Somewhat prompted by this, we have scoured through the archives of the Associated Press, and found some marvelous photos of women’s football from that era, especially the important West German teams of the 1980s along with the “European Ladies Soccer Championship” of 1957 (the first of its kind, and completed before its male counterpart’s inaugural competition) and the NCAA championship in 1985, featuring a player who should be very familiar to Chicago Red Stars fans. Please note, the captions are from the AP archive, as are the photos. If you have access to any other photos from that era, please drop us a line!

The goalkeeper of a West German ladies soccer team goes down in all-out effort to prevent score but the ball rolls through for a goal, Nov. 3, 1957. Moving in are Mary Bee, left, and Margaret Hilton of British team which won match, 4-0, for the European Ladies Soccer Championship in West Berlin, Germany. (AP Photo)

Joan Tench of England, loses her pants during a scrimmage around the England goal during a women's soccer match in London, United Kingdom on Oct. 19, 1969, between England, (represented by Foden Ladies team), and Scotland, (represented by Westthorn United). From left, Jean Ramsey of Scotland who is hauling down the pants; Gillian Cornes of England, (rear in stripes); Joan Tench, and at right, Mary Davenport of Scotland. The football match ended in a 0-0 draw. (AP Photo/Dennis Lee Royle)

Woman Soccer final match in Bergisch Gladbach. The team of SSG 09 Bergisch Gladbach, which won 1:0. (06/18/1977)(AP Photo)

The team of German football club SSG 09 Bergisch-Gladbach celebrates the win of the German Soccer Championship against KGC Duisburg on Sunday, June 15, 1980 in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. Captain Doris Kresimon holds the trophy and shakes hands with DFB President Egidius Braun. (AP Photo/Fritz Reiss)

West Germany's back Brigitte Klinz, in a desperate attempt, grabs Norwegian striker Hege Flognfeldt's hand to stop the Norwegian forward from making goal attempt during a final round match West Germany vs Norway on October 19, 1981 in the World Women's Invitational Soccer tournament held in Taipei, Taiwan. Germany beat Norway 4:0 (1:0). (AP Photo)

The German national women's soccer team poses prior to their first official match against Switzerland on Wednesday, November 10, 1982 in Koblenz, Germany. Front row from left to right: Ingrid Gebauer, Bettina Krug, Marion Feiden, Rieke Koekkoek, Petra Landers; back row from left to right: Birgit Bormann, Monika Degwitz, Brigitte Klinz, Gaby Dlugi-Winterberg, Doris Kresimon and Anne Trabant-Harbach. (AP Photo)

Action scene with German player Doris Kresimon, right, and an unidentified Swiss player during the West German national women's soccer team first official match against Switzerland on Wednesday, November 10, 1982 in Koblenz, Germany. (AP Photo)

Members of German football club SSG 09 Bergisch Gladbach wave after winning the Women's DFB Cup (German Soccer Cup) on May 31, 1984 in Frankfurt, Germany. They won against VfR Eintracht Wolfsburg with 2:0. (AP Photo/Helmuth Lohmann)

Unidentified members of the German football club SSG 09 Bergisch-Gladbach celebrate with the trophy their 3:1 win against FSV Frankfurt on June 30, 1984 in Frankfurt, Germany. It is their seventh victory of the German Soccer Championship.

The team of German football club SSG 09 Bergisch-Gladbach celebrate their 3:1 win against FSV Frankfurt on June 30, 1984 in Frankfurt, Germany. It is their seventh victory of the German Soccer Championship. (AP Photo/Helmut Fricke)

George Mason University’s forward Chris Tomek, of Wheaton, Ill., 4, defends against a kick by University of North Carolina’s midfielder Marcia McDermott, of McLean, Va., during NCAA Women’s Soccer Championships at George Mason University in Fairfax on Sunday, Nov. 24, 1985. George Mason won the tournament 2-0. (AP Photo/Tom Reed)

Celebrating with the Women's DFB Cup (German Soccer Cup) on June 24, 1989 in Berlin, Germany are members of the German football club TSV Siegen, from left to right: Martina Voss, Andrea Haberless and Silvia Neid. Their team defeated FSV Frankfurt 5:1. (AP Photo/Rainer Klostermeier)

I have the perspective of being intimately involved in the creation and launch of WPS from 2007 through 2009 as founding President of WPS’ Chicago Red Stars.  I also have some strong opinions about the sport’s future direction.  Frankly, my own failure, along with that of my WPS colleagues, to rein in expenses is the reason WPS is on the verge of collapse.  While I was preaching fiscal responsibility from the beginning, it wasn’t enough.   I took a sizable pay cut to join the Chicago Red Stars, but I was still paid too much (as was just about everyone else associated with the League) relative to where the revenues ended up.

Current WPS players, supporters and administrators are now begging US Soccer and anyone else who will listen for another chance, an extension, another year to get on its feet.  Specifically WPS is asking US Soccer to extend its waiver of an eight team minimum standard for classification as a first division professional league even though the League has shrunk from six teams to five since the end of its third and perhaps final season.  Most, if not all people commenting or considering this issue believe that there are no alternative ways to save professional women’s soccer in the U.S. other than having US Soccer grant WPS its waiver.

I disagree.

It may sound cruel, but I believe the best thing for the future of women’s professional soccer (lower case) in the U.S. is pulling the plug on Women’s Professional Soccer (upper case) as we know it and replacing it with an improved streamlined model that would entice more investors throughout the U.S. and Canada.

Here is why WPS is failing:

• Spent too much money on players
• Spent too much money on coaches
• Spent too much money on front office personnel
• Spent too much money on advertising
• Spent too much money on League operations and promotion

OK, so I could have saved some space there and simply written “Spent too much money”.  WPS didn’t spend too much money as in “WUSA has American cable TV’s checkbook” too much money, but WPS expected that it could maintain revenue levels from WUSA while reducing overhead.  It couldn’t.  The spending did many good things – necessary things.  It lured Marta and a host of other top international players, it kept the US Women’s National Team players in the League and it attracted a few major sponsors and a national broadcast deal.  But in the end, it wasn’t enough.

It’s ironic that WPS’ cause of death will be the same as its predecessor WUSA.  WPS thought it learned lessons from WUSA and spent much less than WUSA.  WPS indeed did spend less than WUSA, but was dealt fatal blows on two accounts: 1) revenues fell in proportion to expenses and 2) ownership wealth had been replaced by passion.  Passion can’t pay the bills.

Bay Area CyberRays' Sissi, left, of Brazil, and Thori Staples Bryan, right, carry the Founders Cup around the field after they defeated the Atlanta Beat at the inaugural WUSA Championship at Foxboro Stadium in Foxboro, Mass. Saturday, Aug. 25, 2001. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

The League successfully sold 11 franchises, but six folded, left or were kicked out of the League.  I made the prediction before WPS kicked its first ball that it would add teams faster than MLS, but it would also lose teams faster than MLS.  Sadly that prediction came true and the losses exceeded the gains six to four.  To put it into football terms, after three seasons WPS was -2 in takeaways.

WPS could continue another year as it is, but frankly it would be more of the same and would lead back to the same place. Five teams confined to the eastern time zone playing a shortened schedule to avoid Olympic conflicts is just plain ugly.

Puma has opted out of its seven figure annual agreement that paid most of the League’s central office bills.  Sponsors aren’t lining up to replace that funding and the league no longer has its partnership with Soccer United Marketing to fall back on.  If WPS does manage to hold on another year, it will be small, obscure and unlikely to improve its economic condition.  Attracting one, two or even three more teams the following year is possible.  There are legitimate inquiries to make commitments to join WPS, which could help US Soccer justify an extension of the minimum team waiver and buoy the League’s hopes for growth and survival.  But any additions could just as easily be offset by losses of existing teams.

I also don’t see that simply adding investors to the current business model which has failed every team every year will change the future of the League.  Believing that last summer’s FIFA Women’s World Cup or next year’s Olympic games will change the economic condition of the League is delusional.  Any bump is short term and not enough to overcome the inherent weakness of the model.  Again, 11 teams have tried it over three years and none of them have come close to breaking even with this business model and the League’s top sponsor is gone.  Adding teams to “Save WPS” without radically changing the model would simply put off the inevitable.

Suffice it to say the future’s not bright and you don’t gotta wear shades to view WPS’ future…and that’s not even considering the legal and public relations quagmire with magicJack and its owner Dan Borislow.

Chicago Red Stars' Women's Professional Soccer player Ella Masar, left, and 2010 draft pick Whitney Engen model their new uniforms for the Chicago Red Stars at Puma's 2010 WPS uniform unveiling hosted at the Trust building in Philadelphia Friday, Jan. 15, 2010. (AP Photo/Mark Stehle for Puma)

A new model is needed that will attract not just a handful of teams, but as many as 20 teams and a coast to coast footprint for the sport.  I was always told that if you’re not a part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.  So, for your viewing pleasure I present to you my bullet point solution for a new professional women’s soccer league in the United States and Canada that would solve the current mess and launch the sport into a positive era that would grow the sport for the long term (warning: the following contains recommendations that some may consider grotesque and may cause idealistic supporters of women’s soccer to become ill):

• Base player salary budget of $100,000 to $150,000 per team.  18 players per team.  $0k to $3k per month in season per player.
• 2-3 designated players per team.  $4k to $10k per month in season per player. DP salaries are off budget.
• Recommended annual operation budget of $200,000 to $400,000 not including player compensation, though teams that are willing and able could spend more on the business end.
• No NCAA eligible players
• April though August season (extension through September in Olympic and WWC years)
• Invite all current members of WPS, W-League, WPSL and MLS to place teams in the new League.
  • No entry fee for inaugural season.
  • $100,000 entry fee for expansion teams in ensuing seasons.
  • Must commit by last day of previous season to be eligible for following season.
  • $100,000 letter of credit for all teams to guarantee finishing season if teams can’t pay bills mid-season.
  • Operate league for the first year on a cooperative basis by US Soccer, USL and MLS.  USL and MLS operate the league going forward after the first season.
    • US Soccer would establish new, more realistic standards for a professional women’s league comparable to top women’s leagues in Europe.  This would allow both low budget and medium budget teams to compete on a relatively level playing field. In the first year, US Soccer would provide an overriding layer of governance similar to the 2010 D-2 League.
    • USL would use its infrastructure to manage the league’s administrative needs similar to its MISL relationship. USL’s compensation coming from low five figure annual league dues and a percentage of new franchise fees.
    • MLS/SUM would handle the league’s broadcast, marketing, sponsorship and communication responsibilities. MLS’ compensation coming from a percentage of sponsorship fees it generates.
    • If enough teams apply, play will be regional until the playoffs to limit travel expenses and increase rivalries.

Implications (bad and good):

• WPSL would be left out of the professional game and will likely lose teams to the new league. WPSL could more legitimately be pitched as a feeder league to the pro circuit.  New investors could start with a WPSL team and the learning curve to jump to the pro league wouldn’t be as great.  Could be a good selling point for new WPSL franchises.
• WPS as an entity and its office personnel would disappear and be replaced. The name could continue, but personally I’d prefer a fresh brand such as WMLS or anything else.
• Dilution of talent spread over more teams.  I believe as many as 20 teams could be assembled in this model between in the first three years and with that comes a spread of talent, which will reduce quality of play.  WPS, W-League, WPSL and MLS each likely have at least five teams that would very seriously look at joining this model.  If MLS is on board, they will add credibility and stability that would risk little to MLS and offer tremendous potential benefits in sponsorship and added integration into its local and national footprint.
• Some USWNT players may choose to play in Europe if they feel the competition won’t be as good in the new league or if enough teams don’t use their designated player slots as generously as needed to compete with European offers.  With up to 20 teams, there could be as many as 60 DP slots, which may or may not be used.  This is more than enough to accommodate full USWNT and many international stars – if the owners are willing and able to pay the $4k to $10k per month to keep this level of player in the new league. USWNT players receive their US compensation wherever they play.  Club salary usually increases their compensation by an additional 50% to 100% for most.  This proposed model shouldn’t change USWNT compensation much if at all.  More teams means it could actually increase competition for them and drive up their compensation.
• Second tier US players forced into retirement, because non DP compensation would top out around $3k per month.  Playing for a pro team provides a “business card” of sorts that gives players credibility and networking opportunities that help them gain decent paying coaching positions in youth and collegiate soccer.  This augments their “pro” compensation and provides a stepping stone to a post playing career.
• Top international players less likely to play in US.  DP slots would allow many to still play in the league.  And truth is, the depth of international talent has exploded over the last five years meaning those that choose not to stay can be more easily replaced than in the past.
• Many experienced coaches and administrators won’t be able to continue in women’s professional soccer at lower compensation.  There are only five teams, so there can’t be that many coaches and administrators that will lose their jobs.  Plus many more jobs, albeit low paying, will be created to seed a new generation of coaches and administrators.  Others will be able to finad a way to make it work by double dipping with other coaching or administrative positions.
• Lower salaries and operational budgets will create a semi-pro image that will further reduce sponsor, fan, broadcast and player interest.  It’s a step backward in image, but the reduced expenses are needed to bring fiscal sensibility to the business.  Increasing the number of teams will result in a growth of the base, get more people involved as investors, players, administrators and cumulatively as fans.  Critical mass of teams will ultimately generate more interest from sponsors, supporters and broadcasters in the future at which time teams can justify increases to their operational and player compensation budgets. If MLS teams indeed do join this League, they would be able to provide infrastructure that would be more professional than what WPS teams now offer and would serve to improve the image of the League for all stakeholders.

So there you go, my proposal to blow up what I helped create and start something new intended for long term growth and sustainability.  Some WPS teams are already embracing some of these recommendations, but not all.  Atlanta, for instance, is now a leader in controlling player costs.  Sky Blue FC has been a leader in business austerity from the beginning.  The current leaders of WPS should take control at this critical juncture and work with US Soccer, MLS, USL and the thousands of “Save WPS” petitioners to lead professional women’s soccer to a new and sustainable future.  It will require collaborative and unselfish work with great sacrifice for many, but I believe it can work.  What do you think?

Though I’ve written previously on Pitch Invasion about women’s soccer in Africa, I don’t claim any special expertise on this specific event—particularly as I write from my distant home office on another continent.  But given all the attention to the men’s World Cup in South Africa last summer, and various vague claims that the event would help develop the game at all levels, I do find myself intrigued by the women’s championship as an opportunity to fulfill that promise.  Also, given the many social, historical, and structural obstacles to the women’s game in Africa, I just admire the pluck of many African women’s players who do succeed.

Nevertheless, although it will determine Africa’s two representatives to the 2011 Women’s World Cup in Germany, the 2010 African Women’s Championship promises to be a relatively modest endeavor (the eight competitors are South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Mali, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Algeria, and Ghana). Not only are none of the 2010 men’s World Cup stadiums being used, but almost all the games are being held at one 15,000 seat stadium in the far eastern townships of the greater Johannesburg area.  That stadium was refurbished for the men’s World Cup and served as the training base for New Zealand—though it’s most notable World Cup moment may have been when cooking smoke from the nearby township forced the Kiwis to modify their training. (Another small neighboring stadium will be used for two of the last group stage games, presumably to accommodate concurrent kick-offs).

Even these arrangements were only made public last month—a circumstance Peter Alegi rightly identified as an “inexcusable delay [that] makes it more difficult for fans and media to participate in and cover the premier event in women’s football on the continent.”  As if to substantiate that point, as of the week-end before the tournament begins the official tournament page on the Confederation of African Football (CAF) web-site had only been updated once since September—and ironically that update was to announce that the deadline to apply for press credentials had been extended.

CAF does have the excuse of not having much practice in hosting continental championships for women.  Though there were official competitions in 1991 and 1995, those were played on a home and away basis, so the first centrally hosted tournament was played in Nigeria in 1998.  Since that event, the African Women’s Championship has been hosted biannually in either Nigeria or South Africa—with the lone exception of the 2008 tournament hosted in Equatorial Guinea.

Equatorial Guinea also happens to be the only country to win the continental women’s championship besides Nigeria—which had won every African women’s championship prior to 2008, and is the only African team to attend every Women’s World Cup.  In my mind, this raises two interesting questions: why has Nigeria been so good, and how could Equatorial Guinea be their only competition?

The Champions

The reasons Nigeria have tended to be so good is probably at least partially attributable to the simple fact that Nigeria is a populous place with a lot of talented women.  According to a 2003 case study by Martha Saavedra, “women have been playing football on a regular basis in Nigeria only since 1978” but since there have been several iterations of reasonably successful women’s clubs and leagues—which is more than can be said for many African nations.  In addition, Saavedra notes, the relative strength of Nigerian women’s soccer may relate to a more general “history of activism among Nigerian women, especially in the South.”  More recently there has been some concern that the full women’s national team has lost some of its dominance, and that broader problems in Nigerian soccer may hurt further improvements, but there are also signs of hope: as was noted here on Pitch Invasion over the summer, the Nigerian U-20 women were an impressive success ending up as the first African team to reach the final of a FIFA World Cup of any sort.

The case of Equatorial Guinea is harder to figure, partially just because it seems to be a generally curious place.  I’ve never been there, and don’t feel able to fully pass judgment, but in the world of African politics Equatorial Guinea is known mostly for suspicious oddities.  A former Spanish colony comprising a tiny set of islands and land near the coasts of Cameroon and Gabon with only around 600,000 people, it has massive oil income that the United Nations computes to a GDP per capita higher than that of Italy or Bahrain (at $30,627), but a human poverty index worse than Haiti (according to IRIN News, estimates suggest that “60 percent of its population lives on less than US$1 a day”).  This extreme discrepancy is often attributed to massive corruption, particularly among its dictatorial ruling family—whose son Teodoro Obiang is known for buying a $35 million mansion in Malibu and paying $700,000 for a spin on a yacht to impress sometime girlfriend/rapper Eve, and whose patriarch has been in the news for promoting a multi-million dollar UNESCO prize to publicize science and perhaps distract people from his poor human rights record.  The problems of the ruling family even emboldened a group of mercenary South African plotters with few local connections, linked famously to Margaret Thatcher’s son, to attempt a (failed) coup in 2004.

So how did a place like Equatorial Guinea end up hosting a women’s African championship tournament, and becoming the first winner other than Nigeria?  The event generated so little media attention that it is almost impossible to know, but I’d be interested to learn.  I’m particularly intrigued by how a country of only 600,000 people—which wouldn’t even qualify as one of the top ten most-populous cities in Nigeria—manages to produce a continental class football team.

I do know what the Nigerians said: that the Equatorial Guinea women’s team succeeds by not limiting itself to women.  In another curious twist that was mentioned by Jennifer Doyle here on Pitch Invasion, and discussed in a bit more detail on the TransGriot blog, the Nigerians claimed at least two of Equatorial Guinea’s players were men (a claim that doesn’t seem to have any evidence other than appearance).  Sadly, these claims seem to get flung around fairly casually in African women’s soccer—in a 2009 story that TransGriot described as “Nigerian Gender Chickens Coming Home To Roost” a Nigerian women’s player was excluded because “while being given her medical exam for the national team they discovered she was intersex.”  These and other events led to the claim that CAF was going to institute ‘gender testing’ before the 2010 championship—something that I’ve not seen any news of since 2009, and suspect fell prey to the realization that ‘gender testing’ in sports is far from an objective scientific process (something particularly loaded in South Africa after last year’s messy Caster Semenya controversy).

So barring the gender bending argument, my best guess is simply that Equatorial Guinea has actually decided to support women’s soccer—possibly as a part of a larger strategy of soccer diplomacy that includes its status as a co-host of the 2012 men’s African Cup of Nations (with Gabon—another oil rich neighbor).  If you’re rich and dictatorial, what better PR boost than good old-fashioned sport success?  Though this is just a guess, it is supported by the silver medal performance of a youth women’s national team from Equatorial Guinea at last summer’s Youth Olympic Games.  How else could a tiny oil dictatorship whose prior athletic fame derived entirely from mocking ‘Eric the Eel’ have turned itself into a presence in African soccer?  And that is not meant only as a rhetorical question—does anyone out there know the whole story?

Other Stories and Legacies

One other curious story from the 2010 African Women’s Championship that may actually get some documentation is the first appearance of Tanzania’s ‘Twiga Stars.’  In fact, the only two films I know of about women’s soccer in Africa are both set in Tanzania: in addition to an excellent 2007 documentary on women’s soccer in Zanzibar (which combined with Tanganyika in 1964 to form the United Republic of Tanzania), it now seems another film-maker has been following the Tanzanian women’s national team (if you’re curious, check out the goal around 1:02 of the trailer—it’s a cracker).  As part of their reward for qualifying the team earned a sponsored trip to Seattle to train and play local teams—ending up with a mixed record against amateur women’s teams from Washington state.  Given their record against the locals in Seattle, the Twiga Stars may not yet be world class on the field—but the fact that they were there at all, and that Tanzania seems to be starting to take women’s soccer seriously, seems well worth documenting.

Ultimately I suspect that each of the eight women’s teams at the African Women’s Championship in South Africa represents many more fascinating stories that we’ll never see.    Even South Africa, with its relatively developed infrastructure and a history of some support for women’s soccer, is struggling to get Banyana Banyana to an international level (at last summer’s U-17 Women’s World Cup South Africa finished the group stage with 2 goals for and 17 against, including a 10-1 drubbing by Germany).  So, as Peter Alegi notes, beyond its limited press attention perhaps the most important question of this particular tournament is: “what will be the impact of this tournament on the development and growth of South African (and African) women’s football at junior, amateur, and elite levels?  This is a crucial question given that the number of female players — mostly black — continues to grow alongside their ongoing marginalization and exclusion in a male-dominated football world.”

Because if the legacy of the South African World Cup isn’t to develop the game at all levels, we’ll not only miss some good soccer stories—we’ll miss good soccer.

At that point, like in a financial crisis, its future depends almost as much on the perception of its future as its actual pragmatic prospects: because if those who invest their money into its survival (owners, sponsors, fans) believe it’s a doomed enterprise, it pretty much is doomed as a consequence of that loss in confidence.

That moment might be coming right now for Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) in the United States, at least judging from the spate of articles this week assessing its current state and future as we head towards the closing stages of its second season. There are two balanced, fair takes on the league out there by Jeff Kassouf and Beau Dure: neither, thankfully, are doomsday pieces, but look carefully at the positive and negative signals out there for us outside WPS’ inner circles to judge the league’s present state on.

There are the obvious alarming facts: attendance is well down (around 15% league-wide), mainstream media coverage is poor, St Louis bailing mid-season was a major blow, and the league is not going to hit its target for 12 teams by 2012 at this rate. The WPS head office recently eliminated several jobs, including New Media Manager, an area the league had excelled in with Amanda Vandervort in that role leading the way. Belts have been tightened considerably everywhere in WPS, and we know the league doesn’t have investors with the deep pockets MLS thankfully had to survive its heavy losses in the early years. AEG stuck with MLS; they walked away from WPS.

Yet there are positives for WPS, too: while walk-up sales are way down on 2009 levels (and it’s worth remembering the major sophomore slump MLS experienced in 1997 as well), season ticket sales are up from 15-20% leaguewide, suggesting WPS is doing a good job in earning fan loyalty. Crucially, there are apparently still interested investors, with Dallas and a return to LA possible for 2012. The Women’s World Cup is next year and that should provide plenty of buzz, presuming WPS is around. WPS games are broadcast on Fox Soccer Channel. Importantly, sponsorship revenue is reportedly up 150% in local markets. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that the quality of the play is damn good.

Given the collapse of the previous women’s professional league, WUSA, who gambled on being big time and lost, WPS sensibly put together a much more cautious business plan for its early days. But at the same time, it’s tough to see the league’s best team and the world’s best player only drawing 3,097 fans a game. WPS is on the ropes, and I really hope they can punch their way out of this: I guess the best we fans can do is to continue to support the league, and believe it’ll pull through, as this venture’s success is vitally important for the future of women’s soccer worldwide.

It also marks the first time the United States has failed to reach the semi-finals of the U-20 Women’s World Cup; despite an outstanding tournament from forward Sydney Leroux, the US team seemed to lack a spark and looked vulnerable at the back in its games.

But the big achievement here is for African women’s football. Ghana were the other African team in the tournament, and acquitted themselves well — they tied 1-1 with the US in their first game, showing an impressive combination of power and skill, the US having to work extremely hard to equalise in the second half. Though Ghana then lost 4-2 to a strong South Korea team, they beat Switzerland 2-0 in their last game to finish third in the group.

Nigeria, meanwhile, tied with both England and Mexico, and beat Japan 2-1 to reach the quarter-final stage, where they will face Colombia and have a very good chance of reaching the semi final stage (incidentally, Colombia became the second South American country to reach the semi-finals of the U-20 Women’s World Cup). Given the mess that is the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) and their management of both men’s and women’s national teams, reaching the semi-finals is all the more impressive for the “Super Falconets” in that context, with a notable lack of financial and administrative support from the NFF.

Still, to the NFF’s credit, the senior Nigeria team has long been the strongest in Africa, one of a handful of countries to reach all five Women’s World Cup tournaments, and dominant in African continental competition. Next summer in Germany, we might well see an African women’s team become the first African team to reach the semi-finals of a senior FIFA World Cup tournament.

And my main question so far is this: what has happened to Brazil women’s soccer?  Brazil crashed out in the first round at this World Cup. Well, to be fair, they didn’t exactly crash out: they came third in a group containing two countries very strong in women’s soccer, Sweden and North Korea (champions of the 2006 U-20 Women’s World Cup, and finalists in 2008).  But their only win came against New Zealand, who lost all three of their games.

This from the country that has produced in recent years Marta, Cristiane and Formiga, to name three of the best women’s players in the world over the past half-decade.

But it appears the development of women’s soccer in Brazil has completely stalled, from the available evidence. At the first U-17 Women’s World Cup held in 2008, Brazil finished bottom of their group, failing to win a game. Brazil did better at the 2008 U-20 Women’s World Cup, topping their group, then losing to a strong German side in the next round. Brazil finished third in 2006. The trend, though, is clearly one that’s gone dramatically downwards for Brazil in youth competition in the past few years.

The senior team, inspired by the remarkable crop of Marta, Cristiane, Formiga, Fabiana et al, had up to 2008 a remarkable record in recent years: silver at both the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games, and second place at the 2007 World Cup. Seven of their 2008 Olympic team currently play in WPS, arguably the world’s leading professional women’s league.

However, it appears that production line is stalling, judging from international youth results. Indeed, the problem perhaps is it’s not really a production line at all: women’s soccer in Brazil lacks any kind of structure, with no national league (hence why so many of their national team plays abroad), and a haphazard method of discovering young talent. And that talent has to overcome a considerable stigma against women participating in soccer, as the well-known story of Marta reminds us, from this interview with her from the New York Times last year:

“I had to do all of it by myself,” she said through a Portuguese interpreter. (She speaks Swedish fluently and, according to her new teammates, is rapidly picking up English.) “There wasn’t anybody for me to follow, or anyone to say to me, These are the steps you must take. First of all, I was almost always the only girl playing with boys in a small town. Some boys accepted me, some didn’t. And my family had comments made to them. Brazil is still a very macho society, and sports are mainly for boys, so people would say to them: What is this girl doing? Why is she always out there in the soccer games with the boys?”

And even Marta, four-time FIFA World Player of the Year, cannot seem to lead change in Brazil, with the authorities remaining resolutely opposed to supporting women’s soccer. As John Turnbull at the Global Game tells us:

Marta and her teammates have been advocating for a Brazilian league, but they are battling institutional inertia and a history that banned soccer for women until 1979. The federal government beginning in the 1980s limited sponsorship opportunities for women and prevented their competitions from being held at athletic grounds, consigning them to, in many cases, the beaches in Rio.

Copacabana Beach, in fact, in 1981 served as the venue for the first women’s tournament. The strongest women’s side through much of the 1980s, Esporte Clube Radar, used the beach as its home ground. Opposition to women playing football has been constant. The challenges range from the physical—Marta reports that her brother hit her when he found she was playing, and BBC columnist Tim Vickery‘s girlfriend says she got similar lashings from her father (BBC Sport, Sept 10)—to the subtly patronizing gender stereotypes that frame women, in the main, as an object of the male gaze or as devoted disciples of home and church.

“Today, when I came into the field, I heard a guy say that I should be at a laundry sink, washing clothes,” said a Radar player in 1984. “But I did not bother to reply to him, although I was angry. My reaction came later, with the ball at my feet.”

Female soccer was banned entirely by law between 1964 and 1975 in Brazil.  Since then, the successful team led by Marta that developed from that point on, culminating in second place at the 2007 Women’s World Cup, ought to have presaged change, one would think: except that the Brazilian national women’s team, as far as I can tell, hasn’t actually played a game for around two years.

To see how poorly the national team is organised and treated in Brazil despite being one of the top three or four in the world, we can look back to a dispute following that 2007 World Cup, where the players felt they weren’t renumerated fairly for their performance that earned the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) almost $1 million in prize money. This resulted in the national team sending a collective letter to the CBF asking for support:

In the World Cup, for example, the Brazilian federation received $850,000 (US) from FIFA for the team’s second-place finish. The players say they are still unaware how much each of them will receive from that amount. The players are also demanding bonus money for their gold-medal finish at the Pan Am Games, which they say they still have not been paid. According to O Globo, it took two years for the 2004 Olympic team players to receive their bonus money for the silver medal at Athens.

The Brazil women are asking for a raise in their daily expense stipend from the current $35 (US) when playing abroad; a restoration of the team cook, a position that was left vacant at the start of the year as a cost-cutting measure (supposedly the absence of typical Brazilian foods like beans while the team were in China lengthened Formiga’s recovery time from leg cramps); and a greater number of matches for the national team, which currently has nothing scheduled until April.

At the conclusion of the letter, the players said that they have fulfilled their duty and have always given the maximum for the national team, Globo reports. The letter ends with the following phrase, in capital letters: “We need support”.

This raises a local and a broader point: more widely, once again there is evidence for why FIFA needs to pay players directly at the World Cup, to ensure they are paid on a fair and timely bass.

The local point is that the CBF, under Ricardo Teixeira’s corrupt leadership, is doing a remarkable disservice to one of the greatest women’s national teams of all time, missing a massive opportunity to use the starpower, skill and style of the likes of Marta to develop women’s soccer domestically in Brazil.

Brazil’s president Lula, following the World Cup pay dispute in 2007, made the same point:

“I think we have to prepare other matches. In other words, these girls can’t play only every four years or play now and then,” he said.

“I think these girls, who are not as valued as they should be by the entities that deal with women’s sports in Brazil, need to raise their heads and know that we are at the beginning a very long process and that they are valued, and have made Brazil proud.”

It appears, three years on, little has changed. Brazil’s top players are abroad; there is no domestic league (a national cup competition, Copa do Brasil de Futebol Feminino, has at least been created, upon FIFA’s request); and the Brazilian women’s national team is essentially disbanded aside from major tournaments. It may well reassemble and perform well at next year’s Women’s World Cup in Germany, given the talent it still has now, but how it will fair in the future given the lack of investment in the sport that is showing at youth international level is seriously open to question. This is a tremendous waste of an opportunity by the CBF (who are, unlike national associations in many countries, more than rich enough to be unable to claim poverty as an excuse for not developing the sport).

There is no doubt women’s soccer in Brazil has made extraordinary progress since the 1970s, when even playing the game was illegal for Brazilian women. Yet at the same time, Brazil risks falling behind the rest of the world as the next Marta still faces an uphill battle to play the game.

Perhaps the more interesting result came in the second game: North Korea defeated Brazil 1-0, a result you might think is quite an upset. But, really, it’s not. North Korea reached the final of the previous U-20Women’s World Cup, losing 2-1 to the United States in the final, and won the previous edition of the competition in 2006, as well as the 2008 FIFA U-17 Women’s  World Cup.

It’s worth taking a brief look at the history of this tournament since it began in 2002 to get a sense of what we can expect in Germany this month.

The tournament has been a bright spot in women’s soccer, since the first final in Edmonton, Canada drew a crowd of 47,784 at Commonwealth Stadium to see the home team go down 1-0 to the United States in September 2002. That crowd was no aberration: much like the 1999 Women’s World Cup that saw the US draw 90,185 fans to the Rose Bowl for the final, the home crowd got behind their team, 37,194 watching the semi-final as Canada defeated Brazil on penalty kicks, Chrstine Sinclair playing a starring role and a young Marta on view in Commonwealth Stadium.

The decision to stage games at Commonwealth Stadium, a vast venue in Edmonton built for the 1978 Commonwealth Games, was controversial: FIFA officials, visiting in 2001, had warned games would be played to an empty venue. But though some games were poorly attended, Commonwealth Stadium averaged a healthy 19,841 per game. Considerably smaller crowds attended smaller venues in Vancouver and Victoria, but an overall average of 11,351 per game for the duration of the competition far surpassed FIFA’s expectations.

That, again, was an echo of 1999: FIFA had wanted the Women’s World Cup games to be played at small venues on the east coast of the United States, but the American organising committee, gutsily led by Marla Messing, went for huge stadia and the decision paid-off: it felt like a big event, and became a big event.

Similarly, that 2002 U-19 Women’s World Cup in Canada, featuring 12 teams, received extensive local media coverage  according to FIFA’s technical report. The final was watched by almost 1 million viewers on Canada’s Sportsnet station. Not unimportantly, the tournament also provided vital experience for young referees: 12 female referees and 12 assistants from 20 countries officiated the 26 games, most of them making their debuts in official FIFA competition. Only two red cards were issued in the entire tournament.

The next U-19 Women’s World Cup was held in Thailand in November 2004, won by Germany, adding that title to their Women’s World Cup win the previous year in the United States, and pre-cursing their second senior world title in 2007. As in 2002, attendance was very strong for the host nation’s games, with 40,000 attending Thailand’s opener: though unfortunately, they faced Germany, and were thumped 6-0. Thailand was clearly not ready for this level of competition, losing their next game 7-0 to Canada, and their tournament ending with a 5-0 defeat to Australia. This is surely the worst performance by a host nation in the history of FIFA competition. Still, the crowds for the latter stages were decent, with 23,000 attending the final, Germany beating China 2-0. Brazil were eliminated at the semi-final stage, but Marta still took home the Golden Ball for best player. An overall average attendance of 11,089 was a positive.

The 2006 U-20 Women’s World Cup saw it move to a third different continent, hosted by Russia, and it would feature a surprising winner, with North Korea taking their first FIFA trophy: though perhaps that shouldn’t be considered a surprise, as the North Koreans had been dominating Asian competition in recent years. Indeed, the rapid development of women’s soccer in Asia as a whole, seen in the history of the U-20 tournament, is a remarkable story.

The age limit for the World Cup had been raised by one year to make it a U-20 event, with FIFA also instituting a U-17 FIFA Women’s World Cup, beginning play in 2008. The tournament was also expanded to 16 teams. Interestingly, the average age of players was almost exactly the same as in 2004 (18 years and 11 months), despite the new age limit. The tournament was a bit of a disappointment; European teams were weakened by it nearly coinciding with the UEFA U-19 competition, and attendance was extremely poor, barely reaching four figures for most games.

The hosts, Russia, went out at the quarter-final stage to China. The final between China and North Korea, the first between two Asian teams in global FIFA competition, was unfortunately a mudbath, played in pelting rain. According to the official report, the players were “enveloped in mud”, but “the Koreans, however, were not deterred by the conditions in the slightest and they attacked relentlessly with great determination.” The Koreans crushed the Chinese 5-0 in front of 8,500 soaked spectators. Curiously, no North Korean was named in FIFA’s top three players of the tournament, China’s Xiaoxu Ma taking the Golden Ball. Overall, with an average crowd of just 1,644 per game and a total of 52,630 spectators for the entire tournament, the U-20 Women’s World Cup had taken something of a step back.

Chile, 2008 U-20 Women’s World Cup host, presented a much greater success: the tournament saw more goals than ever (3.5 goals per game), and a decent enough average of 6,749 fans per game. More importantly, the host nation used the tournament as a springboard for women’s soccer in Chile, now in strong shape (one of its clubs, Everton, came fourth in the first Women’s Copa Libertadores staged in 2009). The Chilean government, then led by Michelle Bachelet, affirmed its support of the competition by rebuilding four stadia for the event and by supporting a new league championship for women. Unfortunately, results did not go well for Chile, losing all three games and exiting at the group stage, but the seeds were sown for future growth: surely the point of the competition existing. The United States won the U-20 Women’s World Cup for the first time since 2002, defeating the defending champions North Korea in the final 2-1 in front of 12,000 fans.

That brings us to 2010, and the tournament in Germany, which has a particular importance with the senior Women’s World Cup to be held there in 2011. Strong crowds and interest in this U-20 competition could presage what should be the most successful Women’s World Cup in terms of global media attention and attendance since USA ’99, given the strength of women’s soccer in Germany and the lack of any major competing global competitions next summer.

Big Story

There’s a pretty good chance that you know Olympique Lyonnais are playing today in the UEFA Champion’s League semi-final against Bayern Munich.

You may not also know that Lyon’s women’s team are also playing in their UEFA Champion’s League semi-final this Saturday, against Swedish giants Umeå IK.

As UEFA reports, this gives Lyon the chance to make history:

No club has won both premier European competitions, the closest being Arsenal FC, whose female team won the old UEFA Women’s Cup in 2007 12 months after the men lost to FC Barcelona in Paris. Arsenal, thanks to their 1994 UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup win, are the only club with European men’s and female honours, while FC Bayern München’s bid to win the newly-introduced UEFA Women’s Champions League this season was ended by Montpellier Hérault SC in the round of 16.

Lyon’s success in women’s football is largely down to some serious investment by the club, as UEFA’s report continues:

Lyon’s success is the vision of club president Jean-Michel Aulas. The women share sponsorship with the men and are part of the same marketing strategy with identical goals – to succeed in France and in Europe. The women even play their biggest games at Stade de Gerland, sch as the Umeå fixture, attracting as many as 12,000 fans.

Farid Benstiti, who coaches the female side, said: “Women’s football owes a lot to Olympique Lyonnais. The president wants a great women’s team. And we all have to try harder to succeed in this aim. We’re all thrilled about this goal. On top of that we are handed the resources to reach the top. We just have to win titles.”

This approach, with the women’s team’s  success seemingly tied to and dependent on the men’s side of the club, is a marked difference from their opponents, Sweden’s Umeå IK (Marta’s former team), who have twice won the UEFA Champion’s League.

Umeå IK are an independent club,  but their enormous success over the past decade seems to have come from over-stretching their means, as Nedved’s Notes explains: along with Marta, three other of their top players have moved to WPS, signing for the Atlanta Beat.

Although Umeå IK have been beating all comers for most of the last decade, things have not been going so well lately. The Brazilian superstar Marta left at the end of 2008 to play in the inaugural season of the WPS for the Los Angeles Sol. That was not good, but Marta’s departure was overshadowed by enormous financial problems that almost killed off the club entirely.

Umeå IK’s general manager, Britta Åkerlund, recently revealed how badly the situation had deteriorated in a recent press release: ‘A few months into this job I realized that the club had lived beyond his means for a long time. Just in time for Christmas [2008], we had to choose who would receive pay and who should be without… The focus of my work since then has been much about economics, or rather the lack of finances…In September [2009] the economic troubles culminated when the whole club’s existence was at stake.’

Of course, the same can be said of many men’s clubs in Europe as well, less well-run themselves.

But can independent women’s clubs succeed?  Well, WPS is doing pretty well so far (with sponsorship up significantly this year on 2009), and that approach would seem to be the best guarantee of the long-term future for any women’s team if it proves to be a sustainable league.

We have seen in England many times successful women’s teams that are part of originally men’s clubs fold when the latter gets into financial trouble; as their own clubs, WPS teams can build their identities, support and sponsorship not dependent on the men’s team. Or is Lyon’s approach, where the women’s side seems to be more intricately tied into and promoted as part of the club, also an attractive possibility for real partnership?

In some ways, the match-up between Umeå IK and Lyon is a match-up of two different approaches to the future of the women’s game.

Quick Hits

• The surprising resignation of the Scottish Football Association chief executive Gordon Smith is analysed at the Scotsman, looking at the end of a long and difficult tenure for a reformer unable to reform the Scottish game.
• European Football Weekend’s looks inside Napoli’s fractious, passionate ultras culture.
• What does regular season dominance actually mean in MLS?

The Sweeper appears daily. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.

Where do American soccer players come from?  The simple answer is California.  The more complicated answer offers an intriguing chance for the amateur cultural geographer in me to analyze the rosters of American professional teams—something I did a few weeks ago prior to the MLS season to consider the state of the men’s game, and something I’m doing this week on the women’s side as a nod to the start of the Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) season.

The idea is that knowing where elite players come from offers a thought-provoking, if imperfect, picture of how the game works for different types of people and places.  In this case the general picture suggests some similarities in the geography for male and female American players, but also highlights the peculiar demographics of soccer in the US.

When I analyzed the MLS rosters I suggested four key factors in men’s player production: population, climate, soccer culture, and immigrants.  After looking at the WPS roster it strikes me that for women’s player production I have to swap ‘social class’ for ‘immigrants’ in that equation; American women’s soccer seems disproportionately represented by players from relatively wealthy suburban areas, while relatively underrepresented by players that are first or second generation immigrants.

Take Connecticut for example.  The state with the highest per capita income in the US also has the highest per capita women’s player production of any US state (by my calculation there are 6 WPS players from among Connecticut’s 3.5 million people).  On the MLS side, in contrast, all Connecticut has to offer is the Revolution’s Pat Phelan (and even he was born in Houston and went to prep school in Massachusetts).  Certainly socio-economic status is not the only thing going on in Connecticut; there might well be some kind of ‘Kristine Lilly’ effect, for example, where her impressive longevity and prominence has inspired her younger fellow Connecticuters.  But across my analysis there are suggestions that opportunities in women’s soccer are based on a combination of class and culture that probably limits the American game.

But I’ll explain my analysis more first and let you interpret the data for yourselves.  And then I’ll explain a bit more about what I think it all means.

As when I looked at MLS rosters a few weeks ago, the goal here was to identify where players spent their formative years.  But what does “formative” mean for a soccer player?  I’m going teen years (pre-college) on the logic that it is during that stage of life when people decide whether to fully commit to the game.  I realize, however, that an argument could be made for other stages.

I suspect, for example, that college is particularly important for women’s player production—more so than for men.  Whereas MLS rosters are loaded with teenagers who never bothered with college, or players who went for a year or two, the American contingent of WPS players almost all played four years of college soccer.  In fact, the only teenager in WPS is Swiss import Ramona Bachmann—who turns twenty in December.  In age, and in other ways, WPS American players are more homogeneous than the American players in MLS (there are, for example, only seven American players in WPS over age 30).

Nevertheless, because college programs are often more of a geographical mish-mash, the focus here is on states and metropolitan areas as hubs for youth development in American women’s soccer.  It was somewhat easier to find that data for WPS players than it was for MLS players both because the WPS web-site is much more informative and because there are fewer women’s players.  Using the WPS list of players as of 2010 opening day, and cross-checking with college player profiles and with Wikipedia, I ended up with a spreadsheet of where 137 American players in WPS spent their adolescence.  As I noted when looking at the men’s players, I’m sure I got a few minor details wrong—but with large enough numbers the statistical inferences can still be right.

By State

As with the men’s side, players from California seem to predominate in American women’s soccer.  I count 33 Californians in WPS (of which 24 are from ‘Cal South’ – either greater Los Angeles or greater San Diego), with Illinois second among US states at 10 and New Jersey third at 9.  Of course, California is also the most populous US state (with about 36.5 million people), so in some ways it is more interesting to consider how other big states do not seem to be producing proportionate numbers of players.  I was surprised to find, for example, that Texas only has 5 players in WPS despite being the second most populous US state (with about 23.5 million in population), while Florida only has 4 players in WPS despite being the fourth most populous (with about 18 million people).

The other states in the top 5 of population do a bit better despite much less soccer-friendly weather: New York State has produced 8 players from just over 19 million people, while Illinois has 10 players from 13 million.  Those are ratios are not bad on a relative basis, but they are lower than the other, smaller, states with the highest women’s player production per capita:

• Connecticut: 6 players, 3.5 million people
• Hawaii: 2 players, 1.3 million people
• Colorado: 6 players, 4.7 million people
• New Jersey: 10 players, 8.7 million people

On the other side of things, the largest states to produce no players include:

• Tennessee (pop. 6 million)
• Kentucky (pop. 4.2 million)
• Oklahoma (pop. 3.6 million)
• Iowa (pop. 3 million)
• Mississippi (pop. 3 million)

On a per capita basis, of the states that have produced at least one player, the least productive seem to be:

• Maryland (1 player from 5.6 million people)
• Minnesota (1 player from 5.2 million people)
• Michigan (2 players from 10 million people)
• Texas (5 players from 23.5 million people)
• Georgia (2 players from 9.4 million people)
• Florida (4 players from 18 million people)

By Metropolitan Area

In US Youth Soccer state associations matter, but for club soccer purposes much of the competition level is based upon metropolitan areas—players from New Jersey and Connecticut often depend more on playing in the greater New York area than in their home states, just as players from Northern Virginia and Maryland depend on greater Baltimore-Washington DC.  And from that perspective, being expansive in defining the reach of such metropolitan areas, the New York area seems to be about average with 18 WPS players from 22 million in population while the DC agglomeration has only 3 WPS players from 8.3 million (the greater Baltimore-Washington area did much better for men’s players with 12).

Nevertheless, on a per capita basis the East Coast metropolitan areas still don’t compete with other parts of the country:

• San Diego has produced 7 players with 3 million in population
• Denver (including Colorado Springs and Fort Collins) has produced 6 players with 3 million in population
• Birmingham, Alabama has 2 players with 1.2 million in population
• Indianapolis has 3 players with 2 million in population

It may be worth noting here that Denver is the only metropolitan area to be in the top five for both men’s and the women’s player production per capita.  Though I wouldn’t have thought of Colorado as America’s soccer hotbed, by my calculations as of 2010 Denver seems to win the title of per capita US soccer capital.

On the other side of things the most notable big metropolitan areas with few WPS players include Houston (with 1 player from almost 6 million in population), Atlanta (with 2 players from almost 6 million), and the Florida cities (Tampa and Orlando have produced one player each despite each being around 3 million in population, while Miami – Fort Lauderdale has produced two from 5.5 million).  At risk of pandering to stereotypes, it does seem as though living in the American South is not a good thing for women’s players.

In fact, while North Carolina is certainly not the “Deep South” it does offer an interesting example when contrasting male and female player production.  In my analysis of men’s player production North Carolina was impressive: both the greater Raleigh – Durham area and the Greensboro – Winston-Salem area were among the national leaders in player production per capita, and Charlotte had one or two.  But on the women’s side only Raleigh – Durham represents (with 2 WPS players from 1.8 million people); the one other WPS player from the state of North Carolina grew up in the Ashville area.  That also means that the Charlotte area, with zero players from 2.3 million people, seems to be the largest metropolitan area in the US without any WPS players.

The rest of the poorly represented metropolitan areas are not all in the South; places such as Minneapolis-St. Paul (with 1 player from 3.5 million) and Detroit (with 2 players from 5.3 million) also have low per capita ratios.  But for those places the same was true on the men’s side and it seems more easily attributable to Minnesota and Michigan weather.  For places such as Memphis Tennessee (which is home to 3 MLS players, but zero WPS players) or Dallas Texas (which is home to 11 MLS players, but only 3 in WPS) it seems more relevant to ask questions about local sport cultures: are girls and women being given the same opportunities to play?

Equal Opportunity?

Ultimately I suspect opportunity is the key variable in any analysis of patterns in American player development.  On both the men’s and women’s side of things, soccer in the US is still disproportionately (though certainly not exclusively) an expensive suburban sport.  While there are many players from the greater Chicago, New York, LA areas, for example, there are virtually no players from within the actual city limits.

This seems even more pronounced on the women’s side than on the men’s side; for the women’s game a suburban bias is compounded by factors including: a greater emphasis in the women’s game on college as a route to going pro (with college disproportionately accessible to children from middle and upper class families), a lesser emphasis on women’s soccer in immigrant families, and lingering stereotypes both about gender norms and about who plays women’s soccer.

Still, by highlighting the seeming social class issues in American women’s player production I don’t mean to undermine the talent and hard work of contemporary players: regardless of where WPS players grew up, and regardless of the opportunities they have had, at an individual level all of them have earned a place and their skill is a joy to be appreciated.  Becoming an elite player always requires a combination of opportunity, talent, and hard work.  But at a national level anyone who cares about American soccer, for which success depends upon a broad and diverse base, would do well to keep in mind something else that requires hard work: creating truly equal opportunities.

(Note: As with the men’s analysis, there ended up being too many specific locales and names to list each individually—but I now have most of them in my spreadsheet.  So if anyone is curious about other specific places, players, and proportions, feel free to leave a comment with any queries and I will try to respond)

Big Story

The Football Association’s long and troubled effort to launch a professional summer women’s league has moved a step closer to actually happening: about a year from launch, they have announced the eight teams who will make up the league, out of 16 applicants. They are: Arsenal LFC, Birmingham City LFC, Bristol Academy WFC, Chelsea LFC, Doncaster Rovers Belles, Everton, Lincoln LFC and Liverpool LFC.

If we take a look at the current elite level of English women’s football, the FA Premier League, we will find a noticeable omission: Sunderland sit atop the standings currently (albeit second-placed Arsenal have plenty of games in-hand on them), but were not chose for the new Super League. Also missing from the Super League are fellow Premier League teams Nottingham Forest and Millwall.

Forest’s chief executive Mark Arthur expressed his disappointment: “When you are launching a new product,” he said, “you should surely include the biggest brands.” Arthur made his feelings plain: “”The application and decision-making processes were not satisfactory. We’ve done so much for the women’s game in recent years, yet we weren’t even granted an interview to explain our submission.”

Sunderland will be equally disappointed, if not surprised: word leaked last month that they would not make the final cut, leaving the north-east of England unrepresented in the Super League. Last month, Sunderland boss Maurice Alderson said that “”With the help of Sunderland FC, we put in a very strong bid and not for one moment did I think we wouldn’t get in. We’re top of the league, we reached last season’s FA Cup final and we’ve got nine current internationals at various age levels. To have all that on top of a bid backed by a Premiership club and get turned down is devastating. We’ve been kicked in the teeth.”

Without knowing the details of each application, it’s impossible to say if any of those clubs simply failed to meet the basic criteria the FA laid down or not.

Lincoln City were the surprise inclusion, with their rather interesting logo. They have an impressively ambitious statement on their website today looking forward to the future, including the Super League’s television deal with ESPN.

Since the inception of Lincoln Ladies F.C. it has been the club’s main aim, and indeed its main priority, to play at the highest level of women’s football.

This is the first time in the history of the city of Lincoln that a football club from the city will play in the highest league and at the highest level. It fills us all at Lincoln Ladies with great pride that it is our club that has delivered this fantastic prize and all the possibilities that go with it to the city, and to the people of Lincoln.

From the outset, we must stress that Lincoln Ladies will not be content with just making up the numbers in this new elite league. Rather we will strive, as we always have, to be champions of England, and we will now also look towards success for our club in European competition.

We will endeavour to build the strongest squad possible, which will include some players who presently play for us and also world class players who we hope to bring in from outside, to enable our club to achieve the success it craves, and to give the people of Lincoln a women’s football club they can be really proud of.

The Super League will be played in Summer, which of course means our supporters can enjoy watching our games in beautiful weather, warm sunny afternoons and balmy evenings, with all the benefits this will bring, enabling our club to make each football match a fantastic enjoyable and memorable experience.

It’s a real shame that the sporting success of Sunderland hasn’t been recognised, but the ambition and enthusiasm of a club like Lincoln does bode well for the Super League.

Quick Hits

• Ridge Mahoney sums up MLS’ new labor deal, as all sweetness and light now pours forth from the players, league and owners: “For 2010, the salary cap will be $2.55 million per team (it was $2.32 million in 2009) and the minimum salary for non-developmental players is $40,000 ($34,000 in 2009). Each will increase at a basic five percent per year, though for older players the minimum will be greater. At that growth rate, the salary cap will be approximately $3.1 million in the final year of the CBA, and the minimum will be slightly more than $46,000.”  Personally, it seems to me to be a score draw given the positions each side came from.
• Tim Vickery on a welcome sight, Uruguayan football (back) on the rise: “If it can keep grooming technically gifted players then this country of just 3.4m people will continue to punch above its weight on the football field – and that, surely, is a better course of action than punching below the belt.”

The Sweeper appears daily. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.