Hey WUSA is viable - it's just not as viable as originally thought. This is not going to be a 7-10k sport. WUSA is going to be a 4-6k sport. The business model needs to be adjusted for that. Hendrickson could continue to fund the league as is - pay the players what they are earning and eat the losses. If he doesn't - somebody will - and that means the players will get paid less - front office staff will be reduced - and expenses across the board will be brought in line with what WUSA is earning from ticketsales and sponsorship. Sponsorship dollars will however shrink simply because WUSA will not have the reach that it was projected to have. That's fine if you can produce a new business model that doesn't need multi-million dollar sponsorship deals - that require national exposure etc. WHAT'S SAD WUSA could have partnered with MLS right from the start - sharing staff - sharing venues - sharing training grounds. The $100 million dollars that was spent marketing WUSA and that at some point could be deemed a waste - could have been used to also help MLS and the sport as a whole had it been applied more reasonably. The rent that Hendrickson is paying the DCSEA and WUSA is paying Spartan could be split with MLS and saved by playing doubleheaders. The collective marketing and spending weight of MLS and WUSA could be leveraged to get better sponsorship deals, value in kind deals and media exposure. WUSA could utilize MLS's infrastructure i.e. finance, hr, admin, sales etc. without having to go through the expensive and time consuming process of creating it's own. The bottom line is that some of the $100 million wouldn't just be poured into the ground - never to be seen again. If WUSA was not successful under an MLS model - then it just wouldn't be successful under any model - and after 3-4 years and the millions that would spent - at least there would be a jointly developed soccer stadium or training facilities or something that would be left. When or if WUSA folds - what will be left beside SAS stadium, memories and the discounted inventory of merchandise? Sure the league will have sparked the imagination of many men and women - but aside from thoughts, ideas and memories there wouldn't be anything left to show for the $100 million that was spent to try and make it happen. In a time when the success of soccer in this country is clawing for survival - it would be more helpful if all of the soccer resources were working together rather than competing against eachother. That's essentially my beef with WUSA - I have felt like the drive to do it independently was ultimatley going to fail - and in the process divert attention and resources away from MLS. The TV deal with PAX clearly demonstrates this - and while the doubleheaders are nice - WUSA seems reluctant to schedule too many. Meanwhile the marketing support that WUSA tv honchos promised when MLS struck a deal to not bid for the league - has not materialized.
Soccer in the USA is still in it's infancy, whether it's the male version or the female version. It's a question of cultural tastes and how they change over time. Financial woes are NOT new to WUSA or MLS, but exist in all sports. Sport is just entertainment, a form of enjoyment and passion for its fans. The big question for wusa is how many loyal fans are there. There's a core base, the 4k-6k number was posted by some one. A large percentage of the 4k-6k are LOYAL frequent woosers. After this loyal base, there's a significant drop-off. The casual sports fan isn't a wusa or even mls fan... The huge key for mls and wusa is persistence, finding a way to continue to exist... it's an experiment without a firm path to success when you think of WUSA, think of the NFL circa 1935.... or NBA circa 1955 those are leagues whose existences were as marginal as WUSA.... the battle is for the love of the game... if you permit the accountants to control the existence of wusa, then it will be a failed league wusa needs to discover it's model for success... as does mls...and they will differ in ways and have similarites... but the birth of wusa is not about making money, but far more social experiment... and a key is, can our culture permit such a social experiment to succeed... to me success, is continued existence
Bora: Just an FYI - his name is John Hendricks not Hendrickson. And...even though he is a wealthy man, he can't and won't continue to finance WUSA as is. His "donation" up to this point has been from his own personal funds - not Discovery's - his corporation. Even for a wealthy man, the continued cash calls have had an impact on his wallet. He and Amos Hostetter agreed to pony up from their own funds - Hendricks because he believed in both the women's and soccer movements - Mr. H. because he believed in Hendricks (see Discovery). While it is certain that Comcast and Time Warner have one foot out the door, I'd have to believe that the two Mr. H's aren't far behind. That leaves Cox and any interested "investors" willing to make future "donations."
Although Columbus and LA are set, and Dallas is on its way, MLS is still largely playing wherever they can too. You're forgetting about the lawsuit MLS players filed around the end of year 1 trying to win the right to negotiate with individual teams instead of just being owned by the league. A number of players do choose to play in the A-League instead of MLS because they make 40-50K instead of 25-30K.
re Obviously this issue is very debatable, and whether or not the founding ladies intiated to take the pay cut, or were forced to make the pay cut, doesn't really matter, because either way they are taking the pay cut. I guess it depends on the perspective of the fan to determine whether or not this move displays nobility or a desperate measure. But do you think the moves that these ladies and the league are taking will be enough? Do you think this league will survive to see a 2004 season?
This is a fascinating, surprisingly civil discussion about a sad topic. Many people have complimented Julie Foudy for years, saying how brilliant she is, how well connected she is, and so on. Others says she is ruthless, anti-MLS and more. Putting all of this aside, I think we can agree that the WUSA is at death's door and it would seem Ms. Foudy deserves some of the blame for this. Being hard-nosed is fine, but remember, lots of people would like to see the league survive. The more fans and potential fans you alienate or inconvenience the fewer fans you get, and the WUSA needs every fan it can find. Adam, good post, but I disagree with your statement: "if you permit the accountants to control the existence of wusa, then it will be a failed league wusa needs to discover it's model for success... as does mls...and they will differ in ways and have similarites... but the birth of wusa is not about making money, but far more social experiment..." I am afraid the WUSA has to make money ultimately or it cannot survive. Someone has to pay for the social experiment and if you can't get fans or TV ratings you have to get investors. Without one of these sources you go under and it has to be that way in a capitalist system. If a rich man or woman wants to subsidize it the way Esterhazy subsidized Hadyn that is fine, but someone has to pay for it. Just my opinions....
Food for thought - at least the writer of this link seems realistic... http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/5685505.htm
It's great to analyze, to constructively critique, but so much of this thread is filled with mere beliefs and speculating. So I wonder... what would YOU do differently- at the beginning of the league; year 1; year 2; and now. What would you do in the future, and how would you rationalize it in terms of success and other subjective factors? Interesting to see what you have to say...and think.
Not acted like we were the big $hits of the world with complete arrogance towards MLS and burning bridges with a lot of the American soccer community.
Beliefs and subjective factors I believe a ton of money is being spent, and I will say that it will continue. Where is the cash cow spending the cash and how do expenditures show on the balance sheet? We've apparently learned nothing from Enron, Global Crossing and many other corporate investors. When paying for your own product and investing in what supports your own product(primary) many times those payments support other investments(secondary), that have very little to do with the primary. Say I bought a horse and the horse eats hay and grain. Say you want the horse to eat a certain kind of grain and a certain quality of hay. Well I, the horse buyer have a group of horse buyer investors who give me certain guidelines to go by, to buy and feed and train my horses. They want the best. They run the show. Right. Wrong. I own the hey and feed company and I make money wether(Ha! Ha!), they do or not. Maybe I get a kick-back from training facilities where they are shown or rode, since I have the only Premier Black and white spotted horses who run all day long and are happy to do it. They wear shoes but investors don't buy those cause we've got sponsors who help us out there. (Not only with the shoes). Now we might be able to get a tax consideration on these new ventures but nobody will know anything about that cause those will be taken by our parent corporation. Well you can see where I'm going with this Never Ending Story. The willy wonka girl brought to mind in a previous post, Veruka Salt, got her Gobstopper but lost the Chocolate Factory in the negotiations. I believe the Big Boys will continue to fund the league till the well runs dry. And the well will be subsidized only if there is money to be made, not by ticket stubs but by considerations other than what us mere posters can imagine. I don't have a clue where the money goes. It's kinda like my nana Rosanna Dana used to say,Rosanna Dana, it's always something, if it ain't one thing it's another. It's kinda like when ya get that itty bitty teeny weiny itsy bitsy little piece of who knows what the heck it is caught right here between your teeth and no matter how many times you take it out it keeps showin up right when you smile. a nevermind But I am thankful to be on the receiving end of the T.V. show em somelove EC
Investors Blamed for WUSA Troubles Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about the problems facing the WUSA and the WNBA. It is of course very sympathetic to the players and attributes the difficulties to "growing pains". Blame is placed squarely on the WUSA investors: "The WUSA investors spent more than 60 million in the league's inaugural season-money that was supposed to last 5 years." I think this type of inaccurate article is part of the problem. All of the press coverage of the WUSA the The Founders has been incredibly positive. Perhaps more critical press reporting would have prevented some of the current difficulties. Someones is responsible for spending 5 years of funding in a couple of months. On the other hand, if Julie Foundy can make a reporter "go away" with a phone call, as someone here suggested, you don't have much incentive to crticize her or other Founders. But you can't expect the investors to pony up more money while they are being blamed for spending it improvidently. Just my opinions.
Doesn't the WSJ have a long history of being right-leaning, pro-business, and anti-labor? Why would they suddenly abandon their political ideals and unfairly spin the story to place all the blame on the investors? Based on their usual journalistic standards I would have thought they'd go to great lengths to blame any and all business failures on labor, and even moreso when the labor in question is a largely left-leaning, feminist player pool epitomized by the likes of Julie Foudy. Isn't it possible that the WSJ actually does paint a reasonably fair and accurate picture of the situation, and that in actuality the distored view is the one promulgated here on BigSoccer by Oliver (in all his incarnations) and his apostles? I mean, I thought I had experienced misogyny before, but Oliver really takes the cake. His obsession with and evident seething hatred for Julie Foudy (who he invariably and tellingly refers to as "Loudy Foudy" or "Floudy") are actually quite disturbing and frightening. Despite the attempts to spin the WUSA's potential failure as (somehow) being caused by that apocryphal remark about "piggybacking on MLS" and that ridiculous story about Foudy "disappearing" a reporter -- give me a break, is Foudy suddenly a disciple of Pinochet and Kissinger? -- it seems to me much more likely that if the WUSA fails it'll be because they couldn't sell enough tickets during the current economic slump, and not because some alleged remark by a player alienated the hordes of ticket-buyers, sponsors, and investors who would otherwise have swept in to save the league. In short, I take everything the WSJ has to say with a grain of salt, but they at least have some -- albeit slanted -- journalistic and editorial standards. In contrast, a never-ending smear campaign started by the most red-carded individual in the history of BigSoccer, a man who seemingly lives to demonize Julie Foudy and any other woman he considers to be too outspoken, a man with a proven track record of making outlandish claims based on supposed "insider" information that later turn out to be false, means precisely nothing. Please, let none of us fall into the trap of thinking that any of the rumors making the rounds on BigSoccer -- even in the unlikely event that they are true -- have any effect whatsoever on real life. Investors and sponsors make their business decisions based on relevant business and economic factors, and not on something some random players may or may not have said in passing three years ago.
The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal does indeed favor managment over labor in almost all situations. But elsewhere in the paper political correctness is quite strong. I have never read a newspaper article in an American paper criticizimg the Founders in even the slightest way. Newspapers in other countries have been blistering in their criticism. My understanding was that the investors ponied up the money and the WUSA management (including Ms. Foudy) made the decisions on how to spend it. The WUSA press releases made much of the fact that they had capital on hand for 5 years when the first season started. Yet within a few months the cash was gone and a cash call made to the investors. I rather doubt the investors made decisions on how to spend the money but that is what the Journal said. I am not sure who Oliver is but there seem to be a lot of sock puppets in this thread. That does not diminish the validity of their comments of course.
Examples, please? Thanks to Druid Squirrel for a level head and eloquence. I've always found the gratuitous Foudy bashing humorous, whether in a Title IX or WUSA context. Sorry, guys, but she continues to be my personal hero. If you have attributable information regarding her positions or actions in the league, cite it. Otherwise, better to stop with the innuendo, as it only weakens your credibility.
Your post, and the responses it will spawn, deserves its own thread. Perhaps you or the mod can start a new one. I think most, if not all, of us can agree that the WUSA has not been the financial success it was envisioned to be. Mistakes have been made in the past. What changes, if any, need to be made to make the WUSA a profitable venture for its investors and its participants? Before Oliver and his detractors hijack this thread, I will keep my response in the context of what this thread and the thread title was all about. That the founders took a 25% pay cut. Specifically: That quote has a hollow ring to it. They're in survival mode, yet, they still perpetuate a caste of the privileged few. When you're one in a group of ship-wrecked survivors that are floating in the middle of a vast ocean, waiting for salvation, you do your best to survive. But one can't maintain this first-class status for a privileged few. If they do, they tend to be the first ones thrown overboard. WUSA's current wage structure is elitist. Foudy and her cabal are entitled to a certain guaranteed wage level. This lofty level is not performance-based, nor earned on the field of play. The privileged few just happened to be in the right place at the right time. It's a sorority of sorts, and will be a closed one for the next few years. Others - the non-founders - are paid at a different, albeit lower level. Yet, there does not seem to be a mechanism nor a process to ensure that top performers from the non-founders can attain the wage level of a Foudy and her cabal. Adam asked if the culture can allow WUSA to succeed as a social experiment. In some perverse way, the WUSA wage structure is indeed a social experiment. In a way, it's some sort of failed Marxist experiment: 1. There are a privileged few -a cabal of Foudy and her apparatchiks, and 2. There are the non-founders - the proletariat. The proletariat are not entitled to the wages a founder makes, nor is there a process to make them do so. Even if one clearly outperforms an underperforming founder. There is a clear distinction between the haves and the have-nots. And that divide will always be there, as long as the ones in power say it will be. Am I to believe that the founders' so-called "sacrifice", that their munificence, is genuine? Personally, I can not say so, not as long as the founders and the WUSA perpetuate their elitism and hubris.
Cachundo...Is that Spanish for "some one who sees the light?" Finally, someone who sees through Floudy and the Flounders Facade and their Financial Farce! Fact: WUSA's salary structure was designed to guarantee that the Flounders would always be the highest paid players, even if their skills did not warrant such. Saskia Webber, despite her swiss cheese like keeper skills, has been collecting and will continue to collect a phat salary. Meanwhile, even if Hope Solo was keeper of the year, she could not even make 50% of that being collected by Swiss Miss - even after her 3rd season! Tracy Ducar and Sara Whalen will continue to collect their booty, despite the fact that they won't be helping their respective teams. Fact: While it's been kept quiet, the Flounders pitched a fit when they learned the salaries of the international players. The Flounders agreed to concessions, those which negatively impacted the "have nots," in exchange for the leagues implementation of a salary cap for those non-US players. $55,000! Not to mention, that figure is inclusive of any transfer fee involved in securing the international playing rights! This was all meant to make certain that the elitists stayed elite! Who fought the hardest for this - Floudy! The last time I checked, Floudy's eroding skills hadn't taken the Spirit to very many wins. Perhaps she should focus on the on-field issues? Which French woman is worth more - Marinette Pichon or Michelle French? Michelle earns twice what Pichon takes home! The Flounders are not martyrs by any means. The majority still have a small equity stake in WUSA, excluding those such as Fair and Webber who took their $50,000 bonus instead of banking on the success of the league. And, lest we not forget that Julie Floudy and Carla Overbeck (her alternate) sit on the Board of Governors. They have a significant say, more than any other professional league, in how things are being done. If WUSA ceases to exist - they should all take a good look in the mirror!
Who ever you are Yellowcard, you do speak the truth! Everything yellowcard has stated is true to the last period. i don't know how he/she knows all of it......But it's all true. Not many know about Fair and Webber taking the money? i thought it was just a handful! i guess not. The max transfer fee for internationals is $10,000 which is a part of the salary. The league set that going into year 2.
If the WUSA was in good shape you can be sure we would hear endless media drum-beating about Ms. Foudy and other Founders. They would get the credit. Since it is in such bad shape, isn't it reasonable to consider whether they also deserve some blame? The Wall Street Journal article is typical of the way the media has handled this. For months, the Journal blamed greedy employees with seniority for the difficulties at United and other big companies. When it comes to the WUSA, employees with seniority are still victims, and the investors are assigned the blame. You don't see the Journal blaming the bankers who loaned money to United for their problems do you? The Founders who finally agreed to pay cuts are depicted in the most sympathetic manner possible. Just my opinions.
Players Union? If the you ever needed to know why the common worker needs equal representation, Cachundo and Yellercards post should help. Even though they( founders), do deserve certain considerations, I see them also bringing down the excellence of play on the field. In womens soccer the USA, we are in need of new talent. For years we've seen the same players with nothing new,W/ the exception of some new recruit to or graduate from the top three soccer universities. It's a social circle that needs to change. We as fans would like to see the best womens soccer has to offer. Not the best the top three universities had to offer. ,
I do not really want to get into this, but the one thing I would add is this: In the NBA and MLB, the rookies are held to a lower pay scale for 3-4 years as well. And, injured players get paid regardless of availability. So those are not unique entities to pro sports. Because the league is young, the free agency part has not yet evolved. Also, overpaid players in most other leagues still get paid. It is called a contract.
Now that you're in it, even though you didn't want to be in it, there's one big difference... Floudy and the Flounders were the ones who set the pay scale and placed there own value at a much higher level than all other players to come. They were certainly aware that there was going to be the "haves" and "have nots." I'd say that's an understatement. The Flounders received $85,000 or $80,000 in the initial year (since been increased) AND a $50,000 bonus AND $25,000 to "relocate." That's $160,000 all totaled as opposed to the majority who make approximately $30,000 or $35,000. Does your heart still bleed for the Flounders? Instead, let it bleed for the undrafted rookie who started the majority of her team's (perhaps in San Jose where there is a high cost of living) games yet makes the league minimum (somewhere in the $20,000's)! She will have to survive for 3 years at that level, even if she leads the league in scoring! Is that fair? Is that a model for long term success? No! Guess what...that women (with a college degree) is going to choose to go get a real job or go live with her fiance as opposed to continue suffering under the Foot of the Flounders! Do you blame her? That means the level of play will suffer...and you get the picture. In the NBA and MLB, Gary Payton and the "Big Unit" did not play a role in the salary scale - except through the Players' Association. And, their initial salaries are more than you and I dream of making! $30,000 is what they get for per diem over a season! Once they have proven themselves, they will be wealthy beyond their dreams. Once a WUSA player has proven herself, she will still never realize a salary like the Flounders. Any way you slice it, the Flounders and Veruca Salt have done nothing but serve themselves. With their careers waning, as skills clearly erode, they are making one last effort to grab what they can on the way out. East Coaster hit the nail on the head! It is a sorority, it is elitist! Where is Martha Burke when you really need her? Floudy once called the national team "Booters with Hooters." How ironic...she's their leader Hootie Foudy!