US Soccer and Volkswagen

@watfly,
The opinion you expressed is inconsistent with the organizational structure of US Soccer. US Soccer is a National Governing Body (NGB) under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Under US Soccer's Bylaws it is supposed to support "youth participation" through its "Youth Council," the members of which are US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO. There is a professional council (MLS, USL, and NWSL) and an amature adult council. The structure of US Soccer is supposed to be that US Soccer:
  1. Fields the National Teams (USMNT and USWNT and the youth all-star teams USYNT)
  2. Promotes the sport through its Councils (National Council, made up of the Adult, Pro and Youth)
  3. Regulates the Sport
The Development Academy is just a league that US Soccer created outside its Youth Council, which really pissed off the Youth Council members, especially US Club and US Youth and it continues to create an internal political problem for US Soccer in this regard. The MLS (Pro Adult Council member) goaded US Soccer into creating the league, which is hindsight was probably a mistake, but at the time the MLS needed some Federation assistance because US Club and US Youth were not inclined to play the MLS' game.

From a pure organizational standpoint. US Soccer IS NOT SUPPOSED to make direct investments to Youth programs, that is the job of the Youth Councils. The Youth Council members are supposed to raise their own funds and promote their vision of youth soccer, without much interference from the Federation or the National Council. US Soccer, through the National Council assists the various Councils (Pro, Adult and Youth), helps set their budgets and also makes (or did make) donations to the US Soccer Foundation (a separate 501(c)(3)).

The problem we get into is the vast amount of money that US Soccer receives is generated from its National Team activities and alot of it is earmarked for reinvestment back into the National Team activities. If we redirect those funds to the Youth Council, the National Team suffers.

Are you suggesting that we rewrite the US Soccer Bylaws? Article 312 relates to the Youth Council.
https://www.ussoccer.com/about/governance/bylaws
 
MWN said:
@watfly,
The opinion you expressed is inconsistent with the organizational structure of US Soccer. US Soccer is a National Governing Body (NGB) under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Under US Soccer's Bylaws it is supposed to support "youth participation" through its "Youth Council," the members of which are US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO. There is a professional council (MLS, USL, and NWSL) and an amature adult council. The structure of US Soccer is supposed to be that US Soccer:
  1. Fields the National Teams (USMNT and USWNT and the youth all-star teams USYNT)
  2. Promotes the sport through its Councils (National Council, made up of the Adult, Pro and Youth)
  3. Regulates the Sport
The Development Academy is just a league that US Soccer created outside its Youth Council, which really pissed off the Youth Council members, especially US Club and US Youth and it continues to create an internal political problem for US Soccer in this regard. The MLS (Pro Adult Council member) goaded US Soccer into creating the league, which is hindsight was probably a mistake, but at the time the MLS needed some Federation assistance because US Club and US Youth were not inclined to play the MLS' game.

From a pure organizational standpoint. US Soccer IS NOT SUPPOSED to make direct investments to Youth programs, that is the job of the Youth Councils. The Youth Council members are supposed to raise their own funds and promote their vision of youth soccer, without much interference from the Federation or the National Council. US Soccer, through the National Council assists the various Councils (Pro, Adult and Youth), helps set their budgets and also makes (or did make) donations to the US Soccer Foundation (a separate 501(c)(3)).

The problem we get into is the vast amount of money that US Soccer receives is generated from its National Team activities and alot of it is earmarked for reinvestment back into the National Team activities. If we redirect those funds to the Youth Council, the National Team suffers.

Are you suggesting that we rewrite the US Soccer Bylaws? Article 312 relates to the Youth Council.
https://www.ussoccer.com/about/governance/bylaws
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, so not only is US Soccer arrogant and incompetent they are structurally flawed as a result of its bylaws. US Soccer can't have it both ways. It can't create its own league, DA, that is the alleged "pathway" to the USNT and to "create world class players" and fund it just a little bit and expect it to be successful. This is a classic example of "put your money where your mouth is". This is also a prime example of US Soccer's arrogance, it put its name on it, you pay for it and then tell you when and where your kids will play. If it wants to create its own league that serves as a pathway to its National Team then it should put more "skin in the game". If its bylaws prevent it from investing in and promoting youth programs then it shouldn't be allowed to have the DA, which while minimal, it is investing in, or change its bylaws to allow investment in a DA program. You also state that it's up to the Youth Councils to promote their vision of youth soccer and raise funds for it and that according to the bylaws US Soccer is not to interfere with that vision. Well just a heads up, but US Soccer is interfering with the Youth Councils visions with its own vision of youth soccer through the DA. Not only is it generally interfering with the Youth Council's vision of youth soccer, but on top of that its explicitly controlling players and preventing them from having any other "vision" but that of US Soccer's. If you want to shove your own vision as the top league down everyone's throats than you should raise your own funds to promote it just like the Youth Council's are required. US Soccer should either be all in (or at least a sizable investment) on DA, or all out. They're half assing right now which is why it hasn't been successful. Is there anything in the US Soccer bylaws that prevents them in investing in coaching education? Because improved, more available and lower cost training would go a long way to improve youth soccer.
 
Kicker4Life said:
Like I said....some people need to find something to be offended by..guess you didn’t have to look to far. Better go check the US Sailing Team too as they are also sponsored by a foreign company.

I guess it’s ok to accept their jobs and tax revenue but unpatriotic to have them in your Nat’l team jersey.
Click to expand...
Here are a few more Fortune 500 companies who had their hand in the Nazi Regime. Let’s go get em!:D
http://www.cracked.com/article_1576...ne-500-five-popular-brands-nazis-gave-us.html
 
Surprised IKEA wasn’t on the list. My father in law refuses to step foot in one because they were sympathizers.
 
He also refuses to buy a bmw or Mercedes. But drives a Lexus. I guess Pearl Harbor wasn’t that big of a deal to him.
 
timbuck said:
He also refuses to buy a bmw or Mercedes. But drives a Lexus. I guess Pearl Harbor wasn’t that big of a deal to him.
Click to expand...
Did he explain that one to you? :confused: My wife’s grandfather (who is still living) survived the attack on Pearl Harbor. He’s okay with German and Japanese vechicles.
 
pewpew said:
1. The 2018 VW Atlas SUV we bought is a POS. So my vote is NO.:mad:

2. Zildjian Cymbals is one of the world's oldest family businesses. Over 400 years. Originated in Constantinople..what is now Turkey. Been in the US since 1929. Is that American enough?? Still family owned/run. I'm sure there'd be some haters who don't like the way the logo looks. Probably too middle-eastern looking for some given the current War on Terror etc. etc. (I'm very thankful for the L80 line of noise-reducing cymbals they make. Makes listening to my son smash those things much easier given the reduced noise.;))

But yes it's true..you can't hold current VW accountable for what happened decades ago. I'm sure if my grandfather was alive today he wouldn't have an issue with this. He flew 30 missions in a B-17 in the European Theater of WWII fighting the Nazis. I highly doubt he'd be holding a grudge and be against seeing that logo on the front of any of his great-grandkid's jerseys.

I am curious though to see how much work US Soccer put into trying to secure an American-made company on the front of the jersey.
Anheuser-Busch would've been another cool choice. Born in America over 160yrs ago. Until they sold out to a Euro company. :eek:
Click to expand...
I test drove the VW Atlas I passed on it. Though I did have a 2004 VW Touareg V8 All Motion. I have to say it was a badass vehicle. Chirped on corners. It was the one year it was almost identical to the Cayenne Turbo.
 
I’m curious how many boycotters of brands served their country? One of the reasons why taxpayer bailout money went to the auto industry wasn’t to keep capitalism alive. It was to keep them in business in case we need production of military items.
 
Can’t say I’m a fan of the big ole sponsor logo taking over the front of jersey’s, hard to see or tell what’s being represented when the large “XYZ” logo is centered & so much bigger than the team name which is off to the side often for example.

There has been previous USA Olympic sport programs sponsored by foreign companies out of desperation, hope, or whatever the case was from the one of the worst made vehicles of all time: Yugo to Mizuno a Japanese company that makes pretty good quality products.

Last article I read was that USSF has/had $100-110 million dollars in reserves or investments and SUM operates as a subsidiary of Major League Soccer.

That relationship and that fact that SUM negotiated this deal is what is troubling to me. Is MLS calling the shots for the National, Youth teams, and for US soccer through a company; Soccer United Marketing LLC that very few know anything about and was only reportedly created for “Marketing” purposes by MLS but now does much more than that in reality.

Somethings don’t jive quit right in this setup and the legal, marketing, accounting and Investment activities/costs could be quiet high as a result. Perhaps so much they can take away from the actual positive impacts or contributions to us soccer, especially from a youth or coaching standpoint. For example of the 500+ or so scholarships given by USSDA to low income participates that amounts to slightly more than 600k a year. The coaching courses to advance licenses have go up in price while there are fewer offered.

So what does USSF actually spend there profit on from the national teams and tournaments? How much of every dollar do they take in goes to SUM? or what are they spending on legal, marketing, investment, and accounting fees/costs per year?

SUM and other firms are not working for the USSF for free and they do get a cut of these deals, % of whatever it is but of course this is not advertised or transparent at all. Cost of doing business related to what they are contributing to US soccer is what? For every 100 million in profit what in the world are they doing with it?

Where is the return on the investment? Adding reserves for what? A rainy day when the US women don’t make the cut seems unlikely so why do they need these large amounts stashed anyway for a non profit? Just in case fewer people decide to buy ticket to the national team tour events, gold cup or whatever?

Seeing how soccer is what the 3rd or 4th most popular played sport now in the USA, there should be enough possible sponsors to choose from where we don’t need to react out of desperation or greed & take on some questionable deals without regard to how the general public may receive them or not. By the reaction on the USSF sites and others so far appears to be a negative overall on this VW deal but there is always Fahrvergnügen to fall back on maybe VW with paint some of there autos red, white, and blue so the USSF & SUM folks have some new rides to the showcases or events.
 
You are correct that SUM is a separate entity owned by the MLS. The MLS is itself an LLC, which owns all of the teams and gives its "members" (i.e. owners) a right to operate an MLS team. All players are employed, not by the teams, but the MLS, which creates its own issues.

With regard to SUM, I don't have too many issues with SUM negotiating this deal because US Soccer has contracted with SUM to go out and negotiate marketing deals on its behalf. SUM has the resources and skill set to do that and are experts in the vertical soccer market. Where I get concerned is when the marketing deal involves multiple entities as does the current TV Deal (MLS and US Soccer). I would much rather have US Soccer outsource its PR and marketing to agencies than do it inhouse at this stage because I firmly believe that whatever commission will be paid, the expert 3rd party will cover it a multiple of times over by securing better deals given its broader power in the market.

What we know is that US Soccer has not had a "presenting sponsor" willing to pay an 8 figure fee (somewhere between 10,000,000 and 99,999,999), so its found money as far as I'm concerned.

The general rule of thumb for a non-profit is to have at a minimum 6 months of reserves, up to 24 months of reserves. US Soccer's operating budget is roughly $125m, so its sitting on 12 months of liquid reserves ($130m). I personally believe that 24 months is about right, given the 2 to 4 year revenue cycle and significant costs associated with operating the Federation. US Soccer's income is not a straight line but a mountain range, with highs and lows. When the US National Teams do well, we get peaks, when they don't we get valleys, we also get valley when we have to invest in various competitions. 24 months of reserves is about right, so I wholeheartedly disagree with everybody that looks at that $100M as something that should be disbursed now. It would be negligent management for the federation to reduce the reserves, which is one of the reasons Cordiero was elected as President, he advocated for growing the reserves ... but what does he know, he is just a Harvard educated international banker with more financial experience than everybody participating on this thread combined.

As to some of your other points, I would strongly encourage you (all) to go read the audited financials from last year. The SUM agreement is described and we know that the SUM marketing relationship has been good for about $25M annually. https://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information

At the end of the day, US Soccer the role of the Federation is limited. It oversees and guides the Council members. Its fields the national team, but all the heavy lifting for youth is supposed to flow through AYSO, US Club, US Youth Soccer, which all have their own separate budgets. When youth players register to play soccer, only $1 of those registration fees flow up to US Soccer. I think $1 is ridiculously low, but it makes perfect sense when you consider that the role of US Soccer is limited and the heavy lifting is the obligation of AYSO, US Club and US Youth Soccer.
 
MWN said:
The general rule of thumb for a non-profit is to have at a minimum 6 months of reserves, up to 24 months of reserves. US Soccer's operating budget is roughly $125m, so its sitting on 12 months of liquid reserves ($130m). I personally believe that 24 months is about right, given the 2 to 4 year revenue cycle and significant costs associated with operating the Federation. US Soccer's income is not a straight line but a mountain range, with highs and lows. When the US National Teams do well, we get peaks, when they don't we get valleys, we also get valley when we have to invest in various competitions. 24 months of reserves is about right, so I wholeheartedly disagree with everybody that looks at that $100M as something that should be disbursed now. It would be negligent management for the federation to reduce the reserves, which is one of the reasons Cordiero was elected as President, he advocated for growing the reserves ... but what does he know, he is just a Harvard educated international banker with more financial experience than everybody participating on this thread combined.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this at all. In fact, I would give Cordiero a high grade for his fundraising efforts which is his primary responsibility as President. However, for now I can't give him a passing grade on the operational side. If US Soccer is going to meddle in the domain of youth soccer with DA then they should make a meaningful investment in DA. If they can't make the investment then they should get out of the DA business. It's ludicrous to develop a program and not invest in it. I couldn't care less whether they can't fund it because of structural issues or arrogance.
 
MWN said:
You are correct that SUM is a separate entity owned by the MLS. The MLS is itself an LLC, which owns all of the teams and gives its "members" (i.e. owners) a right to operate an MLS team. All players are employed, not by the teams, but the MLS, which creates its own issues.

With regard to SUM, I don't have too many issues with SUM negotiating this deal because US Soccer has contracted with SUM to go out and negotiate marketing deals on its behalf. SUM has the resources and skill set to do that and are experts in the vertical soccer market. Where I get concerned is when the marketing deal involves multiple entities as does the current TV Deal (MLS and US Soccer). I would much rather have US Soccer outsource its PR and marketing to agencies than do it inhouse at this stage because I firmly believe that whatever commission will be paid, the expert 3rd party will cover it a multiple of times over by securing better deals given its broader power in the market.

What we know is that US Soccer has not had a "presenting sponsor" willing to pay an 8 figure fee (somewhere between 10,000,000 and 99,999,999), so its found money as far as I'm concerned.

The general rule of thumb for a non-profit is to have at a minimum 6 months of reserves, up to 24 months of reserves. US Soccer's operating budget is roughly $125m, so its sitting on 12 months of liquid reserves ($130m). I personally believe that 24 months is about right, given the 2 to 4 year revenue cycle and significant costs associated with operating the Federation. US Soccer's income is not a straight line but a mountain range, with highs and lows. When the US National Teams do well, we get peaks, when they don't we get valleys, we also get valley when we have to invest in various competitions. 24 months of reserves is about right, so I wholeheartedly disagree with everybody that looks at that $100M as something that should be disbursed now. It would be negligent management for the federation to reduce the reserves, which is one of the reasons Cordiero was elected as President, he advocated for growing the reserves ... but what does he know, he is just a Harvard educated international banker with more financial experience than everybody participating on this thread combined.

As to some of your other points, I would strongly encourage you (all) to go read the audited financials from last year. The SUM agreement is described and we know that the SUM marketing relationship has been good for about $25M annually. https://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information

At the end of the day, US Soccer the role of the Federation is limited. It oversees and guides the Council members. Its fields the national team, but all the heavy lifting for youth is supposed to flow through AYSO, US Club, US Youth Soccer, which all have their own separate budgets. When youth players register to play soccer, only $1 of those registration fees flow up to US Soccer. I think $1 is ridiculously low, but it makes perfect sense when you consider that the role of US Soccer is limited and the heavy lifting is the obligation of AYSO, US Club and US Youth Soccer.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the info but disagree, having worked with non profits.

"For seven consecutive years Nonprofit Finance Fund’s State of the Sector report revealed that less than 25% percent of those nonprofits responding had more than 6 months of cash in reserve. In fact the majority of the nonprofits responding reported that they had less than three months of operating reserves on hand. And close to 10% had less than thirty days of cash on hand. This may be the reality for many nonprofits, but that does not mean that it is optimal.

Many nonprofit boards adopt policies to maintain an operating reserve because of the conventional wisdom that it is prudent to have some cash set aside “for a rainy day.” More realistically, rather than a rainy day, it may be that the nonprofit’s roof unexpectedly needs replacing, or a long-term funding stream unexpectedly dries up, or anticipated program revenue is not as high as projected. When the unexpected financial shortfall occurs, having cash reserves to tap can help a nonprofit sustain itself in spite of very tough times"

"It is absolutely true that every nonprofit needs to have adequate cash balances available to support the timing of payroll and other expenses, as well as to pay for unanticipated costs or increases. It’s a myth, however, that a single standard applies for all nonprofits.
– Kate Barr, Executive Director, Nonprofits Assistance Fund
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/operating-reserves-nonprofits

So the ussf president is going to use some of VW money to add more to the reserves apparently but the reserves haven't skunk in the last 3 years apparently but you never know and it's better to stockpile that additional money than use it to improve soccer in the USA.
 
jpeter said:
There are literally thousands of american based companies that employ thousands of people each so instead of sticking to America first let's go with a foreign multi national instead.
Click to expand...

which domestic company was approached for sponsorship and turned it down?
 
OrangeCountyDad said:
which domestic company was approached for sponsorship and turned it down?
Click to expand...

We can assume with fairly good certainty that these companies were approached:
https://www.ussoccer.com/about/sponsors

@jpeter the maximum sponsorship value will only flow to multinational companies. If the company doesn't have an equal presence in the US, Latin America, Europe and Africa, the value of becoming a "presenting sponsor" is minimized. The companies that have a good presence worldwide will receive the maximum benefit from having their logo on a National jersey. To get a sense of value, take a look at this, which is for the Premiere League: http://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis/premier-league-preview-2018-19-sponsors-kit-deals-every-club
 
It's only on the training jerseys -- no big deal

Now, whether SUM is actually doing their job depends on how much the deal is worth. I haven't seen any specific $$ numbers, only "8-figure deal" -- 1oMM vs. 3oMM is a big difference. US Soccer should have to disclose the terms.

As a comparison - DC United did a deal with your same Volkswagen in 2008 -- 5 years, $14MM. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sorship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.909345fe606f

SUM better had far exceeded that amount. If they did, then great, $$ for the programs has to come from somewhere. If anyone can find the terms of the deal, please share. The fact that the details are not being trumpeted by US Soccer don't give me a lot of confidence that it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top