Women's Soccer League (WUSA) Is Folding

The Women's United Soccer Association, the three-year-old professional league that brought superstar Mia Hamm to Washington, folded suddenly today, five days before the opening of the Women's World Cup.

The decision, made during a WUSA Board of Governors meeting in New York today, came after the league was unable to find enough corporate sponsors to overcome a $20 million shortfall, said board chairman John Hendricks.

....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14251-2003Sep15.html

does it make a noise?

But I'm going to pull a branch and whoop you for that comment and I'm sure everyone is going to hear you screaming. ;)

The sad reality is that soccer is the number one sport in the world, and the fact that the U.S.A. just doesn't get it, is a reflection of its own insular thinking.

It's our fault we don't like women's soccer?

No, it might be that the game, when played at any level other than the extraordinary, is boring as hell.

That's the sound of someone who doesn't understand the sport. IMHO, the primary reason soccer doesn't get media promotion (that includes corporate sponsorship, y'know) is because there aren't an infinite number of timeouts for commercial interruptions. Once upon a time, American pro football was a better game -- then they pandered to egregious commercialism by all the timeouts by the referees. logos on the gear and on the sidelines, etc. The only sport that hasn't turned total whore is hockey, IMHO, and that's like soccer on ice.

boring as all get out. Same goes for women's basketball. Dunno why, but these two sports, when played by women, just seem deathly dull.

Before anyone accuses me of misogyny, I do enjoy watching women's volleyball (both beach and regular), women's tennis, women's badminton and other women's sports, but really women playing football is about as exciting as watching, oh, I dunno, american football.

Sorry, but the fact is Americans don't like soccer that much. Yes, it might be open to interpretation why, but you can't change the fact. The X Games get media sponsorship, so if businesses think there is a fan base, they will sponsor events.

Americans like scoring and excitement. Most football fans would rather see last night's 35-32 victory on MNF than a 3-0 defensive struggle. I've seen a football tie and it was horrendous. A tie in soccer is just as bad, except it's far more common.

Maybe, one day, Americans will embrace soccer simply because of the rising immigrant population, but don't count on it.

That must be why soccer has surpassed little league and Pop Warner as the most popular sport for both boys and girls in this country.
I don't know a single kid in my area who doesn't play it.
If there isn't a ready made fan base for women's soccer the problem is not that there aren't enough people who play and enjoy the sport.
The problem is that the games aren't televised and distributed in a way that builds a fan base. How many dollars a month does it take to follow a woman's soccer team on cable (or wherever they do broadcast them) versus men's baseball and football(free).
I support Arsenal but I have to save up to afford one match a month on pay-per-view and the rest of the time I have to look up scores on the Internet. If I wasn't hooked already from the time I lived in England and could watch any match I wanted on TV for free, I never would have bothered following the sport at all.
Broadcasters have created a Catch-22 for women's sports. They argue that they won't televise them because not enough people watch them when in fact noone watches them because they're never televised.
I don't even really like football or baseball but I could probably name you twenty teams in each sport just from passive consumption in this country. I do like soccer, although I've been too busy to really follow it in America. I could name 2 mens soccer teams (DC United and the Metrostars) and no womens soccer teams. Trust me, I would pay attention if it was out there.

is that it is much cheaper to fund than most other sports. There is not much equipment to buy and keep up, and is typically played outside.

In most cases, playing a sport is much more exciting than watching a sport. To assume that an individual will be just as enthusiastic to watch a sport because they play it is not completely accurate.

but I do think that in order to build a fan base for a sport you need a large group of people who understand the rules and enjoy the game(which we already have in America) plus an opportunity for them to follow cheaply or evenly passively American teams(which we do not have in America). If you don't have cable and don't speak Spanish, it's extremely difficult to follow a soccer team in America. I think this is why we see such a large disconnect between kids who love soccer and adults who are indifferent.
I wouldn't say that playing a sport makes you a more enthusiastic watcher of that sport but I would bet that a correlation could be shown between boys who play football and follow professional football teams, boys who play baseball and follow professional baseball teams, and boys who play basketball and follow professional basketball teams. Yes, there's crossover between sports and the kid's physical type may determine which sport they go into, but sports develop cultures. Kids play, watch and support the same sport.
I do agree that soccer is the great working class game which requires almost no equiptment to practice. It's popular in other countries because either the games are televised for free to the masses or it's dirt cheap to watch a match. Offer that here (particularly in the Bush economy when only the insane or the superrich can afford season tickets) and you might find "soccer-hating" Americans coming around.

Tell you what, let me know when we have Monday Night Soccer as the most popular event of the week's sports.

Soccer is popular for kids because it requires relatively little equipment and results in fewer injuries, so parents like it. That doesn't mean anybody really wants to watch it.

At top level, there are MORE injuries.. My son played toplevel club soccer and was injured and injured badly.. When he played football for school he had lots of padding, but in soccer, it's one on one with shorts, and shinguards..that's IT.

He had knee surgery twice and ankle surgery once.. He has had concussions, stitches, and heat prostration..

Soccer is not a wimpy sport at all.

and even after all he went through, he would gladly do it all over again.. It's an adrenalin sport..

At school level, there ARE fewer injuries and certainly fewer serious ones.

I never said soccer is wimpy. Boring yes, wimpy no.

Monday Night Soccer isn't the most popular event in weekly sports because soccer isn't broadcast to a popular audience the other six days of the week either. If it's not popular it's because it's not on, not because it is an inherently inferior sport to American football.
To look at the issue from another angle, why hasn't American football picked up popularity in other countries if it is inherently so much more exciting to watch than soccer?

Americans have no significant interest in watching soccer. That's why it's not on. Similarly, people in other cultures, have little interest in watching football.

Generally speaking, soccer is not boring to the rest of the world. Just to Americans (generally speaking, because real soccer fans are addicted). I think we can agree it's a cultural thing, which suggests that resistance is due to insular thinking.

Just different.

America is more focused on winning and statistics and such. I don't see any of that in soccer. Even in this thread we have celebration of the game, not of victory.

Why do we need to celebrate what is already a given? The U.S.A. woman's soccer team dominated the sport. We just want to see it go to the next level.

win the last big international competition, the 2002 Olympics?

in 2002.

USA lost to Norway in 2000 in overtime. That would be nearly three years ago. USA is a formidable, dominant team. The men's Olympic soccer team would love to have their record and I'm sure you wouldn't mince words, if they did.

And if they are so dominant, how come they lost to Norway?

In soccer, the USA women's Olympic team is dominant. One loss doesn't change that. Anyone who has lost in overtime knows that wins can go either way, depending on a multitude of factors, luck being one of them. Now, if Norway wins again, or the USA loses the next Olympics, I'll re-evaluate my assessment. But for now, they are champions and dominant in my book.

Didn't they beat China in the World Cup in a penalty shoot-out? Doesn't seem to be THE dominate team to me...

subject. :)

Would love to get a hold of the game records between Olympics. It would put this issue to rest.

Through 13 matches, the 2003 squad has posted a 9-1-3 record including a first-place finish at the Algarve Cup after playing Canada, Norway, Sweden and China. Most recenly, the team topped Brazil 1-0 on July 13 in New Orleans.

Dominant. What did I tell ya?

Dominant would be if they were undefeated! :-)

They are pretty powerfulr, though!

:)

Dominant, for me, is that they have to have the best record.

?

with the PROFESSIONAL women's league folding?

Another poster gave a more valid reason for the demise. Bad business decisions were made. This can be remedied.

Just like the men's NATIONAL team survives. Neither of them are professional. It's the women's PROFESSIONAL league that collapsed. The poster was talking about the lame men's NATIONAL team.

Cheswick didn't specify which men's team.

he said "lame men's team." That implies ONE team and ONLY one team, ergo the US national men's team. Now, if he had said league, that would be a different matter! :-)

You guys finished last year's World Cup within the top 8. Would be top 4 if not for a questionable Germany goal. Hardly lame.

Of course, (cue Queen music) WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS! But you did pretty damn well. I was impressed.

I ain't sure why but it'll come to me.

yeah that's the ticket...

American soccer is playing the through ball and a lot of running. It's all about winning, even if it's ugly. They should work harder on skills and developing a team as magnificent to watch as the Brazilian men's team.

The men's league also shut-down, and still came back. I'm confidant that the woman's league will do the same.

The Brazilian men's team wins. A lot. They are all about winning and nothing else, like every other champion side.

If they weren't, they'd be relegated to irrelevancy no matter how exquisite their scissor kicks.

On edit: I just realized reading over your comments that you again respond with a strawman argument. Before you take us down another tangent, what exactly do you know about soccer? And do you know the term, "It is better to lose pretty, than to win ugly?" Some of the trainers who come from other countries were/are trying to drill this concept home to American players, because, compared to what is known as European soccer, American soccer is boring -- uninspired, not creative. Do you understand enough to make it worth my while to continue?

Firstly - unfortunately, it IS about winning....If it weren't, then the Brazilians wouldn't feign injuries and try to get opposition players booked/sent off for fouls that weren't committed. E.g. Rivaldo diving to the floor clutching his face after being tapped on the arm by a ball kicked to him during the World Cup, or Ronaldo's repeated diving in the penalty area. That's not to say that they don't play interesting football or have the best team in the world, I just find it gutting that they still feel the need to cheat rather than rely on pure ability.

Secondly - you seem to be confusing "skill" with interesting styles of play. You don't win without skill - skill is the talent / ability to play well. You can decide whether to play boring defensive tactics or flamboyant attacking play, long ball game or dribbling and close control, but if you don't have the skill you won't win. Brazil play interesting and attacking football and basically rely on scoring more goals than the opposition. Germany, on the other hand, play very defensive, boring football and tend to rely on preventing the opposition from scoring, but getting one or two goals themselves. These are (arguably) the top two teams in the world, and to deny that each is skillful seems odd.

"It is better to lose pretty, than to win ugly?" - well........In my heart I agree with you, but if you're going to enter into professional sports then I'm afraid it does matter whether you win or lose. It would be odd for a coach to say "Well, we've decided against playing defensively because it doesn't look nice...we're going to go out there and play the most dazzling soccer you've ever seen!"........IMHO you're focusing on the wrong thing. It should be "It's better to play fairly and lose than cheat and win". It's nice for the crowd when a team is interesting to watch, but personally I'd rather that they played within the spirit of the rules than made the game exciting.

ON EDIT - on the other hand, if every team in the US plays boring, safe soccer then it's not surprising that the league is folding. It would certainly be worth the US bringing in a wider range of playing styles to improve experience and offer choices when faced with different opposition......But it's wrong to conclude that US soccer is lacking in skill simply because the football is boring.....although, of course, it could be.

But, you got the point:

"on the other hand, if every team in the US plays boring, safe soccer then it's not surprising that the league is folding. It would certainly be worth the US bringing in a wider range of playing styles to improve experience and offer choices when faced with different opposition......But it's wrong to conclude that US soccer is lacking in skill simply because the football is boring.....although, of course, it could be."

The Americans are not lacking in skill, just in depth of skill. Their track record should testify to the fact that what they do, they do very well. However, the question is, what will bring in the sponsors? This matter has been discussed for sometime and the growing opinion is that the girls do play safe soccer (strategy wise, anyway, because soccer is not a "safe" sport if you count the number of injuries that you can get along the way.)

It's the ball skills, the footwork, the team combinations that hook the audience. And I disagree that people tune in to watch Brazil to see them win. Everyone I know, watches to see them PLAY. Weeks after the game no one can remember if they won or lost. They can only remember the spectacular moments were the game was played at a superlative level. But then, I live in America and don't get to see that sort of thing all the time.

Kasey Keller, Brad Freidel, Tim Howards (now 1st choice for Manchester United) to name but three.

America is a nation that likes to win. We want to see exciting play along the way, but we are focused on winning more than fantastic plays.

Two of the most recent Super Bowl champs won on defense, not offense. Sure everyone loved it when the Rams won, but Tampa and Baltimore were champions nevertheless. Hell, Baltimore won with a journeyman quarterback they cut right after the victory.

Insular thinking from Americans who think that winning is everything has an effect on the way a game is played. Players aren't allowed to develop the artistry and creative game that you see in other countries. Those girls who do have those skills, aren't always the fastest, or the most brutish. Therefore, the American game becomes predictable: we win But it's boring: we lose.

To paraphrase or quote Rosie Perez from "White Men Can't Jump"

"Sometimes when you win, you really lose; sometimes when you lose, you really win; and sometimes you just break even."

And I do believe that the rising immigrant population will make a difference. The other difference will come when Americans start losing in the Olympic soccer games in the female category. Because...Americans can't stand to lose.

If you can't win, it doesn't matter how good you look losing.

And, I don't expect you to understand about art in soccer, because you do have the insular perspective. Which, is of course, your right. As I, a soccer fan, have a right to disagree.

So you can forget your prejudice about my perspective.

But I only watched Pele when he played for the Cosmos because he also had an all-star team around him and they didn't just play well, they won.

The organization folded because,like so many other things in a capitalist economy, nobody cared enough to support it.

Read musiclawyer's response. It provides far more detail than your knee-jerk reaction.

so can you explain to me why LeBron James, who has never won anything besides the Ohio State Basketball title has larger endorsement contracts than any other active NBA player, including those with as many as five championship rings?

Style is as important as winning. look at Tim Duncan. what, two-three rings? two MVP awards? but boring as hell. look at Anna Kournikova? sells out matches, never won a tournament. hell, look at the aformentioned X-Games. winning most of those competitions is completely based on style.

LeBron has POTENTIAL to win. Sure he has style, but they care about whether he can put up points. They care about winning.

If somebody came out of school who was completely boring but could hit shots and 100% of his free throws, the NBA would kill itself to get him.

Don't even bring in Anna. That's not style, that's not sports. That's substance. Oh, and sex.

I just realized reading over your comments that you again respond with a strawman argument.

What a quaint, misguided notion. What strawman?

Before you take us down another tangent, what exactly do you know about soccer?

Plenty. Played it from early childhood, through high school and on a city league team in Konstanz, Germany, when I attended University there. What do you know about it?

And do you know the term, "It is better to lose pretty, than to win ugly?"

What about it?

Some of the trainers who come from other countries were/are trying to drill this concept home to American players, because, compared to what is known as European soccer, American soccer is boring -- uninspired, not creative. Do you understand enough to make it worth my while to continue?

Yes, evidently magnitudes more than you do. There is a soccer culture in Europe that is well over a century old, with numerous different levels of involvement available from childhood onwards, starting in the equivalent of Pee-Wee clubs up to very dedicated sides for grooming professionals.

Fans have had their clubs for many decades and all that time has inspired loyalty and their respective histories constitute a tradition that is now ingrained into the societies as a whole.

Soccer over there is a tradition, an industry and, in some places, it borders on resembling tribal affiliations.

Do you understand enough to know that soccer is a sport like any other and winning means money and survival?

"Do you understand enough to know that soccer is a sport like any other and winning means money and survival?"

So nice of you to point it out. Winning apparently wasn't enough, however, or it would have overcome all else. It didn't.

Which doesn't suprise me in the least. You stated I reference a straw man when I commented "It's all about winning, all the time" in regards to your statement:

It's all about winning, even if it's ugly. They should work harder on skills and developing a team as magnificent to watch as the Brazilian men's team.

Then when I requested you to point out the straw man you claimed I used, you reference a different, later post and fail to point out a straw man.

Are you sure you understand logical fallacies enough when you use terms incorrectly?

You created an argument which could not be refuted. That's the strategy behind a strawman argument. You said, "It's all about winning, all the time"

Well, Duh. You described the American perspective which I refer to as insular thinking. And it's that insular thinking that stunts the sport from moving up to the next level -- which is a more Brazilian, or German or Real Madrid game. American coaches want sure wins to please opinionated audiences, such as yourself. And this sometimes stunts the level of creative play.

They could have teamed up with Major League Soccer, but they thought they were better than the guys. Soccer in America just has a hard time catching on. Can you imagine how much better it'd be if they did double header games with a WUSA game and a MLS game? I'd go.

Still, I hear that they think it might happen again in 2005.

Hell, he has that much lying around in his back pack. The Georgie can save a team that needs saving and people will stop pestering him about those silly little WMDs and finding Osama and Hussein. :shrug:

.

In other news, I bought grapes yesterday.

so sad that the women's league is folding. It has done much for the encouragement and support for girls in playing soccer. Those players were wonderful role models as well.

Soccer is the most beautiful game in the world -it's a shame the U.S. can't see that!

opinion...unfortunately, the majority of Americans have looked at soccer(football) and found it lacking.

I would rather watch soccer than football, any day. I think soccer players exhibit much more skill and finesse than football players.

a whole bunch of others to agree with you, and spend money on it, you can bring back women's pro soccer. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you.

2005. The men's league also had their false starts. It's all part of the process.

Have been to a few of the Freedom's matches. That said, the support is NOT there right now. If it had been, the league would not have collapsed.

The fan base IS there. What is missing is the sponsors that are willing to drop money to make it work and, considering that this economy stinks, it's no wonder that it will have to wait until we're sure that those fans have the kind of secure jobs that will give them the expendable dollars to buy tickets and merchandise.

There are more people who show up at Texas high school football games than showed up at the Freedom Cup! To me, "fan base" means people willing to pay to see a game.

Actually, we were just getting into the habit of tuning into the games this season. But finding them and the times was not easy. Advertisement is their biggest problem. Which was discussed in another poster.

I think the league is good for women's sports in general...

Time will tell. :)

There are more people who show up at Texas high school football games than showed up at the Freedom Cup! To me, "fan base" means people willing to pay to see a game.

Who'da thunk it.

appearantly not enough to support a womens professional league. I think the biggest tragedy is another lost opportunity for women.

They can still play soccer...they just won't get paid to do it.

than recreational activities. Oh, and money. Mommy can't very well justify all this, unless it's bringing in money to pay the nanny and feed the babies and if there are no babies, then the rent and other life sustaining incidentals. Without financial incentives, women, who could play professionally, will drop out and do other things to support their families. It's not a sport you can pick up easily, and play, oh say, once a month, at the level that they're accustom.

A League all their own.

They can still play soccer...they just won't get paid to do it.


...like a whole lotta other stuff they do.

How high did you go in the league?

I'm giving you wide berth here. How high a level did you play in any league in any of the 50 states?

this discussion? Not enough people supported women's soccer, the league folded. What's the big issue?

My point: For someone who isn't involved in the sport, in any fashion, you are expending quite a bit of energy on this "non-issue." Apathy generally doesn't require so much work.

And you assume too much. My participation or non-participation in the sport is irrelevent. What is relevent, is that the league collapsed due to non-support. Big deal. There is no professional tiddlywinks league either. If the interest were there, the league would have survived.

Read over musiclawyer's post. He/She had the most detailed and informed response on the reason the league folded than anyone else has provided in this thread. The conclusion I reach, is that there will be another woman's league somewhere down the road, because there are fans in this country, despite your hasty conclusions otherwise.

in the future. I never claimed otherwise. My "assumption" that not enough paying fans supported the WUSA is NOT an "assumption" at all--it's a fact. BTW, have any idea how many fans showed up at last month's Founder's Cup? 7, 106. Seems NOT ENOUGH people cared.

Marketing and advertisement is everything. It sounds to me like they ignored a large part of their fan base. Bad business decisions were more responsible, than a weak fan base.

7, 106 fans showed up for their championship game...in SAN DIEGO! That tells me there is NOT enough of a paying fan base, right now.

Sorry to disappoint you. Too bad we couldn't find out how many people tuned in to watch.

has about 15 million people! I can't believe they only drew 7,000 fans, can you?

Maybe they should have held it in Miami? But, only after they start tapping into that lost fan base that we were talking about. For anyone who has gone to see international games in Miami, it does get crazy. As if it were the Olympics all over again.

Southern Florida also produces some of the best female soccer teams in this state.

I can only imagine how it is now.

The Boca area has teams which practice five times a week. They're amazing to watch.

I'm just farting around here and oh to my surprise a full blown multi-textured soccer discussion. Yes.mmm rubbing my hands now and salivating. Well, let throw my in my molotov cocktail by saying to you DU soccer haters. Fuck off! You are all old and tired and slowly becoming extinct, (keep up the good DU work though) and we soccer lovers don't give a rats ass what you think (about soccer). There. Now, for all you soccer people, I wrote to Soccer America last year and got printed and predicted the demise of WUSA for several reasons. First of all, they didn't ask for MLS help at the get go. They should have. There should have been a girl MLS team to mirror every male MLS team, uniforms, logos, the whole bit. Economies of scale. They went begging to MLS three years later and MLS said no. We're doing ok, thank you. Second, they actually put games on PAX (wherever the hell that is) , and then compounded that disaster by scheduling their weekly national game OPPOSITE the national MLS game. Talk about dividing your audience. Finally, they tried to market to suburban families only. They never did try to go after the hardcore immigrant market, as MLS at least has tried to do with some success, thinking that the immigrant community was too misogynic for women's football. Wrong. Guess who's little girl's play lots of soccer in the inner cities. Basically this was a good idea screwed up by non-soccer people high up. The women's game is of a higher skill level I think than MLS relatively. At it's best, the women's game is as great theater as any men's game in a La Liga or Premier League. WUSA still has the best set of women players ever seen. I would pay money to see Aly Wagner play pick up ball in a park. She is perhaps the best passer of a soccer ball, man or woman, on EARTH. It is indeed a sad day. But there is hope. Perhaps Hyundai just buys the whole thing, or MLS reconsiders. It should. There's a market there, which only "soccer" people understand.

mmha ha ha ha. WUSA at it's best equal to La Liga or the Premier league? Not even close.
While women certainly do have skill and can make some pretty passes, they lack the physical strength and speed to make some of the amazing plays that occur in these two leagues (not to mention the Bundeslige or Serie A).

I say this not as a misogynist, but simply as the truth. The women would be lucky to take a game from a Div.2 team.

those women players have made some "amazing plays" - you just missed them is all. And they weren't trying to be equal to the "premier league."

What a silly post!

The point is that the quality is the same, relative to different genders. I, like others, think that gender matters a lot in basketball. It's almost not the same game because so much is lost in speed and power. Women just aren't built the same way. Women won't even try to play baseball. It just won't be appealing. So softball is the other viable option. Fine. But the way the game of soccer is played, there is no visual or aesthetic loss when looking at top flight women vis a vis top flight men playing. If you have not watched thousand and thousand of games over a 20 years from beginning to end such as I have, you are not qualified to rebut me. I want someone to try. Yes, perhaps the cameraman need not be so frenetic to keep up with the ping pong action of the ball when men play, but it's pretty damn close at WUSA level (I'm not talking college of W league). WUSA had a relative much higher skill level than MLS right now. MLS is still a second tier league if in Europe, getting better albeit. Nonetheless, WUSA was top flight already and also getting better. That's why is so sad if no one comes to its rescue. All our best women will have to go play on frozen turf in front of empty stadiums in the rain in Europe.

Not only have I watched thousands of games (I was at the last World Cup in person, boy was it ever fun in Seoul), I've played hundreds of games (some at semi-pro level) and officiated on hundreds of games as well.

In my opinion, there is a definite loss of visual quality when watching the women play. Do they make good plays? Yes. Do they make plays that make me scratch my head and wonder "How did they do that?"? No.


Did I ever say anywhere tha women don't deserve to have a league of their own? No. I was merely commenting on the statement you made:"At their best, women's games are equal to the Premier League or La Liga".

I agree that the sport has disconnected from its minority/immigrant base. For example, isn't PAX a Christian right-wing channel? That's not a channel that would have a diverse audience to reel people in through commericals.

But I do know the audience they were trying to target. It is white and it is suburban. As far as the young talent is concerned, that seems to be what they're drawing. It's an expensive sport when you add costs for trainers and travel. And there very definitely is a good ole boy network at play.

WUSA was never intended to be the NFL. Any discussion about one being better than the other is irrelevant.

I'm sorry to see the league fold because it was an inspiration to young girls. The Brandy Chastains and Mia Hamms are role models to girls and, for this reason, I mourn the demise of the WUSA.

Another opportunity for women lost because the money wasn't there to back them up. Plain and simple.

If enough women had supported the league, gone to games, demanded it be shown on TV, it would have succeeded.

The league probably did better with men than women, but neither group care enough to keep it alive.

(subscription site but I'll post link anyway)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-adande17sep17,1,7726235.column?coll=la-news-columns

Drive by any grass field on a Saturday and you'll see young girls out playing soccer. So why didn't that translate into a successful women's pro soccer league?

It's partly because women don't make good couch potatoes. They're too busy doing productive things including taking their daughters to the soccer match.

"How many women do you know who sit down and watch television on a Saturday afternoon?" said television consultant Neal Pilson, president of Pilson Communications.

"Women are generally not watching television when women's sports are being presented. Because of that, sponsors don't find women's sports to be as efficient as men's sports.

"If I'm a sponsor, and I want to reach a soccer viewer, I might as well buy men's soccer.

"Women's sports are usually 60 men in terms of who's watching. That is very inefficient for a sponsor trying to reach women, and it's inefficient for the sponsor trying to reach men."

MLS gave them a business plan but WUSA tore it up and went on their own. I agree saturday afternoon was the worst possible time, and PAX was the worst possible network. Women are out doing stuff then. (and the soccer men who are not dads were watching, well, the men play).
WUSA can only work if it's teams are, in essence, female MLS teams. You make going to a game a day long or evening long spectacle; hard core and soft core soccer people would wander into the wowen's game and be more and more impressed. 6k people is not a lot in its own venue. But 6 k more to every MLS game is pretty good. A lot of MLS games are on Saturday night. An early woman's game at the dinner hour on summer sarurdays would have been a nice filling of sport void on tv's and in bar's and lounges all over the country. I still have hope. Then product is too good to be ignored.

I may not be a soccer fan but I support its right to exist.

I'm a woman, and a sports fan, and I mostly watch the men's professional leagues and teams, primarily basketball and the NBA.

But I got caught up in this year's WNBA season and playoffs for several reasons.

1) It's basketball, baby! My second favorite indoor sport ;)

2) The Detroit Shock went from last place to first place in a single season, and that kind of achievement is a great sports story anyway.

3) Detroit's 1st round draft pick and subsequent Rookie of the Year is the daughter of the NBA's second leading scorer of all time, Karl Malone. I already loved Karl Malone, and now I love his daughter by extension. When she leaped into his arms when the game ended I cried.

Both the WUSA and the WNBA owe something to the existence of Title IX and its importance to generations of little girls who want to play sports. Maybe there's more to your point earlier in the thread about the WUSA shunning the MLS business model, because the WNBA's use of the NBA appears to be working so far.