- Aug 1, 2006
yeah, one thing I wonder about with NWSL, they don't have a presence in some of the most likely soccer cities. No Atlanta team, the "NYC" team plays in Piscataway (basically more than 2 hours one multiple types of public transit), the "Seattle" team plays 1.5 hours away in Tacoma in a ML baseball diamond (they want to build a $300M soccer stadium there, but... why not in Seattle?), no teams in Toronto or Vancouver (probably because of USSF involvement), the DC team plays in MD at a glorified youth facility that holds 4,000 people, and is an hour plus drive or 2 hours (multiple transfers) by public transit, and oh yeah.... NO TEAMS IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING STATE OF CALIFORNIA?Yeah, there's been a lot written about it in recent weeks.
It's a long and interesting article. I didn't know the current arrangement expired at the end of this year, either. But you couldn't have tailor-made a better moment in time for a big investor to step in. Much like MLS could only really launch after the success of hosting the 1994 World Cup not only proved demand but also itself expanded the market, after two consecutive WWC titles, you're never going to have a more-ready shot at making the first independently successful women's team-sports pro league.
The league is set up in a way that it feels like saving money was the goal at every step, not setting up the teams for success. I mean, if you are worried about not having good attendance, the solution isn't to therefore save money by either putting it somewhere half your fans can't get to for games, or picking stadiums that can't hold your fans (DC last year averaged 3850 attendance in their 4000 seat stadium). I mean honestly, the strongest fanbases for women's soccer have been the gay community and educated, liberal middle class people. Not having teams in basically all of the massive cities that have prominent populations in both groups is so dumb.