News & Media II: Articles, photos, videos, etc.

lil_one · Oct 15, 2025

soccernutter said: ↑

Yup. I was thinking about part of the discussion on why the WNT doesn't play in Brasil, and the fee is what struck me as the biggest factor. And thinking about it, I would assume the delegation that travels with the team might also be a factor. It would be nice if those things could be negotiated or even waved as it would mean more experience for the players, but that's not my decision.
Click to expand...

Playing in Brazil is possible, in that the USWNT have done it before, but just maybe not very feasible to do often. In the cycle before the 2016 Olympics, the USWNT did participate in a friendly tournament in Brazil in December 2014 (when Naeher got her first cap after being in camp for 6 years!). Those games being a part of a friendly tournament might have made it easier for the Brazilian federation to host the USWNT. I don't know. Obviously that was also before the 2015 and 2019 WWC wins for the USWNT, so USSF might have to forego any special accommodations or appearance fees that they could command for Brazil to host them nowadays.

psnotyours · Oct 15, 2025

lil_one said: ↑

Playing in Brazil is possible, in that the USWNT have done it before, but just maybe not very feasible to do often. In the cycle before the 2016 Olympics, the USWNT did participate in a friendly tournament in Brazil in December 2014 (when Naeher got her first cap after being in camp for 6 years!). Those games being a part of a friendly tournament might have made it easier for the Brazilian federation to host the USWNT. I don't know. Obviously that was also before the 2015 and 2019 WWC wins for the USWNT, so USSF might have to forego any special accommodations or appearance fees that they could command for Brazil to host them nowadays.
Click to expand...

All of this is after the 2022 lawsuit. I wonder how much money the USWNT is asking when they play outside of the US?
Player pay did go up, but it might be high for a lot of federations to want to play the US in their country

lil_one · Oct 15, 2025

psnotyours said: ↑

All of this is after the 2022 lawsuit. I wonder how much money the USWNT is asking when they play outside of the US?
Player pay did go up, but it might be high for a lot of federations to want to play the US in their country
Click to expand...

Federations asking for an appearance fee for the team wouldn't have much to do with the equal pay lawsuit or the new CBA. The appearance fee for an on the road appearance contracted with a hosting federation for a specific game is not the same as the bonus and pay structure based on the CBA negotiated between the players and their own federation. Those are two different things.

What may come into account though is how the CBA requires certain staffing and accommodations for the team when they travel. If the USSF isn't requesting an on-the-road appearance fee for the USWNT from other federations, they would still require certain accommodations for the entire team and staff by the CBA (certain standard for the hotel and minimum number of staff, for example). The other thing that may also play into it from the CBA standpoint is the minimum number of rostered players for a friendly; the team can't go with a smaller travel roster for an away game due to the CBA requirements.

Allende72 · Oct 15, 2025

So the Italians wanted to come to the US more than host the US in a couple of historic friendlies, but only under their conditions--so we got played and they get paid (by us) to play them. I guess we should expect to succumb to the leverage these other countries now have because of their tight friendly availability and whatever conditions we have for appearing at their venues and their willingness or ability to compensate us.

Regarding playing in Brazil, I guess what you're saying is we would probably be considering this and would have already been negotiating this for perhaps early 2026 (shouldn't Brazil be already in the WC as host and not have to deal with qualifying?) Brazil Federation might not want to foot the bill for us coming to play there.

Looking at the two friendlies last Nov./Dec., we must have gotten a nice appearance fee for helping to fill-up Wembley so that we could take a lesser fee to play in the way smaller venue in Den Haag. I guess I'm just asking that no matter the challenges, we just have to figure a way to get the necessary competition that is more and more out of our control. Since we play so many more home friendlies we are paying an exorbitant amount for this privilege.

soccernutter · Oct 15, 2025

Allende72 said: ↑

So the Italians wanted to come to the US more than host the US in a couple of historic friendlies,
Click to expand...

I think this is missing a lot of context. From the article:

Other times, the venue is what needs to change. The U.S. women's national team will end 2025 with a pair of games against Italy in soccer-specific stadiums in Florida, but the original plan for the international window called for a different European opponent in a baseball stadium 2,500 miles away.

King had agreed to terms with the other opponent for the U.S. women's national team back in the spring. Terry worked through the usual autumn availability problems with American football and soccer stadiums -- MLS playoff dates are not set until the fall -- by coming up with a unique solution: playing the game on Black Friday with the roof closed at T-Mobile Park, the home of MLB's Seattle Mariners. The baseball season would be over by late November, and U.S. Soccer would have time to lay grass over the baseball infield. The roof solved any fear around bad weather; then the opponent's schedule changed for an official competition, and they were unavailable to play a friendly in November and December.

The next team on Hayes' wish list was Euro 2025 semifinalist Italy, but Italian officials did not want to fly their players to the West Coast of the United States in the middle of a European season. Thus, the grand idea of a unique event in Seattle, where the USWNT has not played since 2017, was dead.

We were going to host somebody else, at a place and time that we wanted, and the other team found that location acceptable. But the official scheduled threw a wrench into the planning, and there were adjustments to find a top team, and Italy was next on the list. So we got Italy, but to have them as an opponent, there were changes needed to be made. IOW, Italy has players that play largely in the Italian league, and their team wanted to respect those club teams, but it was also clear that Italy wanted to play the US. So location adjustments were made and we got Italy, and we probably got them cheaper than other opponent. But we got an opponent Hayes wanted.

And that is keeping in mind that we could have played in Italy. Why not? It would be my guess that the fees the US commands were above what Italy was either willing, or able, to pay. We are a bit in a bubble here in the US that we can easily sell out a 25,000 seat stadium, and in some places it might be double or even triple that based on opponent. Italy is probably not so fortunate, so the fees we command are probably too much for Italy.

but only under their conditions--so we got played and they get paid (by us) to play them.
Click to expand...

Our federation is very wealthy, and we probably don't really have a problem paying anybody to come play here. Other federations are not in the same financial position, which makes it somewhat difficult for the US to go somewhere else to play. France, Germany, Spain, and Sweden are all out (one had to withdraw as a friendly opponent) because of the Nations League competition, which suggests one of those teams were the opponent. But Hayes had a list, and the scheduling people did what they needed to do to get the opponent. This is not about getting played by Italy. This is about getting the opponent that Hayes wanted. And it was going to be a home match as that part has already been planned.

I guess we should expect to succumb to the leverage these other countries now have because of their tight friendly availability and whatever conditions we have for appearing at their venues and their willingness or ability to compensate us.
Click to expand...

This is rather win/lose view of scheduling. But that is not how it works. Hayes wanted another opponent, everything was in place for that opponent to come here, and then a scheduling conflict arose. Next up on Hayes' list was Italy. The schedulers did what they needed to do to get Italy, and it happened. If that article had not come out, none of the sausage would have actually been known.

Regarding playing in Brazil, I guess what you're saying is we would probably be considering this and would have already been negotiating this for perhaps early 2026 (shouldn't Brazil be already in the WC as host and not have to deal with qualifying?) Brazil Federation might not want to foot the bill for us coming to play there.
Click to expand...

And I think this is a bit of the bigger issue. As one of the best teams (and arguably the best), we likely command a very high fee. The problem is that outside of a few European countries, it is unlikely that the interest in the women's game is big enough to make those fees reasonable, or even possible. I'd like it if some effort was made otherwise, but I don't have enough information and it is not my call.

Looking at the two friendlies last Nov./Dec., we must have gotten a nice appearance fee for helping to fill-up Wembley so that we could take a lesser fee to play in the way smaller venue in Den Haag. I guess I'm just asking that no matter the challenges, we just have to figure a way to get the necessary competition that is more and more out of our control. Since we play so many more home friendlies we are paying an exorbitant amount for this privilege.
Click to expand...

We are marquee, and it probably would have been strange not to play in Wembley v. England. We were fresh off being Olympic champions, plus Hayes had managed Chelsea for over a decade, so to not play at the home stadium would have been a bit strange. Additionally, the English FA owns Wembley so would not have to pay any rental fee. As for Netherlands, I doubt the fees would have changed any. They just chose the stadium they wanted. I'm sure they could have chosen any stadium and filled it but played in den Haag's stadium, probably like we try to do, to move matches around to different parts of the country.

psnotyours · Oct 15, 2025

Financially speaking, I think it's better and easier to play in the US than to play somewhere else.

soccernutter · Oct 15, 2025

psnotyours said: ↑

Financially speaking, I think it's better and easier to play in the US than to play somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Which has both positives and negatives. On the positive side, we can probably get any team to come to the US that we want. On the negative side, this also probably limits where we can go play.

In truth, I'd like to see the women do a tour of South America (not just Brasil) and do a tour of Africa to build recognition of the game. But unless we wave fees, this probably won't happen any time in the near future.

soccernutter said: ↑

And I think this is a bit of the bigger issue. As one of the best teams (and arguably the best), we likely command a very high fee. The problem is that outside of a few European countries, it is unlikely that the interest in the women's game is big enough to make those fees reasonable, or even possible. I'd like it if some effort was made otherwise, but I don't have enough information and it is not my call.
Click to expand...

I should amend this to add Japan, and possibly Australia and New Zealand and Canada, but I'm not sure. @blissett might have more knowledge of Japan and the fan interest.

blissett · Oct 16, 2025

soccernutter said: ↑

I should amend this to add Japan, and possibly Australia and New Zealand and Canada, but I'm not sure. @blissett might have more knowledge of Japan and the fan interest.
Click to expand...

"Knowledge" is a big word: as well as you didn't know much about how your federation was planning the friendly matches and you only recently discovered thatthrough an article, I don't know much about how it exactly works for JFA (Japan's football association).

What I can say is that I remember that, in the years just after Japan had won the World Cup, it happened that USA played in Japan in a pair occasions: I guess it was part of the effort to support the National Team at a time when they had reached the top of the World, since it even included a sort of "mini-SheBelieves Cup", that was called Women's Kirin Challenge Cup and was probably made possible not only by how much wealthy the Federation was (JFA was anyway never too much inclined to spend for Women's football ) but by the sponsorship of Kirin brewery company, who was already organising similar tournaments for men's football.
See, for instance, Women's Kirin Challenge Cup 2012, that was won by Japan against USA and Brazil.

Anyway, nothing similar happened recently, probably a sign that JFA, Kirin, or both have disinvested from women's football, so I am not sure how likely could it be that JFA would accept to invite the USWNT in Japan: these days they are probably much more confortable taking part to the SheBelieves Cup or to other similar set of friendlies in the USA.

Allende72 · Oct 16, 2025

soccernutter said: ↑

I think this is missing a lot of context. From the article:

Other times, the venue is what needs to change. The U.S. women's national team will end 2025 with a pair of games against Italy in soccer-specific stadiums in Florida, but the original plan for the international window called for a different European opponent in a baseball stadium 2,500 miles away.

King had agreed to terms with the other opponent for the U.S. women's national team back in the spring. Terry worked through the usual autumn availability problems with American football and soccer stadiums -- MLS playoff dates are not set until the fall -- by coming up with a unique solution: playing the game on Black Friday with the roof closed at T-Mobile Park, the home of MLB's Seattle Mariners. The baseball season would be over by late November, and U.S. Soccer would have time to lay grass over the baseball infield. The roof solved any fear around bad weather; then the opponent's schedule changed for an official competition, and they were unavailable to play a friendly in November and December.

The next team on Hayes' wish list was Euro 2025 semifinalist Italy, but Italian officials did not want to fly their players to the West Coast of the United States in the middle of a European season. Thus, the grand idea of a unique event in Seattle, where the USWNT has not played since 2017, was dead.

We were going to host somebody else, at a place and time that we wanted, and the other team found that location acceptable. But the official scheduled threw a wrench into the planning, and there were adjustments to find a top team, and Italy was next on the list. So we got Italy, but to have them as an opponent, there were changes needed to be made. IOW, Italy has players that play largely in the Italian league, and their team wanted to respect those club teams, but it was also clear that Italy wanted to play the US. So location adjustments were made and we got Italy, and we probably got them cheaper than other opponent. But we got an opponent Hayes wanted.

And that is keeping in mind that we could have played in Italy. Why not? It would be my guess that the fees the US commands were above what Italy was either willing, or able, to pay. We are a bit in a bubble here in the US that we can easily sell out a 25,000 seat stadium, and in some places it might be double or even triple that based on opponent. Italy is probably not so fortunate, so the fees we command are probably too much for Italy.

Our federation is very wealthy, and we probably don't really have a problem paying anybody to come play here. Other federations are not in the same financial position, which makes it somewhat difficult for the US to go somewhere else to play. France, Germany, Spain, and Sweden are all out (one had to withdraw as a friendly opponent) because of the Nations League competition, which suggests one of those teams were the opponent. But Hayes had a list, and the scheduling people did what they needed to do to get the opponent. This is not about getting played by Italy. This is about getting the opponent that Hayes wanted. And it was going to be a home match as that part has already been planned.

This is rather win/lose view of scheduling. But that is not how it works. Hayes wanted another opponent, everything was in place for that opponent to come here, and then a scheduling conflict arose. Next up on Hayes' list was Italy. The schedulers did what they needed to do to get Italy, and it happened. If that article had not come out, none of the sausage would have actually been known.

And I think this is a bit of the bigger issue. As one of the best teams (and arguably the best), we likely command a very high fee. The problem is that outside of a few European countries, it is unlikely that the interest in the women's game is big enough to make those fees reasonable, or even possible. I'd like it if some effort was made otherwise, but I don't have enough information and it is not my call.

We are marquee, and it probably would have been strange not to play in Wembley v. England. We were fresh off being Olympic champions, plus Hayes had managed Chelsea for over a decade, so to not play at the home stadium would have been a bit strange. Additionally, the English FA owns Wembley so would not have to pay any rental fee. As for Netherlands, I doubt the fees would have changed any. They just chose the stadium they wanted. I'm sure they could have chosen any stadium and filled it but played in den Haag's stadium, probably like we try to do, to move matches around to different parts of the country.
Click to expand...

Man, did you feel the need to destroy my lousy rant! (jk). One thing I kind of found out through this debate was that the Europeans (at least a few I checked who were good teams) and may be most teams play most of their friendlies at home! Now they don't play anywhere near as many friendlies as we as their annual schedule is usually full of official UEFA games requiring home and away fixtures so they can get really competitive away games regularly making adventurous away friendlies unnecessary. We, the US don't have that competitive schedule so I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to put an emphasis on striving to find some away friendlies, if not annually, at least biannually. Not saying it would be easy to achieve but on a four-year cycle that places two major world tournaments back-to-back years ie. WC then Olympics, we then have a two and a half year span to fill-out quality friendlies.

Another thought I had was that the gift of Michelle Kang to US Soccer last year may have some application to this or at least defray some of the additional costs to improve friendlies, if not for the seniors, at least for the youth.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...ric-investment-in-us-soccer-and-womens-sports

Another thought about expanding the friendly field, somehow get more exposure to African teams, either home or away--not saying I know how to do it, but there could be some one-offs about establishing connections with the region. The African players are hidden gems in this sport and we need to take a more in-depth look at getting some more games there or here--knowing we've had some recent friendlies with Nigeria notwithstanding.

soccernutter · Oct 16, 2025

Allende72 said: ↑

Man, did you feel the need to destroy my lousy rant! (jk).
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry about that. I read it back and it really seems over the top. Again, sorry.

One thing I kind of found out through this debate was that the Europeans (at least a few I checked who were good teams) and may be most teams play most of their friendlies at home! Now they don't play anywhere near as many friendlies as we as their annual schedule is usually full of official UEFA games requiring home and away fixtures so they can get really competitive away games regularly making adventurous away friendlies unnecessary. We, the US don't have that competitive schedule so I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to put an emphasis on striving to find some away friendlies, if not annually, at least biannually. Not saying it would be easy to achieve but on a four-year cycle that places two major world tournaments back-to-back years ie. WC then Olympics, we then have a two and a half year span to fill-out quality friendlies.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I hadn't considered that European teams have more required matches.

Another thought I had was that the gift of Michelle Kang to US Soccer last year may have some application to this or at least defray some of the additional costs to improve friendlies, if not for the seniors, at least for the youth.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...ric-investment-in-us-soccer-and-womens-sports
Click to expand...

Certainly this helps, but I'm not sure how this would effect playing fees asked, on either side. I'd really like to know how much the US commands.

Another thought about expanding the friendly field, somehow get more exposure to African teams, either home or away--not saying I know how to do it, but there could be some one-offs about establishing connections with the region. The African players are hidden gems in this sport and we need to take a more in-depth look at getting some more games there or here--knowing we've had some recent friendlies with Nigeria notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Yup. There are a few here and there, but the coverage, and therefor exposure, is lacking. It would create a lot of good will if the US did this.

Allende72 · Oct 16, 2025

@soccernutter nah thought your response was measured and insightful, you kinda explained the article better to me than my own reading did! sometimes I feel I carry my attitude toward our federation from my time following the men's team and it somehow gets me riled now that I'm exclusively following the women's team.

lil_one · Oct 16, 2025

Allende72 said: ↑

...We, the US don't have that competitive schedule so I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to put an emphasis on striving to find some away friendlies, if not annually, at least biannually. Not saying it would be easy to achieve but on a four-year cycle that places two major world tournaments back-to-back years ie. WC then Olympics, we then have a two and a half year span to fill-out quality friendlies.
Click to expand...

Sure there can be improvements on the overall quality of opponents, but the USWNT already do what you're asking. Despite the frequent complaints in this forum, the USWNT does already play away friendlies on an almost annual basis, this year notwithstanding. From the last 15 or so years, friendly matches played away:

2024: away friendlies in England and the Netherlands
2023: away friendlies in New Zealand
2022: away friendlies in England and Spain
2021: away friendlies in Australia
2020: away friendly in the Netherlands (despite COVID)
2019: away friendlies in France and Spain
2018: away friendlies in Portugal and Scotland
2017: away friendlies in Norway, Sweden, and Canada
2016: none
2015: away friendlies in England and France
2014: away friendly tournament in Brazil plus Algarve Cup
2013: away friendlies in Germany, Netherlands and Canada plus Algarve Cup
2012: Algarve Cup plus away friendlies in Japan and Sweden
2011: friendly tournament in China plus Algarve Cup; friendly in England
2010: Algarve Cup
2009: Algarve Cup plus away match in Canada and Germany

For African teams, many of them don't play friendlies much at all, home or away. I think their federations just don't want to put the work in to organize those (or pay for them) for their women's teams.

Allende72 · Oct 16, 2025

Though with the advent of UEFA Nations League won't it become more difficult to achieve this as the years go on?

Allende72 · Oct 16, 2025

Well, with regard to Africa, can't we aspire to take the lead in getting more games?

Allende72 · Oct 16, 2025

lil_one said: ↑

Sure there can be improvements on the overall quality of opponents, but the USWNT already do what you're asking. Despite the frequent complaints in this forum, the USWNT does already play away friendlies on an almost annual basis, this year notwithstanding. From the last 15 or so years, friendly matches played away:

2024: away friendlies in England and the Netherlands
2023: away friendlies in New Zealand
2022: away friendlies in England and Spain
2021: away friendlies in Australia
2020: away friendly in the Netherlands (despite COVID)
2019: away friendlies in France and Spain
2018: away friendlies in Portugal and Scotland
2017: away friendlies in Norway, Sweden, and Canada
2016: none
2015: away friendlies in England and France
2014: away friendly tournament in Brazil plus Algarve Cup
2013: away friendlies in Germany, Netherlands and Canada plus Algarve Cup
2012: Algarve Cup plus away friendlies in Japan and Sweden
2011: friendly tournament in China plus Algarve Cup; friendly in England
2010: Algarve Cup
2009: Algarve Cup plus away match in Canada and Germany

For African teams, many of them don't play friendlies much at all, home or away. I think their federations just don't want to put the work in to organize those (or pay for them) for their women's teams.
Click to expand...

Thanks for digging-out this data, I find it really useful.

lil_one · Oct 16, 2025

Allende72 said: ↑

Though with the advent of UEFA Nations League won't it become more difficult to achieve this as the years go on?
Click to expand...

A crowded UEFA schedule makes it more difficult for European teams, but I don't think that means that away friendlies as a whole are a thing of the past.

I mean, I feel pretty confident, given what we've seen in the past, that the federation is putting in effort to play a friendly in Brazil, or at least in South America, next year. That doesn't mean it'll actually get scheduled, and we'll find out about it, but I'm sure they're at least pursing it since they've typically tried to do a preliminary trip to the location for a WWC in the last few cycles (In 2019 and 2023, they had it down to such a science that the team was staying at the same hotel during the friendlies that they'd use in at least 1 of the group stage games.)

Allende72 said: ↑

Well, with regard to Africa, can't we aspire to take the lead in getting more games?
Click to expand...

I guess we can aspire to, but you can't force another federation to host you or even to want to host you. If you look at various African teams, even the better funded ones, you'll see that many just don't play many friendlies at all. Additionally, several of the those African nations have a good number of their first team players playing overseas already, and they seem to prefer playing any friendly overseas where it is also easier for their own players to get there and have access then also to better facilities and depending on the country, also perhaps less concern about security.

If it ever were to happen, somewhere like Morocco or South Africa seem the most likely (even though our most frequent friendly CAF opponent is Nigeria). I just don't think we're there yet. But, I'll go ahead and make my prediction: whenever CAF in the future does win a bid to host a senior WWC, the USWNT will play a friendly there before then.

psnotyours · Oct 17, 2025

lil_one said: ↑

A crowded UEFA schedule makes it more difficult for European teams, but I don't think that means that away friendlies as a whole are a thing of the past.

I mean, I feel pretty confident, given what we've seen in the past, that the federation is putting in effort to play a friendly in Brazil, or at least in South America, next year. That doesn't mean it'll actually get scheduled, and we'll find out about it, but I'm sure they're at least pursing it since they've typically tried to do a preliminary trip to the location for a WWC in the last few cycles (In 2019 and 2023, they had it down to such a science that the team was staying at the same hotel during the friendlies that they'd use in at least 1 of the group stage games.)

I guess we can aspire to, but you can't force another federation to host you or even to want to host you. If you look at various African teams, even the better funded ones, you'll see that many just don't play many friendlies at all. Additionally, several of the those African nations have a good number of their first team players playing overseas already, and they seem to prefer playing any friendly overseas where it is also easier for their own players to get there and have access then also to better facilities and depending on the country, also perhaps less concern about security.

If it ever were to happen, somewhere like Morocco or South Africa seem the most likely (even though our most frequent friendly CAF opponent is Nigeria). I just don't think we're there yet. But, I'll go ahead and make my prediction: whenever CAF in the future does win a bid to host a senior WWC, the USWNT will play a friendly there before then.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to money. I imagine that it's not cheap to host the USWNT. Brazilian women's soccer is known for a lack of funding. The same goes for a lot of countries in Africa.