Just hitting on some things from the latest Scott French piece... * Founder's have agreed to take pay cuts of 25% or more for the upcoming season. * All players can earn player/team incentive bonuses. * Players contracts are reduced from 12 months to 9 months. Nothing in there about teams being able to release such underperforming founders such as Scurry, Mia, or Fawcett.
I think the whole segment is worth posting: 1. PAY CUT: The bulk of discussion between WUSA officials and the Players Association during months of negotiations for the Collective Bargaining Agreement concerned how best to trim expenditures and increase revenues. The league, continuing to battle against a difficult economy, had cut budgets in every department but one. Until now. The WUSA's "Founding" players, stake-holders in the league who are entering the third year of five-year guaranteed contracts, agreed to take pay cuts of 25 percent or more for 2003 as the league salary cap was trimmed to $595,750. The cap covers salaries for 16 players, all signed to Standard Player Contracts (SPCs), on each roster. "Reserve" and "developmental" players, two apiece, are paid from another fund. The cap in Year 1 was $800,000 for 20 players, an average of $40,000 per player. Last year's cap was $834,500 for 18 players, an average of $46,361. This year's average salary is pennies under $37,235, a drop of nearly 20 percent from 2002. Players also can earn individual and team incentive bonuses. Total WUSA pay for SPC players is $4.766 million. The league spent $6.4 million in 2001 and $6.676 million in 2002 on player salaries. Player contracts also have been reduced from 12 to nine months, covering March 1 to Nov. 30. The minimum salary for first-year ($25,000), second-year ($26,250) and third-year ($31,500) remains unchanged. First-round draft choices still earn a minimum $30,000. The "Founding" players made the greatest sacrifice, agreeing to take pay cuts from $85,000 and $80,000 to $60,000. Final 16-player rosters, plus two "reserves," are due Monday at 3 p.m. EST; two "developmental" players, one of them to be used for teams' third goalkeepers, will be added to rosters later in the week. "Reserves," once announced, may be offered an SPC by another team. They may accept it or remain with their club as a "reserve." Teams will suit up 18 players for home games and 16 for road contests. "Developmental" field players may see action only if the number of available players fall below 18 and 16.
Thank God the economy appears to have bottomed out. For the last 8 days, the DOW Jones has gone up (finally!). Percentage wise it has gained the most since 1984--looks like we're starting to recover and people will start buying again
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but a war-driven stock market rally does not equal economic recovery. First of all, individual investors haven't yet jumped on the bandwagon. And if the stock market rally does continue, higher interest rates will follow. Second, look at other economic indicators: an 11% drop in February housing starts; another rise in weekly jobless claims; a 0.4% drop in February's index of leading economic indicators; and a larger-than-expected 8-point drop in the Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing index for March. The stock market rally could evaporate in the face of the cost of a protracted US military presence plus reconstruction in Iraq or a plethora of unforseen occurances (like, and let's hope it doesn't happen, further terrorist attacks.) There's also the little fact that the recession has been global. The strain on US-European political relations may well impact our European trade relations. Which isn't to say we shouldn't all hope for a speedy reversal of the WUSA's economic fortunes
Well, I'm just hoping for the best in the economy. Some people don't go to the games and just stay home and watch it on tv or read about it online because they have to tighten their finances a bit. But if the economy does do well, hopefully mom and pop will have a lil extra cash to take little Susie to a few games. Oh, and I was thinking...don't some of the indicators like housing starts and jobless claims have to do more on the current financial status rather than indicators of market recovery (afterall those figures are from February.)? This recent surge is only a few days old and I'm looking forward to next week's markets to see if this is actually a sign of recovery or just a reaction to the start of the war.
Fear I don't agree with you on the names you picked as under performing. That is most likly a lot of people won't agree with you on who should be considered under performing.
25% cut for founders only Don't know why, but this is not exactly the whole truth. Every player is taking a 25% pay cut, not just the founding players. Though I suspect that there is probably something to cover those players that have been making only 25,000. I can't imagine that they would go much below that figure. So along with this 25% pay cut for ALL, they have also cut rosters down to 16, and what a nightmare that could turn out to be with international and US nat'l teamers gone. Not to mention any team that has players injured. In just glancing over the teams, I see that all teams have 3 coaches...is that really necessary for a 16 player roster...could not one of those been trimmed to give each team at least one more spot for a player? Coaches are saying they are looking for more versatile players now that roster size is down, how bout some versatility with the coaches in being able to wear the hat of head coach/assistant coach. Does anyone know if any of these teams have there offices in any "high rent" areas? If so, couldn't or shouldn't that have been trimmed instead of the # of players? Just some thoughts that have been running thru my head since hints of WUSA'S demise has appeared in some threads.
jd6885: I don't want to hijack this thread away from the WUSA CBA . So the short answer is that those indicators are less responsive to current events. If you'd like a good article that touches on some of these relationships, try this one in the NY Times: Skeptical Economic View Takes in More Than Iraq Stormy: Why do you say that all players are taking a 25% pay cut? I'm not doubting you, but that's not the impression given by Soccer America: If non-founding players making over the minimum took a 25% cut, it would create salary compression that would presumably bring many players down to or near the minimum. Of course, that may be exactly what is happening. I wonder what the basis and funding source is for the incentive bonuses. On the coaching issue, teams have a head, assistant and gk coach. It really would be embarassing for a professional league to go lower, don't you think? As for rent, I get the sense that teams' operating budgets have been cut to the bone. I suspect facility costs have already been scrutinized.
The last post was correct! Although SA did not hint to it, all players have in fact taken pay cuts. Founders 25%, players from year 1 who were on a scale determined by their draft positions are down to the $31,000 area. Those that were already making 25,000-29,000 area stay the same. This is a fact! Travel parties have been cut down: Players stay at the customary 16. Trainer, Head and assistant coach, and an admin. person. This leaves behind equipment managers and third coach. Of course each team can decide who stays behind, as long as the travel party does not exceed 19.
You can also say that their salaries are the same but because they are payed 3 less months (6 less Paychecks).........That is the players new salary for the year....
Thanks for the information, Baggio10. Does this also mean that benefits (like health insurance, no small matter for an athlete) only extend for the 9 months of the contract?
Sorry, but I can't help you there. I would think they are covered, especially if they play on loans during the time off!
Re: 25% cut for founders only 18 dressed at home, 16 dressed on the road. Personnel-wise, this is no different from last year. The only difference is that the "extra" reserve player added mid-season is gone again...I suspect it may make a comeback in mid-2003, just like last year.
CSN's First Column on New Season Looking at the Dark Side - Will WUSA win the survivor game? by Merrill Ring http://www.cybersoccernews.com/columnists/ring/030325ring.shtml
According to the latest Women's Soccer Insider newsletter from Soccer America...one of the things still being hammered out by the Players Association and the league is the elimination of guaranteed contracts for founding players...*cough* Webber and Ducar *cough*.
Sadly, players like Webber and Ducar are too selfish to sacrifice their own bucks for the sake of the league. Some day their daughters will wonder why they don't have an option to play professional soccer!
Mark Zeigler has an article in today's U-T, mostly contains info already mentioned here, also talks a bit about the WNBA situation. It is on the front page of the sports section. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/sports/news_1s18wusa.html Placed on the page where the article continues was more on the WNBA, and mention of the MLS players union. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/sports/news_1s18labor.html
Thanks for the article - it's a true "feel good" story...errr...maybe not! The only reason that the Flouding Players are now in this situation is because they demanded too much initially, perhaps were a bit greedy would be another way of saying it, and were unwilling to market their game. A number of Flounding Players were heard to whine about too many committments and not getting paid for appearances. They should feel joy every day that they can play soccer for cash! Even the lowest paid, at approximately $25,000, for a 5 month season and a few weeks of training before an after ain't bad. Especially since most of these women are in their 20s! Spin city - the Players were told that they had to accept cuts - but that for doing so they'd get positive PR! Old game no new trick!
So who are you going to believe--a journalist with a reputation to uphold on a respected newspaper or an anonymous poster on Big Soccer? That may have been a "feel good" article--parts of it certainly made me feel good. Here's a quote...
That's bullshit. The spin doctor has make you believing that there's no such thing as bankruptcy protection. Woosa's current wage structure is elitist, and unjustifiably so. The founders make a certain amount whether you're a Mia Hamm or a Webber. And the Pichons & the Prinzes of the world come it a lower level. And new players come in at another level. If free-market forces were allowed to work, founders such as a Mia or a Milbrett would earn the most, along with a Pichon or a Prinz, and justifiably so. Mediocre players such as Webber, Ducar, etc. would be out of the league. If these founders really cared about the league and the new players, they would do the right thing - let free-market forces work. At this point, they're more concerned about protecting the status-quo - their own. The founders' "sacrifice" fall on deaf ears.
While I also believe Yeller is he-who-cannot-be-mentioned, I agree with him and Cachundo. The press is willing to try to spin absolutely everything imaginable to make certain players look like roses. If Flounders (good one) really wanted to do what was right, Webber, Overbeck, and Ducar wouldn't even be playing in the league and certain other players would have been making far less to begin with. It was 'paycut or the highway' for them in 2003, they didn't make any 'sacrifices'.