Turbine Potsdam start defending German women's Bundesliga title this Sunday 2nd September 2012

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Murray on September 2, 2012 at 12:41

Lars, a salary cap, that is illegal in UEFA, those sort of labor controls. Instead of salary cap what about a development cap.
Clubs spend money on players but don't spend money on development. If clubs are forced to have a development system to have the right to even buy more than one player outside their farm system.
The key to lowering cost is to develop players which is itself costly but is viewed less negatively than buying players.



Lars Breimer said:

I have a concern that there is a risk that ladies' soccer is turning into a contest of who can buy the big trophies fastest. The amount of money needed in today's game is not that much. Indeed, a few well to do people can boost a club enormously. You do not need to be super-rich like the owners of Chelsea, Manchester City or QSG to do this.

     I contend that UEFA (and FIFA) should quickly set up a committee to look into whether there should be some team salary roof -- a limit on the total salaries that an be paid to the A squad throughout Europe. In other words, take a leaf out of the NFL's book like the NHL eventually did.

     The days seem to be vanishing when smaller teams can compete in ladies' football in Europe. Umeå was once one of the giants but no longer, while the wealthy teams that Umeå beat or narrowly lost against are still at the top like Frankfurt, Potsdam and Arsenal. Lyon has gone through the field like a grass-cutter -- because of money. QSG aims to do the same. How fun will this be in five years time? Yawn?

     Would a vibrant USA league that would suck to it the best players even this out a bit? But why would an American league by expensive European players when they can get cheaper players from Nigeria, Ghana, possibly also Mexico and Brazil, maybe even Korea?

Permalink Reply by Gromit on September 2, 2012 at 13:04

@Richard

The French system goes a bit in this direction. All teams in D1 and D2 have the obligation to have (and develop of course) a Youth Team (U-19 for D1's teams, U-19 or U-15 for D2's) AND a Women's Football school. There are sanctions for the clubs who don't fullfill those obligations (the Football's schools must fill obligations too, of course). It's up to the senior team to integrate those young players little by little. And then, to buy less and spend less.

The fact that the teams which are "feminine sections" of Men's professional clubs are the top teams is not always due to their more important budgets but also by all the facilities that they benefit from this professionnal club : sophisticated training installations mainly.

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on September 2, 2012 at 13:16

@Richard Murray -- Thank you. I am not an expert on the details of the labour rulings in the EU nor how far the Bosman-ruling reaches. In USA the NFL started with a salary cap per player but this was struck down by the courts so the NFL moved to a salary cap per team, which the courts accepted. In other words, if you want to spend $15 million a year on one player, the other players have to be paid a lot less. The NHL adopted that system (many years later).

    I do not know whether there is a lack of development systems among European clubs. Maybe QSG does not bother with one -- Gromit can tell us -- but as far as I can see the teams really try to attract and develop juniors. In USA and Canada, a big part, if not all, of that is done through the school systems. The issue at junior level, at least in Europe, is more one of return on investment for the girl or her parents -- or lack of it, more precisely.

    In the boys' world, a fat professional contract (sometimes abroad) is a enromous carrot. But, where does all that hard graft get a girl player in Europe? In USA it can be the key to being able to afford not just to go to university but to one of the world's top universities -- Alex Morgan went to Berkeley for example, and Stanford, Duke and UNC are regularly among the top women's sports universities. A full scholarship can be worth $40-45 000 a year, sometimes even more, and even a partial at $15-20 000 per year is not to be sneezed at. 

    FIFA, who has the charge of the overall world-wide health of the sport, seems more excited about women's soccer and trying harder than UEFA. Maybe it is an image problem or it could reflect the different backgrounds of the top brass in FIFA compared with UEFA. Gromit might know. Over to you Gromit!

[I see that Gromit wrote while I wrote // good hound, Gromit, thank you kindly.]

Permalink Reply by Richard Murray on September 2, 2012 at 16:26

Gromit, good point. OL Feminin is supported very well by the facilities at their disposal and the club president is a huge part of that. I imagine Bayern Munich will get the same treatment and you know Barcelona is.



Gromit said:

@Richard

The French system goes a bit in this direction. All teams in D1 and D2 have the obligation to have (and develop of course) a Youth Team (U-19 for D1's teams, U-19 or U-15 for D2's) AND a Women's Football school. There are sanctions for the clubs who don't fullfill those obligations (the Football's schools must fill obligations too, of course). It's up to the senior team to integrate those young players little by little. And then, to buy less and spend less.

The fact that the teams which are "feminine sections" of Men's professional clubs are the top teams is not always due to their more important budgets but also by all the facilities that they benefit from this professionnal club : sophisticated training installations mainly.

Permalink Reply by Richard Murray on September 2, 2012 at 16:31

Yes LArs the NCAA is what it is called and it is fiscally the biggest schemer in sports. I personally cant stand NCAA. Imagine all the tier two below leagues in Europe with unpaid players but on teams making money.
In all earnest a direct contract is worth more than a scholarship. Scholarships to stanford and many ivy league schools in the USA, especially my local favortie columbia are large because people think those schools are godly.
FIFA see's a very profitable golden goose in womens soccer that many men are passing as nothing and many business folk aren't investing in at all. But, UEFA will be the biggest winner of it, having the most balanced confederation for it, in a total sense.



Lars Breimer said:

@Richard Murray -- Thank you. I am not an expert on the details of the labour rulings in the EU nor how far the Bosman-ruling reaches. In USA the NFL started with a salary cap per player but this was struck down by the courts so the NFL moved to a salary cap per team, which the courts accepted. In other words, if you want to spend $15 million a year on one player, the other players have to be paid a lot less. The NHL adopted that system (many years later).

    I do not know whether there is a lack of development systems among European clubs. Maybe QSG does not bother with one -- Gromit can tell us -- but as far as I can see the teams really try to attract and develop juniors. In USA and Canada, a big part, if not all, of that is done through the school systems. The issue at junior level, at least in Europe, is more one of return on investment for the girl or her parents -- or lack of it, more precisely.

    In the boys' world, a fat professional contract (sometimes abroad) is a enromous carrot. But, where does all that hard graft get a girl player in Europe? In USA it can be the key to being able to afford not just to go to university but to one of the world's top universities -- Alex Morgan went to Berkeley for example, and Stanford, Duke and UNC are regularly among the top women's sports universities. A full scholarship can be worth $40-45 000 a year, sometimes even more, and even a partial at $15-20 000 per year is not to be sneezed at. 

    FIFA, who has the charge of the overall world-wide health of the sport, seems more excited about women's soccer and trying harder than UEFA. Maybe it is an image problem or it could reflect the different backgrounds of the top brass in FIFA compared with UEFA. Gromit might know. Over to you Gromit!

[I see that Gromit wrote while I wrote // good hound, Gromit, thank you kindly.]

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on September 2, 2012 at 17:34

@RichardMurray -- I am not sure I follow you when you write: "FIFA see's a very profitable golden goose in womens soccer that many men are passing as nothing and many business folk aren't investing in at all. But, UEFA will be the biggest winner of it, having the most balanced confederation for it, in a total sense".

I agree with you that currently women's soccer is an artificial activity that would not survive without its subsidies, and that the men's game is well and truly HQed in Europe and that South-America has lost the battle.  At the same time, ladies' football is particularly strong all around the Pacific ocean, in other words wherever men's soccer is weak, a pattern which is repeated locally in many European countries (Umeå and Tyresö in Sweden, Frankfurt and Potsdam in Germany, above all Lyon, Montpelier and Jusivy in France). Thus, FIFA may be on to something, namely that there is money in ladies' football and that money can be made in some of the world's most populated countries.

    Oddly enough, in spite of its lacklustre performances both on the men's and the women's side, Brazil is still the strongest brand-name in football. UEFA for sure runs the men's Champions League, but FIFA seems to be managing the ladies game almost to perfection so far, and the ladies' game may be the key to USA and Canada.

Permalink Reply by Richard Murray on September 2, 2012 at 19:55

okay :)

Lars Breimer said:

@RichardMurray -- I am not sure I follow you when you write: "FIFA see's a very profitable golden goose in womens soccer that many men are passing as nothing and many business folk aren't investing in at all. But, UEFA will be the biggest winner of it, having the most balanced confederation for it, in a total sense".

I agree with you that currently women's soccer is an artificial activity that would not survive without its subsidies, and that the men's game is well and truly HQed in Europe and that South-America has lost the battle.  At the same time, ladies' football is particularly strong all around the Pacific ocean, in other words wherever men's soccer is weak, a pattern which is repeated locally in many European countries (Umeå and Tyresö in Sweden, Frankfurt and Potsdam in Germany, above all Lyon, Montpelier and Jusivy in France). Thus, FIFA may be on to something, namely that there is money in ladies' football and that money can be made in some of the world's most populated countries.

    Oddly enough, in spite of its lacklustre performances both on the men's and the women's side, Brazil is still the strongest brand-name in football. UEFA for sure runs the men's Champions League, but FIFA seems to be managing the ladies game almost to perfection so far, and the ladies' game may be the key to USA and Canada.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page