Rivero has more lives than a cat. After his 2014 arrest for unemployment fraud, he's a hard guy to root for on his "comeback" trail. I don't see why PRO always goes to bat for him.
Weyland for strictly whistles yeah. Anno's up there, too. But I'm not sure anyone beats Shane Moody working primarily as an AR from 1996–1998 (at least one 4th in there...) and then returning as whistle/4th from 2006–2009.
Watching the Louisville-Monterey Bay USL-C game on replay. Not a good idea for the referee crew to wear black when Louisville wears purple.
Worth the read: https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...us-play-criticizedbut-no-quick-fixes-in-sight It does hit on some of the key points and, at least, frames it mostly as a league issue. I would note, however, that the author says NWSL pays a "small portion" of the PRO operating expenditures without quantifying that figure or comparing it to (or even explicitly acknowledging) MLS' investment, which seems like a lazy omission and could leave the impression that NWSL isn't getting its money's worth. Perhaps more importantly, the discrepancy in pay is only framed as game fees--seemingly implying that if NWSL could cobble a few more hundred per official per game, they'd be on par with MLS fees and the "tiered system" would be erased. That completely ignores the issue of the referees in MLS being full-time and salaried in addition to game fees. The financial discrepancies here are vast and simply insurmountable. It also doesn't really touch on what it would take to get VAR, which has been one of the main complaints you hear a lot. I'd love to see an article like this that compares USL to NWSL along revenue, attendance and viewership lines. Because without that context, the implication that NWSL should be above USL because it's the women's first division probably resonates with some. But the financial reality appears to be different and it needs to be part of any analysis here.
Name for me one league where people say, "oh the standard of refereeing is excellent and clearly exceeds the needs of the game." It's always a crisis. It's always ruining the game. It's always a reason people won't watch anymore. The unsanctioned foul is the reason someone broke their leg. The refereeing is never good enough, it never was, and it never will be... The sky fell. The sky is falling. The sky will fall again.
It is interesting that the article talks about the need for more money towards refereeing without talking about league finances at all. Money comes from somewhere.
To be fair, I would find it difficult to say that that NWSL officiating is good. Now, I think the most salient point is that NWSL wants to act like a top-tier professional league without doing anything whatsoever to make that a reality. And, to be fair, financially it's probably impossible for them to do so. But that's sort of the point. The complaints are valid in a vacuum, but given the overall context so many other things need to improve to get to where you want to be at an officiating level. A second point is that it's not like women's international officiating or, from the little I've seen (England and France, mostly), officiating in other top women's competition is much or any better. So are we making fair comparisons or just complaining to complain? There's a comment in that article about comparing NWSL officiating to international football by the NWSLPA Executive Director and, if she's talking about women's football, I'm not sure she has a point (the way things are going on the men's side, she might not have a point either--but that's another discussion).
By the way, I've been told the MLS investment in PRO is $10M and the NWSL investment is $125k. Annually. So NWSL is offering 1.25% of what MLS is putting up.
Exactly. I'm sorry but I don't see what the monetary investment will do. Yes, it will improve refereeing. But "improvement" doesn't matter to the players, coaches, clubs, and fans. You could invest a billion dollars and it will still be below the absolute 100% perfection that sports DEMAND from referees, so refs will get trashed anyway. The first time a team gets a poor call go against them, there goes all that perceived improvement and good will. PRO seems to have put in quite a good investment into refereeing, doing the Inside Video Review film series, articles on their website about weekly calls, lots of transparency, they still get trashed. The only sports I've heard of where referees actually don't get much criticism is rugby, because apparently it is pretty much not allowed. And look at that, when players and teams can't openly deride, scream at, and mob the referees live on television, seems like their general perception is raised!
Refereeing in the lower level professional leagues is almost designed to be always sub-par overall. A new referee is brought in will naturally be somewhat weak at first. Then if they improve and do well, they get promoted to the next level. If they do not improve, they get removed. In either case they will be replaced by another person who is new to this level and the process starts all over again. Those who are in the "Goldilocks" zone, not good enough to be promoted but not too bad to be dropped are the ones who stay at that level. PH
Exactly. And this reality is butting up against a belief by some that the NWSL isn't "lower-division" in the referee world because it's the top women's division and with gender equity issues generally. There's a false belief that--if only with the right resources--the NWSL would be a "destination" for some of the top referees where either officials would split time between MLS and NWSL or, if recent history is any indication, there would be a dedicated corps of elite female referees for NWSL. Neither outcome is going to happen. There is a paradox here. You can't simultaneously praise Tori Penso (and others) for making it to MLS and for Frappart and others to do big games in Europe (and get the men's WC call) while also wanting the top women's games to have the best referees. I mean, I guess you can do both. But it doesn't make much sense. Either the top men's games are the destination for aspiring elite female officials, in which case the top women's games are inherently second tier at best. Or the top women's games should be an equal destination for aspiring elite referees and the idea of female referees on men's games shouldn't be that big of a deal deal. It's really hard to thread the needle and have it both ways while being intellectual consistent or principled. For what it's worth, it seems obvious to me we should be celebrating the best female referees that make it to the men's game and pushing all aspiring elite referees--male and female--toward MLS. But that means the NWSL referee corps--again, both male and female--will always be second (or third) tier and filled with referees not quite ready for MLS or some who never will be ready. I think a more interesting question is whether or not NWSL matches prepare officials for MLS at all. Or at least compared to USL matches. From a referee development standpoint, that seems like the tricky spot. A top USL match, in my opinion, is going to come much closer to replicating the MLS environment than an NWSL match. But if your best aspiring referees are funneled to USL for MLS prep, what does that leave for NWSL? There's not a really good answer here.
And that's the core point. I don't think most criticism of match officials is based on principled or intellectually consistent arguments. There is a bit here and there but usually, not so much.
One way to get better referees in leagues like NWSL would be to use recently retired leading referees from the top leagues. Whereas they are past their prime for the men's leagues, they could function very well in the slower paced women's game. People like Dean or Atkinson in England and their equivalents elsewhere. I have personal experience of this. I stopped doing high level men's college games when I felt I was not able to do as good a job as I had when younger. The assignor asked me if I would do some women's college games, to which I agreed. This was because he had some difficulty getting other top referees to accept women's games or didn't have enough to go around. I found I could easily manage those games and was able to contribute for several more years. Some of the coaches who remembered me from their own playing days said they were glad to see me on their games rather than the usual less experienced officials they otherwise would see. I realize that this is perhaps not politically correct though at the pro level and that some people may be too proud to do it. PH
Yes, those are definitely both impediments to this idea. But so is the financial reality of a full-time VAR role in MLS paying more than NWSL. Would a retiring referee want to stick around for 5+ years in the booth in a league he or she knows, alongside colleagues they know, with regular work and good pay or parachute into a league that they don't know, working with players and officials they don't know, for less pay? I think the answer would be easy for most. Pride may be a factor but so would money and comfort. Ultimately, I think the politics would be the biggest hurdle even if referees wanted to do this, though. I don't think the league could stomach the optics of retiring males who never worked the league jumping in to be shoulder-to-shoulder with females who (with some exceptions) would be reaching this league as their pinnacle achievement.
But do they all get the opportunity of the VAR role? I was ignoring the money factor since it wasn't an issue for me at that time. The fee difference, if any, was slight. And it was easy money anyway! This is unfortunately probably correct, but would get them the better standard of refereeing they are clamoring for. Perhaps that is not their objective after all. Regardless, for all the reasons I mentioned originally and everything else, it is a lost cause anyway, and will never happen. The league and its fans are just going to have to put up with what they have. PH
Long term or short term? If "retired" MLS refs are taking up NWSL slots, it means upcoming referees aren't getting them to develop. Seems a short term band aid with long term negative impact.
So, the present set-up is working then? That is the problem. Once they develop they move up so you never get developed referees at that level. Except as I said for the few Goldilocks types with nowhere else to go, and they aren't that good anyway and are not going to improve very much, if at all. So the present system can never work. It has failure built right into it as far as getting very competent referees is concerned. It is a continual revolving door of "learning" or trialist officials. With this system in place the overall standard at this level has not improved and never will. There are enough games for some newer people to develop, but other games are covered by experienced referees. So overall the level of officiating would be improved. And it is not short term as there will be a continuous stream of retired MLS referees. Is this perfect? No of course not. But it can be a workable solution to quite an intractable problem. I know not all referees would be prepared to do this for several reasons as has been mentioned here. But some referees do enjoy being out on the pitch working matches and might be quite happy to do so. And I would bet many of the coaches would prefer this to what they get now. BTW, I saw all of this first hand during my years assessing. There were several referees who were never going to make the jump to MLS after several seasons. Although some of them are now VARs. PH
What level of the men's game (from a required referee skill/management aspect) would you compare NWSL to? In my opinion, forget USL, you have to drop into at least the third pyramid tier USL-1 etc., maybe even the USOC-tier UPSL/NPSL teams. You probably just have to get into the non-politically-correct responses you guys have brought up. The reality has to be faced that the level of referee required to manage NWSL matches is not the same tier as the ones reaching MLS in PRO. I think it's perfectly fair to expect PRO2 or top regional refs to be doing NWSL games (or even still fit retired MLS-level officials), and there has to be the expectation that some of them will advance out of that league into MLS, and that even the ones who don't but are still very good just "stay" in NWSL; maybe that makes it seem like NWSL is getting the "scraps" of PRO, but it's just reality. You can even look at this down to the adult amateur and even youth levels. Most U15B MLS Next games, and probably even top U13/14B teams, boys HS varsity, etc. are likely equal/harder to manage than even the top U19G ECNL/GA teams. A competent, decent MLS Next referee can surely easily handle a WPSL match but could be way over their head in a USPL/NPSL match.
One thing to consider is the stakes of the game. The NWSL is a lot more important than it used to be. The Challenge Cup had a sponsor who tossed in substantial cash prizes. So a missed call in the NWSL is going to get waaaaay more scrutiny than a missed call in Sacramento or in a U19 MLS Next game. Social media has been blowing up with the recent issues in NWSL games -- traditional media, too. https://prosoccerwire.usatoday.com/2022/05/25/washington-spirit-kris-ward-fined-nwsl/ I'd think you'd want experienced refs to take that spotlight.
Okay, but just to compare things again to MLS (because even though I know you didn't here, that's where the complaints either start from or inevitably go to)… MLS total broadcast contract is reportedly $90M/year right now. NWSL's is $4.5M over 3 years. And MLS is--again reportedly--looking to negotiate for $300M/year starting in 2023. So just any prize money--like $10k/player in one match--is going to be absolutely dwarfed by media considerations (not to mention there is a prize pool for the MLS Cup Playoffs, too). And that's not even touching player or managerial contracts where, after all, referee decisions can have a long-term impact on the individual financial situation of participants. But on the NWSL v USL point... first, I'd like to see USL playoff prize money (though I bet it is below $1M) as well as the television contract (most I've been able to gather is "low seven-figures" from back in 2019, but not sure if that's annually or multi-year), so we could compare to what is linked to above. I'd also like to see salaries and revenue side-by-side for both leagues, as I've mentioned, for the same reason. I mean, if you're talking about financial implications on the players, you have to take into account that the vast majority of USL players are looking to earn MLS contracts, which would trump prize money ramifications. A bad call or officiated game helping to prevent a player from jumping up to a six-figure contract seems just as bad, if not worse, than a call preventing players from collecting a $10k check. I guess it's eye of beholder as the bigger financial consideration is long-term and indirect whereas the smaller one is immediate and direct. The bottom line, for me, is that I don't find this argument terribly persuasive. I've been involved in "amateur" events where the players of the winning team won $1500 each in prize money, provided by a local sponsor--yeah, it needed and deserved the best ref available, but it didn't need an MLS or FIFA guy to come in. That $1M prize for the Challenge Cup is nice and solid progress, but it's not a game-changer insofar as the perceived importance of the league goes. I don't see a reason why your top available NWSL league referee wouldn't keep getting it. And all that is saying nothing about whether or not "social media blowing up" is an important metric or not. On that point, I would just say that there are definitely niche communities--in all realms--that are larger and more intense on social media than they are in the offline world. Not meant as a slight, but women's soccer is definitely one of those places. So yes, an NWSL call is going to get more attention online, generally speaking, than most USL ones. But does something "blowing up" prove the complaints are valid (the answer here is "no," of course!)? And even if they are, is the social media maelstrom reflective of a community's relative importance or influence with the larger population? I don't think you can draw that conclusion and that's why actual revenue and actual viewership matters. And I genuinely don't know where the answers are on those two points. USL seems to be pretty tight-lipped on these things and it might be hard to separate out the Championship from the lower leagues, anyway. That was very long-winded reply and got into league financials more than refereeing. I guess my main point, to circle back to your first sentence, is that every match is that player's World Cup, as the saying goes. In any competitive environment, the stakes are high. The questions at this level for PRO become how you allocate referees and how you invest to train them. On the second question, that seems to be ALL on NWSL. If it wants better referees or a corps of referees that only works its league or VAR... it has to put the money up and that just seems impossible right now. And if not impossible, not a priority (after all, they just announced a $1M prize pool but are paying PRO $125k total for referee training and development). And on the first question about allocation... barring that sort of direct and specific investment from NWSL, PRO has to be looking at how it can best prep referees to make the jump to MLS and from a sporting perspective, I think that means testing your non-MLS referees on USL more than NWSL. And that has nothing to do with prize money or anything else.
One other, much more succinct point. I don't think "experienced" translates to better. I don't think, for example, that Elfath or Marrufo parachuting in to do the NWSL Challenge Cup means they would be better received or call a better match than whoever is deemed to be the top performing NWSL referee from the previous season. Indeed, I think something like that could backfire significantly. It could work, too. But it's a risk. The NWSL is much, much different than MLS. When you combine that fact with the idea that the referee would have zero familiarity with the players in question, you can't deny it's a gamble.
In MLS and NWSL social media, particularly Reddit and twitter, I think PRO might have a slightly higher approval rating than Vladimir Putin but it's probably pretty close. At this point when you read through the stuff that is said, they seem to think PRO is this all powerful organization that could make refereeing better in MLS and NWSL If they only wanted to.
This is indeed quite true. When I started to referee college womens' matches towards the end of my on-field career, the main difference was interaction with the players. But it didn't take long to figure it out and learn how to deal with it, thanks to seeking out advice from some top level female referees. And I think most people who do this can easily do likewise. Basically, it is don't say very much at all, if anything. Foul recognition is a little different also. PH