Foudy on ESPN2 10/21

Did anyone catch what Foudy had to say? I read this post too late to actually see the show.

 

They re-run it when the show finishes.

 

I agree with a lot of what Foudy stated on this show. Namely that women's soccer may have to re-start on a smaller level in order to grow.
What came up is why NIKE would give 90 million to Lebraun James but couldn't pony up to save the women's game. Standard answer is that NIKE expects to make its 90 million back plus a profit.
But this shows the short sightedness of US big business. Of course they wouldn't immediately make back the 16 or whatever million they could invest in the WUSA 2 WMLS or whatever. But the long term good will would eventually lead to a return on their investment. But most corporate executives don't think that way, especially when it concerns on-going womens sports leagues, and not just special events (olympics, world cups) that involve women.

 

Did you ever stop to think that most CEO's don't think that way because most corporations are not charitable organizations? Long term investment was a great idea in the 80s and mid 90s with a booming economy and good return on ivestments. We are in a recession and Nike's shareholders are really going to be interested in hearing how their 16 million dollars is going to be spent for the "good of women's soccer" and how that will be good for business in 10-20 years.

Nike will recoup that $90M it spent on Lebron in 2-3 years. That is what investors want to hear. High profile, low risk. WUSA2 or WMLS is the exact opposite. High risk, low profile. Not to mention the fact the WUSA showed how well it takes care of investor money...

 

First off I want to state that I respect your opinions - I just disagree with them. In a sense your right NIKE isn't concerned with doing the long-term right thing. Their a greedy business concerned with making a short term monetary killing.
This is why American business is leading us all into big time problems. The inability to think long-term is why the dinosaurs are extinct! And modern american short-term thinking is wrong-headed.
NIKE in my opinion is a complete fraud. They use black and brown labor and pay them 1-2 dollars an hour. They then use phony commercials which give a few token minorities, millions, but really serve the purpose of extorting monies from poor and black and brown people (and others) for their over-priced sneakers.
Ok I see your point NIKE not only won't help women's soccer it institutionally is not programmed to do this task.
But then the issue is who will?
IN my opinion the answeri is to restart on a small basis and rely on the grass-roots and bypass mega-exploiters like NIKE who really don't give a damn.

 

Don't fool yourself. NONE of the corporations in the athletics business really care all that much about women's soccer. Adidas puts out a commercial about the WUSA and people think they care, and everyone wants to buy adidas.

Who made Mia a millionare. Who's corporate offices have her name up in lights. Who has spent more time and money developing soccer in this country, Nike or Adidas? Who outfits more soccer teams in the US, Nike or Adidas?

Adidas owns youth soccer in the US. Nike owns the national teams and the high level leagues. It's all the same game. NIke just isn't the flavor of the month right now.

As for cheap labor, everyone does the same thing. I am not going to single out Nike for doing something common to thei industry. And as for the $1-2 they pay the labor, it's seen as VERY good wages there. Why should I be angry at Nike for providing top wages in those areas just because they don't match the wages in the US? As for the exploitation of minority youths in this country, I have been one of those youths. And I had Nike shoes, and Adidas, and Puma, and Lotto, and New Balance, and Asics. Adidas and Puma fit my feet best. So I use their products. Simple. If Nike's worked for me, I'd buy them.

The "start on a small basis" has been my contention since day one. They should have built the W-League into something signficant like the men's A-League. And THEN if that worked, looked at something like the WUSA. More cart before the horse thinking by the women's establishment.

 

Foudy is right that women's soccer needs to be rebuilt on a level that the sponsors of women's soccer are willing to support.

Unless we are dealing with a private or closely held corporation (i.e. Anschutz Entertainment Group), these companies have an obligation to their SHAREHOLDERS (which include millions of middle-class types - just about anyone who owns mutual fund shares in a 401k).

If a company sees growth potential for their business in women's soccer - they will support it. The greater and more realistic the potential for growth - the greater their interest in supporting it. Otherwise, WUSA will never be considered a sports league, but a social empowerment program.

Which way do you want it? WUSA-on-welfare or a league of its supporters, by its supporters and for its supporters (and sponsors)?

What is a phony commercial? It doesn't really exist on my television screen . . . but it still has the ability to numb my mind into buying NIKE shoes?

You forgot about the billions of dollars that must be spent on mind control that force poor and black and brown people to buy NIKE shoes. You use the word 'extort' - do NIKE shareholders (I am not one) hold guns to the heads of poor people, do they threaten to harm the children of black people, do they threaten to cause brown people to lose their jobs - if those people don't buy NIKE shoes? What coercion do they use?

And if NIKE is to blame for this - how evil and short-term thinking does that make people like Michael Jordan or Mia Hamm who are willing to sell their image to NIKE (the highest bidder) for the purpose of extorting money from poor people? The athletes must be even worse than NIKE because they take their money! At least NIKE employs poor, black and brown people (and willingly includes them amongst its shareholders) and kicks some of the money their way.

Those athletes who take NIKE's money just do it for greed, right? After all, its not like these athletes are exactly starving and need the money from NIKE? I guess that makes dear Mia a disgusting person.

P.S.

I am not going to apologize for Nike if they do indeed enslave people to make their shoes - but who can fault NIKE if people in Malaysia (or wherever they make the shoes) are willing to make their shoes for the price they are paid? If the amount of money that you indicated is the cost of a living wage in Malaysia, why should NIKE be obligated to pay more? They already buy rubber and leather from other countries. Doesn't it make sense for the shoes to be made in the countries closer to the countries that supply the leather and rubber?

Aren't you glad when foreign companies build factories in the US (Honda, Toyota, BMW, Hitachi, etc) and employ Americans, because it is cheaper to produce their product here than in Japan or Germany? If so, why shouldn't we let American corporations build factories in foreign countries and employ foreign labor when they are happy to produce the product for less than American workers? Seems hypocritical to me to think otherwise.

 

Sounds like you could be a great entrepreneur and take advantage of this opportunity. Get a couple of friends together and start your own company that specializes in womens' soccer equipment . . .

Sponsor WUSA or Julie Foudy or whoever to get more publicity . . .

And prove that you are right and NIKE is wrong.

Its the American way.

 

Ms. Foudy can go on TV the day before she is supposed to captain yet another disastrous outing by the USWNT and blame Nike. What she doesn't tell you is that Nike cannot very well sponsor the WUSA because its mortal competitor is a Level One sponsor for the WWC.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/03/en/

The WUSA, the USWNT and the WWC are joined at the hip from a marketing perspective. It would be suicidal for Nike to spend big bucks on this because ity would ultimately help Addidas as much as Nike.
Look at the Olympics. Visa is a level one sponsor while Master Card is a Level One sponsor of the World Cup. They lay off each other's turf. Before the last Olympics, Visa spent a ton of money for a long camp and tour for Cammy Granato and the US Women's Hockey team. The two go together-sponsoring the event and sponsoring one of the features you want exposure for. There is no way Master Card would touch women's hockey because that would only help Visa during the Olympics. By the same token, Visa lays off lots of sponsorship opportunities for soccer because-guess what-Master Card is the Level One sponsor for the World Cup.
Ms. Foudy could ask Addidas for 90 million. That would make more sense. But Addidas might ask what Tony Dicciccio asked; "What happened to the 100 million?"

 

It is extremely likely that Nike executives are thinking about the long-term return on investment of putting money into women's soccer in far greater detail than you are.

Signing the most popular player in the history of the women's game, who sparks sales of Mia-related paraphenalia, seemed look a good return on investment. And that probably worked out. And she's only $1 million per year, not $16 million. Sales benefit from a Mia endorsement are probably greater than sales benefit from a full league endorsement right now, anyway.

Saying that they should make a $16 mm investment per year now ... dubious. Assuming that Nike shareholders want a 15% return, and that losses shrink by $2 mm per year as WUSA gets more popular ... they'd have to achieve incremental profits of about $6 million a year by the next World Cup that they could attribute directly to sponsorship of WUSA. Plus, those incremental profits would have to continue to increase. Here's a scenario showing a way they could have a 15% internal rate of return over 20 years. Without another Mia to latch onto, or a World Cup title team, a women's league would really have to explode in popularity on its own merits, or dramatically slash costs to be an attractive business investment for a shoe company.

Investment Required incremental profits sum
2003 -16000000 -16000000
2004 -14000000 3000000 -11000000
2005 -12000000 4000000 -8000000
2006 -10000000 5000000 -5000000
2007 -8000000 6000000 -2000000
2008 -6000000 7000000 1000000
2009 -4000000 8000000 4000000
2010 -2000000 9000000 7000000
2011 0 10000000 10000000
2012 11000000 11000000
2013 12000000 12000000
2014 13000000 13000000
2015 14000000 14000000
2016 15000000 15000000
2017 16000000 16000000
2018 17000000 17000000
2019 18000000 18000000
2020 19000000 19000000
2021 20000000 20000000
2022 21000000 21000000
2023 22000000 22000000
IRR 15%

I can virtually guarantee that Nike has a far better spreadsheet that they have actually researched on exactly this topic. I can also virtually guarantee that you do not.

 

Although I don't care much for Nike's style, I feel obligated to point out again that they gave the USSF $210 million in 1995. I think they've done a major portion of their share to grow the sport in this country.

 

Another hijacked thread. I missed the interview. What else did she talk about?

 

Not exactly. They used to sponsor leagues; the W-League in 1995 was a Nike operation. The first year of the J-League, too.

And lest we forget, the AAA golf operation was the Nike Tour before it was taken over by Buy.com?

Problem was, a league was not able to convince people to buy shoes; players can.

 

All this talk of shoe deals got me thinking...what's in it for Nike to get a soccer player (male or female) to hawk their shoes...as opposed to a basketball player that is. Nobody's gonna be wearing expensive cleats to the grocery store even if Mia Hamm wears them, but we all know how coveted certain basketball shoes are for daily wear.

Beyond that, I agree with the idea that corporations should take a longer view on their return on investment, but in the last 10+ years that's just not how things operate. It's all about showing a profit for the next quarter. That's why we're seeing so many layoffs and other types of short-term business strategies. A really tragic state of affairs for our national economy as well as our workforce, if you ask me. But I really don't think the WUSA advocates are going to have much success trying to appeal Nike and other corporations by arguing for a long-term investment.

Don't forget that the 1999 Cup and subsequent investor frenzy coincided with the whole internet venture capitalist craziness which created a bubble economy that has since burst. Back then, it seemed to make sense to throw crazy money at new unproven ideas. But it's a different economy now.

 

Making a profit is not necessarily the same thing as being greedy. Nor is a timely return on a multi-million dollar investment a killing. I wonder what your opinion of NIKE would have been had they jumped on board your merry train to the Field of Dreams 2? Would you turn your eyes from their exploitation of the 'black and brown' people who haunt your conscience, day and night?

Surely the last thing you want is women's soccer to be associated with so monstrous an oppressor. You should be glad NIKE passed, and only regret WUSA turned to them in desperation in the first place.

Best wishes on rallying all that grass-roots support that will allow you to bypass mega-exploiters like NIKE, and all the tv networks that accept the big bucks they pay to advertize.
We will be looking for your games to be shown on Aunt Millie's Cable Network and Egg Farm -- sometime -- in the next decade -- or so.