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?

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.

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.

Regardless, there seemed to be plenty to talk about in the game, especially from a US perspective. I don’t usually pay much attention to half-time shows, but given I am no expert on the state of women’s youth soccer, I was curious to hear what the studio experts would have to say about the game.

Immediately after the commercial break, they began talking about the lack of talented players coming through in the US system– I had missed the intro, but my ears perked up, curious to hear about what was happening in US youth development. Had there been a lull since 1999? Was the rest of the world simply catching up? What was WPS’ role in all this?

Except it soon became apparent they were talking about the US men’s national team.

Jennifer Doyle has said all this already too, in the context of the now infamous Nike commercial celebrating the US success in South Africa that features no female fans (about which she makes a related point worth reading).

At the half, incredibly, Ghana led 1-0.  The US looked disorganized against a scrappy team playing a ragged defense which nevertheless seemed to neutralize the US’s attacks. Were viewers allowed to enjoy a discussion exploring how the heavily favored US gave up a goal, and failed to equalize, in spite of what seemed like a dozen shots? No – instead we got a lame discussion of the state of the men’s game in the US.  For real. It was infuriating. I would have settled for a discussion of the senior squad’s draw against Sweden the previous day.  But a tired, worn out and totally half-ass debate about what the US men’s game needs?  Really?

I spent the day imagining what it would be like if we heard about the WNBA during NBA matches, how the women’s league was doing during EPL broadcasts, and if we were offered a history lesson on the suppression of women’s baseball during the All-Star game. It would be amazing.

Representations of female athleticism, of the accomplishments of women’s teams, are so few, so rare that girls must look to people like Landon Donovan for inspiration – he’s a LOT easier to see on TV than Sydney Leroux (who scored the second half equalizer today).  Girl players look up to him and his teammates, even though they aren’t nearly as competitive internationally as the women’s squad.  They should admire Donovan, Howard, Gooch, Dempsey et all.  They are great players. And they should admire Leroux, Rodriguez, Wambaugh, Solo, Kai and their teammates too.

Girls who support the sport should never be squeezed out of the frame – unless the intention is to give them a jump on mastering the art of self-erasure.

Even though Jennifer has already said it more smartly than I can, I wanted to mention this too as a fan of soccer. Perhaps executives at ESPN presume a male fan like myself would turn the channel if the half-time discussion wasn’t about men’s soccer. But then: why the hell would I be watching in the first place?  At the very least, when I watch a women’s soccer game (or, more to the point, any soccer game), I expect the discussion at half-time to focus on the actual game being broadcast.  Please.

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.

It’s certainly true that many people think it will fail, as its predecessor the WUSA did. I can give you one reason why it won’t — the people who run it realise they have to earn your interest in it.

Peter Wilt, the Chicago Fire’s popular former GM and President who oversaw the club winning the Double (MLS and Open Cups) in their inaugural year, is heading the WPS team in the Windy City. Read his words, for in fact they would be well-heeded by all executives running soccer clubs in this country regardless of the gender of their players:

On the topic of excuses, the Women’s Professional Soccer Town Hall at the NSCAA Convention seemed to be full of them as panelists tried to explain why the WUSA didn’t survive and WPS will. The most popular one was “It’s the media’s fault”. That excuse was phrased a dozen different ways in the 90 minute forum. Suffice to say that room 338 at the Baltimore Convention Center was not a safe place for Barbaro, Sea Biscuit, Whirlaway or any other dead horse. We can not blame others for any lack of exposure and attendance. It is the responsibility of the League and its member teams to reach out to our audiences in other ways – new media and grassroots direct marketing – to connect our League and teams with people who are already emotionally and economically connected to the sport.

The other theme seemed to be the social cause of gender equity. You’ve heard the argument, “You must support this league, BECAUSE it’s a women’s sport and our daughters are entitled to role models and a place to play when they grow up.” I’m sorry, but that is NOT a solid basis to support any league or sport. It may be a convenient byproduct of a women’s pro sports league, but it is not a primary reason why anyone should attend WPS games. WPS will provide competitive, entertaining games featuring the best women’s soccer teams in the world at a fair price – THAT is the reason this League should be supported.

Photo credit: century council