USWNT

@Dos Equis,

The advantage that Europe has is that there are already soccer fans in Europe. The Premiere league sold its TV rights for $2B, which means advertisers are eager to spend money with the broadcasters. The monies are split between the Premiere league teams, which are all independently owned and because of Pro/Rel, the clubs in the Championship League are itching to break through and grab some of that broadcast money.

The pressure to invest in women's soccer in Europe can be justified from a pure business standpoint, especially if the rights can be bundled with the men. Even if its a push and a break even proposition, the goodwill is worth it.

Here in the US, the broadcast money is $90M a season of which $30M goes to US Soccer for the National team rights. What does SUM do with the other $60M ... subsidize the MLS and its operations, including its youth academies. Remember, the MLS is a single entity, so there is no competition per se between clubs. There is no Pro/Rel, the MLS and the MLS teams (owned by the MLS) have no competitive pressures.

English soccer’s Football Association (FA) secured a total turnover of UK£376 million (US$492 million) during the 2017/18 season. Compare that to the US Soccer Federation's $130M. The FA is nearly 4x the revenue, which means its member clubs are bringing in significant revenues and can afford much more charity.

I just don't see that happening in the US. US Soccer can pressure all it wants, but the MLS isn't going to take on the NWSL problem just yet. What I see happening is the MLS will sit back and wait for the NWSL to run out of money and/or investor patience. Then it will make a buy-out offer or more likely, start its own league once the numbers make sense. Alternatively, the USL may join the fray. The USL is sitting back right now getting its house in order, expanding the third and fourth divisions and laying a foundation for Pro/Rel. It won't happen for a few more years, but the USL has a plan that will put pressure on the MLS and the women can benefit if done right.
 
MWN, your MLS ownership data is a incorrect. The teams are not owned by the league at this point, KC, LAFC, Miami, NYFC, LAGalaxy, Philly ... are all separately owned, and within each ownership group are very wealthy individuals or corporations. For example, NYFC is owned by the same group as Manchester City (hence the similar colors and uniforms). The Illig’s /TIFEC bought Sporting KC from Lamar Hunt, and built that gorgeous stadium, with their personal billions from medical documentation and software business.

The bidding for franchises has produced offers in of $150 million for the last two franchises, pre-stadium investments. Financial strength of the individual ownership groups has been the big difference in the health of the league today versus its early years.

Regardless of soccer culture, acceptance and support of women’s sports has always been greater here than in Europe.

I am not asking the MLS to save NWSL, I am pointing out that US Soccer helped save the MLS with the last rights deal, and now needs to show the same support for NWSL. I think the MLS would be making a good business decision to do so, and their owners can afford to.
 
Dos Equis said:
MWN, your MLS ownership data is a incorrect. The teams are not owned by the league at this point, KC, LAFC, Miami, NYFC, LAGalaxy, Philly ... are all separately owned, and within each ownership group are very wealthy individuals or corporations. For example, NYFC is owned by the same group as Manchester City (hence the similar colors and uniforms). The Illig’s /TIFEC bought Sporting KC from Lamar Hunt, and built that gorgeous stadium, with their personal billions from medical documentation and software business.
Click to expand...

No, but I can appreciate that its confusing if you are not a business lawyer. Here is how it works:

The MLS (Major League Soccer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company), owns all the teams and employs all players. When a player signs a contract to play in the MLS that player's contract is with the MLS and not the team/team operator.

Limited liability companies operate like partnerships, but each investor is referred to as a "Member." What we refer to as Franchisees are really Members of the LLC that have been given a right to operate the MLS's team in their market (referred to as Team Operators). These Franchisees also must perform other duties, such as, providing a stadium that meets certain criteria, financing the operations within their market, etc.

When a franchisee spends $150M to buy a franchise, what they are really buying is a license to operate an MLS club and share in a portion of the revenue. In fact, each MLS team name is a trademark of the MLS and not the individual operators/members. (Check it out yourself at USPTO.gov).

So let's take the Orlando City Soccer Club as an example:
  1. The MLS, LLC owns the trademark "Orlando City" (Registration No. 4875167).
  2. The MLS, LLC hires the players to play for its team. This is important, the players play for the MLS and are assigned to play for a team, but are not employed by the operators of that team. This relationship is well documented in the current Bargaining Agreement (https://s3.amazonaws.com/mlspa/Coll...ment-February-1-2015.pdf?mtime=20180213190926)
  3. The MLS, LLC plays games at the stadium, which is operated by a member.
  4. Orlando Sports Holdings, LLC, is a member of MLS, LLC
  5. Orlando Sports Holdings, LLC, operates the MLS, LLC, Orlando City SC team.
This is a good discussion of how it works in 2017 and currently: https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd
 
MWN said:
When a franchisee spends $150M to buy a franchise, what they are really buying is a license to operate an MLS club and share in a portion of the revenue.
Click to expand...

I was imprecise. What I should have written was:

When a franchisee spends $150M to buy a franchise, what they are really buying is MEMBERSHIP INTEREST in the MLS, LLC, that grants them a RIGHT to operate an MLS club in a DESIGNATED MARKET and share in a portion of the revenue
 
MWN said:
No, but I can appreciate that its confusing if you are not a business lawyer. Here is how it works:

The MLS (Major League Soccer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company), owns all the teams and employs all players. When a player signs a contract to play in the MLS that player's contract is with the MLS and not the team/team operator.

Limited liability companies operate like partnerships, but each investor is referred to as a "Member." What we refer to as Franchisees are really Members of the LLC that have been given a right to operate the MLS's team in their market (referred to as Team Operators). These Franchisees also must perform other duties, such as, providing a stadium that meets certain criteria, financing the operations within their market, etc.

When a franchisee spends $150M to buy a franchise, what they are really buying is a license to operate an MLS club and share in a portion of the revenue. In fact, each MLS team name is a trademark of the MLS and not the individual operators/members. (Check it out yourself at USPTO.gov).

So let's take the Orlando City Soccer Club as an example:
  1. The MLS, LLC owns the trademark "Orlando City" (Registration No. 4875167).
  2. The MLS, LLC hires the players to play for its team. This is important, the players play for the MLS and are assigned to play for a team, but are not employed by the operators of that team. This relationship is well documented in the current Bargaining Agreement (https://s3.amazonaws.com/mlspa/Coll...ment-February-1-2015.pdf?mtime=20180213190926)
  3. The MLS, LLC plays games at the stadium, which is operated by a member.
  4. Orlando Sports Holdings, LLC, is a member of MLS, LLC
  5. Orlando Sports Holdings, LLC, operates the MLS, LLC, Orlando City SC team.
This is a good discussion of how it works in 2017 and currently: https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd
Click to expand...

The NFL is a similar arrangement. I hear that the NFL isn't registered as a sports league but as sports entertainment like WWE.
 
MakeAPlay said:
The NFL is a similar arrangement. I hear that the NFL isn't registered as a sports league but as sports entertainment like WWE.
Click to expand...

The NFL is a "business association" (and was granted 501(c) 6 tax-exempt status (which is recently dropped)) is a fundamentally different operating entity than the MLS. In particular, the NFL and its member Clubs are distinct entities. It is a sports league that is similar to the activities of SUM.

The difference between the MLS and NFL is that each club belonging to the NFL owns the trademarks and and employs the players. The NFL merely collectively bargains on behalf of the member clubs. What this means is that the NFL and its teams are not viewed as a "single-entity" for purposes of anti-trust. The Supreme Court even had a case about this (American Needle). The MLS on the other hand is skirting around the anti-trust rules by being a legitimate "single-entity," owning all of the team marks and employing the players. While the clubs are Members of the MLS, LLC (similar to stockholders), they are granted an operating license to exploit the MLS, LLC property and must pay license fees in the form of revenue sharing.

Why the MLS did this is two fold.

First, "soccer" does not enjoy certain anti-trust exemptions under the In particular, the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA are all protected under the Sports Broadcasting Act, which states that “antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act of Oct. 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730) [15 U.S.C. 12], or in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended,” should not apply to any agreement by or among people or teams playing or working in the realms of organized football, baseball, basketball or hockey, regarding the rights of any club within the aforementioned sports leagues to sell or transfer the rights of any club for broadcast. Therefore, the MLS gets around this my embracing the "single entity" exemption under anti-trust laws.

Second, the MLS wanted to avoid the mistakes of failed leagues of the past and protect itself from clubs having the ability to break off and take their teams to another league. By controlling all MLS intellectual property and players, the MLS can establish artificial barriers and avoid free market price pressures. Each owner has an interest in all of the other teams because they own a piece of the LLC, thus, if a team was financially under pressure it would affect their investment in the MLS, so all members of the LLC are motivated to control costs to protect the smaller market teams.
 
MWN said:
The NFL is a "business association" (and was granted 501(c) 6 tax-exempt status (which is recently dropped)) is a fundamentally different operating entity than the MLS. In particular, the NFL and its member Clubs are distinct entities. It is a sports league that is similar to the activities of SUM.

The difference between the MLS and NFL is that each club belonging to the NFL owns the trademarks and and employs the players. The NFL merely collectively bargains on behalf of the member clubs. What this means is that the NFL and its teams are not viewed as a "single-entity" for purposes of anti-trust. The Supreme Court even had a case about this (American Needle). The MLS on the other hand is skirting around the anti-trust rules by being a legitimate "single-entity," owning all of the team marks and employing the players. While the clubs are Members of the MLS, LLC (similar to stockholders), they are granted an operating license to exploit the MLS, LLC property and must pay license fees in the form of revenue sharing.

Why the MLS did this is two fold.

First, "soccer" does not enjoy certain anti-trust exemptions under the In particular, the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA are all protected under the Sports Broadcasting Act, which states that “antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act of Oct. 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730) [15 U.S.C. 12], or in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended,” should not apply to any agreement by or among people or teams playing or working in the realms of organized football, baseball, basketball or hockey, regarding the rights of any club within the aforementioned sports leagues to sell or transfer the rights of any club for broadcast. Therefore, the MLS gets around this my embracing the "single entity" exemption under anti-trust laws.

Second, the MLS wanted to avoid the mistakes of failed leagues of the past and protect itself from clubs having the ability to break off and take their teams to another league. By controlling all MLS intellectual property and players, the MLS can establish artificial barriers and avoid free market price pressures. Each owner has an interest in all of the other teams because they own a piece of the LLC, thus, if a team was financially under pressure it would affect their investment in the MLS, so all members of the LLC are motivated to control costs to protect the smaller market teams.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the NFL is registered as sports entertainment and not a sporting league per se, sort of like the WWE.
 
U.S. Soccer Federation Hires Lobbying Firm to Fight ‘Equal Pay’ Charges
GettyImages-1154921328-640x480-1-1-640x480-640x480.jpg

Getty Images/AFP/Johannes Eisele
WARNER TODD HUSTON8 Aug 2019174
1:47
The U.S. Soccer Federation has reportedly hired a lobbying firm to refute claims of a pay gap after posting a public letter explaining that the U.S. Women’s National Team is actually not underpaid.

The federation’s move also comes on the heels of a bill introduced by two liberal Senators — Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) — that would require Olympic and amateur athletes to be paid equally, USA Today reported.

According to the paper, “FBB Federal Relations and Van Ness Feldman are working on behalf of U.S. Soccer and are circulating a presentation that states the women made more money than the men last year.”

“Due to the large number of requests we’ve received from policymakers since the Women’s World Cup, we are taking the proper steps to make sure that those leaders have accurate information and factual numbers that will inform them about the unmatched support and investment the U.S. Soccer Federation has provided as a leader in women’s football across the world,” Neil Buethe, a U.S. Soccer spokesman told Politico when the news broke.

In July, U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro released an open letter revealing information that turned the “equal pay” debate on its head by saying that, not only has the women’s team been paid more than the men, their league has lost millions of dollars in the process.

Still, the U.S. Women’s team spoke out against the lobbying effort.

Spokeswoman Molly Levinson said she is “stunned and disappointed” that the U.S. Soccer Federation “would spend sponsor dollars and revenue to advocate against laws that ensure that women are paid equally to men.”
 
Sheriff Joe said:
U.S. Soccer Federation Hires Lobbying Firm to Fight ‘Equal Pay’ Charges
GettyImages-1154921328-640x480-1-1-640x480-640x480.jpg

Getty Images/AFP/Johannes Eisele
WARNER TODD HUSTON8 Aug 2019174
1:47
The U.S. Soccer Federation has reportedly hired a lobbying firm to refute claims of a pay gap after posting a public letter explaining that the U.S. Women’s National Team is actually not underpaid.

The federation’s move also comes on the heels of a bill introduced by two liberal Senators — Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) — that would require Olympic and amateur athletes to be paid equally, USA Today reported.

According to the paper, “FBB Federal Relations and Van Ness Feldman are working on behalf of U.S. Soccer and are circulating a presentation that states the women made more money than the men last year.”

“Due to the large number of requests we’ve received from policymakers since the Women’s World Cup, we are taking the proper steps to make sure that those leaders have accurate information and factual numbers that will inform them about the unmatched support and investment the U.S. Soccer Federation has provided as a leader in women’s football across the world,” Neil Buethe, a U.S. Soccer spokesman told Politico when the news broke.

In July, U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro released an open letter revealing information that turned the “equal pay” debate on its head by saying that, not only has the women’s team been paid more than the men, their league has lost millions of dollars in the process.

Still, the U.S. Women’s team spoke out against the lobbying effort.

Spokeswoman Molly Levinson said she is “stunned and disappointed” that the U.S. Soccer Federation “would spend sponsor dollars and revenue to advocate against laws that ensure that women are paid equally to men.”
Click to expand...

If all they are interested in is putting out "accurate information and factual numbers", why can't the existing staff do that?
 
espola said:
If all they are interested in is putting out "accurate information and factual numbers", why can't the existing staff do that?
Click to expand...

Because existing staff doesn't have ABC, CBS, NBS, ESPN, etc. etc, cameras following them around town. The fact that many law makers don't fundamentally understand that the USWNT are W2 employees and the USMNT are 1099 contractors speaks volumes about the ignorance of all. US Soccer needs help from professional advocates.
 
pulguita said:
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.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense at all. The system is working perfectly, so perfectly that the USWNT has won the last two WCs. In fact, the reason the USWNT is so far better than others is largely because "nowhere else in the world is the focus on the National Team for income". There just isn't any money in professional women's soccer and never will be. The only money makers in women's soccer are national teams, period. That will never change.

I just can't figure out why people want to overhaul easily the most successful women's soccer system in the history of the world and instead model it after foreign systems that have never won anything. But don't worry, USSF is doing its best to fulfill your wish.
 
End of the Line said:
This doesn't make any sense at all. The system is working perfectly, so perfectly that the USWNT has won the last two WCs. In fact, the reason the USWNT is so far better than others is largely because "nowhere else in the world is the focus on the National Team for income". There just isn't any money in professional women's soccer and never will be. The only money makers in women's soccer are national teams, period. That will never change.

I just can't figure out why people want to overhaul easily the most successful women's soccer system in the history of the world and instead model it after foreign systems that have never won anything. But don't worry, USSF is doing its best to fulfill your wish.
Click to expand...
Here's why, there are only 24-30 players in the pool for the National Team. If all the money is just for those few why will women keep playing soccer as a "career" for 10-20K a year? Guess what? They won't. You think US women are going to keep hanging on for a carrot to make the full team? Being totally dependent on who is in charge and evidently whatever the political climate is at the time? Within 2-3 years women will be making more playing in the women's EPL than they will on their National Team (still not that much). BTW are we sure your not Zoro?
 
Kate Markgraf was named the new GM for the USWNT as expected. I do like her list of potential replacement coaches. Between Riley, Harvey, Andonovski and Krikorian you can't complain about any of them. They all have pro coaching experience and Krikorian is well versed in what is going internationally and the others are currently successful NWSL coaches. I would be happy with any of them but I am pulling for Paul Riley.
 
pulguita said:
Here's why, there are only 24-30 players in the pool for the National Team. If all the money is just for those few why will women keep playing soccer as a "career" for 10-20K a year? Guess what? They won't. You think US women are going to keep hanging on for a carrot to make the full team? Being totally dependent on who is in charge and evidently whatever the political climate is at the time? Within 2-3 years women will be making more playing in the women's EPL than they will on their National Team (still not that much). BTW are we sure your not Zoro?
Click to expand...
NWSL player salaries are capped at a maximum of $46K. Just let that digest a bit. Most know that the average salary is $16K, but do we really want to encourage our daughters to go work in an industry that caps their worth at any amount (but especially at a figure that low)? Collective bargaining at its finest. When they say they want to spend every free hour practicing soccer, training with their team 4x/week and "playing professional soccer," ask them how much $$ they think most players make. That might change their plans. Is it crushing dreams or being a responsible parent to provide a dose of reality?
 
oh canada said:
NWSL player salaries are capped at a maximum of $46K. Just let that digest a bit. Most know that the average salary is $16K, but do we really want to encourage our daughters to go work in an industry that caps their worth at any amount (but especially at a figure that low)? Collective bargaining at its finest. When they say they want to spend every free hour practicing soccer, training with their team 4x/week and "playing professional soccer," ask them how much $$ they think most players make. That might change their plans. Is it crushing dreams or being a responsible parent to provide a dose of reality?
Click to expand...

How much do players in USL make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top