Steve Davis, the Dallas Morning News' soccer writer, has a few words about the demise of the WUSA at the bottom of his online-only Added Time column: Added Time: Hyndman faces tough choice
And CBS was any different? I don't remember them lining up to try to negotiate a TV deal for WUSA matches. The hypocrism from the media is hysterical.
You mean the way USATODAY.com runs my column one day and Mike Lopresti's "ha ha, soccer will never work in this country" column the next? A good media outlet has a diversity of voices -- and the folks who make the business decisions are in another office on another floor, maybe even another planet.
Dang it -- that was going to be a future Netminder topic. You're exactly right. For some reason, today I remembered a broadcaster using the Evanescence song "Bring Me To Life" in one of their promos ... for GOLF. Sometimes, you're just better off sticking in a demographic that makes sense. If kids like golf, they'll watch, but don't try to sell it as something else to the TRL crowd. That's true for the WUSA as well. Just because the "Girl's Guide to Soccer Life" book doesn't appeal to 35-year-old men without daughters is no reason not to publish it. Speaking of which -- does anyone want my copy? I was saving it in case I had a girl.
I've covered the WUSA from before the first player was allocated. I've talked with a lot of folks in the league about a lot of things. Including a lot of the inside stuff. Not having an audience for it (My one "womens" cover ECG is the lowest selling issue), I've not really publicized much of it. And in the last few days, I've called and talked to many of my contacts in the league, and I've gotten even more inside info that before. My take. The league never recovered from the uncontrolled spending of the first year. The folks in the league office, who had a mission from the investors to land 8 2.5MM sponsorships were only able to get 2 in 18 months. That, more than any other consideration is what sunk the WUSA. The league as it was operating day to day was as viable as any other minor league sport. Team losses were in the 1-2 million per year. In sports, this is what is known as a sustainable loss. SAS, who was going to buy the Courage, had no problem with this whatsoever. It's the cost of owning a sports team. It was the 20 mill/year spending at the league level that killed things off. Speculation: Looking at all the folks that sniffed by didn't bite (Anschutz?) now makes sense. Owning a team looks fine, but the problem is that the folks running the league itself had a 3 year track record of mistakes. This is where the "ray of hope" comes from. The model the league has been pushed to is sustainable. And now that the existing league office is gone, a new group of team owner/operators might be willing to step in. The main caveat is that you will see a completely different operational staff at the league level (I mean Anheiser-Busch spends something like $100MM/year on the MFL (yes, MFL), you can't tell me that the WUSA couldn't have gotten them to shell out $2.5 to make Bud Light the official beer of the WUSA). The other caveat is that the new league staff would have to have several of these corporate sponsors on board before the league starts back up. The benefit to restarting in 2004/2005 is that the new league would save many of the start-up costs absorbed in 2000/2001 by the WUSA. By 2006, the WUSA would be starting from scratch. More speculation: I see the WUSA players association winding up with the intellectual rights (names, logos, etc...) of the league. I would not be surprised to see next summer see a series of "WUSA All-Stars vs US Womens National Team" games. It would keep the USWNT playing until the Olympics, and it would keep the player pool larger than 25.
Andy, your "ray of hope" is the first encouraging thing I've heard of these last two days. Let's hope something like that develops.
Gee, that would be a damn shame I would have guessed that the hole they dug with uncontrolled spending in Year 1 was the biggest reason for the demise. And you're right, why would sponsors throw good money into a pit that had a horrible management record? Another reason no one in WUSA will give was their general stubborness and arrogance in refusing to accept help. They would have benefitted far more from a relationship with MLS than MLS would have - MLS had already been five years down the road of a start-up league and could have helped them logistically as well as helped their image with fans of men's soccer.
Not only was WUSA management arrogant (the arrogance started with the players themselves, notably Foudy and Brandi and to a certain extent Mia, and spread quickly among management), they quickly earned a reputation of being dishonest. Word got around quickly on Madison Avenue that WUSA management could not be trusted when when they lied about getting a $3 million rights fee from Turner Sports. Turner did NOT pay WUSA a rights fee. The arrangement was a profit-sharing deal. Turner Sports boss Mark Lazarus told me that himself in an on-the-record interview. WUSA then screwed over Oxygen network, which went out of its way to offer WUSA free TV time after Turner bailed out, and spent money to produce WUSA exhibition games after the 2001 season. Staying true to form, WUSA management doublecrossed Oxygen and bought time with PAX because Oxygen was too small and didn't offer enough households to allow WUSA to sell the overpriced charter sponsorships, which no one other than Hyundai or Johnson and Johnson would have touched anyway as the sponsorships were worth at most 1/10 the asking price. After WUSA did the deal with PAX, WUSA lied to the press again by telling the media that PAX paid $1 million a year. WUSA also instructed PAX not to comment about the deal to the media. For a while, PAX played along. Of course, when WUSA whined to the media that PAX didn't promote WUSA, PAX took its gloves off and punched back with bare knuckles. Anyone who has any knowledge of how PAX operated could have figured out that Lowell "Bud" Paxson didn't earn the nickname "Infomercial King" for paying $1 million rights fee for a TV product that got lower ratings than a test pattern. It took me less than 30 seconds on one phone call to verify with a source at PAX that WUSA did a time buy at a price that was about 50% of market rate, consistent with what everyone else paid to get their infomercials on PAX. Furthermore, WUSA got the Saturday 4-6pm slot because it didn't want to pay more money for Sunday. The deal was NOT "take it or leave it", as WUSA had claimed. WUSA management earned its reputation of being out-of-control spenders. WUSA management earned its reputation of overpromising and underdelivering on every deal. WUSA management earned its reputation of being liars, and bad liars at that. Only lazy journalists who wrote what WUSA told them bought the act. Corporate America didn't kill WUSA. TV networks didn't kill WUSA. WUSA killed WUSA. No one else did.
Speaking of sponsors...I've been mulling this over as the week has progressed. It's amazing to me how few sponsors are committed to more than one top-level soccer entity in this country. Only Nike and Budwieser come to mind as a sponsor of more than one segment of the US game...and at that as sponsors of US Soccer and MLS only. IIRC, WUSA shared no sponsors with US Soccer, and no sponsors of US Soccer were major sponsors of WUSA. I wonder why that is? I wonder if maybe now, as AndyMead reports, with a new organizational staff at league level, if more US Soccer sponsors will be willing to bankroll a new womens' league.
You must really be loving life these days OT, huh? You forgot about the whole request to Playboy thing being leaked by the magazine. That was another strange move by the league.
If they think they're "bankrolling" the new league, you'll never see the money. There has to be some perception of value. Professional sports leagues are not charities. If Nike wants to give $2.5MM to a charity, they'd write a check to Habitat for Humanity - or give all their sweatshop works raises. I'm not saying that Nike, Philips, etc... all have to see where they'll get an incremental dollar for dollar profit by sponsoring the WUSA2, I'm just saying that it can't be phrased as a write-off or bankrolling. There has to be the perception of long-term value or return. Nike's Project 2010 with the MNT isn't happening in a vacuum. I don't think Nike's getting anywhere near their money back on what they've invested so far - but as the US steadily turns into a world power, and begins exporting talent, It stands to reap the benefits (like being first in line for Freddy Adu).
Maybe I phrased that wrong...with a new business plan in place and the potential on the table for ROI, would more US Soccer sponsors be willing to invest in the womens' league? I still think it's odd that there was no duplication there...
Re: Re: Re: not for the mls.... I also suspect you're one of the ones that ran to the Fusion and Mutiny boards in 2002 and told them good riddance, too. Nobody wins when soccer fans lose their teams.
From the SJ Mercury News WUSA's demise felt locally COLLEGE PLAYERS' HOPES ARE DASHED; COACHES OPTIMISTIC By Dylan Hernandez
Doom? Who the f--- said doomed? I think what I said (and I don't think anyone said that the game was doomed) it is that a mistake like this gives the entire game a black eye. The same way that the closing of two MLS teams after the 2001 season was a negative for the game here in the US, especially in the eyes of the soccer haters like Radnich, et al, the "mainstream" sportswriters and broadcasters.
That makes a lot of sense. I think we can assume the national team will be playing a lot next year, and a "WUSA All-Star team" might be cheaper than importing several national teams as opponents. Keeps the name brand alive, also, which may or may not be a good thing.
The Unanswered Question. Since everyone seems to agree that WUSA's top management blew through their money like a drunken sailor, where did the money go?