The league site finally has something on the subject, but the title "Schedule Conflicts Provide Opportunities" indicates that it is trying to make the best of a bad situation. http://www.wusa.com/press_room/346403.html Something I hadn't heard before is this: "According to FIFA rules, a WUSA club cannot refuse to release a player to a national team squad who has qualified for the World Cup unless the player has already appeared in eight matches for their country in the calendar year. Last year the number of matches was five. The increase is due to being in a World Cup year ... FIFA rules dictate that a WUSA club cannot refuse to release a player to compete in World Cup qualifiers or confederation championship qualifiers, such as the European Championship." So teams could be missing players for as many as *8* of their games? I'm assuming that those are actual league games...
You've misread it. They can be called in for 8 National team games. With a 48 hour window preceding the game. If a WUSA team is playing Wednesday/Saturday it's possible that the player in question could miss two WUSA games. Here's something I posted in the Courage forum last week: FIFA rules. http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/r...gulations-E.pdf Check out "Chapter XIII. Release of players for national association representative matches" This being a World Cup year we have to release players up for up to 8 matches, plus an appropriate preperation time (14 days) prior to the World Cup itself. The release for friendlies is only compulsory if the friendly dates are the agreed International Friendly dates. Now, the calendar, and these rules, were designed for the men's game, but there's nothing gender specific in them.
I don't think it's the number of club games missed, but the number of international matches played. So all of these Algarve Cup matches would count toward the eight. The Euro 2005 qualifiers, I can understand. But the meaningless friendlies scheduled during the season in direct conflict (such as US/Norway last year) really piss me off.
remember, friendlies must fall in the accepted window for friendlies fifa puts on the calendar otherwise a team may refuse...this is what made ape run afoul of the breakers last year...reading the text, it sounds like WUSA is insisting that teams be complaint with meaningless friendlies this year...do not ask me why?
In fact ALL international matches within the last 12 months count. So any player that has played in all of the US's matches within the last 12 months has already (After the Algrave) played 8 or more. However, the few clubs. men's or women's, have withheld players from friendlies leading up to a WC if that player wanted to play. It is unfortunate that the WUSA is too broke or shortsighted to have large enough rosters to play well in spite of four or five players missing. If rosters were at 20 then teams would still have 15 even missing 5 and that is 11+4 subs which is just enough to be able to play effectively with options. The WUSA play will suffer and I will bet that there will be an increase of reinjury problems with the non-national players pressed into service when they should be really sitting out or with national players trying to play too many games too close together to try to help their team(s).
I realize that competitive and friendly matches all count...but re-reading my post, I can see how it wasn't clear. What pissed me off is the same thing that g4m addressed - the fact that teams are forced to release players for meaningless friendlies. That is what's ridiculous. Good on Boston for standing firm last year. I wish more teams would take a stand like that when they can. I also wish there was communication between the USSF and the WUSA when scheduling matches.
The real problem here is money!!! If USSF followed the same schedule that Europe followed, none of this would be a problem. In Europe, NAT games are always on WED.. This allows for players to be with their club on the weekends and their national team for the midweek games. However, because it is all about the $$$$$ in the US, games are on the weekends when the seats are going to be filled instead of a mid week game with empty seats and less $$$$.
Wow, I didn't realize that the national associations in Europe had no concerns about money whatsoever, and are even willing to operate at a loss, just for the benefit of the domestic leagues. They must be really swell people! Damn money-grubbing Americans. If only they could take a lesson from the gentle souls of Europe, and learn that soccer is not about making obscene amounts of money.
Although in these days of pro sports its always about money, Europeans have something this countries soccer will never have.....Pride, history, passion to wear a teams jersey. When you put on an Inter Jersey, or a Real Madrid, Man U., you have years and years of history! the soccer person in me still likes to think that this is what is important not the gates total for the game! I can't help but wonder.....Would Evertons owners like a full stadium or a win against Liverpool, same for the Milan teams. look the USSF just figured out that we should play Mexico in Columbus with 25,000 US fans instead of LA's Rose Bowl in front of 80, 000 Mexicans! WUSA doesn't have that history yet! You ask these foreign players what they would rather do if given an ultimatum. Club or country? I think we all no the answer. So avoid these problems, keep the level of play where it should be, and find a venue who's priority is soccer and not the crowd totals!!!