If the salary cap is eliminate, more than competitive balance goes out the window. It would hugely advantage teams willing and able to spend, and those that don't. And I would expect some clubs to fold for those reasons. And that would have a knock-on effect of several things, some of which we can all imagine, other which we might not.
I have just read that part, the first question (still reading the entire article). Thought his part stood out to me: Another GM said, "we risk the game imploding" if spending grows too quickly, noting that European teams' "cost versus revenue is way out of balance." I do like the idea of looking at and adjusting the salary cap every 24 months, or maybe 36 months. And that would align with what we usually see in terms of contract length. Edit 1 (also from the article) One general manager said travel in such a large country, from chartered flights to better hotels and meals, needs to improve to attract top players. Huh, I assumed chartered flights and good hotels was already a norm. I guess not. Have no idea how that compares with other leagues. Edit 2 (more from the article) The question is about USWNT players moving to Europe. "We were talking to a top, top player from Europe who was willing to take a pay cut in this last window, and the pay cut would have had to have been so significant that she couldn't justify it," one GM said. "Players are even willing to take a little less salary [to play here], but we're talking about taking a third off their salary."
I don't understand your point. Real economics are going to drive owners in the leagues that are not run to protect Owners with caps and floors. No blowouts implies teams of similar standard, not necessarily high standard. ONE TEAM, KC dominated the NWSL by more than single team in Europe, no? As far as fans coming to watch their hometown team, I am not convinced that winning or closer games would change that. I don't believe that a viable league means competitive across the board, and the LA example is lost on me.
Probably true. It would be good for some and not so good for others. I am not a believer in franchised leagues for a sport like soccer.
Salary cost certainty is a big part of underpinning franchise values. GMs are always going to vote for someone else spending the money to allow them to get the talent they feel they need. Many of the owners will feel differently, hence the need for it to be anonymous. As constructed, Women's soccer in the USA provides a parent-funded development pipeline that reduces risk for pro Clubs. Several of the "best" players will be cherry-picked by the prospect of playing for the handful of wealthy, prestigious teams. Once you remove the safety nets, owners are on the hook and while a handful will be willing to compete, I cannot see any way 32 owners will want to. I don't see any clear solution to a problem that has been decades in the making. When you are competing in a global pool for talent where you are NOT the dominant player, the Franchise system is a big disadvantage.
The NWSL is a centrally owned League that sells the rights to run a Franchise to approved parties. European leagues are not like that
As a fan, would you be interested in a league that regularly had matched where one team was winning almost every match 5-0 or 7-1 year after year after year? That is the case in France and Spain, where they have two of the best teams on the planet (Barcelona and Lyon). That is because none of the other teams either can or are willing to spend money (for women's teams)*. As a fan, that brings disinterest to the entire league. That is the benefit of NWSL, which most teams have a chance to beat other teams. Yes, this season we saw KC dominate the league with Chawinga. But Kansas City's domination looks to be an outlier, at least based on a quick look over the past 2 seasons. But ignoring KC's domination, 24 points separated 2nd from 14th. Also, other than KC and Washington, playoff position and entry was decided on the last day. Personally, I had 3 matches going as the results of all of them mattered. That is the excitement of having good competition. What is your comparison? We've really only had an independent women's league for 4 years or so (as separated from USWNT paying salaries), so to me, it is important to have a competitive league across the board. * - At least Real Madrid have some willingness to spend, but are not really equal. And PSG have seemed to lose interest in spending.
@soccernutter If there was a return in women's soccer in Spain or France, I am assuming that smart folks would move in and grab it. These are not large countries, and I don't have any idea how many teams they can support. On the USA, talent tends to be a "bell" curve. Having a system where the top of the curve is valued higher by other leagues, you are left with very little distinction in talent. That leads to competitive games. It can also lead to the outliers who stay having a disproportionate impact on results. On a European top team, Rodman is another weapon who is there to help beat the other top teams. She is not required to win 80% of the games. I would ask you why you think more people are not willing to invest in European WoSo and why US WoSo needs to protect owners from themselves?
I disagree. From the ESPN report, people seem to have a problem with the salary implications of such a structure. Some fans here seem to have a problem with Trinity Rodman leaving. For the record, I don't. I think the franchise structure leads to competitive mediocrity. The net flow of the best players will be out of the USA, not into it because elite player development starts young and club/travel soccer is not about finding the best players. It's about parents and coach egos. The width of bottom of the development pyramid can only support a finite number of elite CLubs around the world. The base of that pyramid is determined by the rewards at the very top. I don't see much changing any time soon
I am sorry you don't understand what I wrote. It is quite clear. KC had one dominant season. They do not win it every year like Chelsea, Lyon, Bayern and Barca. You know this. Opta rates the NWSL as the strongest league in the world. We have a salary cap. OPTA ranks the NWSL the strongest football league in the world https://www.reddit.com/r/NWSL/comments/1ozwvu6/opta_ranks_the_nwsl_the_strongest_football_league/
There are only two clubs paying well enough in Europe to land US stars: Chelsea and Lyon. It is funny how people ignore Cascarino, Dali, Berger, Carter, Esther, Cantore all joining the NWSL in recent years.
I dont care what Opta says. It comes down to whether you value the teams at the very top or compare the teams in the middle of the pack. The US system encourages more depth. I am not going to watch a league because I can see teams that are closely matched in mediocrity. Other might enjoy that. I want the team I root for to be excellent and beat the rest of them. It's all good.
Arsenal, Manchester United, Barcelona, PSG can ALL lean on legacy and opportunity to NOT have to pay top dollar to lure US stars from US teams. If you think the list you offer offsets the younger players in their prime who have gone the other way, you are being disingenuous. The NET outflow of talent favours European leagues. Of course, there will be players who come to the USA. No one is ignoring them
I said there are only two clubs paying. You did not dispute that. If you believe in using the men's teams as an attraction, so be it. But the sexist treatment in some of these clubs towards the women is hardly a draw. BTW, Barcelona is broke and selling players off. PSG is a mess. Arsenal is a draw but they do not pay any differently than NWSL clubs.
KC Current would challenge any European team, and I would put my money on them to beat Barca, Chelsea, and Lyon. If you look at Opta, the NWSL doesn't just have the best depth. They have some of the top clubs in the world.
I am not using the Men's teams, and I did not say they pay any differently. They are selling a different product.
Spain and France have, roughly, the same population as England. And they also have fairly significant economies. They don't have a comparable league because people are not willing to spend (talking ownership). That doesn't make sense. If there is bell curve, there will be top talent that is produced, relative to other talent measured on that curve. Not sure if that comparison is US players or world players. But I would argue that if this bell curve is world players, many of those at the higher scored end would be US players. And if adjusting for age, I would also say that the US would have a higher number on getting a higher score. I'm not clear on your point. Because the return on investment isn't there. I disagree with the either/or premise of this question. The league is a franchise system, sure, but that is largely for investments and returns. It does not mean they don't have control of their own teams. Look at KC, who built their own stadium. Or Denver, who is building their own stadium and training facility. And, sure, they all have to work within a salary cap, but that is hardly unique in US sports, explicitly, and in Europe via other means (Financial Fair Play). Down the line, yeah, having a franchise league is not good, but I don't see it as a problem at this point. 10 of 15 said it is a rule they would change. Only 2 of 15 said it should be abolished. They also mentioned it in the context of talent retention, and lack of competition from foreign clubs. What I'm inferring is that they want it raised, but not necessarily abolished, in order to have and keep the best players they can. This is all over the place. Why would the best players form the US move out of the US? What does club soccer have to do with NWSL having the best players (it assumes that the best players are playing elsewhere)? How do teams in the US and around the world find talent in the US? Are parent and coach ego so prevalent that they infect every single elite club team in the US? Are NWSL clubs so inept at finding talent that they are unable to see past those parent and coach egos? What do you mean by "bottom of the development pyramid?" I'm confused by what you mean here and how it relates to the rest of that quote. And does it have any relation to the aforementioned bell curve?
Huh? US players have permanently transferred to only 4 teams in Europe - Arsenal, Chelsea, Lyon, and PSG. And all indications are that PSG is no longer seriously investing in their women's team. And Lyon only have brought in Heaps from the US. I think it is also quite notable that London City didn't bring in any US players during the summer, considering their primary owner. What young player other than A Thompson has moved to Europe, permanently? And can you clarify what you mean by "young" player?
Barca, no. It was tactical brilliance that got Arsenal to beat Barca in the CL final last season. I maintain that Barca are the best team in the world. Chelsea, maybe now, but I don't think so with a full 100% healthy squad at the end of the season. Lyon, maybe, though they look strong right now. I would also add Arsenal to this list, though I think on current form, KC beats them. Saying that, what KC showed is that when they lose 2 key players, they are not the same team. The same cannot be said for teams like Washington and Gotham. Saying that, I would argue that the top 8 teams in the world right now (in alphabetical order) are: Arsenal Barcelona Chelsea Gotham Kansas City Lyon Portland Washington Others to consider: Orlando Seattle Real Madrid Man City Man United Bayern Munich Of course, this is moving away from the purpose of this thread.
General comment: There is a lot more nuance to what is happening internationally in the flow of players from one league to another than a lot of you seem to be considering.
Perhaps state that this is your opinion, not a fact. I disagree. Barca's defense could not handle KC's forwards.
@soccernutter It is a lot to explain in writing. It seems to me that you value certain things that I don't. The sport is only as good as it's development platform. As far as players who left, there are so many. I am surprised you only list Thompson. I don't have any issue with either model. They both have pros and cons. That said, I do not feel the US model is about excellence. It is about protecting owners and their investments