Domestic league

[Vic]

Interesting reading about Tony Waiters ideas about a domestic league and people's opinions to them on the Men's side of the forum. It seems to make more sense to talk about the women's side of that equation here.

The WSII in the states is about a year away, and it really up's the ante. It means the American's will have a very large number of their elite players involved locally in a high end program. If as expected they cap foreign players, you can still expect to see at least 100 of the best U.S. women in the league. All of whom will have a healthy income, great coaching, and be playing against a lot of the best players in the world. That will seriously impact our ability keep up with them.

Mexico is also continually ramping up, and we're already feeling them breathing down our CONCACAF neck.

So what the Hell do we do domestically with our top 100 elite women?

We know what the U.S. is doing. Germany, Brazil, France, England and Sweden all have strong women's programs, but they also have great Men's programs, and it's pretty hard to compare Canada to them in terms of culture, infrastructure and development. Norway is a close fit in terms of numbers, climate and the success of it's women's team compared to the men's:

Population: 4.7 million

Women's rank: 5

Men's rank: 29

They have 12 teams in the Toppserien, their highest domestic women's league. This Fall the ladies Cup final was attended by 9,000 fans with another 280,000 watching on tv. That's 15% of the entire country. In Canada, that would be 5 MILLION people. The Men's World Cup final in 2006 only drew 3 million Canadian viewers, and the Stanley Cup finals only averaged 3.7 million per game.

On top of that, they just signed a couple of women's sponsorship deals, and each of the women's clubs will receive close to $200,000 cash and "on top of this, all of their travel expenses and overnight stays will taken care of for them thanks to a new sponsership of the league by Thon Hotels and Scandinavian Airlines (SAS)."

I take two things from that:

- clearly, the success of women's soccer in Norway compared to their men is embedded deeply in the culture. I would be interested to hear from anyone who know's the history and genesis of that. I think there's a lot we can do to enable/facilitate our Canadian women, and I think the best way to do that properly is to give them some autonomy to self-manage/promote/market themselves (i.e. look after their own fundraising, business management, promotion, etc).

- and second, because of our geography, for both our men and women, a similar airline and hotel sponsorship deal for any domestic league would be worth it's weight in gold.

[terpfan68]

Travel costs would be a hugh expense in Canada compared with Norway. With a 12 team league I would expect teams in (from West to East) Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina/Saskatoon, Winnipeg,Windsor, Toronto/Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax. If they only played a home and home series of games (22 matches each 132 away matches total) and they limited travel to 15 players 2 coaches and a trainer at a modest average of $200 per player per away match I get $475 200 in transportation costs. I know that teams could bus for approximately half of the matches but the air costs for the more distant teams would be much much more than $200 each.

Canada and Norway compare in population and climate but not in size and that's why a 12 team pro league will not work economically in Canada. Better to get several major cities into a U.S. league.

[Bxl Boy]

Canada is too big (but Canada + USA isn't)

Canada is too cold

Everything regarding soccer is impossible in Canada, it's better to rely on other countries

End of lots of discussions

[Richard]

Canada: 9,984,670 sq km

Norway: 323,802 sq km

In Norway from Varga in the extreme north to Kristiansand in the extreme south is about 1,000km.

Vancouver to Halifax is well over 6,000km and six time zones.

How can anybody equate operating national soccer leagues in the two countries on that basis alone.

[Richard]

Canada: 9,984,670 sq km; Population: 33 million

USA: 9,826,630 sq km; Population: 301 million

That's in large part why it is more than 10 times easier/cheaper to run a domestic national league in the USA than in Canada and for Canadian teams to play in USA based leagues rather than a Canadian domestic national league apart from any other considerations.

WUSA I could not survive, WUSA II has taken years to set up and has yet to play one game let alone survive for ten years. The USL W-League, which is a regional not national league primarly to keep operating costs sensible and practical, has been around for 12 years and is thriving. Another cost saving aspect of the W-League is that it uses nominally amateur players so there are minimal payroll costs.

[Vic]

Well, for starters, it certainly doesn't happen by saying the world is flat, too big, or too cold.

We're not talking around the world. Vancouver to Halifax is a one-off and worst case and at that it's 6 hours. What does it matter if it's Calgary or Halifax? Distance is simply dollars, and airlines don't pay $200 per seat. And the small expense they do contribute per seat they claim off against income as sponsorship. And besides, flight costs in Norway aren't the chump change you think. I can fly to L.A. from the east cheaper than I can from Bodo to Bergen.

Screw the yanks. They closed the door on us last time and will this time again. And playing in what will be demoted to a 3rd rate USL WSII feeder system is a farce. Even if you play great you can't bust the cap anyway. Canadian women will be better off playing local amateur women's or men's leagues than that.

quote:

"The Norwegian women's soccer league has been promised 200 million kroner [$35 million Cdn] to strengthen its development over the next five years. The Norwegian Federation will contribute 120 million kroner [$22 million Cdn] and a group of cooperating partners has pledged 80 million kroner [$14 million Cdn].

That's not even seed money. Are telling me we can't raise a fraction of that money in Canada?

[Richard]

^ Are telling me we can't raise a fraction of that money in Canada?

Nobody has been willing to pony up anything like that amount of cash to support a national domestic men's league, never mind a women's league. If you think it is so easy to secure that kind of funding why don't you have a go at doing it yourself?

[Vic]

If no one has done it then I guess it can't be done, right.

I don't recall saying it was easy. I said it wasn't impossible. And if they can do it in Norway, there's no reason we can't here.

"never mind a women's league..."

The women's cup final in Norway had MORE viewers than the men's. Canadian women are not a second fiddle afterthought. They've been held back long enough, and it's time they got the power to break free of the parochial chains.

[Richard]

^ I don't disagree with you that Canadian women deserve a break, but where are the benefactors that would make a national professional domestic league possible? All very well arguing that they are out there but they sure as hell aren't lining up to donate their time, money and expertise to get something going. That's why I challenged you to go out and recruit them to the cause, otherwise keep smoking that rope of yours.

[Vic]

It's not time, money and expertise that's holding things back, it's simply money. We already have a quorum of teams who pretty much play each other anyway. All it takes is more cash to bust them out and add a few more and build on it each year.

I can't explain brain surgery or aerospace engineering either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Empiracally, this is happening in the world now, in a country of almost 2 million women. And if it's smokin' rope believing we can do it here for our women, well, call me Bob Marley.

[Richard]

You still are avoiding the issue of where those mysterious benefactors are and why they are not lining up to pour out the cash and if you think all it requires as money you clearly haven't stopped smoking that rope.

[Vic]

Same place they were in Norway a month ago - waiting for someone intelligent enough to connect the dots.

I get your point, and I think you get mine. We're both right if you ask me.

[The Ref]

I think there are people and organizations out there willing to pony up money for their own selfish reasons. A problem I see is that the CSA as the house that represents all soccer in Canada, does not have an attractive marketing package or maybe don't know how to deal with it. In spite of that they still manage to get some sponsors, I believe the latest one is Winners. It is possible for individual teams or individual leagues to seek sponsor money on their own, but would never get enough to be self sustaining.

[Richard]

It is my understanding that the CSA requires that sponsorship monies go into a common pool for disbursement at the sole discretion of the CSA. Sponsors don't get to specify which team should get the money unless it is sponsorship in kind not cash. I would be very happy if somebody better informed than me could confirm or refute that. It would likely be a big discouragement for some sponsors I believe.

Anyway, it is not essential that the CSA be a part of any independent professional league in Canada other than granting permission for it to operate so to speak.

[terpfan68]

Soccer isn't half as popular in Canada as hockey and I don't see anyone throwing large amounts of money to start a women's professional hockey league. Look at the press the world junior hockey tournament is getting right now and compare it to the press for the world under 20 tournament held in Canada in the summer. This is a hockey country first, second and third, soccer might come in fourth unless Steve Nash changes his mind and plays for Canada in the Olympics.

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

It is my understanding that the CSA requires that sponsorship monies go into a common pool for disbursement at the sole discretion of the CSA. Sponsors don't get to specify which team should get the money unless it is sponsorship in kind not cash.

As much as I agree with the theroy behind that policy, in practice it really is good and bad isn't it?

By that I mean, the MNT is the marketing instrument, end of story. As popular as the WNT is in Canada, and I think it is in it's own sphere very popular, currently it's only the MNT which can reach beyond the soccer sub-culture and into the real market-place.

But if you allowed sponsors to pick and choose which program they want to be branded with the money would gravitate towards the MNT at the expense of other programs.

That being said, as a sponsor willing to put up the cash I believe I should be able to choose which program I want to be branded with. For the CSA to simply prohibit a sponsor from doing otherwise handicaps their ability to recruit sponsors and that's just madness.

Tricky finding the balance between sponsors wishes, CSA fund raising ambitions, and the governance's responsibility for a measured fairness towards all it's national programs.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

That being said, as a sponsor willing to put up the cash I believe I should be able to choose which program I want to be branded with. For the CSA to simply prohibit a sponsor from doing otherwise handicaps their ability to recruit sponsors and that's just madness.

Tricky finding the balance between sponsors wishes, CSA fund raising ambitions, and the governance's responsibility for a measured fairness towards all it's national programs.

As much as the mens team is the principal team and the one needing the most help to reach South Africa, I agree with the concept that sponsors giving substantial money should be able to have a say as to how they their funds and name should be used. For example Victoria Secret would much prefer their name connected with the women team rather than the men. Many organizations who raise funds from the public, have a list of several 'projects' to which donors can give money towards. I am not sure how that ties with 'Sponsors' but there must be some similar arrangements. For the CSA to continue operating with the barest minimum of funding with little chance of expansion is disheartening.

[Richard]

We should not confuse sponsorship of CSA national team programs and investment by the private sector in an independent, nationwide, professional league whether it be for men or women. These are two quite separate issues with very different strings attached.

[Vic]

TF68</u>: "Soccer isn't half as popular in Canada as hockey."

=> Well, maybe not, but there are more people playing it. And the press for the U20 in the Summer was out of control. I had special sections in all the main papers I read, and I don't see that for the world juniors. There was also daily many pages of articles on the U20 just like hockey.

=> I would also venture women's soccer is bigger than women's hockey. Playerwise I'm sure it dwarves hockey, and fanwise, well, we had 50,000 people in Edmonton for a junior game. I doubt we've had a tenth of that for a U19 girls hockey game.

Cheeta</u>: Godspeed and honestly good luck. I'm with The_Ref on allowing the MNT to go to promotown and let them harness all the sponsorship they can squeeze out of a 50-something'th ranking for a South Africa campaign, without sharing a single dime of that with the ladies. And I truly hope more people think the MNT is the be-all and end-all, so they enable the women's funding autonomy quicker and easier. Because what I think you and everyone else is missing, is what they proved in Norway and the States - the women's game is not only the fastest growing, and the "future of football," it's a marketing gold mine, and we're sitting right on top of it in the Top 10.

The_Ref</u>: I love how you got "barest minimum" and "Victoria's Secret" in there...

Richard</u>: I noticed that and was going to comment on mixing the two in also, but pulled back on it because I still think any successful league needs not only the blessing of the CSA but also a formal relationship of mutual assistance. Or to cut to the chase, funding.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by terpfan68

Soccer isn't half as popular in Canada as hockey and I don't see anyone throwing large amounts of money to start a women's professional hockey league. Look at the press the world junior hockey tournament is getting right now and compare it to the press for the world under 20 tournament held in Canada in the summer. This is a hockey country first, second and third, soccer might come in fourth unless Steve Nash changes his mind and plays for Canada in the Olympics.

Basically the women's game has been eating itself alive. The NWHL had a split where the two remaining western teams (Edmonton Chimos and Calgary Oval Xtreme) left to form their own league. Then the NWHL shut down because the owners couldn't get an agreement on contract lengths, nothing to do with pay.

Hate to borrow from Chris Rock but women just hate women.

[Trillium]

The concept of a Women's national league and indeed a male version starts from needing to recognize you dont need a National League structured in North American terms.

Look to the structure in Brasil, where teams compete in State leagues, to declare a state champion. That champion goes on to play in a National round robin at one of three levels A, B, and C based on the states success in former years of the competitions.

In Canada you would probably need two levels, the A and B, how would it work ?

Non Amateur clubs enter a provincial league, seed Ontario, Quebec and BC as A, with other provinces as B, the provincial winners progress to play in the National competition in the following season as well as playing in the second year provincial qualifications.

The provinces move up and down the B to A level based on results, so the top B province moves to A the next year and the A province gets demoted or loses spots in the A series.

The issues of money etc will exist they do in any soccer nation, most teams dont make money...just as most Junior A and B teams in Hockey in this country dont make money...but they go on and draw crowds.

Whats wrong with most thinking is the idea teams make money at the gate they dont ..on the male side the money is made in downstream selling of players to higher level teams, that the facility to do that in Canada is restricted by the CSA rules and provincial rules.

Once you reform the rules systems you can allow non profit or for profit owners to see a way to fund the teams and programs.

On the female side the sell on of players does not exist, but the cost structure I suspect can be sustained by sponsorship dollars which would not go to the male game.

In any case no matter the talk the issue is to get the CSA to change the systemic barriers to making profit in soccer in Canada, and to enforce such openness at the provincial level.

[vpsoccer]

quote:Originally posted by Vic

Cheeta</u>: Godspeed and honestly good luck. I'm with The_Ref on allowing the MNT to go to promotown and let them harness all the sponsorship they can squeeze out of a 50-something'th ranking for a South Africa campaign, without sharing a single dime of that with the ladies. And I truly hope more people think the MNT is the be-all and end-all, so they enable the women's funding autonomy quicker and easier. Because what I think you and everyone else is missing, is what they proved in Norway and the States - the women's game is not only the fastest growing, and the "future of football," it's a marketing gold mine, and we're sitting right on top of it in the Top 10.

From the perspective of a soccer club with programs for all ages, I can tell you that women's recreational soccer is the fastest growing part of soccer right now. If there were fields available, it would be growing faster. Many do not want the pressure and effort of playing competitive soccer, and many others are just learning.

And: many of them are not in it on the cheap, in fact some of our WR players are the most self-organized about renting winter playing space so they can play for fun, regardless of the leagues. It is their night out with the girls and in many cases their night away from the husband and kids, and they do not mind paying what it costs.

And, since they probably buy the stuff their kids need, they are a great marketing target.

[terpfan68]

You are probably right VP but the market you mention is not where the development of superior players is going to come from. (please forgive ending with a preposition)

[AlanDouglas]

Trillium,

I am not aware of any CSA or provincial rules that limit the selling of players. Players have been sold in Canada both domestically and to European teams. It just doesn't happen often because there is no clamouring market for Canadian players. Clubs in Europe and South America are able to make a business model of selling players, but nobody in Canada has been able to do it reliably. The Toronto Lynx came closest.

Trying to fund a professional team primarily with sponsorship is also a very tough proposition. Sponsorship is advertising, and advertisers will usually only pay if you have somebody to advertise to.

Bottom line is you need fans. You need a sales team, a large one, that works their ass off year-round selling tickets. It's a hard tough in-the-trenches day-to-day grind, but it's what needs to be done to build fans. Once you have plenty of paying fans, then you can get decent sponsorship. Not before.

(Oh and terpfan68, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition - that's just a grammar superstition. Same with split infinitives)

[terpfan68]

Yeah, I know, but the people on this site are sooo picky I wanted to apologize in advance.