COMMENTARY by Roger Le Grove Rogers

January 10, 2000
Last Commentary of 1999

What an unbelievable year for women's soccer as it became an accepted part of the sports scene in the world, and took its place in the mainstream of American life.

What an unbelievable year for the U.S. Soccer Federation who managed against all odds to bungle the greatest gift of advancing the cause of both men and women's soccer in the USA ever offered to them.

Recently in one U.S. Soccer press release there was a claim that they had always practiced gender equality. Now under pressure from the soccer community about their recent handling of the women's program they have announced the start of Project Gold for girls, long after the installation of the boys program. Many of the hundreds that have written recently to WSW have asked that the salaries and bonuses given to the men's National Team players and coaches and women's National Team players and coaches be made public so that the fairness can be seen by all. That would seem to be a good start in the New Year towards regaining confidence in the U.S. Soccer Federation.
 Project Gold

Make Your Voice Heard - A Petition To U.S. Soccer

December 24, 1999
Union Jacked!

On the cusp of the new millenium I did not expect to see big time athletes holding out for a $60,000 a year deal. I did not expect to see the winningest coach in U.S. soccer international history fired immediately after winning the World Cup. I did not expect to see the most important, high profile job in women's soccer being awarded by a bunch of British ex-patriots and their youth soccer cronies with no experience, knowledge or commitment to the women's game. I certainly never expected to see pro players called "greedy" for turning down big money to keep their team together. It may be a new millenium, but anyone who cares about the U.S. national team needs to stand up and be counted now in the face of insidious foreign influence.

U.S. Soccer President Bob and his (mostly English) cronies already showed their colors during the run up to World Cup '99. By refusing to negotiate a new, post-World Cup contract, they were essentially betting on the team's, and the event's, failure. When the team won, and the Cup generated a multi-million dollar pay day for the federation, U.S. Soccer lost the bet. The women were worth a lot more than $2,300 a month for the veterans and less for younger players. With no guarantee of future earnings, the women went out and negotiated their own "victory tour" worth $100,000 a night. Since when is it a "betrayal" to negotiate a contract when your current deal is going to run out and your employer will not discuss a new deal with you?

So now, a greedy and incompetant (remember they could have got the deal they now want, but the staff Brits figured their team would lose) federation has pushed out the coach (who they blame for helping the women organize, after all how could a bunch of women have been smart enough to do this on their own, they think), ignored the American successor, and offered the players an insulting pay cut. The veteran U.S. team, passing up short term dollars for themselves in the process, has taken the right tack and refused to play. The truth is that Mia Hamm, Carla Overbeck, and a few other key players turned down a big pay day to make sure that future women's teams get paid a living wage (after all the $60,000 they want pales next to the $200,000 that the men got in the run up for 1994). President Bob and the English soccer good old boy network screwed up - and now they would rather destroy the team than admit their miscalculations. Also in the mix is good old English macho, the sun now sets regularly on the British Empire, but they can still get together and beat the crap out of some policemen outside Wembley. The English women's team is not even a second tier program - they did not even qualify for World Cup Ô99, why would we listen to them when it comes to the women's game? Take Paul Gardner, apologist for British macho influence (and derisive treatment of American coaches and players), talking about the "invidious" comparisons between the men's and women's national teams. What is he talking about? You think he likes (or could ever accept) that the women are the real U.S. National Team?

So rather than hire Lauren Gregg immediately, there is the ongoing search for a stool pigeon with the right accent. Confirmed English losers like Clive Charles (dead last with the men in 1998, and the U-21 women immediately became international contenders after he was removed as coach) and Bobby Howe (English youth coach, no experience coaching women, once lead U.S. men to a brilliant 8th place finish in the Pan-Am games - I guess there was no 9th team to lose to) are trotted out as "leading candidates." This against Gregg, assistant in charge of tactics for 2 World Championships and the only American coach to lead the U-21 team to victory in the Nordic Cup. Instead of preparing to defend their gold medal in Sydney, the U.S. women have been forced to the sidelines as a "B" team with NO official head coach heads to Australia. Meanwhile, President Bob talks about the PLAYERS betraying the federation?

It is time for the American soccer community to step up to the plate for an American team. Our unfortunate President Boob only seems to understand cash flow. So U.S. Soccer's membership needs to take this opportunity to indicate to Nike, Quaker, and other USSF sponsors that their property is worthless without the heroes of 1999. Where did the World Cup money go? We need an inquiry into U.S. Soccer similar to the recent efforts at producing accountability within the IOC. Youth teams need to purchase equipment with sponsor behavior in mind. Affiliation needs to be questioned, too. Why should we pay for failed foreigners to tell us how to lose? We have realized, in MLS and at the national level that 2nd rate foreign coaches and program coordinators were holding us back, and we needed American coaches to help American players step up and compete at the world level (and Bruce Arena is showing the way). Why should we stand for the prototypical American coached World Championship team to be ruined by foreigners and those too dumb to think for themselves who can't accept women playing soccer in their own country?

Dave Morris

  Reader opinions

One has to hope that the recent announcement that the next Women's World Cup would be moved up a year to 2002, the same year of the next Men's World Cup, and be played later in that same year in Australia is a trial balloon flown by President Blatter.

For the women's Cup to follow the men's Cup would be an admission by FIFA that the women's game has been too successful and that they did not intend, when they kept repeating these last years that "the future of football is feminine" that the future would arrive so soon.

It would send a message that women's soccer is still in second place in FIFA and their member Federations in spite of all the platitudes heard this year. The huge amount of money spent on the Men's Cup would mean that the women would receive little financial sponsorship. The move is not surprising considering that of the 203 countries that belong to FIFA only about 70 sent delegates to the 2nd. FIFA Women's Football Symposium held in Los Angeles July 7-8, 1999, and 65 % of those delegates were male.

WSW has learnt that in several of those countries the male representative has still not reported out any of the meeting to the women in their associations.

It would place a major financial burden on the soccer media which would be tempted to forgo the Women's Cup altogether (as most major press organizations in countries such as Germany and England did in Cup '99).

If the host country is Australia (expected to be the sole applicant) then it would take place late in the year and clash with the media coverage expected for the Winter Olympics.

The decision was reported as coming from the FIFA Executive Committee (male), although when Jennifer O'Neill of On The Ball Magazine had asked Keith Cooper ,Director of FIFA Communications Division, some specific questions about alignment with mens, amalgamation of the event etc. He replied as follow "Thanks for the query. I'm afraid you're a bit ahead of us there.....one thing at a time! Such details, important as they are, have yet to be worked out."

World Cup '95 and World Cup '99 were used to decide the Olympic participants and no complaints were heard at either event so why change a routine that works so well?

Our UK correspondent Colin Aldis points out that UEFA in particular would have difficulty finding time to fit in a qualifying tournament and that it could have implications for the play offs in the lower category of UEFA teams.

  Statement from U.S. Soccer
 Reader opinion

December 8, 1999
The Road Not Taken?
By David Morris

U.S. Soccer finds itself at an unlikely crossroads as we reach a new millennium. With the men's soccer program as healthy as it has ever been, it is still essentially a sidebar on the American sports scene. The U.S. National Team - that's the women by the way - is another story entirely. After selling out matches all over the country, the World Champions are the feel good sports story of 1999 - U.S. soccer's biggest draw and best television product, not to mention American soccer's most recognizable stars

And now, despite a virtual media blackout (conspicuous most of all in Soccer America, too often the mouthpiece of the federation), the women are drawing crowds of up to 16,000 in indoor exhibitions across the country. In Washington, D.C. - despite the match being held in relative secrecy - over 14,000 fans crowded into MCI Center to catch some of the U.S. stars playing indoors (this crowd pretty much dwarfs Washington's NBA and NHL crowds).

What to do in the face of such unprecedented success (remember the men's team was thrilled to get out of the first round when the U.S. hosted the '94 men's World Cup)? What has U.S. Soccer done to cash in on their most successful program? Well, so far, only months before the Olympics - the National team's next big tournament - they've forced the most successful national coach in U.S. history to walk away from the program. Dr. Bob and company have done little to mend fences with players who competed knowing their contracts expired the day of the final, in essence their own federation was betting against them. And the big marketing push that the women's game needs (and was ready for) never did materialize, although 35,000+ crowds have turned out for U.S. team exhibitions anyway. Oh yeah, and the promised plans for a women's professional league, the one the federation claimed was their reason for sabotaging the National Soccer Alliance, don't call looking for that either - it does not exist (last week a federation official was quoted as saying, "it is not the federation's job to plan a pro league" - kind of ironic for the federation that houses MLS).

Given the current lack of leadership from the top, soccer's grassroots need to push immediately. With U.S. Soccer is at best unsure about whether to support women's soccer (at worst the "good old boys" have decided), the membership - especially those who have followed and been inspired by the national team's success need to push for support for the women's team, and the current campaign to defend their status as Olympic Champions. U.S. Soccer needs to hear from its membership loud and clear! Some priorities that need to be pushed:

1. Lauren Gregg needs to be named National Team Coach NOW! She has served her time as assistant for over a decade, what has U.S. Soccer been grooming her for? She has lead the U.S. U-21 team to consecutive Nordic Cup Championships (the unofficial women's youth World Cup) which had never been done before, she knows the current squad and their opponents better than anyone else - it's time! It is NOT time for a female coach - it IS time for the most qualified candidate to get the job. U.S. Soccer needs to stop screwing around and hire her - they can hide discarded staff coaches from the men's program in ODP somewhere - not as anchors to bring down the best team in the world.

2. U.S. Soccer, like the Norwegian, German, and Chinese federations; needs to get behind a Division I pro league. That is NOT W-1 with a couple of part-time pros. We need a real league, we need it right after the Olympics, and we all know where $40 million dollars are sitting. It would be impossible to spend it better. U.S. Soccer could stop complaining and be sitting on the world's top professional league within a year - failure on this is unacceptable and unconscionable.

3. Separate the national team from the men's national team for sponsorship purposes. The teams have widely divergent constituencies (the men's team's base is smaller and more ethnically diverse, the women stand for all that is good and pure about athletics - no "Captain for Life" here), audiences and sponsorship appeal (I doubt tampax feels the men's team is a good "fit" for them, hey but who knows...) - sell them separately (or is the federation scared that the men won't get enough attention that way?). This gives the federation the incentive to help both teams and sponsors could still "buy both" but it would free other companies to stick to the brand that fits.

Women's soccer is at the crossroads, we can go be softball - a participatory sport with relatively little true interest outside the Olympics, or we can be big time. The American soccer community already voted with their fannies - it's time for the people who make soccer go to accept the mandate and move forward.

 U.S. Soccer Federation performance gets curiouser and curiouser
  Time for a woman to head the National Team
  Reader opinion
  Another opinion
  Another commentary on The Road Not Taken

See the article by Jere Longman in the Sports section of the Sunday New York Times today, it captures everything WSW and our correspondents have been saying.
"A Women should be calling the shots for the Women's Team" or go to
www.nytimes.com/library/sport/121299soc-longman-column.html