I don't disagree with any of the above (tho I'm not sure what you suggest Nike should do). I think the only thing we might disagree upon is the impact that the "bad PR" will have on them. The "kids" who WUSA marketed to have short attention spans, just like all kids do with their toys, stuft animals and cartoons. Many will forget that their even was a WUSA to begin with. That's cold to say, but that's just kids being kids. In general, this kind of animosity tends to wear off. WUSA's demise has been no different. And the "bad PR" against Nike only applies to the people who were even paying attention to WUSA to begin with, which suffice to say, wasn't a very large audience. Plenty of young women play soccer, but evidently, only a fraction of these girls decided to pay attention to WUSA by attending games or watching a broadcast. The "millions of little girls" who people bemoaned were losing out on their dreams are in reality, more like "thousands of little girls." So as far as not expecting Nike to change a thing, they're probably not going to change a thing because the backlash felt by their perceived lack of support for WUSA is most likely too insignificant to even register on their radar. If any blip did register, it is fading, and fading very quickly.
From http://www.kenn.com/soccer/wusatv.html. SEASON AVERAGE (PAX) Rating: 0.1 # Households 113,500 http://www.kenn.com/soccer/wusa.html WUSA Attendence 2001 # Games: 84 Total Atted: 680,640 Ave: 8,103 2002 # Games: 84 Total Atted: 585,376 Ave: 6,969 Pc Change: -14.0% 2002 # Games: 84 Total Attend:560,009 Ave: 6,667 Pc Change: -4.3%
WUSA was originally projecting ratings of closer to 1.0, which would in fact be an audience of about 1 million people. They got a fraction of that. Any way you figure it, a 0.1 rating is negligible by network TV standards. 560,000 total attendance seems like a big number, until consider that one single middle of the road baseball team draws this number in less than half their season. Additionally, many of these 560,000 were duplicates of the same people attending over and over again. So the number of fans the league was drawing in it's last season was closer to around 53,000 than it was 560,000. As I said, it WUSA held the dreams of thousands of little girls.
I didn't really mean to lump you in, I was really addressing the generic "you" which was the people who aren't as rational as yourself. Those people did advocate Nike giving the league $20mil and it was those who I was addressing. You (not "you") got in the crossfire because I was responding to your post that was representing a different angle.
I actually think those numbers support what you were saying. Or at least can be interpreted that way (as they can be interpreted the other way also. Gotta love numbers.)
I couldn’t let this one go owen. You said: “By boycotting Nike, women's soccer and possibly athletics in general, are biting the hand that feeds them (albeit a small meal). If and when the WUSA is resuscitated, Nike may very well say screw you because of it and screw other women's sports, then where will you be, asking for some scraps from companies that have little history in supporting women's sports, aside from very niche markets and super-high profile athletes, like adidas, Reebok, Puma and Umbro.” Any chance you work for the USSF? ‘cause you sure are adopting the be grateful for our crumbs attitude That is something male athletics will never have to worry about. As for the PAX numbers, the lousy ratings are due to a host of issues, PAX itself being one, the timing of the games being another, the failure to market the game nationwide…etc. etc. PAX rarely generates much numbers in prime time, let alone on a Saturday afternoon. WUSA did garner a .2 sometime in April last year, though I am not sure how. Attendance, however, is good enough to support a league if done in the right way. I agree with those who suggest that a more modest version of the league is needed to be built upon, one which is not dependent on tv revenues. They’d be better off buying time on ESPN for a couple games, than going with something like PAX. I wonder what the ratings were for the game broadcast on ESPN2 last year, the opener I believe.
Don't I wish I think wrestling, men's gymanstics, track and field and few other male athletics programs would disagree with you, especially in the college arena, but that's a different discussion for a different time. I would also be interested in seeing some stats, sponsorship deals and financials for MISL, MILL and Arena Football (although they have a deal with NBC). I would say that the other companies would give crumbs but that Nike in comparison,is serving chicken fingers.
Frankly, I'd almost be willing to bet that NIKE is just as upset as anyone else about the league's management - or at the very least, they would like to have another league to sell their stuff in. What specifically could/should Nike do? I mean, before mona, etc., continue to vilify Nike, let's hear exactly what they would like to see Nike do, then we can compare that with what we know are smart business decisions. And one thing I am willing to bet on - the "unecessary bad PR" is outwieghed by the unnecessarily bad business move it would be to do anything other than donate the jerseys as they have in the past. (No, they didn't actually donate, but considering the kind of business they are used to doing, it is a practical reality that WUSA wasn't going to make them Big Money.) Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with asking Nike (and whoever) to contribute. What I think is wrong is when you ask, are told no, and why you're told no, but then instead of listening to the why you (not you, DW, but others on this thread) scream that Nike is evil and bad... Even a business as large as Nike cannot afford to spend its goodwill in the wrong places. LeBron? He *is* going to make Nike $90 million. WUSA is *not*. Not in its current form, anyway. BTW, that was a great point made about the XFL - surely that is a clear enough example that bad business dies, no matter who it is. (dw, for clarification, this next paragraph is not aimed at you or your posts - I see now where you are coming from and what you are trying to explain.) I guess ultimately, while it seems understandable to *wish* Nike would do more, it doesn't seem real smart to waste energy trying to change their mind instead of addressing the reasons why one of the most sports-supporting (and frankly, soccer-supporting, and even more frankly, womens-sports- and womens-soccer-supporting) companies in the world DOES NOT HAVE FAITH IN YOUR BUSINESS PLAN! As much as Nike spends in the US, they spend a lot outside it, too. Tons of that money is spent in soccer. Nike has spent lots of money in US soccer - through the P-40 program, through Bradenton, through the Nike tours (including the womens tours), through direct money to the Fed to support both the mens and womens national teamS (plural - as in, mens and womens, U-XXs, etc.) As for Nike's contract with Mia - note that they are paying her more than anyone else is paying any other womens soccer player. So if nothing else, they are the lesser of those evils. Its not like they make statements about supporting womens sports and then don't spend ANY money on it. Another question - anyone know if any other company spends more money on womens athletics than Nike? Just a wild @$$ guess here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are in the top ONE. If you can show me that they aren't in the top three, you might actually change my mind on this issue. I'm dead serious about that. But mona, no one is 'entitled' to a league. Heck, MLS is still working on making a pro soccer league work for the men. It takes hard freakin' work, hard decisions and guts. Having seen these women play for the past three years in WUSA, and for longer with the WNT, I know they have guts. But until they get their business leaders together to make the hard decisions, the league is not going to work - even if Nike poured $20 million into it. It would be a paper house, waiting to fall. What will be a good foundation for the decades (and hopefully centuries) to come is a smart business plan that addresses the practical realities that Rome - nor WUSA or any other league in the world, for that matter (other than the EPL, and that is a whole different ball of wax) - was built in a day. Until then, mona et al, your screaming at the choir isn't going to do any good - it is just going to raise your blood pressure unnecessarily, strain relationships between people who should be supporting each other, and cause people to lose confidence that this is a good idea.
While I agree with much of what you say...low self esteem and lack of opportunity are 2 shades of the same color.Project -4O looks like a hand out to me, masquarading as Corporate Sponsorship. Anyone have Martha"s #?
Mona, would you consider not calling Lebron James a "boy". If you remember the Tiger Woods, Fuzzy Zoeller incident you may realize it really is not a nice thing to do. It is interesting to read how privileged you think young black males in the U.S. are. You might want to check the home addresses of some of these "privileged" black males in the NBA. Many came from the poorest neighborhoods in the nation. Then check the home towns of The Supernaturals. You see very nice places like Huntington Beach, Mission Viejo and so on. You don't have any control over where you are born, but I don't think black male basketball players in the U.S. are a privileged group. What happened to the WUSA money? What happened to the 60 million dollars spent in the first 2 months of operation? Many of us would like to know what happened here.
Last time I checked, a "fellow" his age is indeed a boy. Not everybody thinks in terms of the past when talking about a "boy." This is 2004. The pc police need to get a new dictionary. It's interesting to note that the big money endorsers for Nike are "demographically correct" MJ, Tiger, Serena/Venus, (Freddy) etc. Mia's contract was/is peanuts compared to them. One would/could think that was "racial" rather than the fact that those endorsers perhaps "relate" better to the target buyer. You can inject race into any and every conversation. Most times, it doesn't apply other than in one's own mind.
All you had to do was click the link: 2002 Ratings SEASON AVERAGE: .097 Housholds: 102,333 2001 (TNT): Season: 0.36 Housholds: NA
Lebron James turned 18 on December 30, 2002, long before his sponsorship deal or the hoopla surrounding him. I don't believe in the PC stuff either, but imagine if someone called a 19 year old USWNT player a "girl". Oh, I forgot, hardly anyone that young would be considered. The spots are reserved for players who are 35. Germany and Canda capped young players at the WWC. Not the USA, except for Ms. Reddick. Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of his time, perhaps all time. He is black. Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of his time. He calls himself a "cablinasian" but our government classifies him as black. The Williams sisters are the best tennis players around. They are black. Gee, maybe Nike wants the best athletes to sponsor and doesn't care what color they are. Ever think of that? Ms. Hamm's deal is not as lucrative as these deals because soccer in general and women's soccer in particular are not big money spinners. That is why Freddy Adu got 1 million and James 90 million. It had nothing to do with race or gender because Adu and James are both African American males. The WUSA was drawing TV audiences of under 100,000 last summer. In other words, out of 1,000 households with the TV set on, less than 1 was watching the WUSA. You can't expect big sponsorship deals with those numbers.
I believe I stated their big buck endorsers were obviously chosen for their ability to relate to the target buyer. Brazil and China also brought in more youngsters - gee they did pretty well too didn't they?
Do you know exactly what Project 40 does? The following are descriptions about Project 40: http://endlesssoccer.tripod.com/usfootball/mls/project40.htm http://www.ussoccer.com/teams/default.sps?iTeamID=253 Looks as if MLS pays each Proejct 40 player the minimum MLS salary (around $24K) to play on an MLS team and each player gets 5 years of academic schooling ($27K maximum) paid for. So MLS is paying these Project 40 players, but only because these kids actually work for them and are on their rosters. This is part of P-40 is not a handout. These kids are placed on actual employees on rosters of professional teams. The other side of it is the academic tuition, which is covered by the USSF. Basically, they're covering academic tuition for up to 25 kids at a time who are playing soccer. So this "handout" isn't a whole lot different than the handouts thousands of young men and women get from athletic scholarships from the NCAA.
Just a couple more facts re-project 40 “Soccer federation signs deal worth about $120 million with Nike The United States joined Brazil, Italy and the Netherlands in soccer sponsorship October 22 when the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) announced a multiyear deal with Nike said to be worth about $120 million. The 10-year pact will enable the USSF to move ahead with its Project 2010, which has set a goal of winning the World Cup by the end of the next decade.” http://www.ncaa.org/news/1997/19971103/active/3439n16.html "Another major development was the launching of Project 2010, an expansion of Project 40 launched earlier this year (ass above). Project 2010 is a long-term developmental program designed to build a national team capable of winning the World Cup by 2010. The first impact would be the gradual expansion of Project 40 to include 120 players by 2010. The program, funded with $50,000,000 from Nike and new US Soccer marketing firm IMG, will launch its Player Development Opportunity (PDO) program in 1999, with a full-time national team camp for approx. 20 U-17 players at IMG's Bolliteri Academy in Bradenton, FL. It will also provide 360 players in six age groups with 75 days of intensive training, expanding eventually to include 1,000 players for 100 days by 2010. If successful, this would provide an unprecedented amount of competition and training previously unavailable through the NCAA and ODP. http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/year/1998.html This is what might have been meant by corporate sponsorship...
Re: Just a couple more facts re-project 40 The $120 million deal (which is spread out over 10 years) is with the USSF and not entirely related to Project 40. It includes Project 2010 and about $50-60 million is for player development, as the other article stated. Additionally, the $50 million funding for player development was intended for "360 players in six age groups.....expanding eventually to include 1,000 players", as the second article stated. In no way am I saying the money involved in this deal is insignifcant, but compare $120 million over a 10 year period (for use for hundreds of players) to the $100 million WUSA plowed through in 3 years. It's not that outrageous. The point of the project is to get funding for the national soccer federation equal or close to those of the federations of other countries, as Rothenberg stated. In addition: "It's a very complex deal,'' Jim Trecker, USSF deputy secretary general for communications, said. "It depends on how you want to add up the numbers whether you get over or under $120 million. It has many, many components. It's more than a money deal.'' So it's more than some blank check or "handout" as was previously described.
fair enough, but you are not suggesting that nike gave the money without having any idea how the ussf was going to use it are you?
Re: Re: Just a couple more facts re-project 40 It must be a very complex deal and gender specific too!!! Wow, more than a blank check! I am really just astonished...no more denying the favortism. Since this deal has appeared to cross over into academics what is to stop the NFL and other Sport Corp. from starting their own little free lunch program. Compare this to the W-league where no money can be paid to the players because of NCAA eligibility.I will hand it to you guys ......that is one sweet deal and I am more than just a little jealous
Re: Re: Re: Just a couple more facts re-project 40 So I guess no womens natioanl team at any age level has benefitted from Nike's deal wih the USSF? The PDL has the same restrictions as the W-League does when it comes to paying players who are still in college. The USSF has no control over what the NCAA does.
One of the reasons the W League doesn't pay salaries is it doesn't make any money, so how can it possibly pay salaries? The WUSA has the same problem. You still haven't responded to why Michelle Kwan gets paid more than Rudy Galindo or Elvis Stoichko. Shouldn't they get equal pay according to your lights? if so, where does the money come from. Men's firgure skaing does not bring in bicg bucks. Women's figure skating does.
Blah, blah, blah. We could sit here all day and debate which athletes deserve to make more, but the bottom line is this: Right now, professional sports owners are willing to absorb a certain amount of losses to keep their men's teams around--see the San Diego Padres and Chargers--while women's teams must be profitable all the time. The long term value of the franchise is what's important and that's what the WUSA or any women's sports league must address. Sponsors, meanwhile, seem not to believe that supporting women's sports is beneficial to business. Women athletes that buy from Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. need to make a stronger push if there is really any hope of sustaining a pro women's league. Thus, the issue of Michelle Kwan's or any other athlete's salary is irrelevant. Rather, the real issue is whether owners are willing to accept risk for long term gain and sponsors believe that an investment in a women's league is good for business.
I pretty much agree with this. Right now, I don't believe very many owners (if any at all) think an investment in women's sports leagues is good for business. And the sad thing to say is, there's not a whole lot of evidence to change their minds. The WNBA is backed by the marketing power of the NBA, they are in their 7th season, and they are still losing money. The 2nd deck of most arenas are closed off, as there simply aren't enough fans to fill those seats. Outisde of 1 or 2 soccer players, a handful of figureskaters, tennis and golf, women's sports have shown very little evidence of making anybody any money. As far as women themselves making a statement to sponsors to support women's sports, that's true too. But if they were so passionate about sports so as to boycott Nike and Adidas, then they probably would have been passionate enough to go out and watch games. So far, neither of those actions have happened in large enough numbers. There's a lot of young women who are passionate about playing sports, but when it comes to watching and supporting women's sports as fans, it's another story. Now far as some owners willing to absorb losses for certain men's pro teams, this is also very true. It's been said that many owners simply like the "feeling" they get for owning a pro sports franchise. They think it's cool, and something that seperates them from their other rich colleagues. They like the feeling because they get to be well known among the average working stiffs who are fans of those teams. How about women's sports? Is it "cool" to own a women's pro franchise? I don't know, but consider the market research which found that many girls started to find the WUSA "uncool" by age 13 and felt ashamed to follow the league. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087049/ So if teenage girls find WUSA to be uncool, what are you going to expect from some 55 year old male executive?
Pretty hard to do when you are only on two coasts. Pretty hard to do when they play the same time you do.. Their attendance ##'s could support a league. Enough people went. Putting the Power in the venue they used however hurt the numbers. Well a 13 year old girl is a unique creature with interesting and everchanging priorities. This Chung is a good dude, with good intentions-he really wanted to help- but the 13 year old girl's waning interest is not a deciding factor-my boys were all about getting nba baskeball jerseys for about 2 years of their life, then it became uncool. I see your point about getting franchise owners-but I don't think it equates with what a 13 year old girl thinks is cool. I think(hope) if you build it they will come-you are only talking about 6 franchises which will probably exist on one side of the country, the east. Travel won't be too bad, and with 6k average attendance, the novelty of owning a team under a better business model would I think attract some owners with $$ to burn....we shall see soon enough...