NWSL vs European Leagues.

Is this accurate? In looking at Wikipedia, only Lindsay Horan was a recent non-NWSL call-up. Players do seem to go over for a season or two, but they don't seem to stay that long.

 

Takes like this have been popping up fairly consistently over the past 5+ years without any significant sign of any large scene change for where players play. I don't see any reason to expect it to be "actually changing for real this time" now.

Besides, Lawrence and Macario weren't in NWSL to begin with. Them signing elsewhere in Europe vs where they've been recently isn't saying much. If anything at all, it's a sign that England is taking players from France.

 

Debinha was a recent big international signing who had options in Europe. She chose NWSL.

 

That's not true for every club. Under their previous owner, Lyon is one of the few womens' teams that paid their players very well. There's a reason why Lyon dominated the Champions League in recent history.

 

No. The NWSL is the best paying league in the world. Yes, international clubs do not have a salary cap, but that doesn't mean they spend freely.

https://the18.com/en/soccer-news/nwsl-salaries-2022-how-much-womens-soccer-players-make

 

Of course I do not. We know what none of these players make. It is all speculation on the internet. But the interest in her was reported widely, especially by Arsenal:

https://herfootballhub.com/arsenal-target-debinha-joins-kc-current/

 

Women's Euro 2022: Apart from Lyon and Paris, French football falls below international standards

As the Euros starts on Wednesday, French women's football – which is totally dominated by Olympique Lyonnais and PSG – must become more professional to avoid falling further behind its European neighbors.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/ar...-below-international-standards_5989172_9.html

 

Staggering numbers. These don’t compare what Premier League clubs spent on men’s vs women’s players.

They compare what the clubs spent on *player agent fees for men’s teams vs the entirety of women’s club expenses.* https://t.co/gpQtgeK846 pic.twitter.com/zbk88uVtOE

— Rachel Bachman (@Bachscore) May 22, 2023

 

I say it's a take because the talking point has been repeated so much any time *one or two* big-name players happens to sign in Europe. Horan to PSG, Kerr to Chelsea, etc. But it's always just a player or two each year, often ignoring the times that NWSL keeps or even "steals" a player in the other direction.

It's true that the UEFA superclubs can often pay top players well into the six figures - but there are only so many of those spots available, and as has been pointed out, NWSL is generally better-paying for everyone except for that very upper echelon, and even in the upper echelon, NWSL's allocation money keeps the league financially competitive even if they're not consistently the top (e.g. the Lyon to Reign loans, keeping Debinha).

 

I prefer the U.S. system in which on a given day any team can beat any other team.

As opposed to, for example, OL Femenil which a year ago won 21 or 22 matches and scored 79 goals to their opponents 8. Boring!

 

Focusing on the last question there... No, likely not. That said, it depends on two things:
-how do you define "elite" players, and do you think there are more or less of them than there are $300k+ salaries available?
-however many "elite" players there are, is it better to spread "top" talent on a few superclubs that almost never play each other because they're in different countries, or to try keeping that talent in multiple teams in one or two leagues? (I'd much rather have half of the top 200 players in the world in my league rather than half of the top 20 on one team in my league.)

And lastly, there's the question of if concentrating the "elite" talent is worth it. Right now in particular, we're seeing the WSL poach "elite" talent from France and Spain... and yet the English teams aren't doing any better in the UWCL. I would argue that having a larger number of "top" players is better than trying to corner the market on "elite" players...

And that still comes back to what does "elite" even mean? Like, yeah Lawrence and Macario are good players, but it's not too hard to argue that players like Sanchez and Rodman have done better on the USWNT than Macario has; people even doubted Kerr in her first half-season with Chelsea before she finally got used to their system and won another Golden Boot - plus I've seen a lot of people downplay Putellas by saying it's the team around her that's good instead. It really comes down to "are players in the system that works best for them".

That's why I think NWSL is fine as is - while it's harder to sing multiple $300k+ players, I don't think it's necessary. It's also worth remembering that NWSL wasn't founded on nor saw its incredible growth on the idea of collecting as many "elite" players as possible. I think having one huge impact player surrounded by cheaper but still "top" talent is better than just throwing together a bunch of elite players because you can, because then you run into the problem of them not gelling. (Heck, it's basically a similar problem with multiple iterations of the USWNT - lots of amazing players on the field at once, but not always playing as a team.)

 

One more comment that came to mind as I re-read both the last line of my above post and the last line of the original thread post - national teams. Superclub structure is *awful* at player development in terms of creating a strong national team pool - emphasis on the "pool" part. Sure, it's great for the wunderkinds that occasionally land on superclubs, but because there aren't a lot of superclubs and they're likely more focused on picking the best players currently available, growing young domestic talent is a lower priority for them than hoovering up the best (and more experienced) international talent they can get. Not only are there very few spots available, but then the lesser teams in those leagues don't have the higher-end players and game experiences for their young talent on those rosters to grow around.

So yeah, in terms of development, I think having lots of "top" players spread across multiple teams is better than having a lot of "elite" players concentrated on superclubs, because in the latter case, how are the kids going to get their experience? Heck, even ignoring the kids, looking at an entire league for your domestic pool is better in terms of available numbers than looking at just the top one or two teams in your league. While some can say Spain grew thanks to Barca, they still haven't cracked the FIFA top 5, and even France has had the problem of "choking" in major tournaments, which a lot of people attribute to Lyon (and PSG) having no real competition in their league. USA, ENG, GER, and even SWE have all historically had much higher parity in their respective leagues, and that's been more consistent in terms of keeping those NTs highly rated.

 

Just a note that the top college teams ordinarily set difficult schedules for themselves, rather than beating up on weaker teams. They set difficult schedules because when the time for NCAA Tournament selections and seedings arrives, strength of schedule and results against strong opponents are rewarded.

 

The college scene used to be UNC and not much else, but that's very much not the case any more. Even if it's Stanford right now, (it's not, see points below,) it keeps cycling fairly regularly these days. That's not a "superclub" structure. And as much as the ECNL or other youth systems like to pretend, there are no real "superclubs" there simply because there are so many clubs across the country that may be regionally strong but just other teams in the national picture.

And on that Stanford example... Just because a club happens to have six of its player picked for a (Y)NT doesn't mean it's a "superclub". It's more likely if they are a superclub, but not indicative. For comparison: last year, there were five Spirit players on the USWNT, but I don't think anyone would call the Spirit a "superclub", especially now that it's "down" to four - and conversely, take Spain who, at one point, had at least 10 Barca players (maybe more?) on their squad. If your club takes up half on an NT, that's definitely a super club, but if you "only" supply 20-25%, that could easily be circumstance and/or a reward for recent form.

More evidence for Stanford not being a superclub is that they haven't made it past the NCAA second round since 2019, so... yeah, while they're strong, they're definitely not dominant. There are *lots* of strong NCAA teams these days.

 

Arsenal defender Rafaelle Souza is close to finalizing a transfer to Orlando Pride, per @arseblognews✍🏼🇧🇷 pic.twitter.com/oSx0RSnqes

— Women’s Transfer News (@womenstransfer) May 25, 2023