It doesn't matter what they thought...Others put them in that role. Kinda like Charles Barkley saying he wasn't a role model.....tough...other people said you are, so you are. Be one. In this case, many people hijacked their accomplishments and made them womens lib movements. It's unfortunate really.
Sort of like Clinton/democrats using the "soccer mom" concept politically and instantly alienating a group of potential fans on political ground alone. It is unfortunate. All most of them probably wanted was adequate compensation for playing soccer; not to be politicized or used as rallying points/icons for a vocal but narrow mindset. Unless something exciting happens in this years WWC (doubt it) all the work from 1998 to today will be distilled down to and remembered as a failure and "the game where the chick took her shirt off"...
It's not like a sports bra is the hottest thing I've ever seen a chick wear anyways, other than Keira Knightley
Re: WUSA Shuts Down (Crew Board) Very well said. It's the way many women are; when something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault. For example, when a man cheats, he's just a cheating pig. When a woman cheats, it's because her husband was always working, or always not working, or not telling her often enough how good she looked. It's never just her fault. I feel the same way about all those martyrs on the other boards, male and female. It's simple - women are simply not the best athletes in the world and that's what we want to see. But of course, the blame always has to be shifted to anything but the source of the problem. They wanted us to support a cause, not a viable, financially stable and exciting league.
The fans of 8 soccer teams just had their clubs contracted. I know how they feel. Fortunately, I have other teams in other leagues to turn my attention to, but I will miss the Courage. In the era of government constructed stadia (with Crew Stadium and Gillette Stadium being notable exceptions), I understand where some fans are wondering where their "handout" is. I don't agree, but I do understand. The blame is not with the product, but with the gross mismanagement that ruled the league office in 2000-2001. Coupled with the inability of the league office to bring in appreciable sponsorship money in 2002-2003 when that was their primary task from the investors. The teams pretty much did what was asked of them financially. To be honest, WUSA 2003 was a sustainable sports league. The team by team losses were comparable to what most AA and AAA baseball clubs deal with. They're not public charities (well, most aren't), they're toys for rich boys and girls. The WUSA had even lined up team owners for most of the league. What prevented them from pulling in the remaining pieces of the puzzle was the dead wood in the front office. Several groups took a pass due to the lingering doubts about the inability of the board to perform their primary function: secure sponsorship revenues to cover league (not team) expenses. The new group of team owners were more than willing and capable of assuming the team losses. That's why I think we'll see another league in 2005. Fiscally - after all the mistakes of the WUSA - the league was beginning to find its niche. the WUSA is not a women's MLS. It's not even a women's A-League. But it is a viable product. Yeah, for every WUSA fan on their high horse asking for public handouts, their's a he-man woman hater gloating about the death of "chick soccer" or that the "broads" should get back into kitchen. That just proves that their are jacknuts everywhere. Me, I'm just in it for the soccer.
Why a soccer fans would wish a womens soccer league to fail is beyond me. I do not understand such self-righteous and juvenile thinking. I was no "fan" of WUSA. I watched all of 45 minutes over 3 years but I wished them well. Its a shame they failed, but so be it. To wish them ill speaks more to your own personal failings and insecurities than it does to a lesser product that was poorly managed.
I wanted them to fail. Of all the bullsh1t I had to endure during the last WWC, the ridiculous things I heard from fans and those National Team players. Then when their league came around. I couldn't stand the screaming girls. The parents. Fans who think it's my duty to support all forms of soccer. I'm quite happy. Because guess what. This is not some movement where soccer fans all stick together. I don't give a *#*#*#*# about women's soccer. It's quality over quantity.
All I can say is "wow." Talk about living in a fantasy world and not even coming close to understanding what she already has.
It was interesting to me that SAUDI women asked NOW to leave their country because they did not want to adopt American style women's rights - they liked their rights much better. I wonder what the women who have moved from their shacks in the jungle of Malaysia to work in Nike shoe factories would say about their "slave labor" status. How does the "we want equal rights and opportunity" jibe with the fact that women are not physically able to win player contracts in MLS, but demand a Women Only professional league be subsidized to "create" equal opportunity? With supporters like "Varlet" and the entitlement attitude of many in Women's soccer, I'm more surprised they made it as far as they did... Fortunately, most of the women I have worked with cringe when they read the ridiculously outdated BS Varlet ascribes to. They realize they have some inherent advantages and disadvantages and have learned to recognize and effectively utilize the differences.
Men have been using women for their bodies, women have been using men for their status and wallets. This is the way of the world. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
No doubt true at most levels, but I was referring to non physical aspects. There are obviously some excellent studies on male v. female psycological, communication differences and decison making styles - eg. women tend to be much more consensus oriented at the expense of expediencies and priorities, but the consensus process ensures that they examine all points of view and more contingencies. Yin and Yang...
Yep, women never say what they mean they drop hints.. I remember my girlfriend Freshman year in high-school. In the hallway before class I wanted her to come home with me. She kept making all these weird excuses and references. I kept bugging her saying I don't understand why she just doesn't come over. She ended up shouting "Cause I'm on my *#*#*#*#ing period do I have to spell it out for you!?" and people in the immediate vicinity started laughing. My reply was "Yes....yes you do" And thats when I learned that women talk absolute *#*#*#*#*# and aren't worth listening to 40% to 60% of the time.
If you ask, Bill may consider you for a staff job at his Vatican Diplomatic post, Eggy. He's already put my name up for Cardinal of Las Vegas....
How does Archbishop Eggy of The French Riviera strike you? Good piece by Bob Wagman at Soccertimes on WUSA some exerpts: The fact is, the hostility between the WUSA and MLS goes back four years to when Hendricks was organizing the fledgling league after the 1999 Women's World Cup. He and the other potential initial WUSA investors went to MLS and asked the league to draw a business plan for them. MLS executive vice president Mark Abbott did that, essentially calling for something of a partnership between MLS and the proposed new women's owners group. It was rejected out of hand by the WUSA investors, and they went their own way. Many in MLS felt almost duped. There was no way MLS and its investors now were going to bail Hendricks and company out. The simple fact is, if Phil Anschutz wants to get involved in women's soccer, his smartest move is to let the WUSA disappear, and then to start his own league. Is there a WMLS just over the horizon? If in fact Anchutz (or somebody else or a GROUP of somebodies) wants to take a shot at women's pro soccer, it makes little sense to bail out the existing league and the idiots in charge. Cheaper and smarter to start up again with a clean slate, using existing MLS sales and administrative capabilities. by all accounts the league has been a disaster from day one. Part of the problem seems to be the league was started by a bunch of cable television owners who were looking for an exclusive product for their cable systems. They were not soccer people. They simply had no idea how or to whom to market their product, but they did not turn management over to people who did. Here's one example. In the first year, one team's president, marketing vice president and director of communications all had one thing in common -- none of them had ever seen a single live professional soccer match - men or women - before accepting their new jobs. MLS did some of this sort of stupidity at first, but realized that soccer isn't detergent or car wax, and has to be run by soccer people, not marketing geeks. http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2003/sep17.htm
And the hits just keep on coming. From the New York Post today - Julie Foudy, Queen of "We're better than they are, and we'll never let those guys drag OUR league down", a full plate of crow, a la mode: "In hindsight the ideal situation would've been to join forces; not have the same investors, but learn from each other, build the sport together," Foudy said. "From the beginning from both sides there was an attitude of competition. I don't point the blame at them; I think we're probably the ones [at fault]." She also includes my new candidate for "Understatement of the Year": "Spending $40 million in the first year probably wasn't great" http://www.nypost.com/sports/40475.htm
if it's not already obvious, Anschutz must be showing at least a little interest in saving the WUSA. IF they were getting investors completly independent of MLS, we would still be hearing how great this women's league could be and how it didn't need help from mls.
Learn from Eachother? Get real biotch. We've been a league for almsot a decade. What could we possibly learn from their league other than if the soccer on show is of a horrible standard, less people will go to watch it?