Great read Sports Heroes, Corporate Orphans By Lissa Muscatine Tuesday, September 30, 2003; Page A19 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19962-2003Sep29.html I had a sign at the DC games asking everyone to boycott Nike and McDonald's. Add Addidas and several other corporations to that list. When my two girls go off to colledge, they will be driving Hyundais. They will have there bags full of Johnson and Johnson products. I hope coorporate America wakes up and does the right thing. I hope that the league is better managed if it comes back from the dead.
I think that just not buying certain products will not get the message across. Everyone who owns a pair of Nike or Addidas shoes should mail them back to the corporate offices with a note to save the WUSA or they can keep their shoes. Just a thought.
It's too bad that the league didn't have more corporate sponsorship, but ultimately it's business. If a women's soccer league is ever going to truly succeed, it's going to be because it attracts an audience that, in corporate america's eyes, is large enough to warrant investment. The CEO's who didn't invest in WUSA didn't hold back their money because they're mean-spirited, they did so because they have a job to get something out of the money they spend. And despite some valid arguments to the contrary, they obviously didn't feel WUSA would give them that. It's not the job of businesses to provide professional sports leagues for groups out of a sense of social consciousness - there are plenty of charities out there who would better use the money given to them than WUSA did. And to blame corporations like Nike and Adidas for the failure of the league, when the attendance & tv numbers were well below what they needed to be to support it, is a little naive. If the audience was there, Nike & Adidas (and whoever else) would have been there too. This whole business of blaming the lackadasical fans, the greedy corporations, etc. makes no sense to me. WUSA didn't fail because of lack of support from these groups - it was rather a failure of WUSA, as a league, to draw the support it needed to survive. And once everyone figures that out and moves on, I think a future women's league will have a much better chance of success.
Through support of the national team, Nike may have done more than any other company in the country to support women's soccer. It's amazing that Nike can be boycotted after all they have done. What a bunch of ingrates.
Do you know how football made it? Large companies and owners putting a lot of money in for decades for football to take hold. It is all relative. 2.5 million for Nike or Adidas is nothing. I bet they make that much on women buying soccer uniforms, shoes, and balls in a month. I will give my money to smaller companies that might be willing to support a women's league to the best of their ability. Nike and Adidas are not. I have two girls playing soccer. My annual budget for my oldest to by soccer gear from Adidas and Nike is over $500 per year. That is one girl. My girls love happy meals. We now go to Taco Bell. They are completely behind boycotting these super large corporations that should step forward to support a sport that makes them billions. Sometimes a corportation needs to do what is right. Nike and Adidas sponser "sports days" all the time at malls, etc, etc. They don't make money on those, but they do raise the profile of the company. The WUSA can do that too. The "ultimately it is a business" and "ultimately it is my money" go hand in hand. I don't like the fact that Nike and Adidas desided not to sponser the WUSA and I choose not to spend money with them. Nike and Adidas don't see the benefit of sponsering the WUSA. You can't have it both ways. Companies make decision to not support the WUSA for profit reasons. I have decided not to spend my money at McDonald's, Adidas, or Nike anymore for personal reasons. So this "you shouldn't boycott them" is rediculeous.
Nike does plenty for women's soccer. Boycott if you want, but you'll be shooting yourself in the foot. April Heinrichs / Nike Coaching Education Scholarships About the Nike U.S. Cup Not WRT the women, but a good load of cash: Nike Project-40 Five Recipients Awarded April Heinrichs/Nike Coaching Education Scholarship Cool Flash
My problem is that people will go out of their way to avoid purchasing products of Nike. Nike is a company that spends tons of money promoting women's soccer, even if they invest it in the national team, rather than throwing it away in the WUSA. Fans think they deserve to determine not only what causes a company's money is spend, but specificially how it is spent. (By the way, the its-not-a-lot-of-money rationale is weak at best. You can't give a few million to everyone who asks. Nike runs a business and I wouldn't expect them to give me $2.5 million just because I ask them to.)
For the record, I never actually said you shouldn't boycott these companies. If that's what you want to do, go right ahead - it is a free country after all. But I think any boycott will be ignored by these companies for the same reason WUSA was ignored - the fans aren't there. The energy expended by people chastising companies like Nike, etc. would have been much better used actually attending WUSA games so that the league didn't end up in this predicament in the first place (and I'm speaking in generalities here - chances are you went to a bunch of games). Better yet, this energy would be better utilized by whoever draws up the plans for the next women's league, so that whatever chain of events led to WUSA's downfall aren't repeated. But if the planners think that chain of events consists of only one link, 'EVIL CORPORATIONS WHO WOULDN'T SPONSOR US', then they're in trouble. And as far as the NFL and other major american sports are concerned, these games were being played and were deeply entrenched in the american consciousness well before million-dollar sponsorships arrived. My grandfather was playing pro football way-back when, and he wasn't hauling in endorsment dollars and a fat paycheck every week (alas). It's not like there were a bunch of guys in businesses suits sitting around a table deciding what sports they should create in order to make money. Nike's not gonna come knocking on my door tomorrow with a million dollar endorsement deal on the off-chance I suddenly become a world-class athlete. I'd have to show some promise first, as the nfl did, as baseball did, as basketball did. Soccer hasn't completely proved itself yet, and if you factor in WUSA's declining attendance figures every year, it didn't look too appetizing to those with the money. If everyone spent money the way you claim to on women's soccer merchandise,tickets,etc., things might be different, Nike might be interested, as most large companies are when there's money to be made. But since Nike, etc. aren't calling, perhaps it's not that this multinational company is missing out on a sensational business opportunity, but that it isn't much of an opportunity to begin with. They can afford to wait and see. If Nike, etc. want to do "what is right", I'd much rather have them dropping money into cancer research than WUSA, but that's just me.
Reebok signed 3 year old Mark Walker to an undisclosed amount of money to be the "future of basketball" and the "face of Reebok". The kid can shoot baskets, using an 8 foot hoop his family put in their driveway. Once, he made 18 in a row. The kid has one shot, two hands from behind his head. He can't do a lay up. He's never played game of basketball. It's unclear that he actually knows what basketball is. He's three. years. old. Here are Mark Walker's sports accomplishments that make Reebok so willing to throw money at him: He was born. He shot 18 baskets in a row on a videotape his parents sent to Reebok. Mark Walker is a sports marketing nothing. Mark Walker is a sports zero. Mark Walker has no audience. Mark Walker is not capable of making money for Reebok through his sports accomplishments. Any monetary return Reebok gets from Mark Walker is simply and undisputedly a result of the fact that they chose to spend money on him in the first place. So, this stuff about "it's all about making money" isn't true, in the way it's being bandied about here, in a couple of ways. Most obviously, marketing buzz doesn't exist independently of sponsorship dollars. It is created by the very fact that a corporation is spending money on certain individuals. This whole phenomena of corporate driven sports marketing/entertainment wasn't created by sports: it was created by corporations doing marketing. It's a bit much to then say that sport leagues that can't keep up because they can't get the corporate money thus don't deserve the corporate money which created the environment in which they can't keep up in the first place. As for Nike, I would have expected more vision from a company that started with two guys, a running shoe, and a waffle iron. And I would have hoped that the message created by their marketing, targeted at girls and women, would have sunk into their sponsorship heads: "If you let me play sports...." So, sell the feminism to women to sell your product, just fail to support women's sports league because they can't keep up in the monster sports entertainment industry you've created by throwing sponsorship money around, and they can't keep up because you've decided not to give them the sponsorship money.
on the way to look for Nike's Email.... i found this..... funny read ((in its own sad way)) http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnike.htm
So what? These little truisms keep getting thrown around here like they mean something real. First, Nike sold its products to women by representing itself as caring about women's participation in sports, i.e. taking a feminist position. Not *a* woman's participation in sports. But *women's* and *girls* participation in sports. That ad got a LOT of positive buzz for Nike at a time when it was getting a lot of mud slung at it for its sweat shops in foreign countries. Well, now we know. They *don't* support women's participation in sports. It really was all marketing. But at least LeBron James gets money for shilling for Nike. Women's sports and feminism didn't get anything for what Nike gained from using them to sell its products. Nike's cynicism is not really unexpected. But it should be pointed out to anybody who thought Nike meant anything by that ad. Second, lest we forget, the largest reason people watch basketball in the numbers they do is because of Nike's massive corporate funding of Michael Jordan, the phenomenon, and the NBA. The NBA didn't get all those fans just because Jordan was great. They got all those fans because Nike sold Jordan, and sold the NBA, and continues to do so by, for example, giving 90 million to LeBron James. So, I think it's a little ridiculous to imply that Nike's "If you let me play sports..." ad was "really" all about Nike supporting random, nonprofessional women *playing* sports, thus allowing the conclusion that Nike isn't at all cynical in using its implied support of women's sports to make money and then refusing to support women's sports when push comes to shove. Nike's "be like Mike" ad wasn't about people playing basketball, because "being like Mike" isn't really the same as "watching Mike". Is it? Or how about "I am Tiger Woods"? Nike is all about selling the sports it chooses to promote and support, because that's how it sells its products. That's how the bucks come in. With women's sports, it talked the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. It used women's sports, but it has no interest in promoting them like it does the men's sports their men's sports stars are involved in. Third, one of the reasons it's so damn hard for new sports leagues to get started is because the sponsorship money Nike and others throw hand over fist at certain men's sports, thereby creating the monster sports/entertaiment phenomenon, has raised unrealistic expectations and goals for what a "successful" sports league is, and what "success" is needed before corporate dollars -- either as ads or sponsorship -- is "deserved" by those leagues. People keep saying that the NBA and the NFL didn't draw X amount of fans for X amount of years. They took years to develop. But that luxury of time isn't available to new sports leagues *exactly* because of the sports industry marketing driven success of the NBA and NFL and MLB as professional entertainment leagues, not sports products. Corporate dollars made them what they are, not sports fans. Fourth, it's amazing to me that people think that because money is at issue, gender somehow isn't an issue. Sometimes people pass up investing because they don't like the product, and sometimes they don't like the product for gendered reasons, or they think nobody will ever like the product for gendered reasons. Even saying "women's sports don't sell in this country, so we're not going to invest in trying to make them sell" implicates gender. But for sure passing up a market, not even trying to tap into a *completely* untapped market, because women's sports is the thin end of the wedge is all about gender. Hell, the NFL is wooing female fans. *They* recognize an untapped market and are going after it with their product. Fifth, and I'm just saying this to get it off my chest, to the guy who said that the MLS markets to women: a photo of a woman's ass painted like two soccer balls, with a g-string and fishnet stockings, is not marketing soccer *to* women. It's marketing *women* to male soccer fans.
First of all, I don't buy the arguement that having women participate in sports is a feminist position. But that's another debate. The point I'm trying to make is that participation is not the same as watching. Nike has done more for American soccer than any other company, save possibly Anhauser Busch (sp?). How does sponsoring the WUSA = girls and women participating in sports? Sachin
I understand what you mean, but I'm going to go off on a tangent here not because I think you need to hear it, rather because your post made me realize something that I've been noticing for a while, so please don't think this is aimed at you. Because it isn't. It's worth pointing out that notions of what "feminism" is that float around this board are, by and large, extremely narrow and subscribe too much to the characterizations of it promoted by Limbaugh, O'Reilly and other extremist entertainers. For example, historically, feminists have been among the very first to promote the idea that women have just as much right to participate in sports as men. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that feminists were the first to combat the (then) pervasive idea that women shouldn't play sports. I mean, there are still people living who were told they could not play basketball because their uterus would fall out. In other words, there was a time not long ago that "women should play sports" was nothing but a feminist position. If things have changed from those bad old days (and they certainly have, of course) it's as a direct result of the efforts of feminists first, second, third and fourth, with piddling few others straggling behind. This stuff doesn't just naturally get better on its own--it has to be fought. Given its roots, it's not surprising now that the more dramatic rhetoric of feminism (and other activist schools of thought) gets over-applied (I think, for example, that saying companies should "do the right thing" when one means they should invest their shareholders' money in WUSA is a case in point, by the way), but generally speaking those faults are far outnumbered by the good that's been done.
seeing as how the WUSA wasn't exactly bursting at the seems in terms of popularity, even if every single WUSA fan boycotted Nike and whomever else, wouldn't it be a pretty insignifigant step? Boycotting a company because you think your cause or passion desirves something is ridiculous. Should the professional table tennis association also boycot Nike and McDonalds?
from the article But the league needed more firms like these. It needed more socially conscious CEOs like Hendricks, who understand that huge corporations influence mass culture and occasionally can and should make business decisions that promote the common good as well as the bottom line. I absolutely disagree with this in the context of sponsoring women's sports. If Nike is going to be socially conscious they could maybe first start by improving their record in terms of child labor. The article lists the author as a White House speech writer. I find it very hard to believe that any republican would have the attitde she expressed in regards to corporate America and the WUSA. Compairing the Lebron James contract and the lack of resources not spent on the WUSA is just plain dumb.
Sadly, Business ultimatley equates to the bottom line, especially in today's economy. As beautiful a concept as the WUSA was in theory, in practice, it simply wasnt profitable and most likely never will be. In a time of job cuttings, and inflation, businesses must focus on their own financial health, let alone a financial burden that the WUSA became. Like it or not, there was simply not enough interest to justify its continued existance, it was a noble expieriment that was fostered during a time of economic boom. Unfortunatley, conditions have changed, and therefore, the "dead wood" must be left to rot.
The demise of the WUSA had nothing to do with fan support. It was with the marketing of the league. Where does the NFL get 90% of their revenue? TV contracts. Not from ticket sales. The problem the first year was the games where all over the place. No one knew when or where to watch. Then they signed a contract with PAX for 4:00 on Saturday. Right when the MLS has its game of the week and when most other WUSA games are going on. A Friday night 7:00 game each week would have been very succesful. No school the next day. Not much else major being televised. In addition, a half hour pre-game show with highlights from the previous week. All on Friday. Not only would the 100,000 ticket buyers likely watch the game, but also some friends. #1 reason why the WUSA failed was marketing / business plan. Either way, Nike makes a ton of money off of women in sports. The most popular womens sports in the world is soccer. Sounds to me like have been short sited. You may not agree, but we are both allowed to express our opinions and we differ here.
The business plan drawn up was not followed. The league blew through thier cash quick and expected handouts. Would you sink money into a league as poorly run as WUSA? Or buy a stake in it? Corporations did not kill WUSA. Was Nike one of the companies snubbed by WUSA because they were hoping for non traditional outfitters (Eddie Bauer, for example)?
Lets face reality, as well publicised as the WUSA was the first year, it was still unable to draw anything close to a consistent viewing audience. I acknowledge that profitability of any league is highly dependant upon television revenue, but as evidenced with MLS, soccer is unable to consistently draw the sort of numbers that would make it an attractive or profitable option for the network. To that end, MLS has modeled it's future profitablility on building "soccr specific" stadiums, which will generate revenue for each team. This is a feasible alternative, and allows each team to cater to a more specific audience. In essence, television is a marketing tool, nothing more, nothing less, as it has never really served as a profitable venture for either league. In terms of marketing, it is required to allow the league to remain visible, but ultimatley profitability is dictated by a team's ability to draw crowds and their stadium arrangement (i.e. parking, concessions, percentage of ticket sales, etc) The WUSA never averaged above 10,000 a game, and again for this reason, would have failed in any case.
Do your part. With a 1.8 share the US v. No. Korea was not that impressive compared to the NFL. The ratings need to show that we are interested. If you want to see the WUSA in 2004 you need to watch the WWC games televised live by ESPN2, Galavision, and TeleFutura! If we want companies like Hyundai, Johnson & Johnson, Ethan Allen, Reebok, and adidas to sponsor the WUSA, do your part and watch the games, how easy is that. For the USOC fans not going to Rutgers for the game, you can listen to the USOC semi-final game, D.C. United v. MetroStars, on the Internet (see www.dcunited.com) and watch the WWC on ESPN2 or TeleFutura. Quarterfinals Foxboro October 1 (TOMORROW) on ESPN2 and TeleFutura Sweden v. Brazil at 4:30pm ET USA v. Norway at 7:30pm ET ** The big one! ** Quarterfinals (Portland) October 2 (Thursday) on ESPN2: Germany v. Russia at 7:30pm ET China v. Canada 10:30pm ** Promote the game, tell everyone you know and get your friends to watch. If you are at the game in Boston, bring signs showing your support for the WUSA. In DC, many fans had the *Save the WUSA* 11X17 paper signs—the sea of signs were impressive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45056-2003Sep21.html the print version had a wider view of the stands). ** Special thanks to Hyundai and Johnson & Johnson for being such strong supporters and staying with the WUSA! Be positive and tell the companies that support the league that it influences you decisions ... if that is the case.
The business plan was for 6,500 the first year, 7,000 the next etc. So they hit their targets on people coming to the stadium. Several venues only hold 8,000 people and where sold out most of the time. How do you fit 10,000 people in an 8,000 seat stadium??? Everyone knows they would loose money the first 5 years. I figured the first 10 - 15 years. Football lost money for most of the first 30 years. Part of the problem was WUSA management trying to have events like the NFL. They don't have that kind of money and us fans know they don't. I want to see the girls play soccer and simple meet-and-greets for my kids. They also need to be smarter on the times they schedule things. I already mentioned a game of the week. I am a season ticket holder for the last two years. The Freedom had a meet and greet the champions at the stadium down town DC at 5:00 on a Monday. I think 30 people showed up. If they would have made it at 8:00 they would have had 500 + . Last night I was watching the lumber jacks on ESPN2. Nothing else was on. How come a "sport" like this makes it on TV. Sponsership. I am wondering what viewership ratings it had. The reason is that Skill doesn't have any place else to spend its money. What about bowling? It gets on ESPN2 because of sponsorship, not ratings. Nike and Adidas have other places to spend their money and unfortunately they do. Maybe with a little persuasion, we can show them it is worth their while.
I was there and there were more than 30 people more than half filled up two sections behind the benches at RFK--the Post reported 500 fans. I went to the rally at the end of last season as well, the game was on a Sat. so the rally was on Sunday. A smaller group attended that. 5pm was not a great time, DC United had their rally (1996) at the stadium on a Tuesday in the afternoon ... there was a much bigger crowd at the impromtu greeting at Wash. National Airpoirt.
No. From here 5-year attendance projection released by WUSA before its initial season: Year----------------Projected------------Actual 2001----------------7,500-----------------8,307 2002----------------8,200-----------------7,114 2003----------------9,000-----------------6,720 2004---------------10,400--------- 2005---------------11,800 From kenn.com Code: 2001 Team G Total Average Atl 11 122,013 11,092 Bos 11 88,127 8,101 Car 11 57,817 5,256 NY 10 57,192 5,719 Phi 10 71,541 7,154 SD 11 62,821 5,711 SJ 10 76,922 7,692 Was 10 144,207 14,421 TOTAL 84 680,640 8,103 2002 Team G Total Average Atl 10 67,842 6,784 Bos 10 81,202 8,120 Car 10 58,392 5,839 NY 11 61,323 5,575 Phi 11 76,685 6,971 SD 10 58,832 5,883 SJ 11 78,836 7,167 Was 11 102,264 9,297 TOTAL 84 585,376 6,969 2003 Unofficial Team G Total Average Atl 11 76,541 6,958 Bos 11 76,294 6,936 Car 11 63,109 5,737 NY 10 42,092 4,209 Phi 10 72,450 7,245 SJ 10 67,912 6,791 SD 11 61,983 5,635 Was 10 99,276 9,928 TOTAL 84 559,657 6,663 The problem that all these CEOs see is declining attendence, non-existant ratings (ave 0.1 last year IIRC), an upper management team that blows through money like a drunken sailor, and no viable plan for growth. The CEO's job (if they invested in the league) would be to convince the stockholders why they threw their (it is NOT the CEO's) money into the money pit. That is a hard sell.