans on your roster, in and out of tournaments. Moreover, its very likely that coaches see some value in a player that fans don't.
1&2. None of us know the details which is odd considering how much of a public spectacle the process was made out to be. The players seemed delighted and even admitted at the end it was about contracts not equal pay. My concern is this is most of the group that will be on the field in 2019 and they aren't good enough. 3. This has always been a factor. USSF wants to sell tickets and name recognition goes a long way. Now that USSF and NWSL contracts are intertwined there's no doubt it's a consideration. 4. Why can't Ellis call up 23 new players if she wants? Ellis takes a ton of blame but she does not have full control of the roster. I think she should be replaced but the new coach would have the same problem. As one of those people who argue against Bradley and Altidore, I think it's bad to rely on a core of players out of habit/experience and not performance. Now that there's a league new players should be integrated constantly. There have been plenty of discussion as to why this or that player can't get a look with the USWNT or why entire youth national teams are no longer playing. The reason is they were locked out. That stagnates the program and more teams are passing us as the results of Olympics, SheBelieves and whatever that thing Australia won was called. Finally, I want to comment on the contract negotiations. I support a lot of what the women were fighting for just not the way they did it. The training/ field conditions these women have had to face are a disgrace. The women also deserved a raise but lying during highly orchestrated interviews is not the way to go about things. I have personally lost a lot of fandom for this team and respect for some of the individuals. The back peddling towards the end of the process was downright bizarre and makes me wonder if these women believed a word they were saying. USSF is no saint in all of this either. They should be ashamed of the way they treated their employees and nothing pisses me off more than an organization claiming to be a poor, broke do gooder while piling up a nine figure fortune.
From puttputtfc's post: 3. This has always been a factor. USSF wants to sell tickets and name recognition goes a long way. Now that USSF and NWSL contracts are intertwined there's no doubt it's a consideration. There certainly is doubt that it's a consideration. Some have made up their minds that it is a consideration, so they don't have doubts, but others don't agree. There's no hard evidence it's a consideration that I've seen or that anyone has posted, there only are opinions. .... There have been plenty of discussion as to why this or that player can't get a look with the USWNT or why entire youth national teams are no longer playing. The reason is they were locked out. That stagnates the program and more teams are passing us as the results of Olympics, SheBelieves and whatever that thing Australia won was called. I haven't seen a lot of recent discussion about why certain players haven't gotten a look, most likely because lots of players are getting looks. And, it's a little hard to say more teams are passing us when the US still is the #1 ranked team in the world.
Japan brought a really young team so it's really hard to see where they actually stand in the top 10. No Kumagai, no Nagasato who is back with Chicago. Not sure if Miyama is still in the picture there. Brazil was without Cristiane. The positive for the US was they only lost by 1 to Australia who beat up everyone else. The negative was the US was badly outplayed by Aus and was outplayed by Brazil for 80 minutes.
No, Im complaining we played badly in two of three. Id have been happier if we playyed well in all three even if we lost two of them.
[QUOTE="cpthomas, post: 35756021, member: 119638"And, it's a little hard to say more teams are passing us when the US still is the #1 ranked team in the world.[/QUOTE] Which is odd considering recent results. I would say the ranking process is flawed.
So the ranking process is flawed, the world player of the year voting is flawed, the match results are flukes reflecting no credit on the players or coaches, the roster selection process is corrupt-- but the opinions expressed in this forum are precise. Good to know who it is that is out of step...