Thorns Player Makes National Team!

[Unregistered]

Bingo!

GDA is run in smoke and mirrors. Thorns have never produced a pro player. Thorns coaches have far from produced a pro player.

You've got coaches with the thorns academy that have never even developed a successful youth team. And for some reason it's about a pathway to pros? ***?

It's about money and control. Period.

I think you took someone's sarcastic comment about pathway to the pros too literally.

I think most of us (ECNL, DA, TA, etc...) don't believe going to the Thorns Academy is a pathway to the pros. It is just another option for players that don't want to do ECNL.

[Unregistered]

I think you took someone's sarcastic comment about pathway to the pros too literally.

I think most of us (ECNL, DA, TA, etc...) don't believe going to the Thorns Academy is a pathway to the pros. It is just another option for players that don't want to do ECNL.

I think you're mistaken. I personally know six girls on the U17/18 (01/02) team who genuinely believe they need to be on Thorns GDA to make the pros. Every one of these players is from an upper middle class family (Caribbean vacations, driving the latest and fanciest cars, luxury homes), yet is getting a soccer subsidy from the Thorns parent club. Meanwhile the actual pro players are living on as little as $15,000/year salary. This makes no sense. If a player has a documented financial need they absolutely should be subsidized (although the dirty little secret is those players will most likely never make a GDA team because they can't afford the pay to play RTC/ODP path).
-
Don't believe me? Google Keelin (Winters) Pattillo - former national team player and Reign captain for four years. She made as little as $6,600/year before the league minimum was generously increased to $15,000/year. She retired in 2016 having topped out at 30,000/year. Try living in Seattle on that salary and see how your quality of life is? But the Reign and Thorns and other NWSL clubs tied to GDA programs would rather subsidize 15 year olds whose parents drop them off at practice in a Mercedes SUV. Again, does this make any kind of sense?

[Unregistered]

I think you're mistaken. I personally know six girls on the U17/18 (01/02) team who genuinely believe they need to be on Thorns GDA to make the pros. Every one of these players is from an upper middle class family (Caribbean vacations, driving the latest and fanciest cars, luxury homes), yet is getting a soccer subsidy from the Thorns parent club. Meanwhile the actual pro players are living on as little as $15,000/year salary. This makes no sense. If a player has a documented financial need they absolutely should be subsidized (although the dirty little secret is those players will most likely never make a GDA team because they can't afford the pay to play RTC/ODP path).
-
Don't believe me? Google Keelin (Winters) Pattillo - former national team player and Reign captain for four years. She made as little as $6,600/year before the league minimum was generously increased to $15,000/year. She retired in 2016 having topped out at 30,000/year. Try living in Seattle on that salary and see how your quality of life is? But the Reign and Thorns and other NWSL clubs tied to GDA programs would rather subsidize 15 year olds whose parents drop them off at practice in a Mercedes SUV. Again, does this make any kind of sense?

You seem a little envious of those that are more successful than you'll ever be.

[Unregistered]

Here is what Americans think about women's soccer:
Average attendance this year - 5,000
On 8/16 there was a whopping 428 people that watched Kansas play the Thorns

I love the fact my daughters education is being subsidized by soccer, but playing Pro soccer for women will not have staying power

League attendance actually declined 10% this year over 2016. And it will decline again next year. And then it will be zero.

[Unregistered]

You seem a little envious of those that are more successful than you'll ever be.

Sure. That's it. Dismiss valid concerns with "you're just jealous."

[Unregistered]

League attendance actually declined 10% this year over 2016. And it will decline again next year. And then it will be zero.

Extremely doubtful. Attendance was actually up at several venues. Venues where it was down, like Kansas City, will probably sell and relocate. This type of change is nothing new to a growing sports league. Some locations will simply be more supportive than others. Despite your obvious disdain, women’s soccer is here to stay. Whether you approve of the Thorns or not, we should all be applauding their efforts to offer a subsidized competitive program for our female youth.

[Unregistered]

I think you're mistaken. I personally know six girls on the U17/18 (01/02) team who genuinely believe they need to be on Thorns GDA to make the pros. Every one of these players is from an upper middle class family (Caribbean vacations, driving the latest and fanciest cars, luxury homes), yet is getting a soccer subsidy from the Thorns parent club. Meanwhile the actual pro players are living on as little as $15,000/year salary. This makes no sense. If a player has a documented financial need they absolutely should be subsidized (although the dirty little secret is those players will most likely never make a GDA team because they can't afford the pay to play RTC/ODP path).
-
Don't believe me? Google Keelin (Winters) Pattillo - former national team player and Reign captain for four years. She made as little as $6,600/year before the league minimum was generously increased to $15,000/year. She retired in 2016 having topped out at 30,000/year. Try living in Seattle on that salary and see how your quality of life is? But the Reign and Thorns and other NWSL clubs tied to GDA programs would rather subsidize 15 year olds whose parents drop them off at practice in a Mercedes SUV. Again, does this make any kind of sense?

Why do you feel a need to subsidize Keelin's salary. She already had her education subsidized. She has moved on and is working on her career outside of soccer. We all make choices. The quality of life comment is dependent on the individual. Some choose to play soccer for less material wealth while others prefer the material wealth. It is what is important to you.

The subsidy that you are talking about for the Thorns is not really a subsidy. It is something that they needed to do to get the players. The Reign DA players are paying $10K per year. The decision to subsidize the DA or not is a business decision. There is more money generated from youth soccer than women's professional soccer.

Get more people to go to NWSL games and generate more demand if you want players to get paid more.

[Unregistered]

Sure. That's it. Dismiss valid concerns with "you're just jealous."

Why is it so important to subsidize a group of women to play soccer when they are well equipped to earn more money in another profession.

[Unregistered]

Extremely doubtful. Attendance was actually up at several venues. Venues where it was down, like Kansas City, will probably sell and relocate. This type of change is nothing new to a growing sports league. Some locations will simply be more supportive than others. Despite your obvious disdain, women’s soccer is here to stay. Whether you approve of the Thorns or not, we should all be applauding their efforts to offer a subsidized competitive program for our female youth.

The product is not entertaining. The skill levels are not high enough. The games look just like HS games - all bootball all the time. That's why no one watches.

[Unregistered]

Here is what Americans think about women's soccer:
Average attendance this year - 5,000
On 8/16 there was a whopping 428 people that watched Kansas play the Thorns

I love the fact my daughters education is being subsidized by soccer, but playing Pro soccer for women will not have staying power

At $8 per ticket that is about $3424 in revenue. After paying the ticket takers, security, the janitor to mop out the locker room, the referees, trainer, and the guys to clean up after, there's not much left over. About $1200 to spread between players and coaches for both teams. 32 players, 6 coaches that's about $31 each. Not bad for three hours. Better than minimum wage. Wait, you need to pay for the bus, driver, and hotel. So it's a negative.

[Unregistered]

At $8 per ticket that is about $3424 in revenue. After paying the ticket takers, security, the janitor to mop out the locker room, the referees, trainer, and the guys to clean up after, there's not much left over. About $1200 to spread between players and coaches for both teams. 32 players, 6 coaches that's about $31 each. Not bad for three hours. Better than minimum wage. Wait, you need to pay for the bus, driver, and hotel. So it's a negative.

If you go without referees and have the players take tickets, mop up the locker rooms and clean the park after, you can maybe break even.

[Unregistered]

If you Don't Like Timbers Monetizing Youth Soccer

Than don't buy their tickets.

Alliance DOC pointed out to me that these people from Lake O and FC bitch about the Timbers; then turnaround and go to their games.

He makes a good point.

[Unregistered]

League attendance actually declined 10% this year over 2016. And it will decline again next year. And then it will be zero.

Yeah. Zero. LOL. 2017 lags by what? A whopping 476 down average (5,558 in 2016, 5052 in 2017) or 8.6%. Factor in weather events, rescheduled games, youth soccer game conflict, but most importantly, sounds like flawed marketing for specific teams. NY's team moves to NC and ups its average attendance. The commission is looking at the PDX model to determine how to help some of the struggling teams.

Yes, the Thorns have generated about 30% of the total attendance numbers for the entire league. Portland office is also jerking season ticket holders. They post $275 a seat for the touchline online, but then jack the price up to $300 a seat with the explanation that those tickets are a hot commodity for them right now, so they are justified to do so. Gonna piss of a lot of people next year.

BTW, FC Barca expansion possibly California dreamin' looking to be a reality instead in 2018 or 2019.

[Unregistered]

Why is it so important to subsidize a group of women to play soccer when they are well equipped to earn more money in another profession.

Valid question. Why is it so important to subsidize upper middle class youth and pay for soccer that their parents can clearly afford? Wouldn't those dollars be better spent at the youngest levels of youth soccer, instead of expecting poor families to go through years of pay to play club, RTC and ODP, with the possible payoff of cheap GDA soccer? It's almost like making soccer more affordable and reaching the poor kids priced out by club soccer isn't the true goal of GDA...

[Unregistered]

Valid question. Why is it so important to subsidize upper middle class youth and pay for soccer that their parents can clearly afford? Wouldn't those dollars be better spent at the youngest levels of youth soccer, instead of expecting poor families to go through years of pay to play club, RTC and ODP, with the possible payoff of cheap GDA soccer? It's almost like making soccer more affordable and reaching the poor kids priced out by club soccer isn't the true goal of GDA...

I agree with you.

I don’t think it was so much the Thorns subsidizing middle class players, but trying to gain an advantage in getting some better players.

They barely had enough players tryout with the incentives