Leading a US national team program is similar to leading a team.
When a new coach takes over, whether during the season or in the off-season, the first team meeting, the first communication is so important. Players begin forming their opinions immediately, so it’s critical that the new coach clearly communicates his/her vision, style of play, and overall coaching philosophy. Players must understand what’s expected of them, on and off the field, from the start.
Most coaches and their assistants spend an entire week working on their first team meeting, making sure season goals are clearly identified, defined and communicated. The key always is to identify goals that are both aspirational and achievable, making those goals clear, communicating them daily and developing strategies to achieve them.
We all are aware of what the challenges faced by Ellis and Heinrichs are: technical deficiency, tactical naivety, lack of facilities, lack of investment, lack of leadership.
To avoid steady decline, Heinrichs and Ellis must provide vision, leadership, methodology and results. They need to outline wider plans, including how they intend to bring the WWC trophy to the USA in 2011 and beyond.
The USA women’s football tradition and history demand that aspirations should not be downgraded. Based on its participation numbers alone, the USA, at all age groups, should finish in the top 2 of every competition.

It’s obvious that Ellis and Heinrichs require authority to implement desperately needed reform. After forming and communicating their vision, Ellis and Heinrichs need the power to implement changes. On the technical side they should have 100% control of things.

Winning the women’s world cup is an event which sometimes benefits the winning nation, as it did Norway, a nation of only 5 million people, in 1993. Germany benefited from winning in 2003 and 2007. Both nations used their success as a springboard to strengthen their leagues, clubs, programs and structures.
Post 1999, the US did not.

Women’s football in the US does not suffer from lack of money and interest, it suffers from lack of ideas.
Today, there still are two major global leaders in women’s football: USA and Germany, but only one of them reacted to the success of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 11 years ago, and with it the commercial possibilities demonstrated, by exploring every possible way of maximizing that potential.
The 1999 success actually damaged the US by making the USSF complacent. On the other side of the Atlantic it demonstrated to Germany (and also the UEFA and FIFA) what women’s football can become.

In 1999 the German FA developed a long term plan for growing the women’s game sportingly, commercially.
From the beginning the Germans understood that building long term success, interest in the game, and fan loyalty, begins with a national, comprehensive, long term strategy. In Germany there is a balance that benefits both the Frauen Bundesliga and the national team. What is the USSF’s vision for women’s football?

In the US, the commercial success of 1994 and 1999 has not translated into investment in the women’s game.
As I have stated before, the USSF is failing in its fiduciary responsibility of developing women’s football in USA. The federation’s lack of long term strategic planning has been clear to all who care to see it for a decade now.
The success of 1999 has blinded everyone to an international process where all important nations are gaining ground on the USA.
The success of 1999 has, in a perverse way, damaged us.
Women’s football, in terms of marketing, commercial potential, and player development, essentially is a 21st century phenomena but the USSF uses 20th-century methods trying to solve these challenges.
Women’s football will continue, and it will continue to grow internationally, and unless the USSF reforms, unless Heinrichs and Ellis are given real power to envision and implement changes, our international standing will suffer for generations to come.

Q: You have been a long time critic of US Soccer why is it?
SB: Because the federation is guilty of mismanagement when it comes to women’s football.

Q: In what way?
SB: Their mission statement is to “develop soccer at all recreational and competitive levels.” Ask any WPS, W-League or WPSL club in the country if they have received any assistance in physical infrastructure development or player development. MLS lost money for years and US Soccer directly or through its influence subsidized it for years.
Do you think they will support and rescue the WPS?
The federation has been a beneficiary of the NCAA generosity in facilities development and player development. Imagine where the sport would be today if it wasn’t for the NCAA? Outside of WNT player pool, US Soccer has done nothing for female players and infrastructure development for female players.

Q: But I understand that US Soccer is financially supporting WPS.
SB: No, they are subsidizing part of WNT players salaries.

Q: Why do you think US Soccer is not doing enough to support women’s soccer?
You must realize that US Soccer is an administrative and representative arm of Soccer United Marketing. As such it focuses on the men’s game and simply does enough to keep the women’s side quiet. Today, US Soccer, outside of WNT, spends less per registered female player than Chile.
Ask successful women’s clubs like Ajax America or New Jersey Wildcats how it benefits them to be affiliated with US Soccer. Right now, ask FC Gold Pride how it helped them being affiliated with US Soccer. Do you think what happened to FC Gold Pride would be permitted to happen to LA Galaxy? And LA has lost a lot more money than FC Gold Pride ever would.
If you are an investor in the men’s game you will be subsidized when needed. Not so on the women’s side.

Q: What can be done to change this?
SB: Nothing will be changed because change would require difficult decisions, choices and action by those involved with and fans of the women’s game. Those involved in women’s football in general are content with being neglected and being taken advantage of. It will continue.

Q: Can you be more specific?
US Soccer, SUM and their partners are interested in the bottom line, so all of us involved in women’s football would need to impact it negatively by boycotting Nike, Adidas, Gatorade and other US Soccer partners. Don’t support the MLS. Demand that US Soccer spends at least 33% of their budget on women’s football development; supporting women’s leagues, clubs, creating infrastructure and long term player development. Without financial pressures there will be no change.
But I just can’t imagine that women’s teams; youth, high school, college, W-League or WPSL would stop buying Nike or Adidas products. Can you imagine, for the good of women’s football, any US WNT players refusing Nike or Adidas endorsements? Not a chance.
All involved in the women’s game are content to get the crumbs and that is why the situation is getting worse.

Q: But for Nike and other US Soccer partners it has to make business sense to invest in women’s soccer.
SB: I agree, and that is why we need to demonstrate to them why it is a smart BUSINESS decision to support women’s football and a poor BUSINESS decision to ignore it. Companies like Nike spend more money on one basketball athlete than on entire women’s football in the country.

Q: You must admit that basketball is entirely different from women’s soccer.
SB: Of course, but it wasn’t so in the 70s. It took a leap of faith for a number of companies to support and grow the NBA and look where it is now. The same is required for WPS but we will have to press and we must start with US Soccer.

“FC Indiana coach Shek Borkowski has been outspoken about the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) in the past, and now he is calling for improved investment in women’s soccer at the grass root level.
Borkowski is very adamant that the U.S. is losing ground to other countries, especially to Germany, and the federation needs to tackle some of the serious problems surrounding the women’s game if the U.S. wants to remain in the position of a global leader in the sport.
“The money, I am told, is there and it should mean better facilities for women’s clubs and investment in the sport in general,” said Borkowski. “But it isn¹t so, financial resources are very simply misallocated. The USSF President Sunil Gulati must reexamine how we are allocating money.
It would be really unfortunate but the way things are going, the rest of the world is catching up to the U.S. in terms of player development and even bypassing us in terms of investment in the game, Borkowski said.
Borkowski believes that some sweeping changes are in order.
Unless concrete steps are taken to boost women’s soccer at all levels, the game will stagnate. The new pro league will have spots for maybe 80 non-national team players, it won’t be enough.
But the truth is that the investment in the game is revolving around just the national players. Following Germany’s example, it needs to be broader a lot of work needs to be done to lift the infrastructure and there are too many promising post college players who walk away from the game because they see no future in it.
Borkowski also offered his support to United Soccer Leagues (USL) Executive Vice President Tim Holt efforts to establish a federation operated US Open Women’s Cup. This, according to Borkowski, would be of benefit to all clubs, pro and amateur alike, and bring added attention to women’s soccer in the country.”