Send us a message

Interested in being a part of the team? Get in touch with us today.

Scott Viar

Previewing United States WNT

 Posted by on July 23, 2012 at 8:00 am  2012 Olympics, USWNT
Jul 232012
 

 Previewing United States WNT

United States

FIFA Ranking: 1 (as of July, 2012)
Coach: Pia Sundhage
Number of Olympics Appearances: The US has participated in every Olympics where women’s soccer has been a sport (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012), with three gold medals (1996, 2004, 2008) and one silver medal (2000).
Group: G (Colombia, France, North Korea)
First match: Against France on 7/25

The United States Women’s National Team heads to London seeking a third straight Olympic gold medal and fourth overall.  Behind the attacking prowess of Alex Morgan and Abby Wambach, the US has outscored its 2012 opponents to date by a score of 68-8 in compiling a 14-1-1 record.  Hope Solo has put up 7 shutouts in her 15 starts with a goals-against average of 0.48.  Opening the Games against the toughest opponent in their group, 2011 Women’s World Cup semifinalist France, the US should get a hearty test ahead of later group matches against Colombia and North Korea.

Expected first XI:  Hope Solo; Amy LePelibet, Rachel Buehler, Christine Rampone, Kelley O’Hara; Megan Rapinoe, Shannon Boxx, Lauren Cheney, Tobin Heath; Alex Morgan, Abby Wambach.

Prediction of finish:  Anything less than a gold medal would be a massive disappointment for the US.  There is no reason to believe the US will not be in the gold medal match and have an opportunity to make up for their penalty kick loss in the 2011 Women’s World Cup final to Japan.

Jun 012012
 

fans of americas womens soccer team cheer during the us squads recent 3 1 victory over france Question of the Week:  Does Womens Soccer Have a Fan Problem?Over the past week, a debate has sprouted over sports fandom. On Thursday, a Twitter firestorm raged over the writers/founders of the website While The Men Watch being invited to offer commentary on CBC during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, with most commenting focusing on their lack of serious supportership of hockey or sports in general. On Sunday, the author of Happy Go Snarky put out a screed to the Atlanta soccer community decrying their lack of support for the W-League defending champion Silverbacks in light of their support for a VERY BAD Atlanta Beat team last season (a team that won ONE game out of 18 in WPS in 2011). The debate over whether her call-out was just aimed at her local situation or could be extrapolated to the women’s soccer supporters community in general (with the focus of such being the backers of the USWNT), combined with the Thursday piece, brought me to ponder whether there is a fan problem in women’s soccer, such that fans aren’t really backers of the game itself but rather are “fangirls” of specific players. Has women’s soccer supporter culture evolved in the decade or so since the US won the Women’s World cup in 1999 and launched WUSA in 2001, or is it the same with just new faces, voices, and platforms to profess it? Moreso, if that is the case, does it hurt the “brand” of women’s soccer in the US at a time when the professional game has suffered the folding of a second top-level league in less than 10 years?

From Becca:
In my opinion, there are three types of women’s soccer fans in the U.S. The ones that love the game… anything and everything that has to do with women’s soccer. These are the fans that head down to the local high school fields to watch a cross-town rivalry. The ones that will get in their cars and drive 2 hours to catch an NAIA match. The ones that are devoted to growing the sport we know and love. The second type of women’s soccer fans are the ones that love their team, generally their team being the USWNT. They’ll buy their jerseys (even if they’re ugly), support their WPS teams (RIP), and buy every issue of ESPN The Magazine or Sports Illustrated with Hope, Alex, or Abby gracing its pages. These fans are important, because they are the ones blowing up Twitter and Facebook, demanding that games get streamed if not on TV, and pack sold-out stadiums during friendly matches. And finally, there are the women’s soccer fans that could really care less but have jumped on the bandwagon. They know who Hope Solo is, and they think Alex Morgan is hot, but if you asked who the back line consisted of they wouldn’t have a clue. Of course, it would be great to have those second and third groups of fans converting to the diehards, but do we really want to call out and question the fans that are helping women’s soccer get noticed? Maybe someday… but I don’t think that day is today.

From An:
The game of women’s soccer has evolved tremendously since 1999. I’d like to think that women’s soccer supporter culture has changed as well. As Becca mentioned, there are many types of fans and those groups of fans probably existed since the days of WUSA. Yet, unlike post-1999 years of pro women’s soccer, today, soccer fans have many social media platforms that allow them to follow their favorite athletes, teams, and support the sport. I am uncomfortable with judging and labeling groups of fans as “fangirls” or “crazy.” I also am not sure how we can define “die-hard” fans. What I do know is that the sport we love and the existing women’s soccer leagues we follow need a lot of support, and all groups of fans should be welcomed. They all help support the sport in their own ways whether it is by buying season tickets or watching games online and buying merchandise. I am not as concerned with answering the question on what kind of women’s soccer fans do we want coming out to support US Soccer. Instead, I think two pressing questions stakeholders and fans alike should consider are (1) what “brand” of women’s soccer, realistically, do we want in the US? (2) What does it take to get fans to come out to the game? If there’s a drop in attendance for teams like Atlanta Silverbacks, then why? I don’t claim to know the whole situation for the Silverbacks, but I would simply be cautious of holding fans accountable for the success of women’s soccer alone.

From Scott:

An hit on the head one of the key elements for the rise numerically of the current women’s soccer support base, that being social media.  It has taken a fandom that used to be visible only at games or similar events into a 24/7 occurrence.  I view the evolution (or lack thereof) of women’s soccer fandom from the perspective of sports business and the non-soccer fan, and I compare what exists currently to two other forms of supportership/fandom:  other sports and pop culture.  Women’s soccer fandom (in general) is more akin to the latter than the former.  Perhaps that is due to the lack of opportunities that existed following the demise of WUSA, thus the new rise of the USWNT and the birth of WPS tapped into the next generation of the same fans that were there for the 99ers and WUSA, which is not sustainable in the long-term.   Perhaps it also is due to the average age of the women’s soccer fan versus that of other women’s professional sports or the brief history of the sport in this country (MLS had a similar issue I feel until the focus of the brand returned to the game on the field and long-time soccer communities were added to the league).  In any case, when the public face of women’s soccer fandom is still the same (by and large) in 2012 as it was in 2000 and the most public expressions of support for the sport and its players are indistinguishable from those for Justin Bieber or the Kardashians or Lady Gaga or the newest movie star, it doesn’t translate confidence in boardrooms to attach itself to the product or business.  Can this change over time?  Sure, if and when those fans end up in places of influence in the business community and can merge their fandom with the ability to actually put some skin into the business side of women’s soccer through advertising, corporate sponsorship, large-scale ticket purchasing, or even investment in a club or franchise.  Therefore, to answer the questions posed, I say 1) yes in some respects, no in others, and perhaps there has been a slight devolution over the past decade brought about by the 24/7 nature of it; and 2) it can hurt the brand by limiting the sport’s ability to attract the sustainable resources necessary for long-term operation and growth because the fan base doesn’t look like that of other sports fandoms and thus cannot be banked upon to remain supportive of the product over time, and it can hurt the ability to attract new fans because of the lack of “seriousness” that seems to emanate from portions of the fan base.  In ten years, might things have grown and women’s soccer supporters groups begin to look similar to that on the men’s side, or like fans of the WNBA or WTA or LPGA?  I’d like to hope so.

The Future of US Women’s Soccer

 Posted by on May 4, 2012 at 4:34 am  Grow The Game, WPS
May 042012
 

With the almost-inevitable shuttering of Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS), a vacancy exists in the soccer landscape for a venue where the top talent in this country and around the world can ply its trade.  The Women’s Premier Soccer League has formed an Elite Division comprised of former WPS teams and long-standing members of its amateur ranks, with the 2012 season scheduled to kick-off next week.  The W-League, under the auspices of the United Soccer Leagues, has also stepped up its game as it tries to become the premier place for women’s soccer players in this country.  Is the future bright for one or both of these to “replace” WPS, or does something new need to be created?  I believe the soil is ripe for a bigger and better league structure to replace WPS, but all parties involved must take a step or two back from the seven-figure operating budgets and six-figure salaries that were testament of WPS and its predecessor, the WUSA.  This can be done with a focus on developing a national footprint for the sport built upon local control and autonomy.

The future of women’s soccer cannot be built from the same model which brought us WUSA and WPS (that is, a league of franchises doled out on a limited basis with high hurdles for entry). Instead, it must be built through local clubs stepping forth and elevating their current offerings, where the cost of league entry is low, the ability to grow their product on and off-the-field can be done over time, and where ultimate responsibility for success or failure rests in the creativity and resolve of the individual entrant, not the league as a whole.  For this to happen, most if not all decisions must be made on the local level, such as the development of revenue streams that are self-sustaining and foster a connection between the club and the local business community and the recruitment of players who have roots within the community to the extent that the club is not responsible for “putting them up” in the area during the playing season.  Financial management of the individual clubs must be based not on turning a profit but on providing the best product possible on and off-the-field within the revenue available to the club.

Now let’s talk about the players.  First, there needs to be a realization that a women’s soccer league in this country cannot live or die on the basis of a sliver of the available player pool, that being the US Women’s National Team.  Building a future for women’s soccer in the US based on how it affects or will sustain the National Team will not in the long run work because it ignores the best interests of the 95% or more of players who aren’t in the NT system and will unnecessarily limit the growth of the game in markets where such talent hasn’t risen.  Beyond that, players must come to grips with the sobering notion that the dollars are not there currently for salaries of the level that one can live solely off of playing and thus they will need some supplemental form of income (be it a regular 9-to-5 job, an internship, sponsorships, graduate school stipends, a well-paid working spouse, etc.).

The future of women’s soccer in this country is bright, with expansion in both the WPSL and W-League bringing more teams and thus more players onto a regional and national stage.  These entities could be the way forward, but it will not happen without a “meeting of the minds” regarding their business models.  The WPSL’s is more in line with local autonomy, room for growth, and long-term sustainability than the W-League’s, but both are much more grounded in the community than what was seen from WUSA and WPS.  We must re-think what it means to be a “professional” athlete in a sport that currently doesn’t generate enough revenue to pay self-sustaining salaries and transition back if you will to a place where an athlete’s off-field pursuits will carry them further economically than their on-field ones.  Think of Major League Baseball or the National Football League before the advent of big-money television contracts, when players would have off-season jobs because playing in and of itself didn’t provide a level of income to sustain them or their families over 12 months.  It’s harsh, but that’s the exact place women’s soccer is currently, and the sooner it is realized and accepted, the sooner a sustainable model for the professional game in the US can be fostered and grow.

Soccer, We Have a Problem

 Posted by on March 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm  Grow The Game
Mar 122012
 

Soccer is known worldwide as “the people’s game” and for a time this was true in the United States, with immigrant populations bringing the sport to their new communities. This is no longer the case, with soccer over the past 25-30 years becoming the domain of the well-to-do and fairly well-to-do. Whereas there are still stories now and again of a boy rising out of urban circumstances as a result of involvement in soccer, this has not been the case for girls. The rare instances of it happening usually have been the result of individual beneficence bestowed on a specific player by another family or group of families.

This separation of the game from its most organic arena (the local community/neighborhood) has never been more evident than in the mere fact that so few urban female soccer players play the game at the college level. I came to realize this when building a summer-league team in Buffalo, NY. After searching a wide range of college rosters and finding a talent pool of 45 players, the truth was that not a single player rostered for the 2007 season had graduated from a Buffalo public high school. This was most disappointing and I was sure not just a fluke of location. Having coached at a successful urban high school in Milwaukee and having seen players on my roster go on to play in college (at schools such as Valparaiso, William and Mary, and Marquette), I also felt that there had to be a way to open that door for more players.

So why do so few urban girls play the game beyond high school? This can be attributed to a number of factors. First, most if not all community-based soccer programs (either run through the local recreation/parks department or non-profit organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club) end during the middle school years, as numbers tail off for these organizations and the democratic field of high school soccer nears. Building on that, “city” high school teams are generally snubbed by college coaches in the recruiting process, based almost entirely on its perceived playing level and the general lack of players who participate in “club” soccer outside the prep season. The biggest factor, though, is that the cost and logistics of playing for a well-known and successful soccer club is prohibitive for these players, as transportation to suburban or exurban playing fields might not be available and more pressing needs on the home front price these girls out of the club soccer market.

Can we fix this, and if so how? Much as the United States Soccer Federation has acknowledged that there is a problem in the recruitment, scouting, and development of disadvantaged players on the boys’ side, there has begun to be a conversation about why the women’s game is so “white”, for lack of a better term. Title IX has opened many doors for women and girls to participate in athletics at the high school and college levels, but its main beneficiaries have been by and large middle and upper-class females who would have had opportunities to participate in sport outside the educational system. This is in no way a criticism of the law, as it has brought about numerous successes in the athletic and academic arenas. Instead, it is a realization that those who benefit in the early years after a major piece of legislation is enacted are individuals and groups that were just on the outside of inclusion prior to it.

In Milwaukee, this is a major problem and the numbers reflect it. In 2011, only five graduates of Milwaukee Public Schools were on college rosters, with all of them playing in the greater Milwaukee area and all but one at Division III private institutions (the fifth was playing at UW-Parkside, a Division II school). In 2010, it was five as well, with two of those not returning for 2011. The numbers are pretty similar for 2009, 2008, and 2007 (four or five, with only one or two of them playing beyond their first collegiate season). These “one-and-dones” are quite disturbing for me, as there doesn’t seem to be an answer as to why it is so prevalent amongst our area’s players. Lest you think it’s just “city” players that either drop out or are run off by college coaches, two graduates of Divine Savior Holy Angels (state champions in 2008 and 2009) were one-and-doned by their out-of-state Division I institutions (one after the 2008 season, the other after 2009). This is another troublesome area that needs further investigation and potential involvement.

Now that we have spelled out the problem, it is time to devise a solution. I propose that one way to remedy the gap between the haves and the have-nots is by the founding and development of a low-cost urban soccer club that would provide playing opportunities in the non-high school season (in Wisconsin, that is fall), offer academic and athletic advising to assist these players in both getting into college and playing soccer while there, and offer a playing outlet during the summer for current college soccer players.

This club would aim to offer players a means of using the game of soccer to further their academic and athletic goals. The structure of the club seeks to utilize programs already in place in the community and funnel their players into an organization that can advance the common interest and provide “something more” to our collective constituents. The following is a basic layout of the pathway for one of our players:

1) A girl begins playing soccer at age 8 through America Scores Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Recreation Department, the Boys and Girls Club, or another local organization.

2) Our club would actively recruit players from these organizations for the development of its U16 and U18 teams (explained more thoroughly later on).

3) A player would begin play on its U16 Green team in the fall of her freshman year, with subsequent passage to U16 Blue, U18 Green, and U18 Blue in future years. In spring, she would be expected to participate in her high school’s soccer program.

4) As a result of playing during the fall club season, said player would have access to high-quality play and exposure to college coaches and recruiters.

5) Following graduation, this player would go onto college and play for her school’s intercollegiate team. During summer breaks, she would be able to play for the club’s team in either the Wisconsin Women’s Premier League or the Women’s Premier Soccer League.

The flagship side for the club would be a team in the Women’s Premier Soccer League and made up of current and former college soccer players and playing a summer schedule. The reason I choose to focus heavily on this team is that it serves as the ultimate success story of the club’s work, that being those who have gone on to play collegiately. Being that Milwaukee Public Schools has produced only a handful of players that are on college rosters at any one time, the need for recruiting players from other city and county high schools will be necessary in the short-term.

The development of the U16 and U18 teams starts with the premise that no player should be denied the opportunity to strive for “something more” on the basis of income, outside obligations, or a perceived lack of elite-level talent. With that in mind, our teams will be NO-CUT. The basic framework calls for two teams at the U16 level and two teams at the U18 level, however we will field additional teams at one or both levels if the numbers warrant and dictate it. The teams and their progression will be as such:

• U16 Green – This team will be made up primarily of freshmen (U15) and will be the entry point for most players in the organization. Sophomores who might be behind the curve or late-bloomers can play on this squad, but we will not be recruiting players not yet in high school for it.

• U16 Blue – Our top team at the U16 level, its makeup will be comprised of mostly sophomores (U16) with some advanced-level freshmen.

• U18 Green – This team is where I perceive a bottleneck of players occurring. This squad will be made up of on-pace juniors and be therefore a U17 team in theory, but advanced sophomores and less-advanced seniors will also be part of the side.

• U18 Blue – The top youth team in our structure, this collection of talent will be the place where college-ready seniors will be able to showcase their playing abilities. Advanced juniors will be able to play on this team as well.

An additional team at the U16 level (if necessary) would be comprised of less-developed incoming players and would be “behind” the U16 Green in the development chart. Should a third U18 team be developed, its composition would be of seniors who have either chosen not to pursue college-playing opportunities or who would otherwise be on the U18 Green. Naturally, some shifting of players might occur in order to balance the rosters numerically. Also, there might be other factors besides skill that would cause a player to be moved away from where they might otherwise be placed.

Beyond what happens on the soccer field, the club would plan to offer both academic and athletic advising to its players, in the hopes that by taking an active interest in its players’ schooling, more (if not all) of them will see college as a worthwhile pursuit and be prepared to tackle its academic rigor once there. For many in our core constituency, going to college may not be on their radar. Perhaps no one in their family or circle of friends has ever graduated from a four-year institution, or even attended school beyond compulsory education. In this country, education is still the most reliable means of economic and social mobility, regardless of how others might like to say that being a professional athlete or a career in the music or entertainment industry are other options. With that in mind, this is how this facet of our programming will work:

1) Every incoming player to the club would meet with our club’s academic advisor. This meeting will consist of discussing the player’s academics and what future plans she might have for post-secondary education.

2) Over the course of the first two years, the player and academic advisor would work together to make sure that the player is on-track academically to achieve the aforementioned plans or revise them should interests and abilities change.

3) At the start of the junior year, preparation for the ACT/SAT would begin and college investigation will commence. The academic advisor would work with the player to help her determine a number of schools where she might be able to succeed academically and socially, as well as assist in the application and financial aid process.

4) In spring, all seniors would participate in a “college boot camp” that would deal with preparation for life in college.

From here, the club’s athletic advisor would work with the player to seek out the right playing opportunity given her schools of interest. This would involve contacting college coaches on the players’ behalf, taking teams to college matches in the area (as is feasible), and working in conjunction with the club’s academic advisor to give every player the right information regarding academics and college playing opportunities so that those who are able to take advantage of it will not be discouraged to do so. In the end, the purpose of the club’s college prep strategy is to level the playing field when it comes to information and advising, to give its players the same level of opportunity that the children of better-off and/or more educated parents already have.

What we have here is a blueprint for an organization. How do we in fact build from that blueprint and create the reality? There are several things needed to bring this to fruition:

• Coaches – We need coaches for each of the four youth teams as well as the WPL/WPSL sides. Each coach would stay with their team for two years (U16 Green => U16 Blue, U18 Green => U18 Blue), with one of the coaches at each level responsible for coordination and roster formation.

• Advisors – We need one person to oversee the academic side of the club and the college-prep program, with another in charge of college recruitment.

• Development Director – Naturally, in order to run a low-cost club, significant resources will need to be procured from the larger community.

• Board of Directors

• Registrar – Responsible for the registration of teams, players, and coaches with the state youth soccer association along with financials therein.

• Community Service Coordinator – A unique aspect of the club would be community service, with all players and staff actively involved.

Am I nuts? Idealistic? Off my rocker?

Breaking Through the Ceiling

 Posted by on February 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm  Grow The Game
Feb 272012
 

A discussion over the past couple of days on Twitter between two of those I follow caught my eye. One of them (a women’s soccer fan in all parts) was asking the other (the mom of a high school soccer player) about fundraising at the club soccer level and whether financial aid was available to players. I followed their conversation to see what the truth might be and where it would head. Eventually, I jumped in only to have two of their ideas cause me to shake my head at what the reality seems to be in the suburban club soccer world. The first one was the creation of a group to sponsor players from the grassroots level into the competitive club game as a means of getting over the obstacles that exist due to finances; whereas the second was having guest trainers from the “bigger” clubs do free clinics on the grassroots level as a means of identifying players and talent. Both of these ideas stuck in my craw because they seem to invoke the notion that more outreach and beneficence are all that is needed to open the gates for players to advance in the development ladder. Is that true, or is something else necessary?

In my opinion, the above-mentioned ideas, while noble, would not create a significant increase in high-level playing opportunities which would lead to more urban soccer players progressing into the collegiate or professional ranks as a result of them. This is because both of these ideas reinforce the notion that opportunity is limited and therefore must be doled out selectively. In the case of sponsoring players, urban youth must prove their playing worth to a club in order to then be sponsored. The idea of guest trainers coming into the city and holding clinics as a mechanism to identify talent piggybacks on the first in that the “big” club acts as an arbiter of access and will deem who should be given that access. Both of these would open the doors for a handful of players, perhaps. What they won’t do is move us away from a mentality whereby those who can afford access get it (and the opportunities which result from it) and those who cannot must be happy if “one of theirs” gets a chance to enter that world.

With that said, what’s my solution? It is the formation of an outside agency that would collaborate with existing community-based programs (e.g., America Scores, the Boys and Girls Club, the local rec/parks department, the public school system) to create the equivalent of a co-op team or teams (in Wisconsin, three or four high schools might join together to sponsor a varsity program in girls’ gymnastics or ice hockey or soccer). None of the organizations might have the participants or the infrastructure to operate a team at the older youth levels on their own (say, beyond U14), but when brought together might have sufficient numbers. Why collaboration with existing programs rather than forming an all-ages soccer club? These programs and organizations already do a fantastic job of exposing urban youth to the game of soccer and making it fun and affordable. Allowing those programs to do what they do best while providing technical support and a clear path to continuing in the game beyond the realistic reach of these organizations would result in much more opportunity being offered. Five or six players a year might be helped by raising sponsorship dollars, whereas ten times that number might be able to advance in the game via this collaboration and development of a low-cost urban soccer organization for older youth players.

That’s my idea (and I will share parts of the blueprint in time). Like it? Hate it?

From the Blacktop to the Ivies?

 Posted by on February 21, 2012 at 9:25 am  Grow The Game
Feb 212012
 

The past two or three weeks have seen a mushrooming of discussion of women’s soccer in the United States, starting with the decision by Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) to forego playing in 2012 and attempt to “come back bigger and stronger” in 2013.  As those conversations have begun to move around the social media world, a number of topics heretofore not seen as relevant have come to the table, from sustainable financial models for women’s sports to the perceived lack of interest in women’s soccer vis-à-vis the men’s game to the paucity of opportunities for players to make a living from the sport.  Yesterday, while following the discussion emanating from #WPSchat on Twitter, one of my co-authors here at Two Touch Pass hit upon some key elements in my uber-maxed-out plan for women’s soccer in my hometown of Milwaukee, those being community/philanthropic involvement by the organization and the need for more opportunities to be available for players from less-well-off backgrounds to play at the highest levels of the game.   Currently, I am working with another person to survey current and former college soccer players, college coaches, and high school coaches/administrators on what hurdles and obstacles exist in this pursuit and how they can be eliminated or ameliorated so that our local school district’s girls’ soccer players CAN move onto collegiate play and the means to a better standard of living which comes from higher education.

On top of this, the club vs. high school discussion has ramped up once again.  Personally, I believe that players who snub the prep game in pursuit of year-round club soccer should not be able to benefit from it (in short, there should be a minimum requirement regarding high school athletics for NCAA eligibility similar to the academic coursework one that currently exists).  Never mind that either/or issue, the bigger problem is the lack of opportunities for urban high school students to play club soccer.  Access to the tony world of elite-level club soccer (where the yearly fees can run into the thousands of dollars per year) is outside the reach of most if not all players from my community due to cost, logistics as they relate to getting to/from suburban or exurban fields, and more pressing needs for limited resources on the home front (both human and financial).  Is there a way to break down those walls?  What might that look like?  Can access to higher education through soccer provide a way for young women here and in urban centers across the country to lift themselves up from their current circumstances?  How do we make this possible?  I have ideas on all of this, but I want to hear yours as well.  Let’s have an ongoing conversation on how to Grow the Game and democratize the top tier of women’s soccer in this country.