"Realistic", yes. I've absolutely no argument with that, from a business plan perspective. "Humble" is problematic - especially when you get called a PC wacko if you're uppity enough to raise a question about the term or, god forbid, refuse to embrace it on demand. This whole thing is partly about business and partly about politics and power and culture (thus all the heat in these threads). Call me whatever you like ... from this point on, I think the only meaningful response to make is ... Sheesh!
I don't think you ever heard a bunch of guys in MLS whine about it. This whole thing is just sad and it is a black eye for the sport of soccer. I feel really bad for all those people who followed the league and loved their teams as much as we love MLS teams. Hopefully one day when MLS becomes much more cash flow positive we can bring in a WMLS that plays in the same SSS that MLS teams do! I feel that WUSA directors should have been more open to working with MLS. The placing of team games directly in competition against some MLS games smacked of stupidity. Maybe these investors that were involved with WUSA will venture over into MLS and get involved in supporting one o two of the exsisting teams. Doubt that will happen but one can always hope!!
The Straw Man Award of the year goes to ... Bill Archer. If you twist someone's words at one end and then twist someone else's at the other, I guess you can make a circle. "We should have cooperated more and competed less" is not the same as "I'm sorry I said I wanted those pigs at MLS to suffer plagues of locusts and boils." I've met Foudy, Bill. She's not the demon you think she is. Sorry to disappoint. Look, we've always overstated these conflicts. The U.S. soccer community is one big family. There's a little bit of sibling rivalry. On the whole, the MLS/WUSA "conflict" is much less damaging and much less serious than, say, anything going on at youth level right now.
Much as I admire Ray Bolgers' work, I'll have to defer the award, thanks. You see, the literary allusion is to building a "straw man" not being one. No charge - it's what I'm here for. And I'm certain Ms. Foudy is a lovely woman - you'll search in vain for anything I've written that implies otherwise. (Except the Dunkin Donuts stuff, and we'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness of a high-profile athlete promoting high-fat foods to little girls. I'd say the same if it was BMB posing with the sprinkles - although maybe not if it was DMB; the guy could use some avoirdupois) So to say that I feel she is a "demon" is inaacurate. My post, if you'd care to actually read it instead of seeing the name "Foudy" and going into knee-jerk mode, you'll notice that I said exactly nothing pejorative about the lady. Frankly, I'm married to an extremely high-achieving woman, and recognize the traits and the attitude and admire them. When you give up a six-figure career to put a woman through Med School, give me a call, pal. Until then, I have exactly no apologies to make for my credentials. My point was directed, if I have to sspell it out, to those who have strained credulity (and fact) repeatedly, ad infinatum, claiming that Julie & Co. engaged in NO competitive, sometimes resentful, sometimes even derogatory commentary with regard to MLS. I was simply showing them (and apparently that includes you) that she HERSELF admits to it. And that's all. As for your concluding comments, I'd write a novel about the cannibalization of youth soccer in the US right now. What's going on is a scandal, driven by greed, greed and, oh yes, greed on some people's part, and I wish somebody would talk about it. At the least, it would be easier than having to respond to crap like yours.
The "crap" is actually another straw man you've built. I don't recall portraying you as someone who thinks women don't belong in the workplace. (For what it's worth, I did put my wife through law school on a meager journalist's pay, but that's not really relevant.) My point, then and now: Those who demonize Foudy are farther off the mark than those who think everything she says is gold. (Not that I've seen many of the latter on BigSoccer.) So I think your crow-eating contest is a bit premature. I do plan to delve into youth soccer issues one of these days. You're welcome to give input.
Ah. Poor choice of words on my part. Realistic, down-to-earth, grounded in reality... that's what I meant. And, just to clarify, I have no problem with "I am woman, hear me roar" as a basic credo and all that. It's just not a very good idea from a "let's build this league up" standpoint. Sorry to rankle, not my intention.
Soccer is built on competition - we certainly don't mind (usually) when a DC player declares (if and when he does) "I can't stand L.A., I want to beat them so badly my teeth hurt from hateful grinding." So, a competitive statement by Foudy or Chastain, wasn't the issue that half of us had - it was an "even if they said it" - and the proof was scant, as they were often discreet - "who cares?". It didn't justify the bashing. Too many people were ready to villify the statement of "piggybacking" as an "I hate MLS" rather than the much milder, "We don't want to share our toys with the boys." They used the "piggyback" as if it were an assasination attempt on MLS, and justified their posts crucifying the ladies and wishing their league death on that one statement. You may be an intelligent individual otherwise, Bill, and I admire your fine vocabulary, but if you're one of these ( and your, "Neener, neener, I was right - the statement was true!" attitude - even though the evidence is still meager - would seem to indicate so) that's simply stupid. An outlet for soccer and a way to develop both players and fans is gone. The ladies seem to be willing to shoulder blame and try to learn from it.
That's right, just keep on promoting that Title IX Business Model, where all you have to do is "create the buzz and pack 'em in." That was Julie's direct quote on CNBC"s Kudlow and Cramer over the weekend. She may be capitulating on the Cooperation issue, but she's still pitching "kids need role models" as the economic justification for the league. So although the arrogance appears to have been pushed below the surface, there is still a major disconnect between "The International Soccer Economy functioning under Wester Capitalism", and the concept of a Women's pro-sports league that's actually about THE SPORT and not "THE KIDS". Barney is purple and fat. The ball is round and the game is 90 minutes long. And there is no connection whatsoever between the two paradigms. 3000 pre-teens shrieking "MIA MIA MIA" at the top of their lungs won't pay the bills. By the way, did anyone catch Julie's closing comment on Kudlow and Cramer about DOUBLING the size of the goals to promote more scoring? Frightening. If she is willing to say that, it's obvious to me that they (the "founders") are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their autonomy. Why would they advocate something that would eliminate FIFA accreditation? Could it be that some off-the-field agenda remains more important than the product on the field itself? I want to congratulate the Womyn for their amazing display in DC yesterday. Lilly's goal was frickin topshelf world class stuff. April had them ready to go, and with all of the other bulldada going on this week, I was primed for a letdown from them. That was some of the best soccer, men's or women's, i've seen this year. More importantly, it's obvious what WUSA has done for the collective Speed of Thought and level of play for our LadyNats. The passing was crisp and quick, the runs were full of understanding. Why can't a women's league be about THE PRODUCT ON THE FIELD? Why does it have to be about "KIDS" or "ROLE MODELS" or "GENDER EQUALITY" ?? The product on the field is there. But the attitude off the field is HOSTILE to the male-dominated business world, and if the Womyn want their league back, they'd be best served to take a cue from the rabid soccer fans of this country, like me, who could give a damn about their "cause" but love to watch them play.
A crow-eating contest is counterproductive and unneccessary. I don't want Foudy to eat her words, just change them. With respect to being "farther off the mark" for being on one side of the equation vs. another, please, Mr. McPaper, show us your .vcf file from God, with the title "Chief Pontificator of the USian Soccer Moral Compass."
You're right, my bad. Lilly's goal. Apologies to all. Still a world-class strike, well-crafted build up, top shelf.
How conveniently everyone forgets how hard the women had to fight to be made equals (money-wise) in the eyes of U.S. Soccer. They had more success, much quicker, and the male soccer gods couldn't handle it. If the women then had a bit of a chip on their shoulder, who can blame them. If Foudy made some stupid remarks, so what! Show me any sport where some guy in control hasn't made a stupid remark and regretted it! The only reason this keeps getting bashed around on the boards is the guys want Foudy to personally pay for everything she's ever said bad about anything! Friggin grow up and GET OVER IT! At least she had the guts to say she screwed up.
Dan Loney had a great column a few days ago. Remember what MLS was like in 1999? Do you remember what the league's "business plan" was at the time? Basically, it consisted of trying to create a buzz and appeal to ethnic audiences through "big-name" signings. In 2000, this consisted of signing for megabucks guys like Hernandez, Azzizi and Lothar. The league was still blowing through money at a ridiculous rate (having lost two and a half times the amount in five years that WUSA lost in three). Foudy's comments, if they really are hers, don't seem so ridiculous in that context. If she's guilty of anything, it was of over-optimism for the WUSA, and not of undervaluing MLS. MLS of 2003 does have a few lessons it could teach the WUSA (or really any start-up league). As of the moment, it might be the most successful of any of them (perhaps save Arena football?). But don't forget it was a different story in 1999-2000.
Well, since you haven't shown where I built the first one, I don't blame you for moving along, Beau. Let me make it easier for you - I'll give you an example: Say somebody was to make a comment like: Now here's an example of WORLD CLASS "straw man" construction worthy of Flour-Daniels. Pretend somebody demonized Foudy and then sarcastically sneer "sorry" without bothering to explain how quoting her is the same as demonizing her. See how it works? Take notes if you want. Thanks for pointing this out. Has nothing whatever to do with me, but I appreciate the thought. Utter nonsense. I simply pointed out that lots of posters had maintained that she never said or thought any such thing. I simply pointed out that Foudy herself put the lie to that opinion. Crow for the house. On me. I know a lot of youth players, Beau. They're not the demons you think they are. Sorry to disappoint.
Hey Bill - you do have a way with the words!! It's just too bad you use them to show how self-important you are! I can pull out my dictionary and really dazzle people, but in the end, what does it really matter?
Saying that MLS and WUSA were more competitive than cooperative and that it was probably more on the WUSA's side does not prove anything regarding the infamous statement. Your offer of crow is thus irrelevant and inapplicable. Lots of posters? Saying that they knew what Jules was thinking? I remember lots of posters saying that they knew Julie as a smart, kind, generous person dedicated to building up the sport of soccer. No one ever claimed to know what she said or thought (or didn't say or think) other than to point out that an unattributed Bradley quote and numerous "I heard from my cousin at WUSA." sources were insufficient evidence.
Uh ... Bill? I was being sincere. I'm actually interested in youth soccer in-fighting, and since I don't have all the facts at this point, I don't know whose side to take. Rather than degenerate into yet another BigSoccer argument over levels of reading comprehension, I'm willing to call a truce and say we're miscommunicating here. My point in summary: In the BigSoccer threads I've read, a lot of people have raced to put words in Foudy's mouth and intentions in her head. A lot of people cried foul. The quote that started this thread simply isn't enough to make her defenders come back and eat crow. If you didn't mean to say that they should, fine.
This thread is great--its almost like a reenactment of what WUSA and MLS meeting must have been like a couple of years ago... Wagman's point on the timing of the announcement to hurt coverage of the WWC would be really really sad. Have to admit that first goal from Lilly was top notch stuff.
This article seems to point the fingers at antipathy between administrative types. Like, the egos running WUSA - not the players, but the directors, etc, who were NOT soccer people, felt they didn't need Uncle Philly. This competition happens between corporations all the time, even when it cripples the outcome (remember Nash's theory of cooperation?) - it could have been this corporate "Let's show them" attitude that Foudy was referring to. Thus, she could really be saying, "Those people who encouraged us to go it alone without MLS are wrong, and they're gone now, and we don't want to do what they said if we get another chance." A little between the lines reading, of course. Not meaning to put words in Julie's mouth.
Youth Soccer Infighting Beau - Separate subject but since you're looking into youth soccer infighting, you'll want to check out - 1) USYSA vs. Super League vs. U.S. Clubs and so forth (which you're no doubt doing) 2) Club vs. high school turf battles 3) ODP vs. club issues -- not so sure that there are a lot of overt turf battles, but some clubs are really into ODP volunteerism (and place a lot of players), while others are not. You might find a minor scandal there, who knows. 4) In my state of Chicago, the Chicago Magic vs. Chicago Sockers turf war, which has torn apart the state's top league and which may end up having Chicago Magic sit out the State Cup tournament.
Glad you had some germane points to add to the argument. Stop by with relevant comments like this anytime. Really moves the discussion along. Putz.
Beau; We'll agree to disagree: You say that people hate Foudy for no reason, I say she has only herself to blame. That's not to say she's not a terrific lady. But she is learning a little late in life about the golden rule: "Them what has the gold gets to make the rules" And frankly, without opening another whole can of worms, Title IX may (emphasis on may) have contributed to this somewhat by creating an entitlement mentality. In any case, I think Wagman's point about Anschutz (or, by extension, someone similar) is well taken - if one was inclined to step in and float women's pro soccer in the US, it would seem a lot smarter (and cheaper) to let it fold and then pick up the pieces you want, rather than step in and prop up the ship of spenthrift fools it clearly was. (and if you think I'm fixing that particular mixed metaphor, forget it) As for youth soccer: John R above points out some of the prominant symptoms. Each of those points deserves exploration, particularly the coming all-out war over control of High School soccer. But the real question is "Why is USSF either allowing it to happen or, in some prominant cases, seemingly encouraging the chaos"? Is it a nefarious plot by Dr. Bob and cronies, or is it simply lack of intelligent direction, administrative drift and sloth?