Your intelligence is only exceeded by your eloquence. You must have been a member of the Cailfornia PUCO that set the electric rate policy, or Gray's economic advisory board.
Now does anybody think that maybe Saint Phil will step in after the World Cup? That might be, IMHO, pefect timing. The closing before the Cup, the sob stories during the Cup, and Saint Phil after the Cup. Publicity would be through the roof, and if there's a big investor involved for the long haul, sponsors might be more likely to join in. I can only hope...
WUSA Shuts Down (Crew Board) I'm over in the WUSA forum reading the big-ass thread about this and most of those dolts claim and concur with one another that: "The main reason WUSA failed was bad management and a bad business plan." Now I have no qualms with this because this is part of the truth. But no one makes mention that it was a women's sport marketed to women and that this could have contributed to the demise of the league. Everybody just loved the WUSA! Hell they even packed stadium after stadium and the ratings soared through the roof every Saturday didn't they? It never occurs to half of these people that there might be possible that there just aren't enough people that care about a women's professional soccer league in the U.S. and I'm sure in the rest of the world. Welcome to the real world "Girl Power". Anybody remeber my sig line before they started charging for them? It read "I hope the WUSA fails!" I'm pretty satisfied. It's not everyday you get something you want. And don't forget as Grant Wahl pointed out several years ago, the uswnt plays the U-14 boys if they want to have a contested match and the U-17 squad if they want to lose.
The question, in my mind, will always be whether the Peak in interest after WWC '99 was a one time deal like the internet bubble or represented the underlying long term demand for women's soccer. It's apparent the women's soccer people took some curiosity and post WWC euphoria to represent long term interest. Their marketing for events at CCS reflected some strange misinterpretation for demand as they usually priced their tickets 15-25% above the level for men's Nats games AND sucked all the center clubseats out for themselves. Last year they priced the US v Canada friendly 20% above the Men's Mexico WWC qualifier and only sold about 40% of the tickets (my est.). I have no idea whether this was a national pricing policy, but can't see a reason why CCS would be single case. While Mia, Julie, and Brandy may have excellent individual media value, IMO women's soccer probably has about the same % of market relationship as the LPGA and WNBA have to their counterparts. WUSA and the WWC people appear to have believed women's professional soccer had a higher % of the soccer market than the men. They missed the fact that a great deal of their WWC victory tour market was one time sales to 10-15 year old girls who are not primary sports fans and don't have the discretionary income to be season ticket holders even if they wanted to transition. The other short term part of the market was longer term men buyers like myself who bought tickets out of loyalty and curiosity during the post WWC victory tour. I enjoyed the 2 games I saw, but the games were distinctly slower, less physical, and skillful than the men's and I never considered more it more than a passing interest at the highest level. I do like to see my daughter play and support most women's sports (ex. hockey and football) for their value to the participants. I actually prefer women's Tennis to men's for the variety of shots -so I don't need the Feminazis accusing me of bias. However, Bill's accusation of hubris appered to match my experience and evidence. If they blew a four year budget in one year it only fits the pattern they've previously established. Too bad for the developing players and fans. They were the ones misled by the "We are the World" people who believed their own hype.
I think it goes back to the opening comments by Bill that were wrongly mistaken as gloting. After the '99 WWC women's soccer had a tremendous chance to begin a pro women's league, but they had to get it right. They didn't get it right and I truely believe they didn't get it right when they laughed in the face of MLS to throw in together. Granted MLS wasn't, and still isn't, a big fish then. I would have to say that '99 and '00 were pretty bleak, except CCS, for MLS. However, they had everything already in place for a smooth opening for a new league and experience in doing it. WUSA spent four years worth of money in the first year. A lot of that had to be in start-up costs. Things that MLS would have had covered. Things like: *An office in NY, which has to be expensive. *Staff for that office, even if MLS had to hire a few more people to help with the load it would have been cheaper then highering a whole new staff that would have to go through the bumps and bruises that MLS went through in the first few years. *Corporate sponsors that have been pretty loyal to MLS like the shoe companies, Pepsi, Honda, Anheiser-Busch, and Yahoo. That I might add WUSA was never able to pull in. *Experience in working with stadium officials and fans. *And the two most important things, St Phil and Uncle Lamar; Two billionairs. Combine all those things with the cable companies the starters of WUSA had lined up and Johnson & Johnson, it could have been benificial to both sides to team up. It's just too bad it never happened.
The truth is ...Women's Soccer was hype. The average American loves anything we win at. We won at speed skating at the winter Olympics, yet how many of you and yer pals grab a 12 pack and watch speed skating? It was obvious it would fail. The women aren't very good. It's silly looking watching them play. And I have a feeling that this world cup will be just another USA women on tour. Hardly exciting.
Not to mention that he got all the Hummers. The other thing is that they all got caught up in the "look at all the little girls in ponytails runing around on Saturday morning. A ready-made fan base if ever there was one - we'll clean up" mindset. Anybody in business can tell you that huge numbers of potential customers aren't worth a damn. You need BUYERS not people who might buy if they're approached the right way and asked nicely. And their "core" demo hasn't ever shown that they're wiling to dump big dough on a continuous basis on antyhing but training bras and Backstreet Boys CD's. And since they're not old enough to buy beer or cars, you're gonna have to put a heck of a lot of little fannies in seats to make up for the fact that corporate advertisers aren't in the charity business, no matter how progressive it might make them look. Now MLS still feebly tries to peddle that same "there are 52 gajillion kids playing soccer and we're tapping that market" crapola to the gullible, despite how many times it ges proven wrong. The sports market is men, 18-48. Little girls may whine at daddy until he takes them to see Mia and Brandy, but if your core market consists of bored fathers trying to imagine what Heather Mitts' ass looks like without those baggy shorts and prepubescent females squealing for autographs, then you'd better sign up Barbie and Limited Too as sponsors because the beer companies won't be available to take your call. Silly twits like most of the "Adu thread" posters on BS whine and moan about how Telemundo & Co. own the rights to so much USA soccer. The reason is quite simple: young Hispanic men buy beer and pickup trucks and Big Macs and advertisers will pay to talk to them. So while AEG and SUM go hat in hand begging for free TV rights, Telemundo shows up with a checkbook. MLS does have a decent (albeit small) demographic that a marketing pro can work with; WUSA has nothing but a bunch of, like, really psyched Tiffani's and Heather's. So while MLS can point to certain factors trending in their favor, all WUSA has is a sense of entitlement born of Title IX and the very true, but very irrelevant, fact that they have the best women footballers in the world. They remind me of the dotcom people - they thought, as I've said, that they had repealed the basic laws of economics and the marketplace. Not only did you not have to show a profit, you didn't even need to be able to pretend that you MIGHT show one at some time in the future. Everybody knew that the cable TV companies were floating in a sea of cash and were starving for content. Surely that would be enough. It wasn't, and it wasn't ever likely to be. Sincerity doesn't feed the bulldog.
The thing that really pisses me off is that the news is running stories about "Soccer not being that popular" That's a load of cack. I knew we'd get dragged into this.
The predictability is sad. You would think that one non-soccer writer would have an orginal, thoughtful take on this. Nope. Instead we get the same recycled garbage instead of the simple fcuking fact that people don't follow women's sports.
It's probably just easier to open a file, change a few dates and names and hit print than it is to get out of the office and do a little work.
Everyone knows that the only reason the WNBA still exists is due to the deep pockets of the NBA. As mentioned earlier, WUSA wrote its death warrant when it chose to join forces with MLS.
Is it safe to assume that everyone knows that the only reason MLS exists is due to the deep pockets of Anshutz, Hunt and Kraft?
Of course, but MLS has shown signs that it can be profitable - albeit in a couple of cities so far. WUSA nor WNBA didn't or hasn't shown signs of profitability.
Exactly so. Of course MLS is on deep=pockets life support. The difference is that, using some current trends, you can make a real case for it becoming a viable business in the not-too-distant future. Columbus has proved that. But there is no way WUSA can reaarange the Mah Jong tiles to spell anything but doom. Sans corporate sponsors, they needed to draw TV numbers. It's was never going to happen and the owners bowed to the inevitable.
Too easy to write about soccer's failures than women's sport failures. The editors don't want to take the heat from that getting published.
When did they join forces? I thought MLS and WUSA pretty much hated one another. There was initial offerings, but they were snubbed. Did I miss some kind of alliance? I really doubt it, because MLS would have taken a major loss in being associated finacially to WUSA. Anschutz was wise not to buy or invest in WUSA. I never like WUSA, or many of the USWNT players. The whole attitude around them is so old and overplayed. Liberating women my ass... you missed that movement by oh 30 years ladies. I know retro is hip, but retro-mentalities are unrealistic.
I didn't care for WUSA either. But I never have seen a quote where any WUSA or USWNT member claimed to be "liberating" women. They mentioned being role models for children and all but I don't recall any of them calling themselves liberators. But i didn't pay close attention, either.