Contract dispute prevents U.S. women’s soccer team from making trip to Australia tournament
The Philadelphia Inquirer
By Mike Jensen

 PHILADELPHIA - Since they signed their last contract, the victorious 1999 U.S. Women's World Cup players have become cultural icons. Their faces are on Wheaties boxes. They were on the cover of Sports Illustrated last week as sportswomen of the year.

But they won't be back on the field just yet.

The '99 World Cup players, who are represented collectively by Philadelphia attorney John Langel, announced Wednesday that contract negotiations with the U.S. Soccer Federation had broken down and they wouldn't be making a trip the federation had planned for early next month to Australia to play in a tournament.

"My instructions are not to engage in a dialogue to change that before Australia," Langel said Wednesday.

Instead, the federation announced Wednesday that "the next generation of players" will make the trip to Australia.

The last offer the women received, Langel said, was to continue to play during negotiations at salary levels set in December of 1996. That would have represented a pay cut from what many players were receiving last year, Langel said, because it did not include a monthly stipend players received last year.

"The combination of the proposal and the process they followed is a key ingredient to the women's opposition," Langel said. "It is both a money issue, but it is also a trust issue. If they had a long record of trust with each other, we may have been able to get something done. But that doesn't seem to exist."

Langel, an attorney with Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, said the federation had said it would come up with an offer several times in the last month but had failed to do so. He also said the U.S. men's team, which, he said, has been working without a contract since 1998, now is playing under a new wage scale which is higher than that offered to the women.

"There is a feeling by the women that they are treated as second-class," Langel said.

It appears this is a warning shot of sorts. The Australia Cup isn't important in the world soccer scene. The U.S. team plays the Czech Republic (Jan. 7), Sweden (Jan. 10) and host Australia (Jan. 13) in the four-team, six-game tournament. But the team is slated to begin a full-time residency camp in March or April for next year's Sydney Olympics.

Right now, the team doesn't even have a coach. The federation has yet to name a successor to Tony DiCicco, who retired last month.

"In our efforts to promote women's soccer throughout the country over the past decade, we feel we have behaved professionally and therefore deserve the same respect and communication from U.S. Soccer," said Carla Overbeck, captain of the World Cup team, in a statement released by Langel. "They have essentially ignored our successes over the past three years, including a World Cup win and an Olympic Gold medal, and are now asking us to do the same."

(c) 1999, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Dispute erupts over U.S. women's soccer contract
Chicago Tribune
By Bob Foltman

CHICAGO - Key members of the world champion U.S. women's soccer team have told the U.S. Soccer Federation they will not compete in a pre-Olympic tournament in Australia in January because of a contract dispute.

The contract between the federation and team expired at the end of July. According to attorney John Langel, the team asked the federation to negotiate a new contract as early as September so it could concentrate on preparations for next September's Olympics in Sydney.

The two sides met two weeks ago in Anaheim, and the federation offered the women a two-month contract through February. Tom King, the general manager of the women's team, said Langel and the team rejected the proposal, which was similar to the deal that expired in July.

``Our official position is that we have made a two-month offer, a bridge proposal, to allow more time to negotiate a broader deal,'' King told the Tribune. ``They did not accept the two-month offer.''

Langel said the team rejected the federation's terms of the contract, which would have paid the players about $3,150 a month for the two months. Langel's counteroffer was for $5,000 a month for the two months, plus $2,000 a game. Langel then said the federation had told him a new offer would not be made in the near future. He suggested the federation is having a hard time handling the popularity of this team.

``The women's game was not seen as a major sport (by the federation),'' Langel said. ``That's no longer the case.''

Mia Hamm, the team's biggest star, attended the Anaheim meeting.

``I don't know why (the federation) made this decision,'' Hamm told the Tribune. ``They said they wanted to get a short-term deal worked out. We said OK - even though the goal was to get a long-term deal done. We basically conceded.

``We're sitting here and no deal was done.''

Alan Rothenberg, president of U.S. soccer from 1990 to 1998, is handling the negotiations for the federation. Rothenberg is on vacation, and attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.

The federation released a statement Wednesday saying, ``The negotiations with the players are ongoing and will continue into the new year.''

The makeup of the team the federation was going to send to compete in the Australia Cup is not certain. Langel said 15 members of the World Cup champions were to be part of the 18-player squad and were looking to the tournament as the beginning of their Olympic preparation.

Officials from U.S. Soccer have maintained that a ``B'' team, made up of younger players, will compete. King said that former coach Tony DiCicco, who resigned from the position but is under contract until the end of the year, put together a roster which included many veteran players. That roster was submitted to Australia on Dec. 15. King would not reveal who was on the roster.

``U.S. Soccer is dedicated to continuing to develop all of our women's soccer programs at the highest levels, which we've done throughout the last 15 years, and will use this trip to Australia as an opportunity to get the next generation of players some valuable playing experience,'' the federation's release said.

Hamm said she had expected to play.

``As far as I knew, we were going (to Australia),'' she said. ``It's not about money. We've been dealing in good faith and good faith hasn't been shown to us.''

The two sides have had contentious contract negotiations in the past, including one before the start of last summer's World Cup.

``The impact we want to have is not just in the games we play,'' Hamm said. ``We want to make sure the women playing on this team 10 years from now are not dealing with this.''

(c) 1999, Chicago Tribune.

Sounds like something sinister between U.S. Soccer Federation and U.S. women's team
Philadelphia Daily News
By John Smallwood

PHILADELPHIA - It seems as if the good ol' boys at the United States Soccer Federation have little faith in Y2K.

Rather than waiting for the millennium bug to possibly destroy the best thing to happen to American soccer in a generation, the dolts running the USSF have been doing everything possible to ruin it themselves.

Remember the U.S. women's soccer team? You know, Mia, Brandi and Briana Girl Power and Babe City? Nike sports bras? It seems the team that made us all feel so great this summer by winning the FIFA Women's World Cup, the one that played to sellout crowds and made one of the most important statements for women's sports since Title IX, has fallen out of favor with the federation.

Instead of embracing the tidal wave of momentum the women created during their summer of love, the morons who run American soccer apparently are doing everything in their power to back stab the women who captured the country's heart.

Since that glorious July day in the Rose Bowl when more than 90,000 fans watched Team USA defeat China for the championship, the USSF has:

-- Strong-armed coach Tony DiCicco, who went 103-8-8 and won Olympic and World Cup titles, into a face-saving resignation.

-- Tried to stop the players, whose contracts had expired, from going on a lucrative (roughly $100,000 per player) and popular cross-country indoor tour. Instead, it wanted the players to go on a USSF-brokered international outdoor tour that would have paid a fraction of that.

-- Refused, at least thus far, to name longtime assistant coach Lauren Gregg, the most qualified and logical candidate, as DiCicco's successor. Instead, it has put out some heavy signals it will find another man to coach the women.

-- Delayed negotiations on a long-term contract for the players and asked them to keep representing the United States under the terms of an expired contract that was signed in 1996.

-- Took a hard-line stance that resulted in the players boycotting next month's Australia Cup - a pre-Olympic tournament. A team of inexperienced collegians will represent the United States.

In less than six months, the USSF has done what no team in the world has done in the past four years - take down the United States women.

Naturally, the primary factor in this dispute is money.

Never be naive enough to think that 99.999 percent of all disputes between players and management are not about money. The only color more important than red, white and blue is green.

But let's also understand what the women are asking for is in no way out of line - not after what they've accomplished, not after the exposure they've given to soccer.

Remember, these women are professional athletes, just like NBA, NFL and major league baseball players.

When they are preparing for events such as the World Cup and the 2000 Olympics, the USSF puts them on training schedules that effectively keep them from holding other jobs.

They play soccer, but they also have to live.

During the World Cup run, each player was paid $3,150 a month. Each also received a $7,500 bonus for winning the Cup.

Their contract expired six months ago, and the players proposed $5,000 a month for January and February plus $2,000 per game for the three January games in Australia and one against Norway in Florida in February.

The USSF countered with an offer for them to play under the expired contract with no per-game bonuses.

Not surprising, several players called the USSF proposal worth $6,300 "insulting," compared with the $18,000 they would have earned under their proposal.

"They have essentially ignored our successes over the last three years . . . and are asking us to do the same," U.S. captain Carla Overbeck said.

John Collins, the general counsel for the USSF, told the Scripps Howard News Service the federation eventually would get around to making a long-term offer to the players, but "made a fair offer that is risk-free" in the meantime.

Sending a bunch of college players who would forfeit their remaining eligibility if they accepted money is extremely risk-free. Who cares if they get waxed by more experienced competition? It appears the USSF might be engaging in a little payback because its plan to cash in on some of the women's post-World Cup popularity was scuttled by the players' decision to go on the indoor "Victory Tour." But it was the federation that allowed the contracts to expire when the players tried to negotiate a new one that would carry through the 2003 Women's World Cup.

Earlier this week, Collins said "negotiations are ongoing, we won't be negotiating in the press." That's kind of funny, considering this is one of the few times the press cares about what the USSF has to say.

Which leads to another, possibly more sinister, reason for what the USSF seems to be doing to the women.

Hmm, the women win their World Cup and become the talk of the nation.

The men finish dead last at the World Cup in France in 1998 and nobody cares, except to laugh.

The USSF can't figure out how to make Major League Soccer as popular as Arena Football, yet many people think there could be support for a women's league.

The women will be favored to bring home more Olympic gold and glory in Sydney, Australia. The men will be lucky to win a game or two.

Mia Hamm had a commercial with Michael Jordan. Doesn't Cobi Jones play basketball? Sports Illustrated named the women's team its "Sportswomen of the Year." Anyone notice Alexi Lalas retired from the men's team? Perhaps not everyone was as overjoyed by the success of the women's soccer team as we originally thought.

(c) 1999, Philadelphia Daily News.

U.S. Soccer women's team in a friction game
San Jose Mercury News, Calif.
By Ann Killion 

SAN JOSE - The U.S. women's soccer team came to town on Saturday, for the final leg of what is called its ``Victory Tour.'' But in the five months since winning the hearts of a nation and the World Cup, the U.S. women have lost more than they've gained. And we're not talking about these high-scoring, silly indoor soccer games, such as Saturday's when they beat a world All-Star team, 8-5.

Since the World Cup, the U.S. women have lost a coach. They've lost the World Cup spotlight. And they seem to have lost status within soccer's governing bodies.

When Tony DiCicco resigned as coach last month, he left behind more than a 103-8-8 record. He left a legacy as a leader who put his team first, who stayed in the background and who had the unique ability to fulfill his players' request to be treated as women, but coached like men.

DiCicco's resignation surprised those who believed the national team's core would stay together through the Sydney Olympics. He said he was leaving to spend more time with his family. But he also conceded that U.S. Soccer didn't fight to keep him.

``I felt there wasn't sufficient acknowledgment for me or the team of what we'd accomplished,'' DiCicco told Soccer America.

That cavalier attitude toward the historic performance of the U.S. women seems to have an impact on the search for DiCicco's successor. Several prospective candidates have been approached (including Santa Clara's Jerry Smith who, though he would love the job someday, isn't interested at this time).

The leading candidate seems to be obvious: DiCicco's top assistant Lauren Gregg. Gregg has spent 10 years as a national team assistant. She was DiCicco's primary strategist in the World Cup. As coach of the U.S. under-21 women's team, she has coached the next generation of players to Nordic Cup victories in both 1997 and 1999, and knows the women who are America's World Cup future. She's American-born, an issue that always comes up on the men's side of U.S. soccer. As a woman in a male-dominated federation, she could change the impression of U.S. Soccer as an old-boy's network.

``I think I'm the top candidate,'' Gregg said last week from her home in Virginia. ``I have the track record. I've proven what I can accomplish in his sport. I have the ability to sustain success over time. I hope I get the opportunity.''

When a woman is passed over for a promotion she frequently hears that she just wasn't the ``most qualified candidate.'' But in this case, Gregg is the most qualified candidate.

That's why it's so surprising to hear the soccer rumor mill bubbling with the news that the federation favors Clive Charles for the job. Particularly since the interview process doesn't officially begin until later this week.

Charles is the men's and women's coach at the University of Portland. He's also the men's Olympic team coach. He was an assistant under Steve Sampson during the U.S. men's disastrous trip to the 1998 World Cup in France. When Charles coached the women's under-21 team, he didn't have nearly the record of success that Gregg has had.

But, sources within U.S. Soccer say there has been internal criticism of how the U.S. women played during the World Cup. Sure, they won, but apparently it just wasn't dominating enough for some folks. That works against Gregg.

So does the perceived anti-North Carolina bias within U.S. Soccer, a group that is tired of Anson Dorrance's perceived stranglehold over the team's make-up. But while DiCicco and Gregg were both assistants to Dorrance, they clearly outgrew him and have looked for more than powder-blue roots on their roster.

Whatever the reasons, there is friction between paternalistic U.S. Soccer and its wildly successful women's team, which has become something of a breakaway republic. The Victory Tour is a corporate-sponsored affair, outside the bounds of the federation. When the women's salaries for winning the World Cup were revealed last summer, it embarrassed the federation, which seemed to have a double standard for its men and women. The women grew bigger than anyone expected and the U.S. federation seems unsure how to handle that.

So does FIFA, which last week made a blunder of monumental proportion. Soccer's international governing body announced that it would move the next women's World Cup up from 2003 to 2002, the same year as the men's World Cup.

FIFA President Sepp Blatter - the man who less than a year ago said that ``the future of football is feminine'' - said the move would help the women's game. That is, quite frankly, insane.

``We proved that the women's World Cup is a stand-alone event,'' U.S. defender Brandi Chastain said. ``Sometimes I wonder why they make these decisions. We need to make the best decision for football, not for what's convenient.''

In other parts of the world, the men's World Cup will completely dwarf any interest in the women's game. Federations will put all their funds into their men's team, leaving the women strapped. In terms of exposure, the media will have hard choices to make, with so much soccer in one calendar year. Quite frankly, the U.S. media may choose the women over the men, based on past results.

``What we did created a wave,'' Chastain said. ``A huge wave. If we move the tournament, that wave will just crash. They've got to just give it a chance.'' But the soccer powers - both nationally and globally - don't seem quite sure how to handle what happened in women's soccer in the summer of 1999.

(c) 1999, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).