Avoiding the Drop

The inaugural season of Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) ended Saturday afternoon with the championship match between Sky Blue F.C. and the Los Angeles. Sol.  Although the Sol ran away with the regular season title and despite the circus that Sky Blue was off the field, Sky Blue F.C. upset Los Angeles 1-0 to win the title.  Having been the one who took a look at the league on the eve of its first season back in March it seemed appropriate that I take a look back at some of the hopes and concerns I expressed for and about the league at that time.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

One of the goals of WPS was not to repeat the mistakes of its predecessor, the WUSA.  While the WUSA put a great product on the field- far better than what WPS provided this season- during its brief existence, it was a mess off the field.  The WUSA was built upon the boom in women’s (and especially, girl’s) soccer that was launched by the USA’s hosting and winning the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup, but when the boom ended, the WUSA wasn’t prepared for the “return to normalcy” and it paid the ultimate price for being overextended and underfunded, folding in the fall of 2003.

The first mistake that the WPS did not make concerns its television presence.  Rather than being spread across the metaphorical “dial” (PAX-TV, ESPN2, TNT, CNNSI, etc.) on varying days at various times of day like he WUSA was, the WPS struck a deal with Fox for a national game every Sunday afternoon (or evening, depending on your time zone) on the Fox Soccer Channel with regional matches being shown on local affiliates of FSN.  Midweek matches were also shown on these local FSN affiliates.  This many not seem like a very big television “footprint,” but keep in mind that most “major” sports in America did this very thing for decades- remember baseball’s Game of the Week?  Limiting the league’s television presence (which is different than “keeping it small”) in order to push people to attend in person is also a tactic that most major sports in America employed until their fanbases were big enough that they could fill their ballpark/stadium even during televised games.  Obviously, WPS has not reached that point yet, and since it is a new league without a “lucrative” television deal, getting bums in seats was more important this season than making sure everyone could see every match every week.  Still, I had no problem seeing any Boston Breakers match I wanted to.

WPS can claim success on both of these points- attendance and television ratings.  According to the Sports Business Journal, by midseason the league was already meeting its attendance predictions (c. 5,000/match) and television viewership has been better than expected on FSC (32,000 households/match).  However, the SBJ does point out that the league has not yet been able to turn these numbers (live or on television) into increased sponsorship, something that will become more and more important as the novelty of the first season wears off and teams (and the league) need to establish dependable revenue streams.  Overall, however, the league’s first season would have to be called financially successful, especially in light of the dire economic times in which it was launched.  If WPS was able to meet, and in some cases surpass, its goals in the current economy, one can only assume it will do even better when people once again have more discretionary income.

“There will be a closer relationship with MLS”

This is one area where I have to report that it appears that WPS has failed.  As I pointed out in my initial article on the league, other than sharing stadiums with three teams (four when the expansion Philadelphia Independence join Philadelphia Union at Union Field next year) there does not appear to be any relationship between the leagues- not publicly at least.  As I did in March, I searched www.mlsnet.com for “WPS” and “Women’s Professional Soccer” and found only a video clip previewing the WPS championship match and a brief mention of St. Louis Athletica in an article about the possibility of an MLS expansion team going to St. Louis.  In a similar search of the WPS website for “MLS” and “Major League Soccer” I found only two articles that mentioned MLS in any context other than that of sharing stadia with WPS.  If there is anything more to the relationship between the two leagues it’s a fairly well-kept secret.

Will this apparent lack of a relationship with MLS make a difference in whether WPS succeeds or not?  I think it does.  Where business is concerned, a close relationship between the leagues could lower costs for both- the costs of marketing, promotion, etc. could be minimized, or at least shared.  Where fans are concerned, I know that I would be far more likely to attend a WPS match that was followed by an MLS match than a “stand alone” WPS match, and a double-header ticket would probably cost less than tickets to the two individual matches.  Then again, when MLS had a “reserve league” I was known to stay after an MLS match to watch the reserve match, so I might not be the best one to ask about a subject like this.

“Reasons that WPS may fail”

In March I detailed some of the things- big and small…but mostly small- that I thought might have a negative impact on the league.  Among these were boring team names (Chicago and St. Louis excepted) and boring uniforms (Chicago excepted), but fortunately these don’t appear to have had any adverse effect on the league’s success.  Having said that, they don’t seem to have had any beneficial effect either.  “The shirt” makes money.  There’s a reason that most of the top teams in the world have at least one new shirt every year- some of the biggest teams might have a new home, away, alternate and Champions League shirt every year! It may be a money grab that takes advantage of the loyalty of the fanbase, but it works!  There’s a reason some people own dozens and dozens and dozens of shirts…

I was also concerned that the retirement of most of the U.S. players who made their names in the 1999 Women’s World Cup would hurt the league’s star power.  In this case, I think I was right.  Tiffany Milbrett and Kristine Lilly did alright, but Brianna Scurry and Brandi Chastain were more or less marginal figures for their teams.  The next generation of players- Wambaugh, Solo, Wagner, O’Reilly- were all in the league, but as good as they are, I’m not sure they have much- if any- name recognition with the casual soccer fan.  The better of the foreign players brought into the league, be they Brazilian, French, English, etc., have impressed me with the quality of their play, but I’m not sure that they have done anything to heighten the league’s profile.  This may all change as the league grows in popularity and longevity, or it might take another U.S.A. win in the 2011 Women’s World Cup to create some more heroes to once again capture the imagination of the media and supporters.

One of the most disappointing things I discovered while doing research in March was the shambolic state of the websites of the individual teams and the league as a whole.  Some teams did not have their own sites, online “club shops” had very little merchandise available for purchase (some had none at all!), and many were missing basic information (pictures, for example) on their roster pages.  For the most part, this has been rectified.  Perhaps the only disappointing feature that remains is that there is probably more non-team branded Puma product on the league and team websites than there are branded items.

Another area were the league could have done better is affordability.  Clearly WPS was made affordable enough that, even in a down economy, it could meet its attendance goals, but overall, it isn’t much of a “deal.”  I’ll use my situation as one example:  if I wanted to see the Boston Breakers play this year I would have had to do the following:  make a 90+ minute drive (depending on traffic) to a MBTA station, pay for parking, pay for a subway ride to Harvard and back (also adding about an hour of travel time), pay between $13-25 for a match ticket (the Breakers are on the lower end of the WPS ticket price spectrum) and who knows how much for food and drink?  Depending on the ticket I bought and the food I ate, that’s somewhere between $50 and $60- not including parking costs.  There are several problems with this scenario.  First, for the same amount, I could buy a seat in the bleachers at Fenway- same travel time, same travel cost, and only a little more for food and drink.  Second, I could see the New England Revolution for less (as little as $20), it’s easier to get there (slightly shorter drive with little traffic), and I can park for free.  Oh, and I get to see a better “product” at a better stadium.  Finally, if it’s important to me to see and support women’s soccer, I can see my local USL W-League team for under $10 and eat myself sick for about the same price- and it’s only 15 minutes away and there is ample free parking.  Not only that, but I’m not sure how much lower the quality of play is given that most of the players on my local W-League team are former NCAA Division I players…just like most of the players in WPS.  I also have the option of seeing one Division I program and 5+ Division III programs play within 20 minutes of my home- most for free.  In short, if WPS expects me to pay more and travel more, they need to give me a good reason to do so.

“From the bottom of my heart I want this league to succeed.”

Did it?  The easy and short answer is, “yes.”  The longer- and more accurate- answer is that it’s just too early to tell.  Fans of soccer in general and women’s soccer specifically are not going to be the issue, they love the game and will support it in just about any form it takes-  if you don’t believe that, ask yourself how there has been at least one indoor soccer league operating in the United States for the last forty years? The big question will be whether WPS can keep the new fans it gained and continue to add to them next year and beyond?