FVC St James uniforms

[Anonymous]

SUM doesn’t give two craps about the DA. You’re all confusing two different topics, both related to USSF. Anyhow, can’t explain to people that don’t want to be explained to. Believe what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SUM doesn’t give two craps about the DA. You’re all confusing two different topics, both related to USSF. Anyhow, can’t explain to people that don’t want to be explained to. Believe what you want.

There is a bigger picture that you're not understanding. There are street guys in Brooklyn with no formal education that understand the ins and outs of business better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point is this; The USSF doesnt operate the DA at a loss. They just increase revenue / cut expenditures somewhere else. They'll purposely structure "youth development" that way. Dont forget, there is FIFA grant money floating out there.

USSF and MLS is run by the Soccer United Management group. The last couple of USSF presidents were from SUM.

USSF is not a parent group. They are a major operation.

+1

Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_United_Marketing

USSF is a 501(c)(3) org with FIFA as their parent organization.

USSF is commonly referred to as US Soccer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Soccer_Federation

For the youth council: US Club, USYS, SAY, & AYSA is owned by USSF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Youth_Soccer_Association

The ECNL is an independent, non-profit, member-based 501(c)(3) organization, with an independent governance and leadership structure. The ECNL Board of Directors and staff solely governs all programs and platforms. The ECNL is sanctioned by US Club Soccer.

"Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution".

And they run USSF and MLS.

MLS owners are the principle investors in SUM, which handles the media rights for American soccer. They do not RUN MLS. They sell the media rights and pass the profits off to the MLS owners, who are the principle investors.

Reference your own article, BRO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point is this; The USSF doesnt operate the DA at a loss. They just increase revenue / cut expenditures somewhere else. They'll purposely structure "youth development" that way. Dont forget, there is FIFA grant money floating out there.

USSF and MLS is run by the Soccer United Management group. The last couple of USSF presidents were from SUM.

USSF is not a parent group. They are a major operation.

+1

Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_United_Marketing

USSF is a 501(c)(3) org with FIFA as their parent organization.

USSF is commonly referred to as US Soccer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Soccer_Federation

For the youth council: US Club, USYS, SAY, & AYSA is owned by USSF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Youth_Soccer_Association

The ECNL is an independent, non-profit, member-based 501(c)(3) organization, with an independent governance and leadership structure. The ECNL Board of Directors and staff solely governs all programs and platforms. The ECNL is sanctioned by US Club Soccer.

"Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution".

And they run USSF and MLS.

MLS owners are the principle investors in SUM, which handles the media rights for American soccer. They do not RUN MLS. They sell the media rights and pass the profits off to the MLS owners, who are the principle investors.

Reference your own article, BRO!

So the FACT that most of the USSF presidents come from SUM is not indicative of anything?


"SUM is a sports marketing company and the commercial arm of Major League Soccer. Its owners are the league’s club owners. It holds the rights to market U.S. national team TV broadcasts and sponsorships through 2022.

As MLS has grown in stature and the U.S. national teams’ progress has slowed considerably, SUM has become an American soccer bogeyman. It’s not particularly strange for a federation to sell its rights to a sports marketing company, but what is unconventional about this arrangement is that SUM packages U.S. Soccer’s rights with MLS rights and sells them together. That raises questions about whether U.S. Soccer is getting maximum value for its product or is being used to prop up MLS instead.

Detractors of the partnership between U.S. Soccer and SUM — including the former second division North American Soccer League, which is suing USSF — believe that the dealings between the two organizations are an example of cronyism at its worst, redirecting money that should go to the women’s national team, player development, and underfunded programs into the pockets of MLS owners."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point is this; The USSF doesnt operate the DA at a loss. They just increase revenue / cut expenditures somewhere else. They'll purposely structure "youth development" that way. Dont forget, there is FIFA grant money floating out there.

USSF and MLS is run by the Soccer United Management group. The last couple of USSF presidents were from SUM.

USSF is not a parent group. They are a major operation.

+1

Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_United_Marketing

USSF is a 501(c)(3) org with FIFA as their parent organization.

USSF is commonly referred to as US Soccer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Soccer_Federation

For the youth council: US Club, USYS, SAY, & AYSA is owned by USSF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Youth_Soccer_Association

The ECNL is an independent, non-profit, member-based 501(c)(3) organization, with an independent governance and leadership structure. The ECNL Board of Directors and staff solely governs all programs and platforms. The ECNL is sanctioned by US Club Soccer.

"Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution".

And they run USSF and MLS.

MLS owners are the principle investors in SUM, which handles the media rights for American soccer. They do not RUN MLS. They sell the media rights and pass the profits off to the MLS owners, who are the principle investors.

Reference your own article, BRO!

So the FACT that most of the USSF presidents come from SUM is not indicative of anything?


"SUM is a sports marketing company and the commercial arm of Major League Soccer. Its owners are the league’s club owners. It holds the rights to market U.S. national team TV broadcasts and sponsorships through 2022.

As MLS has grown in stature and the U.S. national teams’ progress has slowed considerably, SUM has become an American soccer bogeyman. It’s not particularly strange for a federation to sell its rights to a sports marketing company, but what is unconventional about this arrangement is that SUM packages U.S. Soccer’s rights with MLS rights and sells them together. That raises questions about whether U.S. Soccer is getting maximum value for its product or is being used to prop up MLS instead.

Detractors of the partnership between U.S. Soccer and SUM — including the former second division North American Soccer League, which is suing USSF — believe that the dealings between the two organizations are an example of cronyism at its worst, redirecting money that should go to the women’s national team, player development, and underfunded programs into the pockets of MLS owners."

Sure it is indicative of the MLS owners being the major investor in the company that sells their products.

It DOES NOT make SUM the OWNERS. SUM is the company used to market and sell the product, which profits in turn go to their major investors, the MLS owners.

This isn't that difficult or nearly as sinister as you are trying to make this out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point is this; The USSF doesnt operate the DA at a loss. They just increase revenue / cut expenditures somewhere else. They'll purposely structure "youth development" that way. Dont forget, there is FIFA grant money floating out there.

USSF and MLS is run by the Soccer United Management group. The last couple of USSF presidents were from SUM.

USSF is not a parent group. They are a major operation.

+1

Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_United_Marketing

USSF is a 501(c)(3) org with FIFA as their parent organization.

USSF is commonly referred to as US Soccer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Soccer_Federation

For the youth council: US Club, USYS, SAY, & AYSA is owned by USSF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Youth_Soccer_Association

The ECNL is an independent, non-profit, member-based 501(c)(3) organization, with an independent governance and leadership structure. The ECNL Board of Directors and staff solely governs all programs and platforms. The ECNL is sanctioned by US Club Soccer.

"Ugh...it is Soccer United Marketing and they were chosen to overseeing the marketing, promotion and operational execution".

And they run USSF and MLS.

MLS owners are the principle investors in SUM, which handles the media rights for American soccer. They do not RUN MLS. They sell the media rights and pass the profits off to the MLS owners, who are the principle investors.

Reference your own article, BRO!

So the FACT that most of the USSF presidents come from SUM is not indicative of anything?


"SUM is a sports marketing company and the commercial arm of Major League Soccer. Its owners are the league’s club owners. It holds the rights to market U.S. national team TV broadcasts and sponsorships through 2022.

As MLS has grown in stature and the U.S. national teams’ progress has slowed considerably, SUM has become an American soccer bogeyman. It’s not particularly strange for a federation to sell its rights to a sports marketing company, but what is unconventional about this arrangement is that SUM packages U.S. Soccer’s rights with MLS rights and sells them together. That raises questions about whether U.S. Soccer is getting maximum value for its product or is being used to prop up MLS instead.

Detractors of the partnership between U.S. Soccer and SUM — including the former second division North American Soccer League, which is suing USSF — believe that the dealings between the two organizations are an example of cronyism at its worst, redirecting money that should go to the women’s national team, player development, and underfunded programs into the pockets of MLS owners."

Sure it is indicative of the MLS owners being the major investor in the company that sells their products.

It DOES NOT make SUM the OWNERS. SUM is the company used to market and sell the product, which profits in turn go to their major investors, the MLS owners.

This isn't that difficult or nearly as sinister as you are trying to make this out to be.

USSF doesnt have owners. They have elected officials. The #1 elected official in the USSF is from SUM who in turn is the commissioner of MLS who in turn handed the BDA to the MLS clubs who in turn get the solidarity payments.

But whatever

[Anonymous]

Wow. I hope you see we are saying the same thing. You are arguing to argue.