This is getting beyond absurd. There are only about 5 people who frame the WUSA's business decisions as political, with Julie Foudy (aka the antichrist) as the woman behind the curtain, and they all post on Big Soccer. The PAX deal, including the time slot, was not negotiable. The league didn't choose to go head to head with MLS.
I read here and elsewhere that Oxygen TV offered the 5-7 PM spot. Since at least one WUSA investor had cable TV connections, and since there are zillions of cable channels, it seems odd that was the only time they could air their games. I wasn't there but it seems reasonable to get anotehr time slot. Ms. Foudy is not the antiChrist, but I think she has not helped the WUSA. Just my opinions
Either way you look at it - going up against MLS was a dumb idea. You either chose to do it - and suffer the consequences or, You let your TV folks force you into a dumb choice. Was WUSA that desperate to have national TV coverage - when the investors themselves already owned cable outlets? It's baffling. Obviously Time Warner did it's part year 1 - saw the ratings - saw the XFL fail - and then decided if they want to give to charity they could do so at the office. Is the WNBA going to schedule it's season during the NBA's and show it's games on Fox at the same time? WUSA is in this mess thanks to their own doing - and that's exactly how they wanted it. The Founders and investors thought that they could do things better on their own rather than under an MLS umbrella. I think that's great - but it's sad that there couldn't have been more cooperation on a few areas that WUSA and MLS's interests overlap...building better pro soccer infrastructure.
Granted, but WUSA had little choice. Apparently, as was reported at the time, they were offered a 4pm time slot on a 'take it or leave it' basis. By all appearances, they were that desperate. And, yes, considering who owns the WUSA, the sad state of WUSA TV coverage does make one wonder.
Oxygen Network covered the WUSA side of the Unity Games in late 2001. And they rebroadcast the Power/Freedom game from RFK quite a few times. I think it was pretty much assumed that Oxygen was going to take over from TW. I'm still not sure what exactly happened to nix that switch. I have to disagree. Without Julie Foudy, there likely would not be a WUSA. Let's not forget that there has never been a successful women's professional team sports league. And while we're at it, not very many men's leagues survive, either. WUSA launched at the beginning of a pretty severe recession, it is a sport with a very checkered history in this country, and shine from the WWC'99 had faded. To be perfectly honest, I did not think WUSA would see the start of the 2003 season two years ago. Heck I had trouble seeing the 2002 season in July, 2001. It will be interesting to see if WUSA can find a white knight (a la Phil Anschutz) to step in and float the league moving forward. After the Athens Olympics next year, women's professional soccer could pretty much fall off the map until WWC07 if WUSA fails. I certainly hope WUSA makes it, and makes it as a fully professional league. I just don't have enough space left on my credit card to cover the league's expenses.
You believe WUSA's propaganda too much. FACT: Oxygen offered WUSA two time slots each week, Saturdays 5-7pm ET and Sundays 5-7pm ET, on a barter basis (i.e. no cash up front from WUSA), but WUSA turned Oxygen down (because Oxygen only goes to 30 million homes) in order to purchase time on PAX on Saturdays 4-6pm ET (instead of Sunday 4-6pm ET) at about 50% of market rate (market rate for 2 hours of TV time on a channel with 80+ million homes is $160000-$200000 per block). There are no secrets in the entertainment industry. Everyone and his brother and sister in the industry knew that WUSA doublecrossed Oxygen, and that WUSA had plenty of choices. WUSA chose the cheapest possible way to reach 80+ million homes, and it chose to go head-to-head with MLS.
You're mixing fact with analysis. The fact is that folks assumed that WUSA was going to Oxygen. Obviously the league understood it's financial situation was precarious. They took the risk in going for the 80 million households that PAX offered instead of the 30 million on Oxygen. But like all decisions, there are tradeoffs. This decision gave them 50 million more homes, but put them up opposite MLS every week. I don't see the decision as being malicious or even an attempt to go head to head with MLS, but the lesser of two evils. They took a chance. While Oxygen would've offered a timeslot that didn't conflict with MLS's Soccer Saturday, I have a hard time believing that the total number of households watching would've been an improvement. PAX's awful numbers from 2001 left them in a no-win situation. The were basically left with little choice. The "head to head with MLS" was more of a sideeffect of going for the much larger potential audience. If the two networks had been anywhere close to eachother in in distribution, I have to believe that WUSA would've chosen based on time slot.
I totally agree on these points. Many opportunities have been lost due to people not putting the game first IMHO. greg
Call it what it is......... Is Julie Foudy vocal, proactive, and involved in women’s soccer? Of course, she wouldn’t be Julie Foudy is that were not the case. Is she, however, a power hungry MLS hating harpy intent on seeing only women’s soccer succeed, a woman who exercises Svengali-like control over WUSA’s power structure? Hardly. Yet by the looks of some threads here obviously, little has changed at this website in 3 years. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/dureext.htm The rumors that contend that at some point, Foudy stated that WUSA would not allow MLS to piggyback off of it attendance are wrong. The alleged “piggyback” remark has never been substantiated by any quoted source. Until it is, why believe it? What the confused posters likely are referring to is a statement made by Brandi Chastain concerning FIFA’s since abandoned plans to coincide the Women’s World Cup with the Men’s 2002 World Cup. Chastain remarked, “I think we proved at this year’s Women’s World Cup that it could be a stand alone event. We don’t need to move it up. And I don’t think we deserve to have to piggy back on the Men’s World Cup.” www.s-t.com/daily/12-99/12-14-99/d07sp194.htm. The root of this anti-Foudy animus is perplexing, considering that she simply echoes the sentiments of the players as a whole. Her leadership role on both the national team and the WUSA has exposed her to a glut of loathing from those, who for whatever reason, would take great pleasure in seeing WUSA fail. Case in point: Oliver Tse the man who runs soccertv.com. Why Oliver, did we have to scroll through negative reports above WUSA ratings last year before we ever got to the broadcast times? Why this year do we have to scroll through your negative column about WUSA which uses one selective quote from John Langel to intimate he thinks the league will fail? The message you send is, the league won’t make it, so don’t bother watching. Talk of the greedy founders also omits the fact that some donate their salaries back to the league. How is that selfish? As for the Foudy bashing, Foudy is but one of several national team members who have been involved in league and team negotiations. [url]http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/062300/spo_UK3653.shtml[/url] Yet, many who support the MLS particularly see Julie Foudy as the embodiment of all that is wrong with a women’s league. No one wants to say it but it is the truth. The inception of the resentment likely began with the success of the 1999 Women’s World Cup. The team, seen on the covers of Time and Newsweek, among others, garnered more attention for the game of soccer in America than ever expected. Many however, were blinded to that gain because it focused attention on a group of women who seemed to good to be true. Many in the men’s soccer community were clearly envious of the 1999 sensation that was the women’s national team. The MLS, which began in 1996 was struggling for a foothold in the world of competitive sports. In one fell swoop the women achieved a notoriety and praise the men could only have dreamed of. Some hardcore male soccer fans look down at women’s soccer as inferior. They were frustrated by the WNT’s instant fame, and likewise disturbed by the MNT’s lack of success. “Yeah, big deal,” was the common attitude. “They only have to play a fraction of the competition the men do to win a world cup.” The diminishment of the Women’s World Cup accomplishments began at that point, and the inevitable and unwelcome comparisons to the men’s team began. Even the much reviled Foudy, acknowledged the burden that the men had carried due to the women’s success. In commenting on the men’s accomplishments after the 2002 world cup, Foudy remarked: “They deserve this so much. People haven’t given them the respect they deserve. For so long, especially in the media, how many times could they point out that they finished last in 98?” http://www.lmtonline.com/sports/archive/062102/pageb1.pdf However, the “rain on the 99WWC team parade” sentiment would not go away, because the women refused to fade into the woodwork. Let us not forget a few facts. The same players who months before the 99 world cup were told by their soccer federation that a professional league was not marketable, found themselves suddenly excised from the doubt that preceded the Cup. After the Cup, the women hired their own agency to promote a post-cup victory tour. They were then threatened by the federation that such again could result in their permanent exclusion from the national team. The federation, suddenly finding the women marketable, had its own plans for a tour less lucrative to the women. Discord ensued, and the federation threatened to send a group of 16 year olds to the 2000 Olympics-that is when Mia Hamm countered with her own power play: "Fine, then I'm done, I've won two World Cups and an Olympic gold medal, and if I retire tomorrow I'll be quite comfortable with what I've accomplished." Then, turning to glare at Contiguglia, Hamm added this kicker: "You call Nike and tell them I'm through." Hamm explained, "We were talking about everything we'd ever worked for, and I felt 14 years of my life were being questioned. This was a battle not only for us but for players who were 11 and 12 years old -- a battle to make sure a precedent was set and a commitment to women's soccer be made. That was far more important than ensuring that certain people at U.S. Soccer liked me." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/siforwomen/2001/july_august/playing_for_keeps/ After the threat of a USSF lawsuit, a settlement was reached allowing the tour, but further animosity developed when the federation dragged their feet on rehiring popular team coach Tony DiCicco: “DiCicco was forced out because the federation wanted him to release players who were outspoken and activists off the field, according to national sources. He refused, saying he was more concerned with what a player does on the field.” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/michael_lewis/news/1999/12/17/womens_issues/ Another conflict arose when the players were asked to keep playing under their old expired contract, while the federation bristled at the women’s demands for better pay. The old contract gave each women’s World Cup winner $45,000, a number – “roughly one tenth what a player on the U.S. men's team would have received for winning a World Cup.” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/siforwomen/2001/july_august/playing_for_keeps/ As a result of the federation’s stalling, the team went on strike and boycotted the 2000 Australia Cup Tournament. Again, a common refrain heard from male soccer supporters (strikingly reminiscent of the current TITLE 9 debates) was, that the women do not generate the same kind of money as men, and therefore should not be similarly rewarded for their efforts. The federation reacted to the strike by sending a college-aged team, who under the direction of Lauren Gregg won the tournament.(Gregg, who was the heir apparent to DiCicco’s job, was promptly rewarded by the Federation’s luring, then hiring of current coach April Heinrichs). The youngsters were then persuaded to honor the boycott, realizing it was something that would ultimately impact on their own futures. The USSF finally agreed to a five-year deal that gave the women “significant concessions, including a commitment to the development of future players and de facto economic equality with the men's national team.” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/siforwomen/2001/july_august/playing_for_keeps/ Finally came the WUSA, a league which unlike the MLS could boast of fielding the best players in the world. The undercurrent of “what if the WUSA succeeded where the MLS had failed” had to play in the minds of many: “There also is the potential for developing jealousy among players on the American men's team and from other MLS players. There is no question which game is faster and more physical (the men). But there also is no question which game tends to get more attention in the States (the women).” http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/ce/multi/0,1329,4092634_5,00.html The other common thread was that the women would have the best players in the world competing in WUSA, something the MLS lacked: “What sets apart this league is they're the top players all over the world competing," U.S. national team and Boston Breakers forward Kristine Lilly said Tuesday at a meeting of The Associated Press Sports Editors of the Northeast region."This is going to be the elite league." The article observed: “Since the demise of the North American Soccer League in 1984, the United States had been without a top-flight professional men's soccer league. MLS followed the coattails of the 1994 World Cup, but the league has yet to turn a profit. One problem MLS faces is that, despite its name, many hardcore soccer fans don't consider it "major league" in comparison to the elite leagues in Europe. That's one problem the women won't face.” "MLS is fighting with the rest of the world for some of the top players," Lilly said. "They have a bigger battle because they're battling with the rest of the world, which has had soccer forever." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2000/12/05/wusa_international_ap/ What griped MLS supporters was the fact that WUSA organizers broke off league forming talks with the MLS; they independently approached the USSF for sanctioning with a plan and financial backing in place. MLS decided they had better submit something to get some piece of whatever pie might be had. Although WUSA had been working with the MLS, they decided to go it alone based on Hendricks’ mistrust of MLS motivations. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text10-10-2000-945.asp This unexpected move riled many in the soccer community. The WUSA backers and the founders also were understandably wary of the USSF, and its potential affiliations with the MLS. http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2001/may09.htm One observer noted, “It is important to realize that national sport associations in the United States are composed generally of a mostly male mixture of professional administrators, and elected part time amateurs. Since the elected officials also appoint their own representatives on committees etc., the amount of "special interests" involved is mind boggling especially if you are in the professional administrator group. ….Unlike the rest of business and society, conflict of interest seems to be the norm. This situation is a case in point. U.S. Soccer will choose which application is approved, yet many in the U.S. Soccer Federation have not only operating links with MLS but direct and indirect financial interest.” http://www.womensoccer.com/refs/comment00.shtml In another context, it has been observed, “U.S. soccer, however, thrives on conflict of interests.” http://www.socceramerica.com/article.asp?Art_ID=52546 The players and investors were in no mood to drag the process out while the glow of the world cup victory became more of a distant memory. "The women's World Cup players have demonstrated enormous drawing power," Hendricks said. "The consensus was it was an ideal time to launch a league after the 1999 Women's World Cup." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2000/02/15/womens_league/ Desirous of getting the league off the ground while the timing was right, and before other forces intervened to create roadblock, the players decided to make a statement. "We want the focus entirely on the women's game," said Julie Foudy, co-captain of the 1999 U.S. team. "We all know how difficult it is to get a league off the ground. With all the resources these companies have and all the promotion you can have, we feel you need that directed focus and energy that is solely behind the women's game. We are totally committed to playing for just the WUSA and hoping that is the league that gets sanctioned." The same article in which this quote appears stated further that “The WUSA said it had contacted MLS regarding some level of cooperation, but both league officials and prominent U.S. national team players said they were intent on running the women's league independently.” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2000/04/10/wusa_cities/ In fact, a week later, before any agreement with the MLS was reached, the founding players issued a statement stating they would “only play professionally for WUSA.” www.socceramerica.com/article.asp?Art_ID=52546 The letter of intent to negotiate exclusively with WUSA, an official kiss off to the MLS, enraged many who were envious of the financial backing that had come together behind these players, as well as the entity which had secured their commitment: “The foundation of this enterprise is agreements reached with each of the 20 players; everything else stems from this. The players, it would appear hold the real power and they’re starting to brandish it.” http://www.socceramerica.com/article.asp?Art_ID=52546 Again, quoting Foudy: “Talking with the whole team, they all say the same thing. We will only play for WUSA. We feel with all the qualities they have, all the standards they’ve exceed, [U.S. Soccer sanction is] going to happen. We’re hoping the Federation sees it in the same light. We can’t control it, of course, but our loyalty and commitment are to the WUSA.” http://www.socceramerica.com/article.asp?Art_ID=52546 The last remark, about “loyalty and commitment” is telling, for those are values which have taken this team through many a difficult and less glamorous time. http://tarheelblue.ocsn.com/sports/w-soccer/spec-rel/072299aab.html ; http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/ce/multi/0,1329,2846599_182182,00.html Yet, this attitude of independence, seen by many as “more of the same” from the core National Team players, chafed many who were already resentful of their successes. Again, the National Team was putting the heat on the Federation which was in charge of sanctioning any professional league. Refusing to sanction WUSA could have caused the Federation "to face another public-relations disaster, a la the contract fight.” http://www.socceramerica.com/article.asp?Art_ID=52546 Hendricks also showed little penchant for delay, as his teleconference announced the amount of financial backing and medial commitment to the league. This was viewed as a “seize the moment” move which would force the MLS to realize it could not compete and that any agreement reached would be on Hendricks’s terms only. http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2000/apr18.htm Hendricks remarks were viewed as a “public relations coup” since in the next day’s newspapers “WUSA was treated as a certainty.” Just take a look at an excerpt from the WUSA press release issued on February 15, 2000: “Major U.S. media companies and individual investors have joined forces with the nation’s leading female soccer starts to form Women’s United Soccer Association (WUSA) which will become the top women’s professional soccer league in the world. The new women’s pro league is scheduled to launch in spring 2001.” www.discovery.com/wusa/02-15-00 Once an agreement with the MLS was reached, conciliatory statements emanated from both sides. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/wusa/2000/05/23/wusa_mls_ap/ Nonetheless, resentment still exists. People don’t like to be outsmarted, and both the MLS and USSF were not in positions of control once the ball began to publicly roll. Again, it would not be the women who would likely be painted as the bad guys if either MLS or the USSF foot dragged on this proposal. The fact that Foudy was seen as the spokesperson for this attitude of course has made her an easy target for the frustrations. She embodied everything that caused unrest among those who viewed male soccer as a superior product, as well those resentful of the women’s success in achieving equal pay, as well as notoriety. Yet, if Hendricks, the man who was making this league happen, distrusted the MLS’s motivations, why, then would the women not fall behind him. It is ridiculous to expect them to bite the generous hand that was about to feed them. Moreover, the players who had little faith in the Federation’s intentions, needed to exert pressure while they could. If past actions were indicative of the future, the players had no reason to believe that the Federation would not like exact its own pain on the women by taking their sweet time in sanctioning the league. In essence, there was no reason to think the player’s interests and success would be of any priority to the Federation. Hendricks went on the offense, and Foudy, as player representative, in fact and now in name, supported him. Personally, her actions seem quite logical, and the people intent on bashing her clearly have bigger issues to deal with than Julie Foudy. Besides, they should all be happy to learn that Foudy has had to direct her attention to the Bush proposal for altering TITLE IX, where she has spent “hundreds of hours” over the last 6 months, “practically every afternoon since August,” studying documents and testimony on the issue, and then taking more time to issue a dissenting report. www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2003-02-26-brennan_x.htm As Christine Brennan observs, there are not many active athletes that devoted to a cause that would have little effect on their own career. Say what you want about Foudy, but the woman does the hard work that many shy away from. She gladly carries the torch for her teammates, and for women’s sports in general-and I cannot imagine anyone not admiring her spirit, even if they disagree with her goals.
Re: Call it what it is......... And I thought some of my posts were long! Very thorough summary, DW. Bit confusing without quotes from articles being clearly seperated from your own words, but maybe BS wouldn't let you format much with a post that long. I really have only one minor disagreement and it's somewhat off-topic (but since we don't have an Oliver Tse thread...): My attitude about Oliver is this: Yeah, he's making some money off his wesbite with advertising and charges for listing pubs, etc., but it is still really first and foremost a soccer fan site. It's OLIVER'S soccer fan site. He can put whatever he wants on there, really--he pays the bills to keep the site on the 'net. He's not bound by any rules about what he puts on there. Heck he could skip the WUSA altogether if he wanted to. He doesn't have to answer to anyone who uses his site as a resource--he only has to answer to his advertisers (if they don't like what he has on there, they could pull the plug on their ad). Finding soccer listings in the US through newspapers, etc., is a pain, and I for one am glad that someone who does such a very thorough job finding all the games is running a website like that. I'm even happier to get soccerTV listings in my e-mail as regularly as I do from SoccerTV. That all having been said, I don't have to agree with any opinions Oliver puts on his website, or here on BigSoccer under various usernames. I'm just not going to complain about any anti-WUSA stuff that's on his site--he doesn't write me hate mail about my quasi-soccer-rant horribly immature website. If people really dislike that aspect of Oliver's site, they could run a competing website and make it as pro-WUSA as they wanted.
well andy, as usual you are unable to put aside your love for me and be unbiased about my posts...but basically, exactly what I would expect from you....
Re: Re: Call it what it is......... Of course you are right, but is also abundandly clear that he USES his site to the detriment of the league-otherwise, he'd display his rants after the listings....let me edit that and see what I can do about the quotes
Don't forget the two stuck in your ears! Though defensewins post is lengthy (and without paragraphs), it does contain a lot of background and was written to inform, not antagonize (unlike some of the posts in this thread). Alas, it's unfortunate that some posters hear only their own opinions -- and don't listen to others. Thanks, defensewins, for the very informative write-up! --Socceroo
The whole problem I have with what I could get out of defense wins long post was that it was extrodinarily one sided. I can see why it elicited yawns the exact same way Oliver's posts elicit yawns. There are more than a few people on this thread (Andy M. Kenn, Bora, XYZ etc etc) who have been willing to look at both sides and have a serious discussion about the mistakes made that have put WUSA directly behind the 8 ball. Defensewins "I love Julie Foudy" post is as useless to me as Oliver's, I mean DaCfo's, "I hate Julie Foudy" posts. Andy
yeah there are people who have been objective on this thread...The problem is, all the previous discussion lacked context which I have tried to provide. I really don't care who is bored by it. It is there to educate, and if some people don't want that, that is fine too. Their choice.
Re: Re: Re: Call it what it is......... True enough. Again, I just can't get too angry at him, since he does list the matches. If he wanted to, he could blast the WUSA and not list the games--that'd hurt the league more. At least his desire to be the soccer-on-TV authority here in the states outwieghs his dislike of the WUSA, and that works out well for us. Good idea. It'll probably help some people get through it a bit easier and actually read it....maybe... Well, we can hope anyway. Some people will always believe whatever they want, regardless of the information presented. (Witness the International Flat Earth Society, for example.) ---- If you're buying cheese puffs, accept no imitations: buy Frito-Lay Cheetos! Be sure to wash your hands before you type, however, or you'll mess up your keyboard. On second thought... ...maybe that would be a good thing...hmmmm....yeah, forget I said anything.
Well, this thread had rapidly become an "I hate Julie Foudy thread", so fair enough to throw in a completely opposite viewpoint just to even it up. Actually, DW's post mostly provides some valid factual historical context--the "I love Julie Foudy" part was predominantly in the first and last paragraphs. As a whole, the post provided the reasons why the players took the approach to the WUSA that they did, for better or for ill. Certainly, there are obvious problems facing the WUSA. However, to blame the entire state of the WUSA on the greed of the founders, as many posts in this thread have, is to ignore: * the overall state of the economy in the US. It's a bad time for sponsors to spend money on something they won't get an immediate return on. Companies are scaling back their own operations--now is not the time they are looking to take a risk on someone else's venture. * the status of soccer as a niche sport in the US to begin with coupled with the niche status of women's sports overall (not just in the US). Soccer in general doesn't draw a ton of fans here. Women's soccer internationally really doesn't draw any attention. Whereas we can watch men's premier league soccer matches from all over the world on US TV (and will buy merchandise, etc--I have a Man. U. kit, for instance), the WUSA is not being televised overseas at all that I know of--there's no international marketing dollars to be made because the climate isn't there for womens' sports yet. * the massive start-up costs associated with any league. The WUSA is still a start-up venture at this point. Of course it's hemmoraging money! Almost every new business does, and in a bad economy that money drip is going to last a lot longer. What's noteworthy is that people in charge who weren't being scrupulous about budget have now been replaced in many cases, and the league now has a realistic sense of what it will cost them to operate, rather than just best-guestimate numbers based on other leagues' operating costs and projections of sponsorship dollars and ticket sales. The WUSA management has had a crash course in league-building now, and they're better educated for it and can make sharper decisions in the future. Compared to all those issues, the matter of the founders' salaries is small potatoes. The fact is, they've taken the pay cut, voluntarily. have they given up the gurantee? No, not yet, and maybe they won't, but if they don't it won't be their fault if the league's budget suffers. Let's be realistic--so you cut Webber and Ducar and Overbeck, the 3 founders its most arguable wouldn't have roster spots without the gurantee. You now have $180,000 and 3 empty full-roster spots. So you get 3 more new full-roster players in the league at league minimum for first year players which is $25,000 each, for a total of $75,000. So by cutting Webber, Ducar, and Overbeck, the league at the MOST has an extra $105,000 per year. Big frickin' whoop. Given the millions that it costs the league to operate on a yearly basis, that $105k isn't going to be what makes or breaks the league. Energy is better spent finding a couple of new sponsors who will kick in more money than that over a longer period of time. Griping about founders' salaries and gurantees misses the big picture.
agreed on by whom andy? is there some reason you suddenly have a tude about pro wusa posts? you want this thread to die now? tsk tsk....(oh but nevermind---you don't read what I post since I am on your ignore list-lmao)
So you have an issue if anyone else decides to post agreeing on the same subject? Geez, get over yourself.