Dan Borislow won part of his case in Florida, with the court saying WPS improperly terminated his magicJack team while reserving judgment on “irreparable harm” and other issues of the case. A hearing on Jan. 18 will address the rest. (Skip toward the full circuit court ruling if you like.)
This evening, WPS released a statement from CEO Jennifer O’Sullivan:
“We are extremely disappointed with the court’s findings and will consider our legal options. Mr. Borislow’s abusive behavior and blatant disregard for League rules were a clear breach of contract and led to the Boards’ dismissal of magicJack as a franchise. His statements and actions negatively impacted the league’s business including efforts to attract expansion teams and sponsors, jeopardized player safety and threatened the very integrity of the League.
“WPS owners took several measures to rectify the situation before making the difficult decision to dismiss Mr. Borislow from the League. If the court rules to reinstate the franchise, my fear is that ownership will seriously consider folding the League, thus ending professional soccer for women in the United States.”
No one else has commented today (not to my knowledge, at least — please let me know otherwise), but in checking with several teams, it appears Friday’s draft is still set to go on as scheduled.
They pretty much have to move along as scheduled, if they don’t doesn’t that show a lack of confidence in their case? I sincerely hope they wouldn’t do anything so rash as to fold the league. Would they want that to be their soccer legacy, because ultimately it would be up to them. I don’t think Dan would come out as the biggest bad guy.
My question is why the league isn’t suing for all of the reasons the CEO listed above. In fact, it looks odd that they aren’t.
[...] Just when you thought WPS was in the clear to move forward with five teams, there is further drama in the WPS-Dan Borislow court case. Monday’s Palm Beach County Circuit Court ruling is a small victory for Borislow, the former magicJack team owner, but it could be the start of a big problem for the league. If Borislow wins his case for reinstatement, it could be the end of WPS. To repeat, the league could fold if Borislow re-enters. That is according to Beau Dure, who obtained this statement from WPS CEO Jennifer O’Sullivan: [...]
I don’t know if this statement is designed to sway the judge, but it’s important to note that WPS has already said something similar in court. See the sixth paragraph of my espnW story for a quote straight from WPS’s filings in response to Borislow’s motion from November.
The hearing next week is on irreparable harm. The league’s argument seems apparent (though there’s no other documentation to confirm it): If Borislow loses, he has no team. If he wins, there’s no league; therefore, no team. Either way, no team. So no harm.
I have no idea what this judge will make of that argument, of course. Or if Borislow’s attorneys will be able to argue that it’s all a bluff.
I think it’s ridiculous that the league is threatening to take its ball and go home if the judge doesn’t rule in their favor. I hope the judge asks, incredulously, “So what you’re saying is if I require you to adhere to your own bylaws, you’re going to fold the league, and that’s why I shouldn’t rule in Mr. Borislow’s favor? That’s the best argument you have?”
I hate that this is taking place the same week as the draft and the same time as some exciting/interesting/fun signings are being made around the league. They just can’t seem to get out of their own way, can they?
Of course Dan is suing to make them enforce the bylaws, but he broke the bylaws by suing in a Florida court. Florida being the completely corrupt place it is chose to allow the case to go forward.
The other owners are doing a good job of making the court think they are the irrational ones. Its not the courts fromblem nor is it Mr. Borlislows if the other owners threaten to take their ball and go home. The court has to try to be fair and rule by the law whether the franchise termination was justified and legal or not.
Sadly, I thought Dan would do well in court. I don’t know what the provisions were for terminating a franchise but the decision by the WPS to do it seemed extreme to me.
Just to take a rational look at it from the owners perspective. Assume you are an owner from day one – you’ve lost approximately $8 million dollars so far, and frankly don’t have much hope of ever recouping your losses. Last year, good or bad, you had to endure Dan Borislaw who possibly caused the league to lose major sponsors like Puma, whose money was helping keep the league afloat. You are now facing be forced to continue to do business and be partners with Dan against your collective will. You are facing the continued struggle to keep the league going even though you are going to lose more money, making your hole bigger. While it isn’t popular – perhaps it is simply time to walk away as opposed to dealing with someone like Dan for even a minute longer.
Another thought – perhaps Dan wins his case and decides to pursue further litigation and get some of his money back? Where will that money come from? The rest of the owners. If the league folds and goes bankrupt there is no money to be paid.
Just another look at the situation. I know it is very hard for people to wear others hats – take a moment and sit in the seat of the owners – who for the last three years have sacrificed to make a go of this. Wrong or right – they put their money up and shouldn’t have to deal with someone as crazy as Dan Borislaw in my personal opinion. Sometime enough is enough.
Irreparable harm will be inflicted on the fans. I understand how people think this is all Dan’s fault, but the league has let it come to this.
After a groundswell of support with the 5-team league spectacle, for the owners to fold the league, what a slap in the face. Are they banking that fans would continue to support them and hate Dan enough they would follow a new league? Call me silly, but I still think there are better ways to deal with this.
On a side note, if Dan does lose what’s to keep him from repeatedly filing against WPS for various grievances?
If the league was to fold because of this suit, it would not keep my allegiance. Women’s soccer is global because of the internet, I can follow teams and leagues all over the world.
Bravo Gerry.
Please excuse my bleeding heart, but I’m squarely in the anti-Dan camp here.
As for who broke which rules, I have to quote my 8-year-old, “He started it.” And, having started the ridiculous avalanche of problems, Mr. Borislaw had to expect repercussions.
In my opinion, the other owners should be able to sue him for loss of potential revenue.
I don’t understand how people can say “yeh Dan was bad, but the league let it come to this”. The evidence is their case shows how Dan refused to cooperate with the league. They tried to coerce, cajole, beg, fine, etc him and he didn’t follow through.
Unfortunately the current case being dealt with in Florida is not looking at the reasons to terminate MJ, it is only looking at whether the league followed their own operating rules when they did terminate it.
If they are forced to reinstate by injunction, they could immediately move to terminate his franchise again making sure to follow their rules to the letter. Of course this takes time, money and focuse away from running the league and playing games. They would also be guaranteed to go back to court in not-so-neutral Florida again for a second fight, even if they followed the rules. Dan can drag out their time and money forever.
@Gerry – While I appreciate the monetary sacrifice the owners have made to the league, that in no way excuses them from any culpability in this current court case. They can’t have it both ways. They can’t be savvy investors with a passion for soccer so strong they are willing to lose money to grow a league on one hand and then be such inept businessmen that they couldn’t deal with a squeaky wheel like Dan on the other. They’ve mishandled this from the beginning.
As to Florida being corrupt, that could be said about any jurisdiction in the US..a non-argument.
@Steve – As an adult I would hope you wouldn’t accept the “he started it” argument from another adult. The league didn’t deal with Dan as adults would and now everyone is paying.
Crazy idea, but would it be possible for league to come up with settlement offer of reinstatement for 2013 w/court ordered arbiter to oversee mJ operations? Arbiter reports violation to court, court orders immediate shutdown and sale within 6 months..or something of the sort. Could they make it attractive enough for Dan to accept?
@necron99 – I can say “the league let it come to this” because they were happy enough to allow mJ to play in the playoffs when money was to be made, but now they are the injured party. If you have principles, you need to stick to them, not just when it benefits you. Who knows, maybe they thought they were doing everyone a favor by letting mJ finish the season, but forgot to dot their (i)’s and cross their (t)’s.
In my opinion the league cannot win this, even if the court rules in their favor. Dan can, and might, bring another/more suit(s). The best they can do is come to an agreed settlement. This is a very tough lesson for a new league, but one they’d be well served to learn from quickly.
A clarification, with the caveat that I’m not an expert on franchise termination disputes. And apologies for the length of this post:
The ruling today did *not* find a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of Borislow’s underlying legal claim that the termination of the magicJack franchise was without cause. The ruling merely found that there was a substantial likelihood that Borislow is correct on his procedural claim, i.e., that termination cannot occur except by way of the arbitration process. After all, there is a sentence in today’s decision which clarifies that the underlying question of whether the termination was proper on the merits (in layperson’s terms: “did the League have sufficient cause to, in essence, “fire” the MJ franchise?”) is not before the court, or not something over which it has power to decide.
Moreover, the court’s finding today on likelihood of success only relates to Borislow’s request for temporary injunctive relief, i.e., reinstatement of MJ to the League. That issue is not decided yet, and during the next hearing, the court will hear argument and take evidence on other factors relevant to the question whether to grant temporary injunctive relief (such factors as irreparable harm, public interest, and whether there is a viable legal remedy in lieu of the equitable remedy of an injunction).
So, at this next hearing, Borislow will have to convince the court that: he will be irreparably harmed unless, immediately and during the pendency of the underlying arbitration proceedings, his franchise (MJ) is reinstated; that a temporary reinstatement of MJ is vital to the public interest; and that no remedy at law is otherwise sufficient to protect Borislow’s interests in the event that MJ is not given temporary reinstatement.
So I think what Borislow is going to have to show is that, having MJ temporarily sidelined (for perhaps the 2012 season) will cause some a loss of goodwill or reputation or some intangible that cannot be quantified and which he cannot recover otherwise, later on. (So, for example, even if Borislow/MJ had made profits last year, that evidence would not justify reinstatement for this season, because lost profits is something that can be compensated with cash). And the League will surely argue that, not only will Borislow fail to suffer that type of harm if there is no reinstatement, the League will be harmed by the temporary reinstatement, perhaps on grounds that the owners may all quit, but even if they stay in, they will point to the Puma problems allegedly caused by Borislow, and other past problems to show how unworkable and harmful even another year will be with Borislow/MJ (harmful to the rest of the League as a whole).
Borislow will have to show a vital public interest too, that will be served by reinstatement, and that is the issue I believe O’Sullivan’s comment may pertain to best: i.e., if this franchise is temporarily ordered back into the League, then the 2012 season, if not the League itself, will not happen, will not go forward, and thus, larger public interests (i.e., 5 other cities, fans, players, the sport of women’s soccer, etc.) will be set back. Also, to get an injunction ordering a temp reinstatement, Borislow will need to post a bond sufficient to cover likely damages suffered by the League if MJ is reinstated (which bond would be payable to the League if the League prevails on the question of cause for termination, and the League shows damages due to the temp reinstatement).
I think Borislow/MJ’s overall problem is that he’s seeking injunctive relief only with respect to a claim that is itself entirely procedural (i.e., the claim that arbitration was required to terminate MJ). My thought is, why should an injunctive remedy issue from the Court where the claim at issue is all about Borislow/MJ being deprived a mere procedural right? Again, his claim today, on which the request for injunction rests, is not that the League lacked cause for the termination itself (again, that question apparently must go through an arbitrator). In other words, “what is so harmful to Borislow/MJ by being kept sidelined throughout the duration of the arbitration process, where, that whole process itself will be available to him, and could ultimately result in Borislow/MJ’s reinstatement?” (I consider Borislow unlikely to prevail at arbitration, but that’s besides the point — it is a process and remedy that could theoretically grant reinstatement). In more layperson terms: If you’re going to get your ultimate day in court (or arbitration) on your claim for reinstatement, why must the court reinstate you immediately, and who is impacted by that temp reinstatement, and where does the public interest lie?
I understand from today’s decision that Section 13.11 of the Agreement says that any nonperformance of any Agreement provision constitutes irreparable harm, but that seems like a funny provision to me — not sure how a court sitting in equity would be necessarily bound by that Agreement provision, particularly since the League’s alleged contractual breach is procedural only. I think that provision is more directed toward situations where a franchisee doesn’t do something like say, put up advertising, as set forth in the Agreement. It is like, what if a McDonald’s franchisee doesn’t cook fries the McDonald’s way, or doesn’t offer the Big Mac — that’s irreparable harm to McDonald’s Corp’s reputation, and the harm should be considered irreparable (and perhaps grounds for an immediate injunction to order the franchisee to fix the omission). In short, that Section 13.11 is a “failure to perform” a material term of the Agreement, not a “failure to go to arbitration when terminating” provision. It probably doesn’t mean that any breach of the Agreement by a party constitutes irreparable harm to other parties.
By the way, many folks have questioned the League’s termination as being done without prior thought or strategy, and that it constitutes poor timing. And today’s ruling appears to say that termination without proper process, in breach of the Agreement. However, the League was in a way very smart (or unintentionally lucky): they got Borislow out; got their 2012 season approved by USSF; and are now forcing Borislow to demonstrate why he needs to be temporarily let back into the League. Had the League just gone to arbitration on the question of termination, that process would have likely lasted through the 2012 season (it is like a mini-trial), and Borislow/MJ would have stayed on as a franchise member, and I don’t think the League could have gotten an immediate injunction forcing Borislow out of the League (before the 2012 season). So the League is arguably in a better position now for having quickly terminated Borislow without a lengthy process of arbitration, as it puts all the burden on him now to show why he needs to be part of the 2012 season, and why it would be unfair to have MJ sit out while the lengthy arbitration occurs.
The rational owners a mere few months ago had no problem wrapping themselves in the blanket of the defense of women’s sports and the hopes and dreams of “girls and women everywhere” that would be crushed should the league be denied sanction from FIFA. Where would the children go? How could FIFA shatter their precious souls? We are the DEFENDERS of dreams and of ALL that is good in America….We are the WPS, please help us to help you and all women everywhere, this is our MISSION.
Now the rational owners are basically “screw it, he’s crazy…we’re out”
Sorry girls, but dreams aren’t that important, where did you get that idea, this is a RATIONA business. Carry on.
Of course it is a reality that the owners are business folks and at some point, a decision will be made on that front. What I find amusing (in a dark comedy way), is that these two diametrically opposed stances by these same owners, which are always in tension in a struggling endeavor with a public interest element, are so absolutely exposed in the course of just a few contentious months.
So sure, a “rational” business owner might cut losses at this point. A good business owner would have never gotten to this point in the first place….the recent emotional pleas by these “rational” business owners are quite offensive when stacked against their rather hamhanded business decisions for awhile.
End of the day, I think the court will deny the injunction/irreparable harm and allow both sides to go forward with any substantive claims they may have against the other. They can settle somehow or drag through the process for years or pull the plug.
I’m not sure why, in the interim, I, as a fan I would purchase a ticket (let alone season tickets) only to see a strong possibility of a league folding and declaring bankruptcy, leaving me, the one with the least financial wherewithal absorbing a loss between all these rational businessmen. Which is another factor in why struggling enterprises like these fold.
Carry on all you rational business folks……
This scumbag doesn’t deserve even the $3 judgment the USFL got from the NFL.
First, apologies to the person named “Steve” who posted earlier this evening. I just posted, above, with a lower-case “steve” without realizing that it might confuse folks about who’s posting.
Anyway, HWah — the League’s statement from O’Sullivan today is not any different than their November 22nd court filing in opposition to Borislow’s motion for a temporary injunction. They basically said exact the same thing: if MJ and Borislow are ordered back into the League on even a temporary basis, that may well cause the other League owners to back out of the League entirely, and thus, the entire league might fold, and thus, massive public harms will result (such as the game of women’s soccer in the U.S. will be set back).
The League and its supporters also said in late Nov./early Dec. that similar harms would result if USSF failed to sanction the 5-team WPS in 2012.
I don’t pretend to know what makes sense or business sense or whatever, but seems the League has been consistent in really wanting a final divorce from Borislow, and the reasons why they believe it is warranted.
Steve C.,
I guess one of the hamhanded decisions I’m talking about is how they absolutely botched the termination by not taking it to arbitration in the first place, or filing for injunctive relief on their own when he apparently consistently refused to acceptable meeting times before terminating, as the court noted, they also had the option for injunctive relief….that is where they screwed up. I agree they’ve been consistent post-lawsuit, but that consistency really hasn’t helped, has it?
Again, I’m not saying anything about substance (I suspect the league can win on some claims there), but everyone is now learning procedure can be a real bitch and is what can kill you even before you get to the substance. As I said, I think the courts will let it go to a “sue” and be “countersued” stance. What happens after that is anyone’s guess, as litigation is expensive and will test the wills of the parties and the goodwill of the fans.
Also, Steve C., and I mean that with all respect in the world to soccer fans everywhere, but are there really “massive public harms” that will result from the WPS failing? We all seemed to survive the WUSA failing.
Will it be sad if don’t get to see a competitive US team as in the last WWC? Sure, that quarterfinal is one for the ages, even the finals we lost was a great game. Public harm though?
Diane, This guy burned some of the major investors and partners of the league… do you think they will get another 2.5 mill deal like they had with Puma….. doubt it…. I don’t get the ruling….. they guy was invited to many meetings and personnally notified by all of his league partners that he has failed to live up to the contract he signed..
How can you have a arbitration meeting if the guy won’t attend… this ruling is BS. the only thing that the league probably should have done is called one of the meeting and arbitrition hearing… it is not like he would have shown up anyway
If your dating someone and they ruin all your relationsship with your friends and familes and run your credit into the dirt…. wouldn’t you want to drop them asap..
would you take them back or move on to another city if they stalked you like Crazy Dan is stalking the WPS
Last point, I’ll just say go Abby and Hope (and others) and get the rational business endorsements you can at this point. It is rational business model that says you should grab endorsements when it is most profitable for you as an individual. You shouldn’t count on this league, because what makes sense for them, doesn’t make sense for you.
Rational. Rational. Rational.. Rational.
Soccer owners aren’t the only ones with that mantra.
….
To guess a little bit more about what we might hear at the hearing (if anyone can go) …
It’s not just the nastiness and the conflict. It’s finances. These teams aren’t exactly rolling in money. Dealing with Borislow — if the league’s evidence is correct in detailing the league’s dealing with sponsors and so forth — costs the league money. That’s more money out of the pockets of five other owners. (Again, for the record, Borislow has another side to this, though his lawyers didn’t produce evidence to substantiate it — Borislow’s legal team kept its focus on the termination procedures for the most part.)
But remember that it’s not just about the five current teams. WPS needs new investment. The league needs new sponsors to fill the gaping hole left by Puma. The league needs new expansion teams to satisfy U.S. Soccer’s conditions for sanctioning (and to expand the league’s footprint).
So if the league can prove that dealing with Borislow would drive away those investors, the “irreparable harm” argument swings heavily to its side.
But that argument is easier said than done. And the fact that the judge didn’t rule favorably on the motion to dismiss (in many respects, a more surprising ruling than we saw on Monday) raises a few doubts.
I’m not surprised WPS lost on the procedural issue, I expected them to from the beginning. Even if he wouldn’t agree to a date on the Arbitration when WPS was playing nice couldn’t they have just set a date and then when he didn’t show up terminate him? At least then they could have said hey we showed up he didn’t he has proven he has no interest in the process.
I think WPS def. has the irreparible harm on their side especially if they could get Puma to vouch for that as well. But again I think they will need something in writing from Puma or a “witness” from the teams who want to join but only without Borislow to make a water tight argument.
My question is this: say the judge rules for Borislow could WPS say fine, but its too late for 2012, we’ll let him back in ’13 and then when he inevitably doesn’t follow his contractual agreements again remove him from the league during ’12 following the correct process. Or 2nd the judge forces him in for ’12 and WPS immediately starts the termination process again, could it conclude quickly to avoid mucking up everything that is already going on for ’12? I think that is impossible.
@Diane – I’m a huge women’s soccer fan always have been always will be, but I don’t blame the owners one bit for not wanting to deal with this guy after reading all the court documents from his one season with the league. And I think I would almost rather loose my season tix money and see the league fold then have him back. My fear is that if WPS were to go bankrupt vs. just close up shop that Borislow would then buy it out of bankruptcy and run it into the ground anyways with him owning all the teams and being a puppet master to all the players who are trying to improve their game to make the USWNT. I shudder to think what the player pool would look like after that and the long term damage to the USWNT future. Not to mention all those poor players that would feel forced out of the game (because he would own it all not just one team) like so many of the fringe players were last year.
[...] WPS CEO Jennifer O’Sullivan said in a statement following the ruling, “If the court rules to reinstate the franchise, my fear is that ownership will seriously consider folding the League, thus ending professional soccer for women in the United States.” [...]
With no legal background and only the information reported I still think the league screwed this up and with or without prevailing in court, the league will suffer. If Dan is reinstated, they fold. If Dan is not reinstated, they face possibly more legal turmoil.
As a fan I have stood by and supported the league when it was needed and criticized when it was needed. From the initial problems with Dan I urged the league to find a way to work with him. They did not find a way, whatever their reasons were, and now we’re here. It makes me sad and sick to think that all the hard work and dedication of so many people rest on this court case. I stand by my plea to the league to find a compromise that will not let all that go to waste.
My last question is to the owners and investors: Do you stand by your support of the arguments put forth in the “Save the WPS” campaign mounted during the sanction process or was that just a ploy to gain sanction and strengthen your case in court? You have come as close as anyone in history to making a women’s professional soccer league succeed, please don’t screw it up.
Diane – I think their reasons were pretty clearly stated in their legal documents, which may make a stronger case for folding than they do for winning the case. Playing devil’s advocate here, what would be your response to those documents?
The complaint I keep hearing is that the league needed to just find a way to compromise and work with Dan. People are ignoring the fact that some people just can’t be compromised with. From the court filings you can clearly see that Dan did not want to play nice with the league. The league was governed by a group of owners, a group he was a part of. If a vote or decision didn’t go his way, then he just ignored it and did his own thing. That is if he even showed up at the meetings to trying and persuade the league to vote his way.
If you try to work something out and the person doesn’t want to there is nothing you can do. Dan had no intention of ever doing anything other then what he wanted to do.
Just play nice isn’t reality.
@Beau – The documents I have read make a strong statement that the league wanted to terminate the franchise for violations of the rules. The reality may be a little different, keeping in mind I am solely a fan, not an investor or a businesswoman.
It is clear to me that Dan violated the rules, I do not dispute that fact. The documents presented also state that, but they sometimes contradict themselves with timelines and importance of expedience on the league side. Dan does himself no favors by overriding his counsel and asking about his escrow directly to the CEO.
Here we go: The league showed a half-hearted attempt to stick to their own rules during the whole process, and when Dan pushed back sometimes they gave in and sometimes they played tough, none of which strengthens their “it’s all about the business” case. Dan didn’t play by the rules, either. When he attempted to communicate in a relatively civil manner it’s like the league took that as their opportunity to wield whatever power they had and refused to take steps to possibly avoid litigation. The documents say to me that the league had reached the end of their rope with Dan and believing that they had done enough to prevail, they let Dan file. As for the documents supporting the league folding if Dan were to be reinstated, I don’t see that. They say hindsight is 20/20, I hope they give the league the opportunity to see where they could do things better, smarter and with a better outcome.
If I were an investor or sponsor I would be buoyed by seeing that the league is able to deal with one owner and not let it undermine the success of the entire league.
To me it’s not a question of legally who is right or wrong, I think we know that. To me it is a question of what is right for the league and all the people folding it would affect. To me, it is to survive to fight another day. Folding, if Dan prevails, is not the only way to survive.
Diane – I can see some of your points and agree with some of them, but one question, how does the league survive with Dan if sponsors and other potential owners don’t want to be involved with him?
@random – As with much that has been said, I have no idea how much of that is truth and how much is hyperbole. One way to solve that problem is to allow individual teams to sign their own contracts with sponsors. Sponsors could write contracts accordingly.
I could be wrong, but I’m sure there are provisions in place to change/amend bylaws and league rules to address anything like the situation the league got into w/Dan. I would hope the vote would not have to be unanimous.
I don’t pretend to know how to fix this so everyone is happy, in fact I’m pretty sure that can never happen, but there has to be a way to make this work. More complex business dealings take place every day. I find it hard to believe that the league was willing to play w/o Div 1 status,according to some team officials, but will fold if they have to play w/Dan.
Let me repeat, I am not saying that Dan will prevail in the end. I am saying that if the league lets it get to the end without some sort of deal/compromise/settlement, we all lose.
Teams are able to sign deals with sponsors directly and do. However, because of scale these deals are much,much smaller than what can be done as a league. The only team with an advantage here is Atlanta because they have a stadium they can package into deals, even though contrary to what people think it is not ” their” stadium. It belongs to the college but Fitzgerald negotiated a very good deal to be the stadium’s management company. This is a huge asset.
just saying…..
Paul Riley on what Abby and Hope should do: “If they want to be ambassadors, they have to support the league, whether they find a team to play on or not.”
League CEO on what owners will do if they lose law suit: “Ownership will seriously consider folding the League, thus ending professional soccer for women in the United States”
The WPS had a President but decided it didn’t need one. Now it has a CEO that is a puppet to the owners. The owners wanted to control the league and make all their own choices. They have forever used the “look at the money we are losing” as the pity me argument winner.
How many of the owners are really soccer people. They didn’t want soccer people telling them how to run a business. I am glad someone is pushing back. These Owners are all big ego, self proclaimed sport experts.
Why does US soccer continue to allow them to run as a top league? Based on what?
The National team players and other top players killed this league from the start. They all needed to make 5 and 10 times the amount of money then there teammates. Without those teammates they wouldn’t have had a league but they are so much better.
The league is a mess and has a very very small market. Thank god there is no president to lead a damaged league.
@diane – I tend to oversimplify. Dan started this mess and had to be stopped. As we all know, the league did a poor job of dealing with him. However, I see Dan as the source of the problem (thus, the “he started it” comment).
If the league folds, it will not he because the owners don’t care about young girls’ dreams. It will be because a money-losing venture cannot tolerate the amount of negative influence inflicted by such an individual.
Does anyone even give a second thought as to Mr. Borislaw’s concerns for a young girl’s dreams? I’m not the conspiracy theorist type, but I could see how someone might actually believe that Dan was intentionally trying to kill the league from the start.
@Steve
These are not young girls and there are other opportunities to play pro soccer in other leagues. Many YOUNG WOMEN are playing in other leagues. Lets just say maybe this was the wrong group of owners to start this league?
The owner of Magic Jack did start it. Right from the start when he took bought into the league. The owners allowed his crap from the start. If they had a independent President of the league this may never of happened. Having owners govern like this group does is foolish!
The owners need to accept this situation and cannot push themselves away from it. They have made bad moves after bad moves. Look at the league!! Its a mess!!
@HWah – You’re not suggesting a double standard, are you? (although Riley is a coach and not an owner)
@ben – I’m not 100% behind the owners either, but some credit has to be given to anyone that is willing to lose money to try to start something like a women’s sports league. I certainly don’t agree with all their methods and I agree there are some very big egos involved, but that’s also an earmark of many people who are able to make things work.
NT players and elite internationals I’m sure were paid more than other players, but they did not hold guns to team’s heads. Teams paid what they thought they could afford, in many instances they were wrong.
The league is a mess, hopefully they are taking some steps to move forward in a more purposeful way.
@Steve K – Dan is a source of the problem, like an ill-fitting shoe. You have 2 choices, wear it and hope any adjustments you can make will work or return the shoe. The league didn’t make any meaningful adjustments, wore the shoe anyway and now it might be too late to return it. The adage is always “buyer beware”.
I honestly don’t think the league or Dan “don’t care about young girls’ dreams”, on the contrary. The only problem is that soccer at this level has a very fine line to walk when it comes to business v. game. If Dan wanted to destroy the league, not be part of it, I’m quite confident he could have taken steps previous to now to do it.
@ben- The current players may not be young girls now, but they certainly were at one point and specifically which pro leagues are you referring to?
I seem to spend too many posts explaining what my previous post meant.
@Ben – Young girls dream of being like the stars (young women) of professional sports. I wasn’t referring to the players.
@Diane – Dan’s selfish behaviour gives the appearance of not caring about the league’s success or even survival. I agree that this “ill-fitting shoe” should have been returned earlier. And while I don’t agree with their methods, did the league/owners ever have that opportunity? And that fine line between business and love of the sport certainly was crossed in this debacle – while not necessarily with the move, most certainly with the name change.
Dan Borislaw’s WPS interests must be bought out. He is a real danger to the league, whether he wins his case or not.
Leagues in Sweden-France-Germany-Russia on and on..
@Steve K – How is the league saying they will fold if Dan is reinstated any more caring? Changing a name and location of a team is done, Dan did not set the precedent. You say that Dan is selfish and dangerous to the league. He may be selfish having seen the losses of the other owners, but he is/was only as dangerous as the league/owners/BOGs allow(ed) him to be. It was his first year as an owner, their third. Not being privileged to any behind the scenes info, I wonder just how mentoring they were or if egos got involved and he was just told how it would be? All things I think about as I read these articles.
@ben – Most of which are not pro, but semi-pro. And one minor point, they are all foreign. Most American girls don’t dream of growing up to play in a pro league in Russia.
@Diane – With all due respect, I don’t buy any of that argument.
Dan demonstrated a self-centered, disrespectful approach from day one. And I do see the name change as a precedent. Have any other owners named their team after their product? Putting the product name across the jersey wasn’t good enough?
Speaking of jerseys, the league had an agreement… I don’t need to go into his litany of transgressions.
We loved him when he stepped up to foot the bill to keep the team alive, but that wasn’t enough to forgive scaring away Puma and some of the other, perhaps less painful, consequences of his actions.
The league is fragile. He knew that coming in (clearly, he was seen as something of a saviour).
Perhaps, he’ll grow a conscience and either play along and maybe even contribute to improving how the league is run. Alternatively, he could simply sell his interests. And, oh, here’s a novel idea: maybe he could sponsor the team. It could be named the Somewhere Somethings and have his product name emblazoned across the jerseys.
I believe Ms. O’Sullivan said that she feared the owners might consider folding. Sounds like a bluff, but could materialize.
In any case, it has not been stated that one will necessarily lead to the other.
And again, I contend that the owners may be willing to live with a money-losing venture for whatever reasons, but they should not have to deal with this grief as well.
Bundesliga-Swedish Damallsvenskan -Division 1 Féminine-ЧЕМПИОНАТ РОССИИ ПО ЖЕНСКОМУ ФУТБОЛУ), also known as the Top Division
All Pro Leagues- Why would you dispute that?
Ben – they are not 100% fully professional leagues – meaning all players on all teams get paid. All of the leagues you mention have players playing that are not receiving pay. They may get housing but no salary.
Because most players in those leagues aren’t paid much. That is changing slowly, though.
I’ll have to dig up the Guardian story that shows just how much Lyon is an exception.
@Steve K – we will surely have to agree to disagree on the finer points of this argument. I do have a few responses to your last post.
Re: Renaming team after sponsor/owner: Although not WPS, Red Bulls of MLS were renamed. He had already moved the team so his karma points were in the red anyway.
Re: Selling his interest: I don’t believe he has any interest to sell if the league terminated his franchise. You can’t sell a franchise that doesn’t exist.
Re: Folding the league if Dan prevails: As Beau stated earlier, they have already made that statement in previous court documents and will probably use that as part of the irreparable harm argument.
My horse is nearing death, so I think I will wait and see what the next court ruling brings. I still hope that some sort of deal/compromise can be struck before this goes the distance in court. The 2012 season is really shaping up even if there are only 5 teams.
@Diane – Fair… since I’m just kinda disagreeable, anyway. ;-)
I meant WPS specifically. My point was that while this league is so fragile, the team name should have meaning for the fans. The best names have some historic significance to the fanbase, usually about the city where the team is based.
With mixed emotions, I am almost certain that he will get the franchise back.
I like your reply to my first comment (Steve, no K.), regarding arbitration and a method to have him work WITH the league instead of against it, or again lose his franchise… legally. This should definitely be part of any solution that would re-instate his franchise.
I think all the readers of Beau’s fine work can agree (even those who don’t like how the league is run), let’s hope that WPS can stick around and grow into something of which all North Americans can be proud.
[...] In short, the good to come from this is that WPS walks on for 2012. That has been said before, but the league looked in jeapordy after last week’s favorable ruling for magicJack. WPS stated that it woud rather fold the league than bring back magicJack. [...]
When the players from the USA get back from the leagues overseas I will tell them they are not pro players. Serious who would argue that these are not pro leagues?????
OMG they have a few players not paid making the league not pro. The fact is they are better run then the WPS. The owners have run teams off. They could have made things work for the teams that have folded but the east coast super owners had no interest in helping those teams.
Lets get things straight Gary: The WPS is a very weak pro league that has very little interest across the country. So lets not look at the Euro leagues in a bad way. I believe those leagues are going to grow faster then the WPS. Sky Blue brought much negativity to the league in its first couple of years.
Sorry but the WPS needs to prove there is a market for their product and I am not a believer. When I talk to a few of the American players who play overseas I will make sure to tell them they are not pro’s. I am sure they will find it interesting that the only pro league is the East Coast WPS.
@Ben – Professional means paid to play. If not all players are paid to play then they are semi-pro, if non are paid, they are amateurs. We are talking money here, not skill level, although they very often go hand-in-hand.