Absolutely untrue. A bad business plan coupled with a front office staff who was unable to sell any corporate sponsorships is what killed the WUSA. Feminism, whether radical or not, had nothing to do with it. you keep repeating this canard, but it doesn't make it true.
Aren't some of the worst business decisions (antagonism towards MLS, failure to market to fathers) related to a political agenda?
Andy, I agree other factors had an impact too. But the mindset behind the WUSA colored a lot of bad decisions. They hired a top executive from the ranks of Hillary Cinton's staff. I don't think the woman knew anything about sports or running a sports league but it did keep things cozy with the Clinton camp. Another woman had never even seen a soccer game before. The commissioner had feminist bona fides but didn't she work in croquet before the WUSA? Big difference. Going head on head with the MLS was a bad move but they stuck with it long after nearly everyone agreed it was hurting the league. WUSA paid for TV time and paying customers can negotiate time slots and terms. They wanted the MLS timeslot and went down with it. Do you thinkg they could have done anything more to antagonize male fans, MLS and the USSF? they succeeded at this. The WUSA had no female investors but the male investors were blamed for the league's management decisions. No wonder they pulled the plug. Just my opinions
What antagonism towards MLS. I don't know what your involvment with the front offices of MLS and the WUSA is/was, but I don't consider choosing to take one's own path to be "antagonistic." I refused to learn from my father's experience, but I'm not antagonistic towards him, just hard-headed, and it has nothing to do with politics. It has more to do with ego than politics. There's a reason why you see a lot of successful startups that have to force their founder out of the nest. Once you succeed at business, one tends to think that they can make anything work. The problem was hubris, not animosity.
I have asked you repeatedly. Who is blaming the "male investors" for the league's management decision? - And Oliver Tse doesn't count. You keep saying this, but most of the "blame" I've seen has fallen on the two female CEOs the league had.
Well for one a former WUSA general manager, all in her own words, blamed it on the usual suspects: male sports, Nike and Lebron. And all without the slightest mention of their own ineptitude. Remember, SHE wrote this entire article herself, so there is nothing that can be taken out of context. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/09/22/editorial4.html
When the 1999 WWC was held, the small U.S. soccer community pulled together to make it a success. This includes the MLS. At the games, a video was played that was very antagonistic to American men. So were the ads and other publicity during the hype. After the win, the Eternals basically told the USSF, which had lost money on women's soccer for years, to take a hike. Hank Steinbecher went away, the Eterrnals went on strike, and got the replacements to go on strike. The Eternals made it perfectly clear that they were willing to stay on strike for good rather than cooperate with the USSF. When the WUSA got going, a lot of the publicity went to attack the MLS and men's soccer. When Ms. Brandi Chastain was interviewed on Jay Leno for the umpteenth time he asked her about the MLS. She said: "What's that?" Ms. Foudy told reporters: "We win cups, we don't wear them." Much effort was expended portraying the MLS as some kind of 5th rate league while the WUSA had "the best players in the world". All of these shenanigans did nothing to help build a WUSA fan base. When the WUSA was clearly on the ropes the Wall Street Journal published a cloying artice that was debated here: "For the love of the game." Blame for the spending spree was placed squarely on the investors. You reap what you sow.
... that's not what Freud would say. Andy, I realize that you have some inside perspectives and I don't. But without going back into the "piggy-backing" threads, it was apparent that WUSA did some things to place itself in opposition to MLS. I realize that there were double-headers in some places, but certainly not during the first couple of years here in San Jose.
It all goes back to revenue generation. There is no evidence that Women's team sports can produce the kind of sustainable revenue that would make corporate America jump up and take notice. There IS evidence that a single, talented basketball player can produce revenue.
1) That's not the "media" 2) She's not blaming WUSA's "male investors" which is the accusation that Tom keeps bringing up over and over and over again.
Andy, the Journal article blamed the investors. You posted in that thread so I think you remember it. The article had pictures of Ms. Foudy and Ms. Chastain, who evidently were interviewed for the article. Others, such as Ms. Bjornsrand, blamed male-dominated corporate America for the demise of the WUSA.
This would be the media, then: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/6780599.htm Now the fact that Bjornsrud is not the media but an actual WUSA team executive is even worse IMO. Here is a team executive who in her article demonstrates no understanding of business or sports marketing, but seems pretty headstrong in her expectations of entitlement to her cause. As far as directly blaming "male investors", well I doubt anybody is going to spell that phrase out exactly, but you get the drift from articles like the ones I posted: That is that big companies like Nike, McDonalds, etc...(which are run by males) care only about male athletes, shun women's sports and give them no chance to succeed and only pay them lipservice.
Excellent post e honda. The link you cited is similar to articles published all over the U.S. It is the same press release that blames "corporate America". If corporate American could make money off women's sports they would be lining up to do it. They can't make money off it so they give donations to the Women's Sports Foundation and other advocacy groups. They are not going to donate twice. They gave at the office. Imagine if a college wrestler demanded that his team get the same funding as the basketball team, including a new stadium and the same expenses spent on recruiting. He would get laughed off campus. A ten year old would not make that argument. But that is exactly the argument feminist groups make and that mentality has carried over to the WUSA. They think they are entitled to continued subsidies. When Freddy Adu signed a deal with Nike for 1 million, did any male fans scream how unfair ir is that Freddy got 1 million and Lebron James got 78 million? Of course not. They understand capitalism, supply and demand. WUSA II has no chance of succeeding unless they get new management that understands the difference between a business and a charity.
No, that's an op-ed piece. It is by a league executive. Where are the sports analysts and commentators. Where are the Grant Wahl's, the Soccer America gang, the Mark Connelly. Where are the beat writers for the WUSA. That's "media".
As far as the first article being an op-ed piece from a WUSA team exec, I stated above that I think it looks EVEN WORSE when that kind of non-sense comes from somebody of her (now former) position. The second article (you confused this article with the first article, which was the op-ed piece) which bashes corporations for their lack of support was written by Filip Bondy of the New York Times. I'll risk saying the New York Times qualifies as being part of the media, unless the defintion has suddenly narrowed to some very select group. Articles as such as these only bash corporations for not "doing the right thing", failing to support women's soccer and giving a high school kid $90 million, all the while failing to mention how the $90 million kid is going to give a very handsome return to his investor. I think the actual soccer analysts (such as Soccer America, Grant Wahl) have had a pretty objective take on the WUSA situation, as reading through those articles, I don't get the sense that they think anything was "taken away" from women, or that women deserve a league just because they work just as hard as the men, etc, etc, etc....They give pretty objective viewpoints as to why the league failed.
Andy: "Show me evidence of this massive conspiracy proving point X." Tom: "Here's one piece." Andy: "(A) That's one piece. (B) That's not even relevant to your point." Tom: "It's relevant because point X is true." Andy: "Show me evidence of point X." Tom: "You've forgotten point Y." Andy: "OK, show me evidence of point Y." Billy Preston: "Will it go 'round in circles ..." (e-honda: You're confusing "male WUSA investors" with "men in general." Go back and check Andy's original objection.)
That's an interesting article. Does it reflect the thinking of WUSA management? Is Marlene saying the problem is basically a sexual discrimination issue? Or am I not reading her right? [What makes LeBron James worth the total amount spent on the WUSA in its three-season history?] Good question. The key to understanding WUSA's problem lies in the answer. Hint: It's not about reading to children in schools. It's about money and risk vs. reward. Is WUSA supposed to be a business or a social program?
It's a business that makes the best possible case for itself. Consider men's sports for a minute. Phoenix has built arena after arena, stadium after stadium using public money in the past few years. (I saw a great story about it recently, but I've misplaced the link.) The city wants to upgrade its image and is sticking its own money -- not Nike's, not Pepsi's -- into the effort. Isn't that more of a social program than what's being argued here? If I were a WUSA executive (I'm male, btw), I probably wouldn't argue that the league deserved LeBron money. But would I point out that Mia Hamm had sold plenty of products? Would I make the case that being associated with the Washington Freedom is good for your public image? That's like asking if a defense attorney would present evidence showing someone else's prints on the murder weapon. You may think the WUSA sales pitch falls short, that sponsors won't get that much impact for their money. That's fine. But I don't think we can conclude that their sales pitch constitutes "entitlement," a "social program" or anything along those lines. Frankly, that's a double standard.
Now be nice, Beau. I try to be polite to everyone, including you. I don't think the "we are entitled to this" line of reasoning is going to fly. WUSA should be pitched as something fun, getting in on the ground floor of something that could grow. If people want to take a political message from it and feel it is socially progressive, that is fine. But don't push that. By the way, I think you would be interested in the new Title IX guidelines that came out this week. The tea leaves, and the possible ramifications for women sports teams, are intriguing.
No, Tom, you don't, unless you consider it polite not to assume what someone else is saying even when they're saying something else entirely. I just spent a rather long post explaining why the WUSA sales pitch is NOT from the "we are entitled to this" school. If you don't want to read it, fine. But your response is more than a little dishonest. That's not polite.
Not that you addressed my questions or anything... Oooh, you promise? If this is one of my free ones, then.... I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on this - you and some other tin-foil hat-wearers on a message board somewhere are pissed because the US outplayed Germany and lost, so you needed a scapegoat to make your anger palatable to you, so that is pretty clear evidence of a fix, but 30,000 people in Foxboro is a "small crowd." Just want to make sure what contradictions we're dealing with here.
Beau, I don't have time to analyze, agree with or disagree with all the posts here. Plus lots of my posts get moved or deleted so a lot of the time I feel the hell with it. I read your post about Phoenix and I was a little confused. I think you are saying that Phoenix-or other cities-building stadiums may not make sense from a money perspective but it does from a social contract perspective. The crazy situation we have with private sports franchises arm-twisting municipalities into building new stadiums is interesting but I am not so sure it applies here. The more stadiums we have, the better it is for WUSA II. Here in Chicago, it looks like we will finally get a Firehouse in 2006 and is good news for people who want to see women's soccer here. Having a selection of stadiums makes it easier to start or maintain a league. I am sure the Fire would cooperate if the USWNT wanted a game there. Try making that argument to Mayor Reinsdorf and U.S. Cellular Field, or whatever it is called this week. The WUSA had its own stadium problems, with the Beat getting kicked out of Georgia Tech and other issues. Will there be a WUSA team in Phoenix in 2007? I don't know the answer to that. But at least there will be a place for them to play, even if the payment for such stadiums was improvident. Finally, Mia Hamm is indeed famous but she has announced her retirement. Other Founders are too old to play at a high level. The WUSA II cannot be built on their fame. We need a fresh approach.
Sure, it's a social program, but one that people want and will choose to pay for with their own tax dollars. Ultimately, it comes down to being something that the people in the Phoenix area want. There have also been plenty of ballpark/arena measures in pro sports cities that have been shot down by voters and two NBA franchises in the past two years have been run out of town and forced to relocate. Mia Hamm has sold plenty of products. Far more by herself as an individual than the Washington Freedom or the WUSA as a league. And Nike pays her more than anyone else is willing. Just the same, Nike pays Lebron and not the Cleveland Cavs. They sponsor him and barely have to worry about marketing him because the NBA does most of it for them. They just make sure people know he's associated with Nike and the NBA with its hype machine and the Cavs 82 game a year schedule does the rest. Point is, Nike benefits a lot more from the NBA/Cavs than the NBA/Cavs benefit from Nike. I'm sure associating themselves with the Wash Freedom is good for their image, but point is Nike would have to do more legwork by themselves and pour more of their own money into promoting this. All this for a team in a league that may not be around from one year to the next. So they go the easy and convenient route by sponsoring guys like Lebron, who plays in a league that Nike knows is going to be around for the forseeable future. Don't have a problem with their sales pitch at all. Someone can pitch their product any way they see fit. What falls short is their expecations for THEMSELVES as to how their business can be run. Their expections are that men have the right to play professional sports, so women should have that right to. The truth in the real world is that nobody (men or women) has that right. You don't have that right. What you have instead is the prospect of economic viability.
There are all kinds of things I would like to see performed but will never be performed because they are not economically viable. The Lyric Opera of Chicago has never done Aaron Copland’s opera, “The Tender Land.” There is a chance they will do it but not much of a chance. They are more likely to make money by staging Madame Butterfly a 7th time. If they take too many chances with modern operas they will go out of business. I have been trying for years to get an opera company-any opera company-to stage Tagore’s Valmiki Pratibka. If, in 2040, long after I am gone, someone in the U.S. stages it, think of me. I think it is magnificent, but no opera company wants to take this risk. The Indians think it is too European, the opera people think it is too Indian. Now, if I wanted to write a check to Lyric for 3 million dollars, I think they would find a way to stage it. But I would take the risk. Lyric cannot take such a risk. The WUSA II with the same management that made such a mess of things the first time is seen as a charity, not a viable commercial proposition. If someone wants to donate the money for it fine. But don’t expect businesses to take a risk on it.
And yet you "respond." Fair enough. We almost agree here. We've agreed that sales pitches can include intangible benefits such as promoting a city or associating a sponsor's name with a feel-good thing like professional women's soccer. I also agree that expectations were too high and may still be too high. But I don't think it's because the powers that be believe in a "right" to play professionally. I don't think soccer has a "right" to be covered in the mass media, but it doesn't stop me from making a case where I think it warrants coverage. Close enough to agreement for a Friday, though.