USWNT

MAP! These 2 posts are great! You obviously know what you are talking about! I recently read an article on the other soccer site regarding this...a top player for FSU said she will be better compensated from her University than the NWSL. I believe you said this before that unless you're on the US national team its hard to justify playing in the league for a large amount of time and they miss out on many top players when they would have been in their athletic and mental prime! They leave to go to into their profession. While I don't have an answer because I believe the NWSL is currently not a money making venture which like you said, US Soccer should be helping promote this league! Our players need choices and overseas may be the right one financially but honestly that is not their first choice, they want to play here!

I agree they want to stay but unless they get a Golden Ticket it is more a labor of love. The problem is these are intelligent and talented women that have options! No worries the European leagues love American players and quietly many of the top players have been going to the top clubs in Europe a lot recently.
 
And with Real Madrid getting into the game, and Barkley's becoming the title sponsor for the WSL in England this will only be the beginning. Let's hope that the new WNT coach is willing to let players that don't get the "golden ticket" of a US Soccer contract play outside of the country and still be on the radar.

US Soccer needs to focus on increasing the appeal of the NWSL for our players, and move beyond paying salaries to 23 frozen roster sports.

I would like to see them match up to the first $25k of salary for all domestic players in the NWSL for a start. I estimate this would cost around $5 million annually, even with some expansion. That is a good use for the large reserve they built up. It would produce starting salaries in the league that are a viable option for non-National team top college players looking to spend a few more years playing soccer without having to rely on the charity of family or friends.

I do not want to see US Soccer getting more involved in other aspects of the NWSL, as they are proven inept or corrupt (need we talk SUM?) at business.
 
US Soccer needs to focus on increasing the appeal of the NWSL for our players, and move beyond paying salaries to 23 frozen roster sports.

I would like to see them match up to the first $25k of salary for all domestic players in the NWSL for a start. I estimate this would cost around $5 million annually, even with some expansion. That is a good use for the large reserve they built up. It would produce starting salaries in the league that are a viable option for non-National team top college players looking to spend a few more years playing soccer without having to rely on the charity of family or friends.

I do not want to see US Soccer getting more involved in other aspects of the NWSL, as they are proven inept or corrupt (need we talk SUM?) at business.

Great idea! Maybe US Soccer will do and actually become a non-profit and work towards their actual charter of promoting soccer in the US. If they did it they could truly equalize pay and pay the players a set amount each time they appear in a camp (like the men's team). I bet that the current crop of WNT players would be dead set against this idea.
 
Great idea! Maybe US Soccer will do and actually become a non-profit and work towards their actual charter of promoting soccer in the US. If they did it they could truly equalize pay and pay the players a set amount each time they appear in a camp (like the men's team). I bet that the current crop of WNT players would be dead set against this idea.

That is what some have asked for, and it is the natural next step. It will likely result in a short term pay cut for at least half of those 23 (not the stars). Like Kerry, I was against this idea before I was for it. But I think the risk of NWSL failing is past, and the formula needs to change. The women need to put their eggs in the professional basket, not US Soccer, and make it priority #1. Then the players will not let them schedule an meaningless game in the middle of their season, as you pointed out so well.
 
That is what some have asked for, and it is the natural next step. It will likely result in a short term pay cut for at least half of those 23 (not the stars). Like Kerry, I was against this idea before I was for it. But I think the risk of NWSL failing is past, and the formula needs to change. The women need to put their eggs in the professional basket, not US Soccer, and make it priority #1. Then the players will not let them schedule an meaningless game in the middle of their season, as you pointed out so well.

As employees of US Soccer (remember, the woman have a different deal), they get paid for those meaningless games and in theory promote the game to a wider audience.

The women are trying to capitalize on their success through these friendlies/victory tour. The money is and will always at the US National Team level. They are chasing the dollars.

I believe the risk of the NWSL failing remains high, especially at its current subsidy levels. It has yet to make a profit and will not make a profit for many, many years. It also finds itself in a very difficult position given its lack of geographic diversity.

I've personally looked at 3 different deals for the acquisition of USL and USL II teams and in all cases they were bad investments. Its almost impossible to make money in soccer in the US because there is not enough home games to offset expenses and there isn't legitimate TV deals. The NWSL falls into the same boat as the USL.
 
As employees of US Soccer (remember, the woman have a different deal), they get paid for those meaningless games and in theory promote the game to a wider audience.

The women are trying to capitalize on their success through these friendlies/victory tour. The money is and will always at the US National Team level. They are chasing the dollars.

I believe the risk of the NWSL failing remains high, especially at its current subsidy levels. It has yet to make a profit and will not make a profit for many, many years. It also finds itself in a very difficult position given its lack of geographic diversity.

I've personally looked at 3 different deals for the acquisition of USL and USL II teams and in all cases they were bad investments. Its almost impossible to make money in soccer in the US because there is not enough home games to offset expenses and there isn't legitimate TV deals. The NWSL falls into the same boat as the USL.

Watching injured players goofing around on the bench, an Ireland team put 11 players behind the ball and kick everything long, and a mediocre display of soccer in a mostly empty stadium, promotes turning the channel (my daughter did), and does nothing to increase interest in women's soccer.

If the money will always be with US National Team we lose, as the rest of the world is treating this as a business, and trying to build club/brand loyalty. The female club soccer attendance records they are setting in Europe are based on letting the professional men's hard core members attend for free, and charging less that US$10 for many tickets. They have aligned the women's teams with men's teams. We have a lot of billionaire owners in the MLS these days, and US Soccer should be pressuring them to invest in the NWSL along side US Soccer, not just paying 23 women slightly more.

Professional sports franchise ownership is almost always a negative cash flow investment and a vanity project, with the returns based on increasing franchise value, or the occasional stadium deal providing adjacent real estate opportunities, not cash flow. I too have personally looked at many professional soccer team investments here and abroad (I will leave it at that), and none make much sense unless you expect to sell it for more in the end. Just ask Mike Piazza. If making NWSL cash flow positive independent of US Soccer and outside investment is our goal, it will never happen.
 
As employees of US Soccer (remember, the woman have a different deal), they get paid for those meaningless games and in theory promote the game to a wider audience.

The women are trying to capitalize on their success through these friendlies/victory tour. The money is and will always at the US National Team level. They are chasing the dollars.

I believe the risk of the NWSL failing remains high, especially at its current subsidy levels. It has yet to make a profit and will not make a profit for many, many years. It also finds itself in a very difficult position given its lack of geographic diversity.

I've personally looked at 3 different deals for the acquisition of USL and USL II teams and in all cases they were bad investments. Its almost impossible to make money in soccer in the US because there is not enough home games to offset expenses and there isn't legitimate TV deals. The NWSL falls into the same boat as the USL.

Which is the problem! US Soccer makes huge profits from it's ownership of SUM and negotiating TV rights with networks and bundling the US Men's and Women's National teams broadcast rights with the rights for MLS. Why isn't the NWSL included in the same deal? Why is there a separate deal for the women? If they stopped just paying a small select group of players guaranteed salaries and put the money into the league (which helps the top female players stay at the top of their game and therefore win which makes for a more profitable television contract) then they will continue to insure that their cash cow keeps staying on top of the world. Also it will end the equal pay argument because everyone men and women will get paid per camp appearance instead of getting to go to a camp injured because you are guaranteed to get paid and they don't want to double up what they are spending.

Honestly the current crop of players are pretty greedy and self interested (the American way!).
 
If the money will always be with US National Team we lose, as the rest of the world is treating this as a business, and trying to build club/brand loyalty. The female club soccer attendance records they are setting in Europe are based on letting the professional men's hard core members attend for free, and charging less that US$10 for many tickets. They have aligned the women's teams with men's teams. We have a lot of billionaire owners in the MLS these days, and US Soccer should be pressuring them to invest in the NWSL along side US Soccer, not just paying 23 women slightly more...

As you correctly point out so far its been a massive subsidy and will remain a massive subsidy for years to come, both here and abroad. The MLS model is exactly what the women do not want in the long term (nor the men), but in the short terms could work. The single entity model, however, has to be blown up, so I don't know that is the path we want to explore. The fundamental problem (and Billionaires tend to get this) is there is little to no ROI both short and long term in a professional women's league. Soccer is not a national sports in the US, like it is in Europe and Latin America, so the appetite to subsidize is much, much, less. The MLS doesn't have the TV revenue it needs to thrive and won't likely have those revenues until the quality of play greatly improves. I just can't see how smart people are going to throw additional dollars at the "other leagues" yet, bad business move.

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic or just a realist, but there has never been a professional women's team sport league in the US that has succeeded financially. Maybe the NWSL will be a first.
 
Which is the problem! US Soccer makes huge profits from it's ownership of SUM and negotiating TV rights with networks and bundling the US Men's and Women's National teams broadcast rights with the rights for MLS. Why isn't the NWSL included in the same deal? Why is there a separate deal for the women? If they stopped just paying a small select group of players guaranteed salaries and put the money into the league (which helps the top female players stay at the top of their game and therefore win which makes for a more profitable television contract) then they will continue to insure that their cash cow keeps staying on top of the world. Also it will end the equal pay argument because everyone men and women will get paid per camp appearance instead of getting to go to a camp injured because you are guaranteed to get paid and they don't want to double up what they are spending.

Honestly the current crop of players are pretty greedy and self interested (the American way!).

The premise of your post is slightly flawed. Let's take a step back:

1) US Soccer aka the Federation DOES NOT have an ownership interest in SUM (Soccer United Marketing) last I checked. SUM is a for-profit marketing arm of the MLS, which means SUM is exclusively controlled by the MLS owners and not the USSF. I simply do not recall US Soccer reporting any ownership interest in SUM in any of their financials. I don't know where you got this information, but I believe it is wrong.

2) Back in the day day, the TV Contract the federation negotiated was horrible. Then the MLS/SUM came along and said, "Hey, Federation, you guys suck at negotiating TV rights deals, what if we bundled the MLS and US Soccer games in 1 rights package, the MLS/SUM keeps 2/3rd and US Soccer gets 1/3 AND we will guarantee a minimum yearly take." Well, the Federation looked at the deal and said, sure.

3) Why wasn't the NWSL included? Because the MLS/SUM didn't give a flying rats ass about the NWSL, this deal is really an MSL deal not a Federation deal. Now, there is nothing stopping the NWSL from forming their own SUM type company and trying to make a deal with the Federation once the exclusive marketing rights deal expires, but ... we know how that will go.

4) Why is there a separate deal for the US Women. The short answer is the women and men each formed unions. The men negotiated their contract and the women said "F that we want a different deal, we want guaranteed salaries by the federation for our top women ... the men's deal sucks." Fast forward to 2018/19 and they woman have remained successful and more and more money is being generated from a marketing perspective. Now the women are saying ... "Woooaaa, we want to be paid "equally but different" ???? Yes, we want our guaranteed money, but we also want a greater piece of the pie so our wages more accurately reflect our marketing power and surpass the men who have a different more riskier deal."
 
As you correctly point out so far its been a massive subsidy and will remain a massive subsidy for years to come, both here and abroad. The MLS model is exactly what the women do not want in the long term (nor the men), but in the short terms could work. The single entity model, however, has to be blown up, so I don't know that is the path we want to explore. The fundamental problem (and Billionaires tend to get this) is there is little to no ROI both short and long term in a professional women's league. Soccer is not a national sports in the US, like it is in Europe and Latin America, so the appetite to subsidize is much, much, less. The MLS doesn't have the TV revenue it needs to thrive and won't likely have those revenues until the quality of play greatly improves. I just can't see how smart people are going to throw additional dollars at the "other leagues" yet, bad business move.

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic or just a realist, but there has never been a professional women's team sport league in the US that has succeeded financially. Maybe the NWSL will be a first.

So why have an NWSL then since it isn’t profitable? Let’s just have a USWNT and see how that works out for us. Let’s see how much soccer grows in America when we only have no successful team to point to when they are trying to sell the broadcast rights.

You are only looking at one revenue bucket. US Soccer has a job to do and building successful national teams is part of it. Making a profit and creating a war chest isn’t.
 
The premise of your post is slightly flawed. Let's take a step back:

1) US Soccer aka the Federation DOES NOT have an ownership interest in SUM (Soccer United Marketing) last I checked. SUM is a for-profit marketing arm of the MLS, which means SUM is exclusively controlled by the MLS owners and not the USSF. I simply do not recall US Soccer reporting any ownership interest in SUM in any of their financials. I don't know where you got this information, but I believe it is wrong.

2) Back in the day day, the TV Contract the federation negotiated was horrible. Then the MLS/SUM came along and said, "Hey, Federation, you guys suck at negotiating TV rights deals, what if we bundled the MLS and US Soccer games in 1 rights package, the MLS/SUM keeps 2/3rd and US Soccer gets 1/3 AND we will guarantee a minimum yearly take." Well, the Federation looked at the deal and said, sure.

3) Why wasn't the NWSL included? Because the MLS/SUM didn't give a flying rats ass about the NWSL, this deal is really an MSL deal not a Federation deal. Now, there is nothing stopping the NWSL from forming their own SUM type company and trying to make a deal with the Federation once the exclusive marketing rights deal expires, but ... we know how that will go.

4) Why is there a separate deal for the US Women. The short answer is the women and men each formed unions. The men negotiated their contract and the women said "F that we want a different deal, we want guaranteed salaries by the federation for our top women ... the men's deal sucks." Fast forward to 2018/19 and they woman have remained successful and more and more money is being generated from a marketing perspective. Now the women are saying ... "Woooaaa, we want to be paid "equally but different" ???? Yes, we want our guaranteed money, but we also want a greater piece of the pie so our wages more accurately reflect our marketing power and surpass the men who have a different more riskier deal."

So you are absolutely wrong. SUM negotiates for MLS and US Soccer. Please do a little more research.
 
The premise of your post is slightly flawed. Let's take a step back:

1) US Soccer aka the Federation DOES NOT have an ownership interest in SUM (Soccer United Marketing) last I checked. SUM is a for-profit marketing arm of the MLS, which means SUM is exclusively controlled by the MLS owners and not the USSF. I simply do not recall US Soccer reporting any ownership interest in SUM in any of their financials. I don't know where you got this information, but I believe it is wrong.

2) Back in the day day, the TV Contract the federation negotiated was horrible. Then the MLS/SUM came along and said, "Hey, Federation, you guys suck at negotiating TV rights deals, what if we bundled the MLS and US Soccer games in 1 rights package, the MLS/SUM keeps 2/3rd and US Soccer gets 1/3 AND we will guarantee a minimum yearly take." Well, the Federation looked at the deal and said, sure.

3) Why wasn't the NWSL included? Because the MLS/SUM didn't give a flying rats ass about the NWSL, this deal is really an MSL deal not a Federation deal. Now, there is nothing stopping the NWSL from forming their own SUM type company and trying to make a deal with the Federation once the exclusive marketing rights deal expires, but ... we know how that will go.

4) Why is there a separate deal for the US Women. The short answer is the women and men each formed unions. The men negotiated their contract and the women said "F that we want a different deal, we want guaranteed salaries by the federation for our top women ... the men's deal sucks." Fast forward to 2018/19 and they woman have remained successful and more and more money is being generated from a marketing perspective. Now the women are saying ... "Woooaaa, we want to be paid "equally but different" ???? Yes, we want our guaranteed money, but we also want a greater piece of the pie so our wages more accurately reflect our marketing power and surpass the men who have a different more riskier deal."

You are in the Kool Aid and don’t know the flavor.
 
So you are absolutely wrong. SUM negotiates for MLS and US Soccer. Please do a little more research.

Nothing I wrote was incorrect. I even wrote that SUM has the exclusive marketing contract with US Soccer. What I wrote is that your statement that US Soccer has an ownership interest in SUM was wrong ... it does not. Reread what I wrote and you will see its accurate.

So why have an NWSL then since it isn’t profitable? Let’s just have a USWNT and see how that works out for us. Let’s see how much soccer grows in America when we only have no successful team to point to when they are trying to sell the broadcast rights.

You are only looking at one revenue bucket. US Soccer has a job to do and building successful national teams is part of it. Making a profit and creating a war chest isn’t.

We have an NWSL because there are enough "believers" with money that the league can work. US Soccer also wants to believe and appreciates the necessity of the NWSL in developing talent beyond college, which is why it subsidizes the NWSL through guaranteed salaries.
 
The women are trying to capitalize on their success through these friendlies/victory tour. The money is and will always at the US National Team level. They are chasing the dollars.
And that my friend is the root problem with soccer in the US. No where else in the world is the focus on the National Team for income. The focus is on being a professional. No club in the worlds gets paid to develop talent for the National Team. They get paid for creating professionals. If that doesn't get corrected there is no hope.
 
And that my friend is the root problem with soccer in the US. No where else in the world is the focus on the National Team for income. The focus is on being a professional. No club in the worlds gets paid to develop talent for the National Team. They get paid for creating professionals. If that doesn't get corrected there is no hope.

Yes ... but this is a discussion about women and not men. The economics are completely different when men's soccer/football/futbol is the topic. We have to subsidize the women's game at the professional level for all team sports (soccer, basketball, hockey, etc.) otherwise the women won't have a place to play, thus, depriving the national team of talent.
 
Found this article from S.I. written by Grant Wahl.

The most heated topic in the U.S. Soccer presidential election has been the role of Soccer United Marketing and its business partner, the U.S. Soccer Federation. And now Don Garber, the MLS commissioner who is also the CEO of Soccer United Marketing, has answered 29 questions from SI.com designed to press him on the details of SUM’s role and get on-the-record responses.

U.S. Soccer, a non-profit organization, has a lucrative deal through 2022 with Soccer United Marketing, a for-profit company owned by Major League Soccer owners.
 
Found this article from S.I. written by Grant Wahl.

The most heated topic in the U.S. Soccer presidential election has been the role of Soccer United Marketing and its business partner, the U.S. Soccer Federation. And now Don Garber, the MLS commissioner who is also the CEO of Soccer United Marketing, has answered 29 questions from SI.com designed to press him on the details of SUM’s role and get on-the-record responses.

U.S. Soccer, a non-profit organization, has a lucrative deal through 2022 with Soccer United Marketing, a for-profit company owned by Major League Soccer owners.

Correct, that is what we have been talking about SUM is the exclusive marketing partner for the US Federation. The deal is lucrative for US Soccer in that it eliminates the risk of a media rights buy, by guaranteeing the Federation roughly $300M over the term.

When you consider that SUM negotiates and sold the broadcast rights for both the Mexican Federation and the US Soccer Federation, SUM has been able to generate far more revenues for US Soccer than its previous marketing partner IMG, which was basically a losing proposition for both.

SUM is a business designed to make the most money it can so it highly motivated to get the best deal it can. So far, SUM has done a pretty good job for US Soccer, especially when you consider that in no broadcaster was willing to bid on the FIFA World Cup package in the US just a few years ago (2001).
 
I do not disagree with the idea that US Soccer got more by going with SUM than they were capable of doing separately. US Soccer is worse at business and marketing than they are at managing youth soccer -- just look at their latest fact sheet for proof of incompetence.

But in that SUM interview, Don Garber acknowledges that the MLS needed the US Soccer partnership to grow and succeed when the MLS was young, losing money and at risk. The NWSL does not have that same option, due to the SUM agreement including the USWNT. US Soccer needs to pressure SUM to pay for and manage the NWSL rights also (and support the league), or give up the USWNT rights, and they need to make that a public fight. Don's answer to the NWSL question was a laughable dodge -- "it is my understanding .. they negotiated a deal with Fox" At the time of the interview, that Fox deal was over, the Lifetime deal was on life support, and Don had no good answer.

But that goes back to the first point about US Soccer and their business skills.
 
And that my friend is the root problem with soccer in the US. No where else in the world is the focus on the National Team for income. The focus is on being a professional. No club in the worlds gets paid to develop talent for the National Team. They get paid for creating professionals. If that doesn't get corrected there is no hope.

Correct you are.

In Europe, they realize further growing the sport means reaching new markets, and the largest is gaining more female fans. That also mean's bringing the women's game into the club fold. Many of these clubs had small academies or "pro" women's teams in the past, they were just underfunded and non-essential side projects for a few coaches/players (Barcelona, for example). They are now investing in them for branding and growth, not out of some sort of European chivalry or wokeness. In the US, you have to go to a construction site or Las Vegas night club to get treated the way they treat an attractive women in public in France/Spain/Italy. This is a business decision in Europe.

Further growth of the MLS will be facilitated by bringing in more female fans. The youth and college soccer game is larger among girls than boys, girls and women's soccer is much more visible than any other female team sport, and a dozen women's national team members are far more popular and marketable than any domestic soccer player not named Pulisic. We have dedicated MLS training facilities, soccer specific stadiums for the NWSL to play in (kudos to the MLS for getting those built). So it is time to expand and/or affiliate and take the name of the local soccer club, wear the same colors, and reap the rewards of having Carli Loyd, Christen Press, Alex Morgan, Mallory Pugh, Rose Lavalle and a half dozen other outstanding soccer players and role models (or Megan Rapinoe for the Antifa crowd in Seattle and Portland) out there winning and cross-marketing your product and brand. The incremental cost of an NWSL team for a major club is small compared to the benefit. The Europeans have figured that out.

Two professional women's soccer leagues have failed going it alone. NWSL is not immune to the same fate. That brainstorming session should have been about growing the professional game (for men and women) in the US -- that will raise their pay.
 
Back
Top