Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

Cool - the rest of the world is catching up. That's not why we are under performing. In my opinion, this is the worst team ever assembled by the US.

The US needs to figure out a way to jettison players way past their prime. If there had been a youth movement in place starting right after 2019, I think things would look very different

Part of the problem was the pay contract. Remember USWNT member got a good salary and benefits. The US women pro league were in and out of business over the year. The pay sucked. Even now the NWSL pay is low. So a lot of promising pro players quit.

And association with USWNT is where most of the marketing/branding opportunities for pay outside of the pay contract comes. So players will cling on longer for the visibility and relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

Cool - the rest of the world is catching up. That's not why we are under performing. In my opinion, this is the worst team ever assembled by the US.

The US needs to figure out a way to jettison players way past their prime. If there had been a youth movement in place starting right after 2019, I think things would look very different

Part of the problem was the pay contract. Remember USWNT member got a good salary and benefits. The US women pro league were in and out of business over the year. The pay sucked. Even now the NWSL pay is low. So a lot of promising pro players quit.

And association with USWNT is where most of the marketing/branding opportunities for pay outside of the pay contract comes. So players will cling on longer for the visibility and relevance.

Yes. This is why the team does not change. Also the USWNT teams member are assigned to NWSL team. You know the bigger names get to pick which teams they are assigned to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

Cool - the rest of the world is catching up. That's not why we are under performing. In my opinion, this is the worst team ever assembled by the US.

The US needs to figure out a way to jettison players way past their prime. If there had been a youth movement in place starting right after 2019, I think things would look very different

Part of the problem was the pay contract. Remember USWNT member got a good salary and benefits. The US women pro league were in and out of business over the year. The pay sucked. Even now the NWSL pay is low. So a lot of promising pro players quit.

And association with USWNT is where most of the marketing/branding opportunities for pay outside of the pay contract comes. So players will cling on longer for the visibility and relevance.

Yes. This is why the team does not change. Also the USWNT teams member are assigned to NWSL team. You know the bigger names get to pick which teams they are assigned to

Players should not be dictating it. This isn't basketball where they difference in talent pool is so great that it doesn't matter who we send.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

That's the point. Lyon has a far more successful women's team but women's teams don't drive brand value. Matt Ishbia made a huge point about mentioning the Mercury any time he talked about his acquisition of the suns, but it was very obviously only lip service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

That's the point. Lyon has a far more successful women's team but women's teams don't drive brand value. Matt Ishbia made a huge point about mentioning the Mercury any time he talked about his acquisition of the suns, but it was very obviously only lip service.

It's not an either/or proposition. The Man United men's team could be the predominant driver of the value of the contract, but Adidas could also have factored growth prospects of the Women's team into the value of the deal. If the women begin to move the needle commercially, even if not the predominant driver, then that goes to sustainability and they are not then considered a complete drain on club resources.

By your logic, the USWNT had nothing to do with the value of the joint men's/women's TV deals that US Soccer signed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

That's the point. Lyon has a far more successful women's team but women's teams don't drive brand value. Matt Ishbia made a huge point about mentioning the Mercury any time he talked about his acquisition of the suns, but it was very obviously only lip service.

It's not an either/or proposition. The Man United men's team could be the predominant driver of the value of the contract, but Adidas could also have factored growth prospects of the Women's team into the value of the deal. If the women begin to move the needle commercially, even if not the predominant driver, then that goes to sustainability and they are not then considered a complete drain on club resources.

By your logic, the USWNT had nothing to do with the value of the joint men's/women's TV deals that US Soccer signed.

And for years, the WWC didn’t have anything to do with FIFA’s tv deals. They gave it away for free as an add-on to the men’s, then wondered why they couldn’t get the fees they wanted this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

That's the point. Lyon has a far more successful women's team but women's teams don't drive brand value. Matt Ishbia made a huge point about mentioning the Mercury any time he talked about his acquisition of the suns, but it was very obviously only lip service.

It's not an either/or proposition. The Man United men's team could be the predominant driver of the value of the contract, but Adidas could also have factored growth prospects of the Women's team into the value of the deal. If the women begin to move the needle commercially, even if not the predominant driver, then that goes to sustainability and they are not then considered a complete drain on club resources.

By your logic, the USWNT had nothing to do with the value of the joint men's/women's TV deals that US Soccer signed.

And for years, the WWC didn’t have anything to do with FIFA’s tv deals. They gave it away for free as an add-on to the men’s, then wondered why they couldn’t get the fees they wanted this year.

Couldn't get the fees they wanted is not the same as commercially irrelevant. And on a trajectory toward sustainability does not mean commercial behemoth today.

Women's soccer has been breaking records and rapidly growing across Europe, in part by leveraging very strong, existing football brands on the continent (unlike in the U.S.). Why is it so big of a stretch to say that brand partners and sponsors might take notice?

[Anonymous]

Aww - "the brand"

Well - if USWNT is the "brand" that brings in the real money - I suggest the people that benifit from the brand take better care of it's image.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

That's the point. Lyon has a far more successful women's team but women's teams don't drive brand value. Matt Ishbia made a huge point about mentioning the Mercury any time he talked about his acquisition of the suns, but it was very obviously only lip service.

It's not an either/or proposition. The Man United men's team could be the predominant driver of the value of the contract, but Adidas could also have factored growth prospects of the Women's team into the value of the deal. If the women begin to move the needle commercially, even if not the predominant driver, then that goes to sustainability and they are not then considered a complete drain on club resources.

By your logic, the USWNT had nothing to do with the value of the joint men's/women's TV deals that US Soccer signed.

And for years, the WWC didn’t have anything to do with FIFA’s tv deals. They gave it away for free as an add-on to the men’s, then wondered why they couldn’t get the fees they wanted this year.

Couldn't get the fees they wanted is not the same as commercially irrelevant. And on a trajectory toward sustainability does not mean commercial behemoth today.

Women's soccer has been breaking records and rapidly growing across Europe, in part by leveraging very strong, existing football brands on the continent (unlike in the U.S.). Why is it so big of a stretch to say that brand partners and sponsors might take notice?

PP and I actually agree with you. Inartfully stated, but my point is that they’re now realizing there’s a market for it after years of neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame everyone and everything but the team and their leadership.

Sometimes - maybe - its just them

+1. Read Carli Lloyd's remarks after the Portugal game. The players were laughing, dancing, and taking selfies after they were lucky to survive. They are going to get pummelled by Sweden. I am not happy about this. I have been a huge fan since 1991. But this team is a bad mix of players past their prime and newbies who are not ready. Maybe in 4 years.

In 4 years the other team will be a lot better. When England women’s won the Euros in 2022 they had 17.4 million watching. England has a population of 55 million. That is similar to the number the superbowl gets in the US. Those kind of numbers drive more girls and money in to the sport for the next cycle.

Two points

1. The 2022 Women's European Championship was the most watched edition of the tournament with a projected global cumulative live viewership of 365 million.

2. Popularity of women's sports in Europe will lead to more women playing sports - thus a greater pool of talent - yes

However - the current population of Western Europe is 195 million. The current population of the US is 332 million

Point being - population and ratings doesnt mean better soccer - obviously

No, but more girls over seas are playing Football now, I am from Argentina just 10 years they played field hockey, football was more for "Tommy boys" and lower income girls, now it changed and a lot more girls are playing Football, so in few years they are will have a real time and that its happening all over. THS US needs to start changing the way they play.

And my point is that the US has more girls playing than all of Europe and we still can't find enough.

DP. It's more than numbers though. A lot of the countries already have strong footballing culture and history, infrastructure, coaching systems and philosophies etc.

It's an open question how long and how much premier league clubs are willing to lose subsidizing women's teams and, more importantly, girl's teams and academies. If they go on indefinitely or if the women's game in Europe becomes profitable, the US is hosed. If not, US pay to play is a better pipeline than just relying on crumbs from a national association.

Manchester United just signed a record billion-pound kit supply deal with Adidas and this is word from Adidas:

"The new deal increases the focus on the Manchester United women's team since their reintroduction in 2018," United and Adidas said in a statement.

Yes, it could only be lip service from the company, but if the women's teams are now being factored into the value of some of these deals it could point to sustainability in the Women's game.

This aside, I have a hard time seeing some of the large European clubs take the PR hit from shuttering their women's teams when there is so much money sloshing around in the game. The NBA-WNBA subsidy is not as direct because it is not the same clubs/branding, so if the WNBA fails it could more easily be couched as "the league just didn't make it".

It's the same lip service that nike pays when the mention the WNBA along with the NBA. You don't see Lyon getting a billion on the back of its more successful women's team

I'm not suggesting that the Women's team is the predominant driver of the value of that contract. Lyon is nowhere as big a brand and Manchester United.

That's the point. Lyon has a far more successful women's team but women's teams don't drive brand value. Matt Ishbia made a huge point about mentioning the Mercury any time he talked about his acquisition of the suns, but it was very obviously only lip service.

It's not an either/or proposition. The Man United men's team could be the predominant driver of the value of the contract, but Adidas could also have factored growth prospects of the Women's team into the value of the deal. If the women begin to move the needle commercially, even if not the predominant driver, then that goes to sustainability and they are not then considered a complete drain on club resources.

By your logic, the USWNT had nothing to do with the value of the joint men's/women's TV deals that US Soccer signed.

And for years, the WWC didn’t have anything to do with FIFA’s tv deals. They gave it away for free as an add-on to the men’s, then wondered why they couldn’t get the fees they wanted this year.

Couldn't get the fees they wanted is not the same as commercially irrelevant. And on a trajectory toward sustainability does not mean commercial behemoth today.

Women's soccer has been breaking records and rapidly growing across Europe, in part by leveraging very strong, existing football brands on the continent (unlike in the U.S.). Why is it so big of a stretch to say that brand partners and sponsors might take notice?

PP and I actually agree with you. Inartfully stated, but my point is that they’re now realizing there’s a market for it after years of neglect.

The other half of the world's population who have loved the world's games for multiple generations wants to play now, do you know how low hanging fruit this is for marketers... Once men get out of their own way they see this has loads $$$ of potential

[Anonymous]

The thread is about the World Cup - right?

As in athletes performing in games, right?

Pointing fingers at the fictiocious boggie man may be good for headlines - but it doesn't fix anything.

They need to own this. This is not a US soccer problem or a youth soccer problem. It's a team and player problem.

They are the best funded women's national program in the world....but you wouldn't know that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thread is about the World Cup - right?

As in athletes performing in games, right?

Pointing fingers at the fictiocious boggie man may be good for headlines - but it doesn't fix anything.

They need to own this. This is not a US soccer problem or a youth soccer problem. It's a team and player problem.

They are the best funded women's national program in the world....but you wouldn't know that

The coach literally said “we own this” in his post-match press conference.

That doesn’t make the points about the woeful US development system or the growth of the women’s game elsewhere (yay!) untrue.