Here’s the problem I have with the ticket drive. I understand that after the plug was pulled on the league, many wanted to help, many were willing to make monetary donations to keep the league afloat, Really, on the surface that seems what prompted this announcement. But they did this all wrong. First, they should have explained to people what the heck they are going to do with this money if the league does not come to fruition. They need to tell people that the $$ will be held in trust. If the league becomes a reality, explain to people exactly what they will get for their money, at least as they now see it. The way things were run in the past, they simply cannot expect people to trust in the system. You need to tell them more, to reassure them. If the league does not come to fruition, then they need to say that money will be refunded. Basic stuff, and some may say you should assume you will get your money back, but it needs to be said. Second, they need to update folks on why they are confident that the act of sending money will make a difference. Pump people up. Give some realities on why the league looks to actually happen in 2005. I think they really botched this thing, and that doesn’t leave people thinking anything has changed from the way things were handled in the past. Not likely to instill the confidence people need to part with their money. that said, I will be writing a check..
Thanks Sachin. Some straight answers to my questions. Earlier in this thread you posted a quote from WUSA, "... together we are accomplishing the following:...blah, blah, blah". Strikes me as the kind of stuff one might say about the USWNT (tax funded) but it doesn't make sense for a pro-sports league. Maybe someone got them confused (saw one as an extension of the other).
just an opinion I have been reading the comments re the relaunch of WUSA and just thought I would take the opportunity to toss in my bit. I went to university in the States and am back home now playing in Europe. The top teams over here from what I have seen are definitely comparable to WUSA, the difference however is that for the most part the players over here have other jobs and the stipends from clubs are minimal. This does not prevent the level from being high and younger girls having role models and something to aspire to as they get older. Having some friends on WUSA teams and hearing some of what they have to say, it seemed like the money for the players was playing a large role in the whole thing, which seems kind of hypocritical in light of the fact that the whole gender equality/"little girls need a role model" theme gets thrown around whenever this discussion comes up. From what I hear, alot of people on the teams weren't happy when pay cuts got discussed and the whole idea that if people couldn't have their job just be soccer then playing in WUSA wasn't worth it. I think in part this has to do with comparing ourselves to men's sports. the insane money that they are getting has totally thrown reality out the window. The fact is that the majority of the WUSA players were getting paid more than most teachers who are working long days educating the next generation. 3 or 4 hours a day kicking a soccer ball or preparing for it, while the rest of the day again from people I knew, were spent hanging out. Would players be willing to take a massive paycut and say use their name and status as a WUSA player and say coach 3 or 4 hours a day...still not a bad lifestyle....that's not even including the economic possibilities for the 6 months when WUSA isn't in season. Pretty much the point I want to make is I really feel like pro-level soccer in the States can work, but it is about compromise. Instead of getting mad that for us we aren't living in a men's pro-sport world, its about recognizing that the men are well ahead in terms of how long they have been around at a pro level and that they too had to start somewhere, a long way from the economic level it is at now. Personally, I still think a lot of the top foreign players, coming from environments where there is little pay for women, would be ecstatic to play in the top league for women in the world, and have a chance just to have the experience of living in the US. So instead of trying to grab it all at once, WUSA should start small and build up. To be honest, though I would be interested to see how die-hard the players really are that they would be willing to do extra to supplement a small income.....which makes me cringe every time I see this attitude that the women deserve the league and a chance to play high level soccer and little girls are being robbed of role models by taking WUSA away...instead of this whole "its not fair" attitude, if its about the opportunity to play top level soccer and give little girls role models then bring the budget way down and put some blood sweat and passion to get it to a level where it is economically viable and proven after a few years, and then talk about making the budget higher and turning it "pro". but i am cynical about whether that passion is there that would get it through a smaller phase.....the "we are owed this" attitude needs to change. And that's my piece.
How is the USWNT tax funded? The USSF is a private organization and does not receive an operating budget from the US government, so I'm confused. The only benefit the USSF sees is as a tax exempt 503c3 corporation. Many countries do support national governing bodies for Olympic sports, the US is not one of them however.
Re: just an opinion One of the finest first posts ever in the history of Big Soccer. I have said some of this many times, but not as eloquently. In many ways the WUSA hurt itself with political overtones and the sense of entitlement that was often broached in the media. You just can't go to investors and talk about entitlements; they want a business model, good management and prospects for profitability. After college, capitalism rules and arguments about entitlements aren't going to get you far unless the government pays for it. The last post asked about tax funding for the USWNT. He may have been referring to the 1.8 million dollar grant from the U.S. government for WWC operating expenses. I am not aware of other government funding for the USWNT. I usually don't agree with defensewin but this comment is spot on: "But they did this all wrong. First, they should have explained to people what the heck they are going to do with this money if the league does not come to fruition. They need to tell people that the $$ will be held in trust. If the league becomes a reality, explain to people exactly what they will get for their money, at least as they now see it. The way things were run in the past, they simply cannot expect people to trust in the system. You need to tell them more, to reassure them. If the league does not come to fruition, then they need to say that money will be refunded. Basic stuff, and some may say you should assume you will get your money back, but it needs to be said." Well said. The WUSA faces an uphill battle to get started again. It looks like the same management is making the hill even steeper.
Re: Re: just an opinion With all the WWC articles I read this fall, I don't recall reading this lil' bit of info. Do you have a link to an article that provides this info? Thanks.
Probably not set in stone yet. I would lean towards a melding of the two with the league controlling player contracts and the clubs being responsible for the remainder. That's just a guess, though. I'm not sure I understand the question. Operator/Owners will be just that. On the hook to pay the bills. Sponsors will be just that -> folks who pay the league with cash or in-kind (air travel, soccer balls, etc...) in exchange for visibility/marketing exclusivity, etc.. I don't see any "charity" happening here. Note that they've already stated that folks who've sent in money will receive vouchers good for tickets. No. How would that be possible. All the plans, as far as I know, are contingent upon -guaranteed- sponsorship and funding for three seasons. Very few leagues or sports teams are "break even". I think the objective is an "acceptable" amount of red ink. done Completely untrue. While virtually nobody can name a starting pitcher in AA baseball, many of the WUSA's stars are well known sports stars. By the nature of being one of two womens fully professional sports leagues there is value. I don't think this is an issue No the don't. It's sports. Anyone averse to risk doesn't get involved in sports. Sports teams are *toys*. Hey, look at me, I own a professional sports team! type of toys. WUSA1.0's big mistake was being owned by corporations and not individuals. Overstated. Losses aren't the problem. Uncontrolled losses are. Overstated. Sports are an awful investment for the most part. Put your money into bonds if you want a decent ROI.
FearM9, usually, when someone asks for a link, I can see what is coming and avoid it. No matter how many links you find your can't stop the flame. But you are polite so I will try to respond. The link was in two threads about "WWC turns profit." I can't find them but I am pretty busy and can't spend a lot of time on this. I believe the original bill had 2.2 million but it was compromised down to 1.8 million.
It's a horrible idea. If all those "investors" out there had just bought tickets to go see WUSA1.0, the league would still be in business.
Re: just an opinion Nice story, but no relevance. Thirty years ago most American professional athletes took jobs in the offseason. Times have changed. Two problems: 1) Money for the players wasn't a large role. The league payroll for players was roughly $40kx18px8tx3s or less than US$20MM for the three years of the league. A drop in the bucket compared to the losses incurred. 2) I wouldn't consider it being a "good role model" working semi-pro while male athletes are fully professional. What kind of message does that send? "Go ahead and play soccer for a few years after college until you need to start saving for retirement and/or have a family". I'll take a pass on that one. It's a job. Shouldn't they get paid for doing their job? Nobody's comparing A-Rod's $25MM/year to Sarah Kate Noftsinger's $25k. The main distinction is whether or not they're both professional. Being professional means earning a living - not what that living allows. I call *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#. This is completely untrue. I don't know what teachers in country make. And while I agree that primary teachers are underpaid, this is a completely specious argument. I'd like to know "who you know". I know plenty of professional soccer players, including many WUSA players. They work as many hours a week - if not more - than I do. The ones that don't tend to find themselves replaced. This is exactly what they're doing. Wow, you have no understanding of economics at all. Player salaries are a small piece of the puzzle. And you seem to have no respect for what the players do. -- And please don't take this as an attack. I don't agree with your arguments or statements, that's all. Welcome to BigSoccer. All in all, an impressive first post.
Since I'm once again slacking off in my office ... https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=84368&perpage=15&pagenumber=6 Scroll down halfway and read monster's post... From what I can tell, it looks like US Soccer was reimbursed for the expenses of providing security for the WWC. ...and then you can wade through the last remaining pages.
Thanks for the responses Andy. Promotional value is tied to fan bases, media coverage etc. I realize WUSA has promotional value, just not compared to the traditional pro sports at the highest level (AA baseball isn't the major leagues). By the same token, those owner/operators (aka investors) you refer to (willing to cover red ink within limits) pay for the status they get in return. Again a function of fan bases, media coverage etc. Tough sale as far as WUSA is concerned.
For operational reasons, I believe that the WUSA is best off thinking of itself along the lines of minor league baseball or hockey. Everybody's getting paid, but the costs and expectations - not to mention visibility - are much less Is it really? Do you realize just how many minor league hockey, basketball, baseball, soccer, and even American football teams there are. The number of potential owners willing to lose up to a couple of million per year just to own a team is all but endless. The WUSA only has to find 8 of them, and at least a couple are already on board.
Wow!!! Just finished reading all of the posts on this thread and I feel like I just took a seminar on advanced business models. While I'm sure many of you know what you're talking about, trying to come up with a WUSA business model seems like a big waste of time. Regardless of its business plan, women killed the WUSA in the end. No plan will work unless women become the force they should be. I can't recount the number of times I've heard women list the reasons why they failed to purchase season ticket plans. I realize many women did, but I was disappointed by how many did not. For some reason, perhaps it's cultural, many of the female soccer players I know seemed almost bitter about the league, having a sort of "Those girls aren't better than me" attitude or were merely indifferent saying, "Oh yeah, I'll get out there one of these days." Now many of you might be saying this is not true. Explain to me then how all of the stadiums were not sold out, filled with women, eager for the opportunity to support a league of their own. It didn't happen and the sponsors noticed. When it comes to women and sports, there is still too much APATHY and while one could try to place the blame on some old boys network, the real burden falls on women as a whole in this country. I mean, I'm pissed, I'm a guy who coaches women's soccer, enjoys the women's game, loved the WUSA and I could see this golden opportunity slipping away...and the only ones trying to rally the troops were Julie Foudy and Billy Jean King. Where's the female leadership. Again: APATHY. Maybe women are smarter. Maybe they are wise to know not to invest too much of themselves in something as simple as a sport. It makes me sad. The WUSA was an opportunity for a cultural phenomenon...now it serves as a cutting example of how women athletes should not be taken seriously. If women in this country demanded a female pro sports league they would get it. I hope some day the thinking changes. I hope the WUSA is reborn, and stadiums are sold out weeks before games. I hope millions of women athletes get it together and say, "Hey, I'm only going to buy athletic shoes from the company that supports the WUSA." I hope that women realize that the WUSA is a chance to make a statement about their power in this country. And by the way, the soccer was fun to watch too.
Re: just an opinion That is a great post and I agree completely. I think the league founders and everyone else involved thought a one time event ending with somebody taking their shirt off was big enough to sustain a league, failing to realize the kind of humble beginnings many men's leagues started out with. WUSA wanted what the men had, or something close to it; not that anybody should be blamed for wanting millions of dollars and endless exposure, but they wanted it immediately. Everything was complaining about LeBron this and Nike that, and all the while they forgot that during the late 40's /early50's when the NBA began, many players had to work 2nd jobs as a means of income. I wonder how many WUSA players knew of the history of world class European clubs that were started in the late 19th century by groups of factory workers in local neighborhoods, when Nike wasn't around to help them get started.
Skoergal and Pacific Beach Guy are right. For women's sports to succeed, women must provide support and not antagonize male fans, who may make the difference between making a profit and going under. Don't antagonize anybody, and accept responsibility. The media has put the blame for the failure of the WUSA squarely at the feet of male investors and male coporate leaders. That may be gratifying and in keeping with the flavor of the times, but it does nothing to help the WUSA get a fresh start. Skoergal touches on an important point. There were women who played for the love of the game, as the Wall Street Journal article said, but others were not so idealistic, insisting on every nickel they could get out of it, now. The negotiations over contract guarantees were endless and fractious and certainly didn't help raise more money from investors. A lot of the leaders in the WUSA have a mindset based on their experiences in college, where money really didn't matter. You didn't have to sell ticket one; the women's soccer program was secure and may even have had more money thrown at it even if it brought in no revenue. The real world is not like that. The WUSA needs new management, a new business model and support from women investors. I don't see any of this happening so I am pessimistic about the future of the league.
Wow!!! Why are you even here. Why does anyone bother with anything? If you've got nothing constructive, please don't bother. We've got enough pot-shot takers coming in. Players? Fans? League Staff? Your girlfriend or mother? Okay, you're talking about fans. Good point. But one of the problems with WUSA1 is that it tried to market itself as a "women's league" and not a "sports league". The number audience for the LPGA and Womens Tennis? 18-35 year old men. The problem with the WUSA1 is that it completely ignored that demographic. Worse - it told it not to bother by advertising itself as a league for little girls. Little girls don't buy season tickets to anything. What's this "league of their own" crap? It's a sports league. Got to Cameroon Indoor when the Duke women's bball team is playing and you'll find a 70% male crowd. But it's attitudes like this that are part of the problem. Why should the WUSA (or the WNBA) be forced to be anything other than a sports league? I'll stop after this. If a womens soccer league is run within its means it will both entertain fans and provide at least a basic living to its players. When I read your last statement I see this "If blacks wanted their own baseball league, we could re-segregate baseball." Once the players take the field, it's just soccer. Not "womens soccer", not "soccer for women", just "soccer"
I agree with your statement, but I don't think that's what Skoergal or PBG said. No. The media laid the blame squarely on the awful business plan. The two names that have been most vilified have been the clueless 2001 CEO Barbara Allen and the ineffectual 2002-2003 CEO Lynn Morgan. Last time I checked they were both women. Furthermore, the two folks leading the reorganization - and getting good media coverage - are NSCAA president Joe Cummings and league Commissioner Tony DiCicco. Now Oliver Tse has said some bad things about WUSA's male investors, but that's a personal vendetta, not media coverage. Every nickel? Oh, come on Tom. We're talking about living wages, not even MLS size wages. Player salaries were never the problem. The league does have new management. The league does have a new business model. As far as "women investors", that I can't say - but last time I checked money is money - regardless of who's paying.
Andy, I appreciate your points and your obvious knowledge in terms of the economics etc of bringing back WUSA. And don't get me wrong as a female soccer player I completely hope it happens. I think you missed my point though. Andy: (Nice story, but no relevance. Thirty years ago most American professional athletes took jobs in the offseason. Times have changed.) I am not saying that the players completely reducing their salaries is what is going to save the league....I realize its a small piece of the pie. What I am trying to say though is that I don't think you can compare women's sports to men's. I am as big a feminist as any in terms of women SHOULD have the same opportunities as men etc, but the fact is that you can't compare women's leagues to men's. Men's leagues have been around way longer, and yes, there was a time when they too had to take jobs in the off-season, as you mentioned, and look at their leagues now.Women's soccer obviously deserves to be at that level based on the effort put forth that is required to be a pro athlete but that's just the reality and sitting around complaining that its not fair and looking at what the men have and being pissed that we don't have it isn't going to get any little girls pro sports models in a hurry. Andy: (I wouldn't consider it being a "good role model" working semi-pro while male athletes are fully professional. What kind of message does that send? "Go ahead and play soccer for a few years after college until you need to start saving for retirement and/or have a family". I'll take a pass on that one.) No I think it tells little girls if you have a dream find a way to make it happen. There is no shame in being semi-pro if you are building up to the league being pro-those are the kids that are going to benefit anyways. And the cool thing about kids is that they just want to see their favourite players playing regardless of how much money they are making or caring whether they fit the definition of "pro". And in terms of "saving for retirement", coaching teams in the off season, running clinics during the day....as they say where there is a will there is a way. Andy: (I'd like to know "who you know". I know plenty of professional soccer players, including many WUSA players. They work as many hours a week - if not more - than I do. The ones that don't tend to find themselves replaced.) The only reason why I mentioned "I knew" anyone was just to emphasize that the opinions that I had was based on what I had heard first hand. And one of those players was up this year for one of the individual player awards, so I don't think she would have been replaced if WUSA was going next year. Andy: (And you seem to have no respect for what the players do.) This is where you are 100% wrong. I have a college degree but I am passing up the opportunity to "save for my retirement" and playing professional soccer in Europe for peanuts. I have teammates who have played at the World Cup and Olympics (again not saying that to try and ride a high horse, but just because I can already hear you saying that we must not have the resources or know what it takes to play at a high level). All these players have always been essentially semi-pro. Does it affect the level of play? No. Does it effect the adoring little girls who come to games and have people to aspire to be like? No. Does it take creativity to play semi pro-soccer and have enough money? Yes. Are there enough hours in a day to make it work? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes. I read somewhere that Kristine Lilly or Michelle Akers said something about what made that group of players so special was that long before there were big crowds etc that they had to find the fire within themselves to train on their own and fight adversity to make themselves into world class players while players in other parts in the world were getting all the benefits. And that group of players have accomplished amazing things. That creativity and sort of "find a way to make it happen" is the attitude it takes to build champions and make great things happen. And my only point was that before all the economic breakdowns,ticket drives and business plans etc, is if we are trying to fit women athletes into the box of men's sports as what seems to be happening, and trying to be as big etc. and complaining that its not happening, then I really don't think the spirit is there to make this thing happen.
P.S. Sorry about the shoddy attempt to cut and paste Andy's comments....this is my first time on a message board and apparently the technology to put things into bold and do it properly is beyond me.
No apologies necessary. We've all been there. If you want to quote someone directly, just click on the quote button on the lower right of their message. If you want to do the quote thing on your own, put
All of the above -- plus Jane Fonda. There is enough hot air in this thread to raise the Hindenburg. It amuses me to see the pathetic attempt to revive this corpse. Hyped to the skies, WUSA was defunct after 3 years, while the modest women's leagues in Europe and elsewhere go on about their business. I'm sure the WUSA festivals planned for spring will be marketed as the Greatest Women's SoccerFest in the World. After all, could it be anything less, with half-a-dozen 'Eternals' out for their last hurrah?
Skoergal -- I'm quite interested in your comments and would like to know more about the European system. I agree with most of what Andy says, especially about how hard the players were actually working, but I think the league might have to look at some mix of professional and semi-professional down the road. I'd also point out one difference -- there are really two different pay cut issues here. The top-level players had little trouble taking a pay cut. Those who were making $25K to live in expensive areas like the Bay Area and Washington might have had more reservations.
Pretty much the European system for the most part is semi-professional. There are a few cases where the players are completely professional (I think Hanna Ljungberg in Umea, and on the International Thread there were a few more mentioned), but all in all the players have other jobs--some get stipends from their National Team or the club they pay for, which allows them to only need a part time job. Our team practices 4 times a week, two of those days twice a day, strength trains twice, agility trains twice, and have games on the weekends. it is hectic working another job, and definitely requires flexibility in terms of being able to take off time to go to tournaments etc, but from everything I have heard people have supportive bosses. I realize that it does require giving up something with the career, but over here it doesn't seems like the girls on my team feel like they are missing out on anything. Soccer is more important to them then getting ahead in their careers. But maybe we have the luxury of doing that since it is more socialist in terms of having more things (health care etc) covered by the govt. I don't know. One point that I hoped to make before though, was that I haven't heard anything about anything besides a full blown professional WUSA. It seems like its either the full pro thing or the players aren't interested. Maybe I am wrong, but that's just the perspective I have been getting over here. It seems like a pride thing, that we too need to have a league and if its not pro then it is not worth having. Don't get me wrong, I hope the revival of WUSA goes, but what happens if it doesn't? I guess I just wanted to say that it can work as semi-pro as it does producing amazing players in Europe, and the little girls here have role models and all the other stuff that gets thrown around in discussions about why WUSA needs to exist. And I get what you (whoever posted above) wrote about players having to live in places like San Fran, Atlanta etc. Again this is where the creativity comes into it. In those expensive cities, there are a lot of parents with a lot of money who have daughters that play soccer who I am sure would kill to have a WUSA player running stuff for their teams. Let's say the WUSA players ran two guest sessions a night for teams. 3 hours total for 2 teams. Each kid paid $5 x 15 kids per team x 2 teams so the player came out with $150 a night and did that 4 nights a week. That is $600 a week x 4 weeks, an extra $2400 a month which should be more than enough to cover room and board. I'm just saying get some ideas like that. Throw the pride aside, and come at it with that kind of attitude in terms of how can this work, instead of we're either pro or nothing. And I know first hand how hard playing at a high level is, but playing and coaching some soccer is 100% better than sitting in an office all day, or trying to corrall and teach a classroom full of obnoxious kids no matter what anyone says.
Skoergal - Great post, thanks. I actually wanted to ask Hanna Ljungberg about the semi-pro lifestyle first-hand but was quickly told that it didn't really apply to her. My mistake. I have wondered why the WUSA wasn't able to make more money on camps. Seems like everyone runs a soccer camp somewhere in this country these days; I'd think a camp that can claim top-level players on its staff would reap considerable money. There were several WUSA players who were also assistant coaches at colleges or head coaches at high schools. Actually, that's true to a smaller extent in MLS as well -- one trade nearly fell through because one of the players involved had just been hired as a college assistant. In the indoor MISL, one team is owned by a guy who runs a bank. Guess where several of the players work? Not a bad system, really. Even minor-league baseball players and hockey players have offseason jobs.