News: WPS expected to announce permanent shutdown soon

I had a weird feeling that this was going to happen.

 

This could be a good thing.
A new league could emerge, with new ownership.
A new WPS movement, but the name of the new league will not be WPS.
The USA women's national team needs to win Olympic Gold this summer.
That will certainly help out.

A new model needs to be discovered.
Players are going to have to be willing to make less money, and live together in more bulk numbers (in terms of the residency together).

The star players are going to have to be the ones willing to take the most pay cuts. That's the only way a new league will work.

It's still conceivable to average a minimum of 4,000 fans per match, in every franchise. But they can't operate in the red so much every year. In fact, it would be nice if they could have a surplus in some years, and stock some money back into the escrow or in retained earnings, and then have more usage toward further invested capital into the growth of the franchise.

The marketing will have to improve.
The investments will have to improve.
The ownership decisions will have to improve.

The new league will need multiple television and internet web streaming coverage. Two or more television companies (Fox Soccer, Fox Soccer plus, and NBC Sports channel), and every match needs to be on the Internet. And these matches online need to be streamed live, and kept archived on-demand, in high quality online video stream, with television like quality broadcasting in terms of the coverage online.

That's really the only way this league is going to survive long-term, and keep > 90% of their existing base watching each and every year, and gain 11% or more of a new base each year (90+11 > 100), to ensure that this league is growing in quantity number of fans each year.

Because quite frankly, at least 1/4 of the fans that were watching a lot of WPS in 2009, were not watching much WPS in 2011.

 

Well, it's come a long way from being "women's soccer's last chance" to a clear springboard to . . . well, hopefully something positive, but clearly something.

I guess there's really no longer a question of whether there will be a US elite women's pro league. The question is how soon, at what salary levels, and in what form. Sad day, though, WPS was born in difficult times and deserved better than being sued out of existence by a bully.

 

Glad this is finally over. The instability of the league trying to hang on like it was, was painful to watch. Now everyone can move on with a clean slate. I believe that WPS Movement is correct that a new league will emerge but I think it is at least 3 to 4 years away. It needs to be made up of stable existing franchises that can emerge from the W-league and WPSL. With a grassroots fan base in place is the best way to make the jump to the pro level. How ever a new league emerges they need to have a vision for who they are to keep expectations for growth realistic based on their existing model for their franchise. IMHO the problem with both WUSA and WPS is they had an approach of setting expectations based on blind projections rather than the facts on the ground.

 

Go over to the WPSL formum and the Seattle Sounders thread and look at the attendance numbers posted there for games so far. This is the way to build the a successful program.

 

I'm not quite sure about the timing. I've heard rumbles like this for a while, but I've also heard that nothing will happen until the litigation is resolved, and I have no idea when that will be.

In other words, nothing would surprise me at this point.

The one thing that I find curious -- Sky Blue just announced its affiliation with the NJ Wildcats. What does Sky Blue have in mind for next season?

Every other team seems to have moved on in one way or another, either to the WPSL or dormancy. Paul Riley's "Supergroup" now seems like more of an NY Fury project than a Philadelphia Independence project.

 

I think once all the big names are gone to prep for the Olympics will tell the true story concerning the attendance but definitely a good start. If the attendance is cut by more than half then you know that it is only names driving the attendance and not the product. As for the contracts the Sounders definitely seemed to have worked the system to perfection in getting big names on their roster. If they take the the next step up with a new pro league if and when it happens the money expectations of the players would obviously change.

 

the big names aren't playing for money. the sounders have college players on their roster. i'm guessing ussf makes up the difference. comeback in a non-olympic year and see if they play for the sounders for nothing. it's a one year thing, and their attendance will go back to the norm in 2013.

 

This caught my eye.

It sure makes sense in terms of publicity - to have good news to report in the wake of the Olympics and the publicity that it will give the sport. Which would be more desirable right after the Olympics?

A) Announce the formation of a new league to begin play in 2013 (banishing the idea that the death of WPS would kill professional soccer for years if not forever)

B) Conceivably be stuck in legal limbo, as we are now, at the mercy of the docket as to what kind of news there is to report - good/bad/indifferent/nothing to report at all

I wondered before (and it is extremely speculative on my part), how big a deal is it for the owners to walk away and for some/most/nearly all to start fresh along with some new owners?

Perhaps it puts at risk the stadium deals and cause those to be re-negotiated. Which is no small matter but you'd think that's a hurdle that could be overcome.

 

This is the MAJOR advantage of the league structure of WPS vs. WUSA. The end of the league isn't really important since the franchises are independent entities. You're not starting at zero again . . . and by walking away from WPS, you're walking away from DB.

 

cpthomas, the Sounders Women are not doing anything new nor is there a better fan base in Seattle then let's say Florida or Chicago or upper NY.

The Stars are fueling the good attendance. Specificaly Hope Solo and Alex Morgan. There is nothing new invented here.

In Florida, once the word got out about MagicJack, they were starting to get high attendance also.

I was at both games when the Sounders women played Seattle Pacific and Seattle U. Lots of people. I am also going to the game next Friday when they play U of Washington at StarFire on Friday. Even in Seattle, just like everywhere else you have your clueless soccer dad who only knows about Solo and Morgan. And Solo, Morgan, Cox, LeRoux are playing for free.

The tickets are $16 for bleachers seating for these games and higher in the Grandstand. Once the USWNT players leave for the Olympics, there is no way your average clueless soccer dad is going to pay that much on a weekly basis to see players he has no idea of. They will be hard pressed to get a few hundred in attendance.

Nothing new here then what we have seen in WPS cities when the stars come in town.

Also,
All these USWNT players on the Sounders have ties to the NW and are playing for free to stay in shape for the Olympics.
There is no free lunch even in Seattle and Portland my friend. Wait till these players stop playing for free and want to get paid.

 

They may keep those numbers with the 4 big name USWNT players, but that is the only reason they are getting them. What were their ticket numbers for last year, or the year before. The other W-League teams are not pulling 4k-5k tickets a game. Even WPS teams with those same players weren't pulling 4k-5k a game. Seattle might be one of the best places for a Women's Soccer team to succeed with the support of soccer up there. But one successful team does not a league make.

It is great that the USWNT girls are helping that team succeed by playing for free (at least no official salary, but they could get endorsements or other payments, even from the men's Sounders organization). Having free players sure helps the business model.

 

I don't think that the women's soccer fan bases are the same throughout the US. Of course, there's not a lot of actual evidence on this, but the best out there, I think, is attendance for women's college soccer. Looking at college conferences, here are the top 10 in average attendance for 2011:


1 BigTwelve 1068
2 WestCoast 1048
3 SEC 1035
4 PacTwelve 916
5 ACC 914
6 MountainWest 858
7 BigEast 620
8 BigTen 607
9 WAC 485
10 BigWest 477

Or, looking at it from a regional basis:

1 West 709
2 Southeast 605
3 Southwest 456
4 Northeast 350
5 Middle 331

While one could criticize use of these data, I haven't seen anything better. If there are better data, I'd love to see them.

Part of my point is, and has been, that based on these data, most (not all) of the current array of WPS teams are exactly where there the data indicate support for women's soccer is low.

There is truth to the WNT players being a draw. But, one of the reasons they are a draw is they are playing relatively close to where they played their college soccer.

 

cpthomas, you have a point on players playing close to home or where they played college.

I always contended that it would be better if players were put in teams of their home cities or close bye.

I used to tell the CRS owners how cool it would be if Chicago area players would play for the Red Stars like Brittany Bock, Amy LePielbet, Leslie Osborne and even Lauren Cheney from Indiana.

I think major costs can be cut if players play near their home.

 

I think we need to go with the obvious: interest in the Sounders is high because of, A) Hope Solo, and B) Alex Morgan. Toss in Megan Rapinoe, Stephanie Cox and Sydney Leroux, who grew up in the northwest for your icing on the cake..

And it's happenstance that you have Solo and Morgan playing there this summer. Solo grew up in Washington but what about Morgan? She's a California girl. You have to think a big reason for her playing there is because her boyfriend plays for the men's team.

They also have more freedom to play where they want to because they get money from endorsements. In fact, for those two, with the endorsement and publicity work they do, it probably makes financial sense for them to stay in the US for little compensation rather than be somewhere in Europe. They're in a unique position.

There is no reason to think W-League or WPSL are the long-term, or even mid-term, answers. If they were, there never would've been a WPS and perhaps not a WUSA either. But who spoke up when WPS was being launched and said, "Women's soccer doesn't need WPS, we have W-League and WPSL." Nobody, right?

 

WPSL or WPS CAN be the answer if they have a pro division like I believe they both are planning.

Many eyes will be focused on the WPSL-Elite this summer and see how that model works. If it works to a point, adjustments can be made to make it a viable pro division of WPSL.
And possibly promotion/relegation.

Boston Breakers have already sold out their game with WNY and are filling fast against FC Indiana from what I've read.
The Red Stars, I believe will have good attendance as well.

 

Yes (you mean WPSL and W-League). I don't want to get hung up on the semantics but what I'm saying is we have a need to go well beyond what WPSL and W-League have been in the past and currently still are. But if one of them creates a pro division that looks like a pro division, talks like a pro division, etc. then of course that could be the answer to the need for a Division One.

But the WPSL or W-League as they are now and as they have been in the past is not, was not, and will not.

 

One thing to remember -- "pro" doesn't necessarily mean players get a substantial sum of money. WPS was certainly scaled-back from the WUSA (too far for certain players, judging by their comments), but pretty much everyone was due to make five figures for the season. There are "pro" leagues in which players get paid less. Read Dave Ungrady's book "Unlucky," and you'll read about a "pro" team in which paychecks were pretty rare.

So just because the W-League and WPSL are looking at "pro" leagues doesn't mean they're going to be at the WPS level. They could be more akin to the Peter Wilt proposal that floated around a few months ago. Maybe even less than that. In other sports, we'd call it "semipro."

But better than nothing? I think we'd all say yes.

 

Well, I did say from the beginning that the model was wrong and they should keep players "local," which is not the WPS model and is, to a great extent, the W-League and WPSL model.