NWSL State of the Union - moving toward 2018

Can someone explain how the USA-Canada-Mexico associations support the league? Money? Players?
Also, is this league single entity like MLS, or its own version of that?
I would hate to see this league start to run into more problems. We can't afford to loose another women's league.
I know there are pro and cons, but WMLS might have been a better option- not ever MLS owner would want a team, but the ones that do should be co-branded and better supported from the front office, to marketing, to training grounds etc.
I think KC to SLC is a good move. Would like to see the SkyBlue partner with NYRB or NYFC. Freedom with United etc.

 

I'll take a try at this and others will pitch in:

The US and Canadian federations allocate national team players to the NWSL. The Mexican federation initially did too, and still may allocate some but does fewer now, I believe, since its players weren't getting much playing time -- which could change in the future. The players initially were allocated roughly equally to specific teams, but they have been traded some. For new federation-allocated players, there are NWSL rules about how they get distributed among teams. This has been very important to the NWSL, since it has the federations absorbing the pay for a significant number of players in the league, including a major portion of the top players. There is an increasing number of players from Brazil playing in the NWSL, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Brazil coming on board with an "allocated player" program in the future. The same is true of Australia, especially since the Australian and NWSL seasons are in different time periods so that a good number of Aussies play in the NWSL and a good number of Yanks play in Australia's W-League.

Beyond the "federation allocated" players, the US Soccer Federation also provides some central office support for the NWSL.

Yes, the NWSL is a single entity. The non-federation players' contracts actually are with the NWSL, not with the individual clubs. Each club is an "operator" who contracts with the NWSL to operate a team.

The NWSL is separate from MLS. Some of the NWSL "operators" also have MLS teams and some don't. The current NWSL teams affiliated with MLS teams are Portland, Salt Lake, Houston, and Orlando. Also, Chicago may have some kind of relationship with Chicago's MLS team, at least in relation to stadium use.

I'm sure there have been explorations by the other non-MLS affiliated teams in regard to relationships with the MLS teams in their areas. So far, any explorations appear to not have yielded fruit.

 

Mexico no longer provides any monetary support to NWSL. Canada and the US both pay for the club salaries of their allocated/subsidized players. The US subsidizes about 22-24 players while Canada subsidizes 10-11 players. The US federation also provides front office support for the league.

And yes, NWSL is single entity.

Despite the Breakers recently folding, no one is concerned right now that the league itself will fold. The NWSL, while its had bumps in the road, is still in a better financial position than the previous two women's leagues, especially when each were on life support in their last season; the league does not seem to be in danger of folding any time soon.

 

I'd add NC Courage to the list as it is affiliated with a men's team, albeit a USL team. That's actually one reason, among others, to not have a version of WMLS, as it opens the doors for strong USL teams to also operate NWSL teams.

 

Right, although I wonder if they have aspirations to field an MLS team at some point. But whether they do or not, I think it's a great market area for soccer and specifically for women's soccer.

canammj, one of the big discussions going on is whether all NWSL teams should be affiliated with MLS teams. I think there are good opinions that having all MLS affiliates would not be a good thing for the foreseeable future. lil_one's post gives an example of why. Chicago's situation is another example. The thought has been that other "operator" options should be pursued to see what works and what doesn't, and that people who have invested (and "lost") a lot historically in women's pro soccer should be in a position to continue operating teams.

On the other side, teams are subject to a salary cap, which keeps the salaries of the lowest-paid players very low, even with salary cap increases over the last few years. The MLS-affiliated teams appear to be the most successful financially, but the salary cap is set to allow all the teams to continue in operation. What this means is that teams that could afford to pay more aren't allowed to. This, in turn, means the non-federation players have to play for less money than some of the teams could afford to pay them.

This makes for a very difficult situation that I think is going to be addressed over the next few years. How it will end up, who knows? I hope that the diverse "operator" situation will be able to continue, at least for some teams, but whether that situation will be economically realistic remains to be determined.

 

RE: Chicago - If I recall correctly, both the MLS and NWSL Chicago teams are simply tenants in the stadium, because I think Toyota Park is owned and operated by the Village of Bridgeview. I know MRAD has gotten the distinct feeling that the MLS team has a somewhat antagonistic view of the NWSL team, seeing them as competition instead of as partners.

RE: WMLS - I'm with most of the posters in the thought that NWSL launching as a subsection of MLS would have been a bad idea - it would have doomed the WoSo operation to being viewed as secondary to BroSo, in addition to how that would have limited other potentially strong ownership groups, whether from other men's teams or from historically strong independent women's teams. I think it's fine for the majority of teams to be affiliated with MLS - it certainly is the case around the world now that the best WoSo clubs are those that are getting support from their associated men's team - but having the league open to other options helps with diversity and potential opportunities.

RE: stability - I'll echo lil_one in that, despite how the league has seen three original teams "die" in the past 14mo or so, two have been replaced by stronger operating groups, so we have a step up in that sense. We have the major TV+media deal in place, which WPS didn't have (and WUSA didn't have the media aspect). And even with the contraction of the Breakers, we're still at more teams than either WUSA or WPS had at any point in their histories - not to mention NWSL is at year six, when the other two leagues folded after three seasons each. The "problems" we've seen in NWSL are team-specific instead of league-wide, so the leagues is still in a good place. The details of the Breakers situation may have been particularly painful and maybe could have been avoided if handled better, but I think NWSL 2.0 comes out stronger in the long run after this offseason.

 

However, the league may actually, in theory, end up along the lines of being WMLS. The fact that the league, after it started, has only given out three franchises, all being to MLS clubs, makes you wonder. To add to that, if the report holds up that there could be as many as three more MLS clubs in 2019, then we are talking about 7 of the 12 franchises being owned by MLS clubs.

 

Not to get too far off topic, but no need to wonder. NCFC have publicly stated their aspirations to get an MLS franchise. They recently hosted a big dog and pony show in Raleigh for the MLS, but missed the cut. They are now focused on the next round of MLS expansion: http://www.northcarolinafc.com/news_article/show/861575?referrer_id=3599784

 

Well, you're wrong on one point - the league has given out four franchises, (HOU, ORL, NC, UTR) one of which went to USL ownership (NC).

Also, the current situation is that it's individual MLS operators choosing to opt in to an independent NWSL - a literal WMLS as most people talk about it would be run out of the MLS offices as a subdivision, where the MLS teams would be expected to but could opt out of fielding women's sides. Think of it as brother-sister as opposed to parent-child. Optically, it might look similar, but operationally could be (and currently is) quite a different situation.

 

I said theory! I never indicated they would be connected with the MLS.

It is my understanding that that was a purchase, that NCFC bought the WNY franchise.

 

Fair point, it was a direct transfer of ownership instead of creating a new franchise outright. The optics are a little blurry between the WNY->NC and KC->UTR changes, though, even if the operational difference is clear - either way, a new ownership group was welcomed in to the league.

 

They issued RSL a new franchise before folding the KCFC franchise. So actually for a short time there were 11 franchises.

For that matter, so was the Ownership transfer for KCFC to Baer the year before would have also been a ownership change. Unfortunately it looks like independent ownerships may be at the end of the line because of that mess.

 

Interesting comment from the wake of the historic Chicago-Portland double-header:

As @SandHerrera_ first reported last night, the team is still looking for a new kit sponsor. League minimum for sponsorship was apparently increased this season to $250,000.

— John D. Halloran (@JohnDHalloran) April 1, 2018

First time I've heard of a league minimum for sponsorships of any kind, but I guess it makes sense. Chicago certainly meets facilities minimums (which Seattle will have to worry about) and was one of the few teams to grow attendance form 16 to 17 (as did the other low-draw team, Sky Blue) and I would assume is paying middle-of-the-pack for total team salary, but if they can't meet some of these other league minimums that we don't normally hear about, then there might be a bit more to worry about.

 

Plus now they will have to deal with a board that could enact even tougher league requirements.