Women’s Pro League Seeks a Bump From U.S. World Cup Success

@ Paul — I watched most of the matches in the tournament, and don’t find your perspective persuasive, at all.

— Brian

@ Francisco — There’s already the annual Algarve Cup tournament, held in Portugal (usually in March). It includes most of the top women’s national teams, and ranks behind only the World Cup and the the Olympics tournament in prestige, in the women’s game.

The Algarve Cup probably provides ample regular exposure for the leading national teams, so shortening the interval between women’s World Cups to two years would be superfluous, and dilute the importance of the World Cup tournament. (Of course FIFA’s junior tournaments, such as the U-20 and U-17 World Cups, for both men and women, are held every other year, but those are less elaborate events than the senior World Cups, the age of the players means their participation in those more frequent global tournaments is less disruptive to the major clubs in various nations, and the demands from other tournaments on the players’ time is less intense.)

In addition, TV coverage of the Algarve Cup tournament has been growing more accessible, increasing the annual visibility of the women’s stars. This is another reason that increasing the frequency of women’s World Cups is a less attractive option than one might think, at first blush.

— Brian

The problem is that without a viable professional venue, the ability of players to continue past their college years into adulthood is severely limited. A good comparison is swimming. After the astonishing achievement of seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympics, Mark Spitz dutifully went off to Dental School. There was no professional route to follow. Without the Olympics being opened up to professionals, and the popularity of Olympic swimming, Michael Phelps would not have had mulitple Olympiads to pursue an unrivaled medal haul.
The women's leagues, and some have also played in Europe (Aly Krieger, Megan Rapinoe) have allowed Christie Rampone to continue to the logical conclusion of her elite level athletic life, at 40. Shannon Boxx, 38, Abby Wambach, 35, Hope Solo, 33, and Carli Lloyd, 32.
If the league is not supported, it will be nearly impossible for the USWNT to continue to play at a high level. It will be limited to college players and those just beyond. We will lose the prime of players like Lloyd and Megan Rapinoe, who had a pretty spiffy 30th birthday on the day of the final.
As it is, the players need the USSF national team subsidies, which has limited the squad choices for Ellis, because if they don't get enough caps, the loss of that subsidy can be the difference between making a living wage, and not.

So people should not show any interest in their kids' high school drama productions, unless the kids are capable of delivering Tony-caliber performances? People are interested in all kinds of sports for all kinds of reasons, which may or may not correspond to your personal criteria. It is extremely presumptuous of you to claim to know why "we" watch sports.

Why watch college sports? The Cavaliers or the Warriors would crush Duke or Kentucky by 40 points. The Patriots would crush Alabama or Ihio State easily.
But those college sports are popular, though they hardly represent the highest level of those sports.
Women's sports are interesting, not just because I am the father of daughters. Watching UConn's women is interesting, even though they are rarely challenged, because of the tactics and the concentration, especially on defense. And maybe some of us aren't all that interested in watching freaks of nature drop the ball into a hoop after taking an uncalled four steps. Maybe some of us aren't impressed by 360 lb linemen.
Chaqu'un a son gout. Or, as Bob Dylan put it, "don't criticize what you don't understand." So the men would crush the women. Big deal. Other than rec/beer league softball, when DO men and women play against each other?

@ Evan — Why would anyone watch wrestling in the 110-lb. class, when any reasonably competent 260-lb. wrestler could destroy the 110-lb. Olympics gold medalist?

By your “logic”, no one would. The stands at meets would be deserted until time for the heaviest couple of weight classes, because only then would we see “the best wrestling that the human form can achieve.”

But in •fact•, wrestling fans pack the stands from the lightest classifications, and consider the weight of a wrestler — and that much lighter wrestlers would stand no chance in a head-to-head match against the heavier wrestlers — irrelevant to the quality of the match, and to the quality of individual wrestlers.

If you ask people knowledgeable in the sport who is the greatest American freestyle wrestler ever, many would pick either John Smith, who wrestled in the 136-lb. class from the mid-’80s to the early ’90s, or Cael Sanderson, who wrestled at 184 lbs. from the late ’90s, till about 5 years ago. Informed opinion might say the greatest wrestler of all time is Buvaisar Saitiev, who wrestled at 174 lbs. from the mid-’90s to the 2008 Olympics. Experts will disagree on which was the best wrestler — but would scoff at any notion that the fact Smith could never have beaten Sanderson or Saitiev, or that none of them could have beaten Artur Taymazov, the 2004 gold medalist at 260-lbs., might be relevant to the question.

The problem is not women’s athletics; it’s that you just don’t understand athletics.

— Brian

@ Rudolf — “Zero competition”? You either don’t know what you’re talking about, or are indifferent to reality. Either way, you’ve demonstrated that rational readers should be indifferent to what you have to say.

Oh — your critique of the parade is that it’s “political overkill . . . [for] kicking a ball”? Some friendly advice: you really should do at least basic research before you start spinning out assumptions about whether a particular event is fitting, or out of proportion to its underlying significance.

The most recent ticker tape parades in New York, prior to today’s, have been for the NY Yankees’ World Series titles in 2000 and 2009, and the NY Giants’ Super Bowl championships in 2009 and 2012. On those occasions, did you go out of your way to grumble that •those• ticker-tape parades were “political overkill” for batting or throwing a ball?

(Note, by the way, that there is definitely precedent for parades honoring athletes that aren’t based in New York — one example was the 1984 parade honoring the U.S. Summer Olympics medalists.)

Basically, you don’t like the enthusiasm that a lot of Americans have for the national team, and how thrilled they are at the championship the team has won. That’s fine; it’s a free country! You’re even at liberty to tell us all how you feel.

But don’t try to dress up your personal sentiments with rationalizations that are so transparently bogus that the only reasonable response is to dismiss your statements out of hand.

— Brian

With no competition, how did other teams manage to win four of the seven Women's World Cups that have been competed to date?

YES!! Our family supported the L.A. Sol of the defunct WPS. It was fantastic and sorely missed

Isn't that what US Soccer (and its Canadian and Mexican counterparts) doing already?

Rella, not quite. The subsidies to US, Canadian and Mexican players are contingent on making a certain percentage to national team rosters, so it actively discourages experimenting with the squads, as losing subsidy could be the end of a player being able to afford to play.
What would make more sense would be closer association between teams, like Sounders-Reign, Timbers-Thorns, Red Bulls-Sky Blue, and Fire-red Stars. Schedule a few doubleheaders and it will help the NWSL. In Europe, men's teams, big budget operations, subsidize their ladies' teams, and the Womens Champions League Championships recently for Wolfsburg and Frankfurt of Germany and Olympique Lyonnais in France are a testament to men's teams subsidizing their women's counterparts. And the only Arsenal team to win the European Champions league were the Arsenal Ladies...

@ Steve — “Sticking to tradition here is foolish.”

Well, I see foolishness here, but •that’s• not it.

— Brian

" Serious track fans also pay attention during Worlds and follow the competitive seasons as best they can online and via very spotty TV coverage. If soccer gets to that level in the U.S. it has come further than I ever thought it would."

Soccer has already far surpassed this level.

It has arrived. No doubt. This is it.

As opposed to say male and female LAX which is still growing by leaps and bounds.

And the money will continue to flow in. The parents will still write $1000s of dollars of checks each year to chase the soccer dream in the US.

The woman's pro league averages just about 4000 fans a game. Maybe in time it will be closer to 5000.

Be happy. We have indeed arrived.

Yes, exactly! I watched the same sketchy Eurosport streams for the same reason. Why aren't there any sassy, sharp female callers? Can we import some from Ireland??
The Fox "commentary" was maddening. So much personal background info, I suppose because the "commenters" don't know the game, or how to sound lively on mic.

All girls low level rec soccer teams and all girls higher quality elite teams have been a mainstay of US soccer since the 70s and 80s.

You would have had to,live on the dark side of the moon not to be able to play on an all girls soccer team 8 years ago.

I believe it was 2000 when the first women's league was launched with a press conference held at the National Soccer Coaches convention. Everyone was euphoric. There could be no doubt those on the podium predicted; the league was bound to succeed.

My thoughts at the time were this: If men's professional soccer om 2000 was struggling to survive, why would women believe that its league had a chance for success? Yes, the country was coming off a World Cup title but once the emotional rush subsided it seemed clear the fiscal realities would set in. They did and relatively shortly thereafter the league folded.

At the aforementioned press conference I had a thought: Why not have the women's league combine forces with the existent MLS teams? Through economies of administrative staffing and by playing doubleheaders both leagues might have a chance to succeed.

I raised my hand and broached the subject of a coordinated effort. In doing so I recognized that I assumed that the MLS teams at the time would probably be lukewarm (at best) about such soccer synergy.

What I wasn't prepared for was utter rejection of the idea by the panelists (I recall Julie Foudy as one). The message delivered was basically "We don't need the men to be a success! After all, we women can survive on our own."

Well some 15 years I still would advocate for some sort of MLS merger (with joint US Soccer Foundation/MLS financing) in order for a U.S. women's league long term survival.

What's in it for MLS clubs? (There would have been even less in it for MLS clubs in 2000, as they had their hands full ensuring their own survival.)

You don't have a clue. High school soccer is growing faster than any other sport. So is college soccer. Is there anything more boring than baseball games that take four hours, basketball games, the last minute or so that takes a half hour to play? Go to high school track meets, soccer games, college lacrosse games for excitement.

lots of metrics suggest soccer has indeed taking root, even if you've missed it.

Mags, you need to open your eyes. Millions of US kids are playing soccer, thousands of youth leagues exist throughout the country, there are hundreds of amateur and semi-pro adult leagues, there are professional development leagues, there is NWSL, NASL, and MLS, and of course there is a huge following here for overseas leagues. But understanding and appreciating the game may be difficult for those who didn't play when they were young or who don't have a good feel for sports and athletics. Go to a live game there at Yankee Stadium or Red Bull Arena and see what you think.

No,it does not accelerate. Exactly the opposite. The ball stands up, and slows down, particularly in the plane parallel to the field.

Its vertical velocity vector could conceivably be larger but that would mean an unusual aggregate angle of the surface fibers to the vertical.

For the artificial surfaces I played on, the much greater friction of the artificial surface simply took the pace off the ball - which is the way it looked in the women's WC.

This makes quick control, turning with the ball in the same direction as a pass, killing the ball off a bounce pass, etc, all more difficult. This is not to excuse much of the technical ineptitude shown by the players but it is a legitimate extenuating circumstance.

It takes a lot of talent and training. It's not just about physicality and brute force (which are two aspects that americans tend to chase after). It's a game that can see a 5'4" player outmaneuvering with a 6'1" opponent with beautiful footwork and speed. Too bad americans can't find the beauty in it.