Latest news with #Women'sWorldCups
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Disney+ to enter women's football market with Champions League rights
The streaming platform Disney+ is set to show live Women's Champions League matches from next season across multiple European broadcast territories, including the United Kingdom. It is understood Disney+ has agreed a five-year deal which will mean that it broadcasts every single match in the competition live, which is being perceived as a major step forward for coverage of the European women's game's top club competition. The streaming platform's move to enter the women's football market follows the news announced in December that Netflix secured the United States broadcast rights for live coverage of the 2027 and 2031 Women's World Cups. Related: Barcelona are big Women's Champions League final favourites despite 'worst' season In terms of the UK broadcast market, Disney's arrival means that women's football now has a sixth different major broadcaster covering the sport from next season. The BBC and Sky share the rights to show the Women's Super League, while TNT Sports and Channel 4 have secured a new deal to broadcast the Women's FA Cup, while ITV also cover the England women's team's matches – joined by the BBC for major tournaments. Additionally, every WSL 2 match is available live on YouTube next term. Such a wide range of different subscriptions being required by supporters wanting to watch every match live may be a concern for some fans in terms of the cost, although it is also understood there will be some free-to-air coverage of the Women's Champions League in the UK too. For the past four seasons, DAZN has shown the Women's Champions League live across Europe and some matches in the UK have additionally been picked up by TNT Sports. Disney+ is understood to have made a hugely competitive offer, not only financially but in terms of the quality of their production, in their extensive plans for their coverage. The organisation reportedly has around 125 million subscribers globally. The deal was agreed by UC3, a new joint venture organised between Uefa and the European Club Association, meaning that club representatives have been involved in the discussions around the broadcast rights deal. The agency Two Circles were commissioned to work on the deal. The news comes ahead of this year's final, between Arsenal and Barcelona, which is taking place in Lisbon on Saturday. Barcelona are bidding to win the European title for the third consecutive year after eliminating Chelsea in the semi-finals. Arsenal are in their first final since lifting the trophy in 2007. The Women's Champions League has a new format from next season. It is relatively similar to to the recently-revamped men's Champions League format, albeit smaller in terms of the number of teams. The women's event will switch from a 16-team group stage to now having a league phase, expanded to include 18 teams, where teams will be ranked in one league table, before a playoff round and then the more traditional knockout phase. Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United have earned the European spots for next term from the WSL as the top three with the latter starting their qualifying campaign in August. Arsenal's 2007 triumph is the only time a British women's club has ever won the European title.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Disney+ to enter women's football market with Champions League rights
The streaming platform Disney+ is set to show live Women's Champions League matches from next season across multiple European broadcast territories, including the United Kingdom. It is understood Disney+ has agreed a five-year deal which will mean that it broadcasts every single match in the competition live, which is being perceived as a major step forward for coverage of the European women's game's top club competition. Advertisement The streaming platform's move to enter the women's football market follows the news announced in December that Netflix secured the United States broadcast rights for live coverage of the 2027 and 2031 Women's World Cups. Related: Barcelona are big Women's Champions League final favourites despite 'worst' season In terms of the UK broadcast market, Disney's arrival means that women's football now has a sixth different major broadcaster covering the sport from next season. The BBC and Sky share the rights to show the Women's Super League, while TNT Sports and Channel 4 have secured a new deal to broadcast the Women's FA Cup, while ITV also cover the England women's team's matches – joined by the BBC for major tournaments. Additionally, every WSL 2 match is available live on YouTube next term. Such a wide range of different subscriptions being required by supporters wanting to watch every match live may be a concern for some fans in terms of the cost, although it is also understood there will be some free-to-air coverage of the Women's Champions League in the UK too. Advertisement For the past four seasons, DAZN has shown the Women's Champions League live across Europe and some matches in the UK have additionally been picked up by TNT Sports. Disney+ is understood to have made a hugely competitive offer, not only financially but in terms of the quality of their production, in their extensive plans for their coverage. The organisation reportedly has around 125 million subscribers globally. The deal was agreed by UC3, a new joint venture organised between Uefa and the European Club Association, meaning that club representatives have been involved in the discussions around the broadcast rights deal. The agency Two Circles were commissioned to work on the deal. The news comes ahead of this year's final, between Arsenal and Barcelona, which is taking place in Lisbon on Saturday. Barcelona are bidding to win the European title for the third consecutive year after eliminating Chelsea in the semi-finals. Arsenal are in their first final since lifting the trophy in 2007. Advertisement The Women's Champions League has a new format from next season. It is relatively similar to to the recently-revamped men's Champions League format, albeit smaller in terms of the number of teams. The women's event will switch from a 16-team group stage to now having a league phase, expanded to include 18 teams, where teams will be ranked in one league table, before a playoff round and then the more traditional knockout phase. Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United have earned the European spots for next term from the WSL as the top three with the latter starting their qualifying campaign in August. Arsenal's 2007 triumph is the only time a British women's club has ever won the European title.
New York Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Why have dramatic bidding contests to host major sporting events stopped?
Reeling off things that used to be better in the 'good old days' is a fine way to start an argument: music, television, social media… It is a long and contentious list. But surely nobody can dispute that bidding races for major sports events have gone to the dogs. Without meaning to sound like my father, when I was a lad, the contests to host Olympics or World Cups were almost as exciting as the events themselves. Advertisement In 2005, we had wild celebrations in the room in Singapore and back in Trafalgar Square when London beat Paris for the right to host the 2012 Olympics. Four years later, there was shock in Copenhagen when Rio beat Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago, including its cheerleader-in-chief, new U.S. President Barack Obama, in the race for the 2016 Games. And then, in 2010, there was the ultimate needle-scratch moment when FIFA impresario Sepp Blatter surprised even himself by saying the World Cup circus was heading to Qatar in 2022. These were moments of genuine jeopardy that left millions elated and even more deflated. The decisions were made live on news channels, topped bulletins and were splashed over front pages. For politicians, it was as close as they would get to lifting a trophy, and for sports fans it was like winning a backstage pass to their favourite show. Or, if you are an England football supporter, they were regular reminders of just how unpopular we are around the world — character-building stuff. Compare that to what we have now. Hands up, who remembers how Brisbane 'won' the right to stage the 2032 Olympics or even knew the decision had been made? If that one passed you by, I suspect you missed the emails about the 2030 Winter Olympics going back to the French Alps and the 2034 edition returning to Salt Lake City. No rivals, no rows about gifts, no fireworks back home. What do you recall of the 'race' to host the 2030 and 2034 men's World Cups? Was it months of intrigue, lobbying and speculation, or the news dribbling out in a press release, with the 'vote' conducted by a round of applause on a video conference call? At least there was a press release ready for those decisions. Current FIFA supremo Gianni Infantino's disdain for bidding wars reached a new low in Belgrade this month when he casually mentioned that the hosts for the 2031 and 2035 Women's World Cups had been decided. Advertisement 'We have started the bidding process, as you know, for the Women's World Cups in '31 and '35… and today I can confirm that we have received one bid for '31 and one valid bid, I should add, for '35,' said Infantino, without a hint of suspense. 'The '31 bid is from the United States of America and potentially some other CONCACAF members together, and the '35 bid is from Europe, from the Home Nations. So, the path is there for the Women's World Cup to be taking place in some great countries to boost even more the women's football movement.' His munificence took the FIFA media department by surprise. An email to confirm what those of us in the room thought we had heard did not follow for 24 hours. Presumably, they had to check the tape, too. He was not even speaking at his own event. Infantino's speech was at the UEFA Congress. It also followed his long plug for this summer's Club World Cup, another contract he handed to a sole bidder without a competitive tender. To be fair, the hosts of the previous three Women's World Cups to be awarded have all been decided after competitive contests that started with large fields of candidates but became two-horse races. The battle for the 2027 tournament was even pretty close, with Brazil beating a joint bid from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands by 119 votes to 78 at the FIFA Congress in Bangkok last year. But the most recent tightly contested races for men's World Cups took place in 2000 and 2004, when, respectively, Germany beat South Africa by a single (and possibly corrupt) vote and South Africa bounced back to defeat Morocco 14-10. The 2014 World Cup was handed to Brazil unopposed. The contests for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were amazing in terms of drama but they also led to the near-collapse of FIFA. Perhaps deciding that too much jeopardy is bad for business, FIFA played it safe in 2018 when Canada, Mexico and the U.S. won the right to host the 2026 tournament at a canter over Morocco. Well, it seemed safe at the time. Advertisement That choice did go to a vote, though, whereas the 2030 (Morocco, Portugal, Spain) and 2034 (Saudi Arabia) selections were coronations. It has been a similar story at the IOC, where in 2013 Tokyo comfortably won the right to host the 2020 Games, before the fields assembled for the 2024 Summer Games and 2026 Winter Games evaporated, forcing Olympic boss Thomas Bach to dish out three Games at once: Paris 2024, Milan 2026 and LA 2028, all unopposed. UEFA, too, has dispensed with difficult choices. After Germany beat Turkey for the right to stage Euro 2024, European football's governing body opted for an IOC-style, prizes-for-everyone approach in 2023 when it gave Euro 2028 to the UK and Ireland, and 2032 to Italy and Turkey. And it is not just football. Ever since 2014, when Doha, Qatar's capital, shocked Eugene, Oregon, to win the right to host the 2019 World Athletics Championships, World Athletics has just picked the candidate that ticks the most boxes. The Rugby World Cup used to be good for a decent scrap, but Australia was unopposed for the 2027 edition and nobody was going to stand in the way of progress when USA Rugby said it wanted to host the 2031 tournament. And we have not had a proper fight to host a Cricket World Cup since 2006, when India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh ganged up to beat Australia and New Zealand to the 2011 edition. So, is democracy dead? 'The history of bidding races is a story of peaks and troughs,' says Dr Heather Dichter, a specialist in sport history at Leicester's De Montfort University. 'If we look at the Olympics, the bidding contests ramped up during the 1950s and 1960s as cities and national governments realised there were potential benefits to staging a Games. That cycle really peaked with the race for the 1968 Summer Games, which was decided in 1963 in the German spa town of Baden Baden. Advertisement 'On paper, it was a four-way race between Detroit, Mexico City, Lyon and Buenos Aires, but it was only really between those first three, as Buenos Aires didn't have a chance, and they went all-out for it. They brought huge teams to Baden Baden — it's a nice place, after all — and were allowed to create huge rooms that showcased their bids. 'Detroit leaned into the city's industrial power and it was really hi-tech, while Mexico City went for an Aztec theme. Lyon created a mini Versailles and had a famous French chef making food. And even before the vote there had been lots of debate about Mexico City bringing IOC members over on all-expenses-paid trips. 'So, after the vote, which was pretty close, there was a feeling within the Olympic movement that bidding races had got too big and political, and it was time to dampen things down a bit.' For those who cannot remember if Detroit has hosted an Olympics or not, the Motor City came up short in Germany, just as it did the previous seven times it bid and would do so again when it threw its hat into the ring for a ninth time four years later. 'That didn't really work, as bidders carried on going all-out for a few more years,' Dichter continues. 'But things changed in the 1970s, when the interest dropped away, particularly after the Games in Munich and Montreal, which were dominated by terrorism, boycotts and overspending. 'So, Los Angeles was unopposed when it bid for the 1984 Games. But then the wheel turned again, because the LA was a financial hit and cities around the world thought: 'Yeah, we'll have some of that'. But that, of course, led to more corruption and the infamous vote-buying scandal of the Salt Lake City bid. So the IOC tightened things up again.' Yes, it would be fair to say that things had got a little loose heading into the 1995 vote to decide where the 2002 Winter Games should go. Having lost previous races in suspicious circumstances, Utah's capital spent millions of dollars on gifts, land, donations and even school fees for the IOC's voters. When the scandal broke three years later, the IOC stopped members from accepting free trips to bidding cities, brought in price caps for presents and introduced term limits. Advertisement But bidding races did not dry up because they stopped being fun for the voters. 'It has been concerns over the costs of bidding and staging the events themselves that have seen the number of bids drop off,' says Dichter. Angus Buchanan is the co-founder and chief executive of The Sports Consultancy, a London-based firm that advises cities, countries and federations on how to win major events and run bidding processes. 'Let's think back to 2015 and 2017, when there were six bids for the 2022 Winters and five bids for the 2024 Summer Games,' says Buchanan. 'All but Almaty and Beijing dropped out for the 2022 vote and everyone apart from LA and Paris fell away in 2017. When you have these small bidding fields there is an extreme risk of awkwardness and embarrassment.' Of the two, it is hard to know which contest had a higher cringe factor. Nearly 20 cities and regions initially expressed an interest in staging the 2022 Winter Games, but that crystallised into six seemingly solid bids: Almaty, Beijing, Krakow, Lviv, Oslo and Stockholm. But then Krakow and Lviv decided they could not afford it and the Swedish government realised their public was against it. That was embarrassing, but not as bad as Oslo's last-minute exit following a collapse in local support for the bid. The final straw was the publication of the IOC's 7,000-page list of demands on a host, which includes serious stuff like tax breaks and VIP lanes on highways, and diva-like nonsense such as being greeted by smiles at hotels, Olympic-themed furniture and the air conditioning set at 68 degrees. The IOC did not immediately learn from this PR disaster. The five bids for the 2024 Games — Budapest, Hamburg, LA, Paris and Rome — became two when public referenda and protest movements knocked out Budapest, Hamburg and Rome (an earlier local campaign had stopped Boston from even reaching the start line). Advertisement It was at this point IOC boss Bach decided he could not risk upsetting anyone and gave 2024 to Paris and 2028 to LA. 'The world had still not fully recovered from the (2008) financial crash and much of the West was struggling with large debts,' explains Buchanan. 'These two bidding races caused a lot of introspection at the IOC, which decided it needed to create a much more responsible bidding process.' The result of that introspection was the 2019 creation of the Future Host Commission, a small group of IOC members whose job it is now to hold non-committal 'continuous dialogue' with interested cities and regions, before moving to 'targeted dialogue' with one or more preferred candidates. The idea is that all this chatting produces one unanimous candidate, without anyone losing face or wasting public money on bid books, architects' models of venues or teaser videos. 'The criticism, however, is that you lose a lot of transparency and the decision-making process is entirely opaque,' says Dichter. Bidding races are also great adverts for your event because they create a steady stream of stories in the years between the sporty bits. FIFA, however, has gone in the same direction as the IOC, although there has always been less jeopardy with World Cup hosting decisions because FIFA's continental rotation policy has meant we have always had a general idea of where each tournament would go. For decades, that rotation was simple — South America, Europe, South America, Europe — but South America's turn started to be shared with the rest of the Americas and then the World Cup went genuinely global with the 2002 World Cup in East Asia then South Africa in 2010. But it is not just FIFA's worldview that has expanded; the tournament has grown, too. Having been a 16-team affair for five decades, it expanded to 24 teams in 1982 and then 32 in 1998. There will be 48 teams at next year's World Cup in North America, which means 104 games across 39 days in 16 venues, and some would like to increase that to 64 teams in 2030. Advertisement 'As the World Cups have got bigger, the potential field of candidates has got smaller, which is why we are seeing more joint bids,' says Buchanan. 'And that has led to the need for more curation of these bids by FIFA at the beginning of the process. What we have ended up with is a more formal rotation policy, with more calculated thinking about where the tournament should go.' Calculated thinking is one way of putting it; Bonita Mersiades, a senior member of Australia's ill-fated bid for the 2022 World Cup, has another. 'The shift away from competitive bidding towards these 'strategic partnerships' is part of the centralisation of power under Infantino,' says Mersiades, who wrote a book about her experiences on the World Cup campaign trail in 2018. 'While it might reduce the risk of corruption scandals, we continue to miss out on transparency and accountability, while awarding the world's biggest sporting event based on merit continues to be elusive. 'These stage-managed announcements give the impression of inevitability, not excitement. They also cut the legs out from under smaller nations or joint bids with real vision but less political clout. True competition requires imagination and diversity, on and off the field.' John Zerafa, who has consulted on more bidding campaigns than he can probably remember, does not see it in quite those terms. But he agrees that decision-making at FIFA and the IOC has become centralised around their powerful leaders. 'Over the past decade, Bach and Infantino have taken a hands-on approach in overseeing the awarding of their flagship events,' the veteran bid strategist explains. 'The by-product of their influence over this process has, essentially, limited the number of nations and cities bidding. 'Both organisations, rightly, are also stipulating the use of existing infrastructure. But, of course, not every country has what's needed to host a mega sporting event. So this also limits your bidding pool, and with mega events such as the World Cup expanding in scale, infrastructure pressures on host nations have also grown. Advertisement 'And then we have economic pressures, especially post-Covid, where many governments are carrying historic debt levels. Add on the reality that voters, dealing with cost of living challenges, are less likely to support their politicians underwriting a multi-billion-dollar sports event that lasts just a few weeks and you can see why there are fewer nations putting their hat in the ring to host these events.' Is that that, then? No more media junkets to sample local wares or see new stadiums? 'I think there is greater interest in bidding for the big sports events now than we've seen for two decades,' says Buchanan. 'When we speak to the people we work with on bids, we certainly hear that they think it's to the detriment of the bid when there is no competitive tension. A competitive process makes you focus on the bidding criteria and come up with innovative solutions to the problems they pose. 'There was certainly a period when both FIFA and the IOC wanted their hosts to build lots of shiny new temples to celebrate sport, and a willingness to do that was what swayed the voters as opposed to any consideration of whether these new temples would have any practical long-term benefits for the hosts. There was very little thought given to sustainability. 'But that changed at the IOC with Thomas Bach's Agenda 2020 (a set of bidding-process reforms introduced in 2014) and FIFA has also become more attuned to arguments about sustainability and legacy.' You are saying there is a chance on the junkets, then? 'One of the most obvious consequences of Agenda 2020 was that it marginalised the membership — there was just much less for them to vote on because all the big decisions were wrapped up in Bach's targeted dialogues with potential bidders,' Buchanan continues. 'So, it will be interesting to see what new IOC president Kirsty Coventry does, but I expect we will see more democratic processes in the future.' Advertisement Coventry, a double Olympic swimming champion from Zimbabwe, was elected to the role last month. The victory made her, at 41, the youngest IOC president for more than a century, the movement's first female leader and the first to come from Africa. That sounds like she should be a breath of fresh air. But she was also Bach's preferred successor, so many saw her as the continuity candidate. When The Athletic spoke to Coventry in the run-up to the election, she praised the work of the Future Hosting Commission but noted that there was no shortage of candidates, from around the globe, lining up for runs at the 2036 and 2040 Games. Asked if she could imagine the IOC awarding two Games at once again, as it did in 2017, Coventry said: 'There are pros and cons.' Dichter is encouraged by Coventry's appointment: 'With a new IOC president coming in and a good field assembling for 2036, I'm confident we're going to see more transparency in how the Games are awarded,' she says. 'But I'm less confident we're going to get more transparency from FIFA because it's never really been very transparent and the policy of continental rotation will continue to limit the fields.' Dichter's doubts would appear to be well-grounded. 'To be honest with you, from a strategy point of view, whether it's UEFA or CONCACAF or Asia, they make decisions based on what's best for the confederation,' said CONCACAF boss Victor Montagliani at the Financial Times' Business of Football Summit in February. 'Moving forward, FIFA needs to relook at it, because spending a lot of money on a bid is maybe not the best use of your money. It has to be more strategic and I think this is part of that philosophy of ensuring that (the World Cup) moves around the world. 'So, 2038, I don't know what's next but by having it in the Americas (in 2026), then in Europe and Africa (in 2030), Asia (in 2034), and then continuing that circle, I think it's a better way to do it. Because the craziness of having everybody bid, and all the craziness that went with it, is probably, from a risk-management standpoint, not the best thing to do.' But the craziness was fun, Victor. We miss the craziness. And maybe the craziness created better outcomes. Just a thought.
New York Times
05-04-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
USWNT no longer has a goalkeeping succession plan, leaving opportunity in net wide open
The last seven months have seen continuous rotation throughout the United States women's national team squad. Head coach Emma Hayes has assessed a deeper swathe of her player pool, calling in previously overlooked veterans and rising young prospects. Qualifying for the 2027 Women's World Cup — achieved by a top-four finish in the Concacaf W Championship — won't commence until November 2026, leaving another year and a half to form a winning squad. Advertisement For the most part, this era of experimentation won't hamper the program. Results have been strong since last summer, with only a draw at Wembley against England and a defeat against Japan in the SheBelieves Cup blemishing Hayes' U.S. record. Double-header friendlies against Brazil, China and the Republic of Ireland, and a one-off against Canada, will provide another 630 minutes to study. One question begs an answer sooner than the rest: Who will claim the program's storied No. 1 shirt and lead the group as its starting goalkeeper? It's a distinction that carries tremendous responsibility. The USWNT has had an unusually unbroken litany in between the posts. Across all nine Women's World Cups played, starting in 1991, only four players have served as the team's No. 1 starting goalkeeper. Mary Harvey began the sequence, leading the United States to the inaugural 1991 trophy. Briana Scurry started in the 1995 tournament, famously coming through in the triumphant 1999 World Cup shootout and again retaining the top spot on the depth chart in 2003. Hope Solo broke through in 2007 and succeeded Scurry (for the most part), starting again in 2011 and during the team's third title in 2015. Alyssa Naeher was up next, overseeing a World Cup repeat in 2019 and starting again in 2023. She retired from international soccer at the end of last year after an Olympic gold medal win. It's a remarkable run, a testament to each goalkeeper's longevity. It also highlights how the state of USWNT goalkeepers looks far less stable than at any point in recent memory. A strong No. 1 stops shots and intercepts crosses, commands the back line and brings consistency to the defense. The latter is crucial to any successful team, bringing a cautionary tale. Less than a year after Scurry played a starring role in the 1999 World Cup, with the team ramping up its preparations for the 2000 Olympics, new head coach April Heinrichs gave 18-year-old Hope Solo her senior debut. Solo went on to earn 202 caps for the United States, more than any goalkeeper in program history. However, it was too soon to throw her into the first team regularly, with Scurry still in her prime. Solo was left off of the 2003 World Cup squad when only 20 players (only two goalkeepers) were selected, but by 2007, she had proven herself a clear and worthy starter. Solo made the lineup for the team's first four games, keeping three clean sheets across the group's final two games and a 3-0 quarterfinal win over England. Advertisement Unexpectedly, head coach Greg Ryan second-guessed what wasn't broken. With Brazil awaiting the United States in the semifinal, Ryan started Scurry and left Solo to sulk throughout a crucial clash. Scurry could not shake off the rust after failing to play a single minute in the first four games, and Brazil emphatically blew out the USWNT with a Marta double headlining a 4-0 rout. Solo's friction with the holdovers of the 1999 squad is now well-documented. While Solo did struggle a bit in the group opener, a 2-2 draw against North Korea, her 298 minutes of scoreless soccer were ample evidence that she had forged a functional relationship with her defense. Hayes is unlikely to make a similar mistake, but it's an example of a coach entering a tournament without full confidence in their first choice. Hayes' task is to find her trusted option to build those connections over the next two years before the 2027 World Cup. Even in a transitional 2024, there was no anointed successor to Naeher, like Solo two decades earlier. Since Naeher announced the end of her international career, Hayes has called in six goalkeepers (counting her preliminary squad and January training camp), with no clarity on who has the upper hand to start. Angelina Anderson, Jane Campbell, Claudia Dickey, Mandy McGlynn, Casey Murphy, and Phallon Tullis-Joyce are all in contention going off Hayes' recent selections. Murphy has the highest cap total of the contenders, having made 20 appearances since debuting in 2021 while keeping 15 clean sheets. The 28-year-old starts regularly for the North Carolina Courage in NWSL. Since the start of 2021, the statistics suggest she has been the best shot-stopper of the hopefuls, preventing 18 goals more than expected when comparing what she's conceded against post-shot expected goals faced. That narrowly outpaces Campbell, 30, and her rate of 16.4 goals prevented, with 28-year-old Tullis-Joyce next at 12.9 in the NWSL and Women's Super League combined. Advertisement Hayes did hint toward a possible debut for Tullis-Joyce, who has kept 12 clean sheets across 18 league games this season for Manchester United. 'She's very introverted, very quiet, and she's got to build the relationships with the players around her because you have to build trust and connections,' Hayes told reporters last week. 'She will do that little by little, but this will only be her third camp with us. 'She's in contention to play one of these games but needs a bit more time to do those things.' McGlynn, 26, is arguably the best sweeper of the group, while 24-year-old Anderson has shown a similar defensive proactiveness in her first 11 NWSL starts. Dickey, 25, Murphy and Tullis-Joyce have similarly robust cross-stopping metrics. Anderson and McGlynn have a narrow edge for their long distribution stats; Anderson and Dickey have worked into the mix in part due to strong short-distance passing acumen. None of the six has checked every box necessary to be a top goalkeeper just yet — hence the open-competition nature of the position post-Naeher. It's entirely understandable why Hayes wants to see as many options as possible a few times before endorsing one with consistent starts over the rest. 'We have a lot of really good goalkeepers,' Hayes told reporters after the roster was released. 'Who will emerge from that as the No 1? I don't know, but they have to take their chances when they get them.' The intricacies of the goalkeeping role mean that the urgency to find the answer is likely greater than the rest of her ongoing personnel experiments. The age of the players listed above suggests that we may be in for another competition after the 2028 Olympics — a goalkeeper's peak usually comes between the ages of 25 and 34. Younger alternatives are rising quickly and could crash the competition. Mia Justus, 22, is a touted prospect who signed her first professional contract with Utah Royals this winter, serving as McGlynn's backup. Teagan Wy, 20, came up big throughout the U-20 Women's World Cup last fall and trained with the USWNT as part of Hayes' Futures Camp in January. Advertisement Justus and Wy may someday feature, but it's unlikely to be at the 2027 Women's World Cup. Strong form at the club level could vault dependable starters, such as Jordan Silkowitz, 25, of Bay FC or Katie Lund, 28, of Racing Louisville, into the mix, too. For now, it's an open question that was inevitable once Naeher called time. Hayes has previously told CBS she plans to have her core by June, so we'll see if the upcoming seven friendlies provide enough evidence for Hayes to find her new top option in goal.
The Guardian
04-04-2025
- Sport
- The Guardian
US and UK World Cup bid success boosts hosts but does little for global game
There is an abundance of reasons why staging the 2031 and 2035 Women's World Cups in the United States and UK respectively offers cause for delight. The countries have well-established and emotionally invested fanbases, a genuine buy-in to the women's game and huge, modern stadiums to choose from. These two summer parties will surely eclipse anything women's sport has seen and the countries, having invested in the women's game more than any others in modern times, have frankly earned this. Yet the news that the US and UK are bidding unopposed to host these tournaments is also sad for the women's game from a global perspective. The US's NWSL and England's Women's Super League are the two most-watched women's leagues in the world with the largest average attendances and the most professionalised facilities for players and therefore, while many will agree that means they deserve the Women's World Cup the most, they are also the countries who need the tournament the least. The event has never been staged in Africa and it is dispiriting that the earliest that could change and have a turbocharging effect on the women's football ecosystem in at least one African country is 2039. Not dissimilarly, China is the only Asian nation to have hosted the Women's World Cup. The sight of Gianni Infantino, the Fifa president, announcing in relatively low-key fashion on Thursday that the US (with 'potentially some other Concacaf nations') and UK would host those tournaments should disappoint the rest of the world, if our hope is to see more domestic leagues turn professional, more national federations up their game and more girls receive equal access to sport. Of course, there is a balance to be struck. For players and fans, you want the tournament to offer the greatest available venues, facilities and host cities, where you can guarantee the kind of atmosphere experienced when England hosted the Women's Euros in 2022. Offer players a choice between playing a World Cup match in California, with its hotbed of passionate NWSL fans and recent swathe of rich investors, or in a country with an amateur women's football setup without any such aura, and they would surely have no hesitation. There is also a lot to be said for the idea that, by putting on the greatest show possible, Fifa's tournaments will inspire women and girls across the planet regardless of whether this is on their doorstep. But for nobody else to fancy a crack at it? Not even to make a valid bid? What a shame, and what a poor indictment of the passion levels for women's football within the federations and governments of all other eligible hosts, with the exceptions of South America, where the tournament is heading – with great anticipation – in 2027 to Brazil, and Australia & New Zealand, who put on a memorable show in 2023. Yes, there will be a nice element of nostalgia for the US in 2031, hosting the tournament 40 years after they won the first Women's World Cup, in China. Plus, the US's gamechanging staging of the 1999 tournament was surely the most iconic so far. In 2031, it is expected to co-host with Mexico, where the domestic women's league is blossoming in promising fashion. However, this will be the third time the US has hosted the Women's World Cup, from 11 tournaments. That presents a risk that the strongest women's football nation will only keep strengthening and leave others far behind. More pertinently, assuming – as expected – Fifa officially approves the US as host at a congress meeting next year, from a women's rights perspective that should not pass without controversy, the US being one of relatively few places where it is illegal for millions of women to have an abortion. The UK is hardly a perfect country either. At least it has 10 years to sort out the abysmal train system that fans from around the world will rely on. And HS2 will be finished by then, right? Will it? Really? Allegedly. Sign up to Moving the Goalposts No topic is too small or too big for us to cover as we deliver a twice-weekly roundup of the wonderful world of women's football after newsletter promotion The overwhelming feeling about these two tournaments should be hugely positive. The idea of a transformational impact on the women's game in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is music to the ears. The four UK Football Associations appear to have played something of a blinder, diplomatically, to reach this stage. By 2035, given the rapid growth of the women's game in the past 10 years, who is to say where things will be? What of the UK's stadiums? Venues could include New Trafford, a 60,000-seat ground in the proposed sports quarter in Birmingham, a modernised St James' Park or new Newcastle stadium and an expanded Racecourse Ground in Wrexham. These are things that players including those in the England under-19s team who were 6-0 winners over Belgium in a European qualifier on Wednesday, and who will be in their late 20s when this tournament comes around, should be incredibly motivated by. Be in no doubt, these tournaments in 2031 and 2035 will have the power to do great things for women's sport. It is just regrettable that nobody else fancied a go. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
