WSL clubs to vote on plan to scrap relegation

Demon Barber

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
864
There's an exclusive in The Guardian today which sounds quite alarmist, but reading the article it seems to make sense.

Firstly this not some kind of proposed Super League like that vile scheme in the men's game, and it is not just the WSL as the headline suggests.

To sum up the proposal - All clubs in the WSL and Championship will vote on scrapping relegation as of the 26/27 season. One team will be promoted each season until 2030 thus increasing the size of the WSL to 16 teams. The Championship will also be expanded.

It is thought that after 2030 relegation will resume, but at the moment that is not guaranteed. Nor is the means of promotion, with some clubs wanting to introduce Playoffs to determine this.

Thoughts? And if somebody could please post a link to the Guardian article I'd appreciate it.
 
I would much prefer they did two up, one down. It would achieve the same thing and maintain the competitive pyramid.

I fear the moment relegation is removed it will be very hard to put it back.
 
AmarilloMike said:
I would much prefer they did two up, one down. It would achieve the same thing and maintain the competitive pyramid.

I fear the moment relegation is removed it will be very hard to put it back.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. Also, if the winners of the Championship are promoted automatically then there could be Playoffs for the second promotion spot. There's nothing to stop the one team facing relegation from the WSL being included in the Playoffs.
 
Demon Barber said:
There's an exclusive in The Guardian today which sounds quite alarmist, but reading the article it seems to make sense.

Firstly this not some kind of proposed Super League like that vile scheme in the men's game, and it is not just the WSL as the headline suggests.

To sum up the proposal - All clubs in the WSL and Championship will vote on scrapping relegation as of the 26/27 season. One team will be promoted each season until 2030 thus increasing the size of the WSL to 16 teams. The Championship will also be expanded.

It is thought that after 2030 relegation will resume, but at the moment that is not guaranteed. Nor is the means of promotion, with some clubs wanting to introduce Playoffs to determine this.

Thoughts? And if somebody could please post a link to the Guardian article I'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...al-plan-to-scrap-relegation?CMP=share_btn_url

I'm pleased that they're talking in terms of expanding the top two divisions. I'm not so convinced that it really fixes anything in terms of sustainability or competition.

Physical and technical quality is rising as coaching quality improves and players become full-time professionals. The rules governing minimum standards - defined in terms of staff and player contracts, facilities, stadia, and youth academies etc - mean that most clubs simply can't get promoted to WSL1.

A lot of the ones that do go up, go straight back down. It's bad enough in the men's game, but the difference between mandatory fixed costs (never mind player costs) between the divisions is big and the TV and prize money much lower. Once relegated, the parachute payment system doesn't have the money to protect some historically well run clubs from tumbling into crisis.

It requires huge board level commitment and financial stability for clubs outside the PL to support even a carefully run women's championship team, never mind a team in WSL1. Even some PL clubs struggle with the pressure, particularly the ones who are yo-yo clubs themselves.

I like the expansion of WSL1 but I'm suspicious of the suggested mechanism and the "maybe relegation will restart in 2030" phrasing.
 
Thanks for posting the link - I knew you would - and your detailed and thoughtful post.

The sustainability thing is an issue. The way things stand Women's teams operate at a loss and therefore rely on finance from the club/men's side of things. It is obvious that the successful women's sides will be dominated by the big clubs.

Last year, Bristol City Women were relegated - the only team in the WSL to not have a Premier League club's backing. Ratcliffe even spoke about our women operating at a loss of £8m per year. Something drastic has to be done to rectify this. More money has to flow into the women's game to make them more independent.
 
AmarilloMike said:
I would much prefer they did two up, one down. It would achieve the same thing and maintain the competitive pyramid.

I fear the moment relegation is removed it will be very hard to put it back.
Click to expand...
Ye that's a better idea or at the very least some kind of play off involving the bottom of the WSL Vs top of Championship

You need to keep some interest in matches at the bottom of the table, don't want dead rubbers

Increasing the size of the league is a good idea though
 
The league seems due an increase now, with levels rising, but six clubs seems a very steep rise.

Predictability is a huge thing economically, naturally, still it has to be weighed against ‘pulling-the-ladder-up’-effects.
 
Getting rid of relegation, even temporarily, is a hideous idea and will signify the decrease of what healthy competition is left in woman's football at the top level.
 
I think they do need some innovation - particularly in terms of relegation. Maybe even that you can't get relegated your first season up.

While they're in the expansion period maybe top one from the championship goes up automatically. Next three + bottom one of WSL1 playoff for the other place.

For the Championship/WSL2 to/from the National League I don't like the idea of clubs having to spend too much to meet the minimum requirements. We're beyond what WSL2 clubs can raise through gate money, TV, winnings and typical local advertising/sponsors. They'll all be relying on new money coming in - from owners or wealthy men's clubs.

The women's clubs are not unique of course. Most clubs, including lower league clubs like Salford and Grimsby rely on owner money to keep them going.

Only a handful of Rugby League clubs can pay their way without owners putting in a lot of funds of their own. The top clubs have reacted to it by more or less turning the top division into a closed league. As well as the "stay in the top tier" points you get for league performances, they also get points for crowd size, social media followers etc. A structure that basically makes it impossible for some clubs to get relegated and impossible for most clubs to get promoted. I understand why they're doing it, but I don't like it.

I hope that's not the direction women's football is actually heading.
 
They should focus on expanding the lower leagues and encourage more upward movement.

Perhaps increase promotion places to 2 or 3 and relegation places to 1.

Removing relegation is a ridiculous idea.
 
Demon Barber said:
It's four.
Click to expand...
That still seems to me like a lot over four years. Are there that many Championship teams that will be able to meet -- and sustain over time -- the financial demands of promotion to the WSL?
 
Lobster11 said:
That still seems to me like a lot over four years. Are there that many Championship teams that will be able to meet -- and sustain over time -- the financial demands of promotion to the WSL?
Click to expand...
At current levels of investment, theoretically there's at least three - Birmingham City, London City Lionesses and Newcastle United (though fortunately the Saudi Geordies aren't doing so well this year).

I guess the idea of stopping relegation for a few years is to allow the promoted sides to get a few years of WSL money in the bank to help with that sustainability. I just fear that in a few years time there will not be a single club that vote in favour of restoring relegation.
 
The new ownership has not impressed at all, seems totally clueless except running errands for Chelsea.
 
There's a follow-up piece in today's Guardian looking at how the newly constructed WPLL has very few leaders with any background in, or knowledge of, women's football.

I found this paragraph particularly telling:

"Since independence from the FA was first mooted, the Guardian has repeatedly asked what checks and balances would be put in place to prevent individual club interests from shifting the focus of decision making away from what is good for the game. No definitive or convincing answers from the FA or the WPLL have been given."

Money is power etc. The big clubs will attempt to serve their own interests rather than the development of the women's game as a whole. The less well-funded teams will be in favour of the proposals because it will give them a better chance of getting a slice of the financial pie.
 
Inevitably the focus will be on short-term wins over long-term improvement and sustainability. The risk is you end up with a set of pro franchises without ever really developing the grass roots or the youth football structure.

Without that, you're building on sand really. There is no "college soccer scholarship" structure in the UK. City based loyalty is important to getting live crowds. Citing the US franchise model ignores the whole history and structure of the European game and the game across most of the world for that matter.

I guess for me, it was always about elite football as an inspiration to girls and women. If you break that pyramid structure, there really isn't anything to underpin the romance of the game. If you're not then at the top of the elite league what's the point?

I really don't see how lowering the bar for surviving in the WSL1 is actually going to encourage investment, or increase the number of genuinely competitive matches. It just sounds like a way to allow more PL clubs to put a tick in the checklist, they might as well charge an annual fee for clubs to use the logo on their website and not bother playing.
 
I think it has been felt for a while that the WSL needed to expand, with many voices from within the Women's game openly speaking about it. Definitely remember Emma Hayes and Gareth Taylor in terms of managers being asked/discussing it in press conferences 2/3 years ago. I always felt that a 16 team, 30 game season would be the way they went eventually for both WSL leagues.

I don't agree with no relegation idea though , when the Premier League went from 22 to 20 teams they had a season that saw 4 teams relegated instead of 3 and only 2 teams promoted rather than the normal three from the Championship (First Division). So the leagues went;

Premier League: 4 down.
Championship: 2 up/ 4 down
League 1: 2 up/ 5 down
League 2: 3 up.

Taking the Premier League down to 20, keeping the Championship and League One as 24 teams and expanding League Two to 24 teams from 22.

The biggest issue is quality, ideally if you could do a 3 up and 1 down in the WSL you would get the league to 14 and then 16 teams in two seasons. You however could potentially have a side like Durham (who sit third currently) promoted and I'm not sure if they could cope with the potential extra burden financially nor those of the National (North and South) sides supplementing the WSL Championship finding the funding needed in the second tier (Hashtag, Lewes, Liverpool Feds) etc. When Rugby Borough (formerly Coventry United) now in the Conference suffered heavily financially just a couple of years ago in the Championship, running at a heavy loss and close to liquidation before a last minute investment in January think it cost £250-500k.

You would then need to tinker with promotion spots through all the rest of the divisions to redistribute the teams and having watched my niece in the various cups against teams from the 4th to the 6th tier the standard is well off both on and off the pitch. Far cry from the WSL and worrying about the costs of having to put the floodlights on.
 
Just to throw a couple of other elements into the story. One of the areas already under discussion was allowing WSL teams to run a B team in the normal pyramid structure. Essentially to give U21 teams the right kind of competition and, in theory at least, push standards up. It's worth looking at how Spanish football is currently structured to get an idea of how this works.

Liga F, Spain's WSL1 equivalent, has 16 professional teams, with minimum wage and other basic contract conditions set by collective bargaining. Two clubs get relegated each season.

Primera Federación Femenina is the Spanish equivalent of WSL Championship. It has 14 teams, including some B teams from the big clubs. It's a semipro League and 2 clubs get promoted each year. B teams can't play in the same division as their parent club, so they can't get promoted to Liga F.

There's also relegation into a regional League structure. B teams can get relegated and get relegated automatically if their A team do.

I'm not sure what the minimum financial requirements are in the PFF. I will say though that there are several women's teams there and in Liga F itself, that don't have money from a men's Liga1/Liga 2 club backing them.

And just a random fact for the curious...
The best known of the top tier Liga F independent women's clubs is probably Madrid CF (not linked to Real Madrid or Atletico - they have their own women's teams). They've got about 650 players in their youth structure and basically compete at every level in the women and girls game, running multiple U10 teams etc.

TLDR
Spain has 16 teams in its top (fully pro) division and they can get relegated :lol:
 
jojojo said:
Just to throw a couple of other elements into the story. One of the areas already under discussion was allowing WSL teams to run a B team in the normal pyramid structure. Essentially to give U21 teams the right kind of competition and, in theory at least, push standards up. It's worth looking at how Spanish football is currently structured to get an idea of how this works.

Liga F, Spain's WSL1 equivalent, has 16 professional teams, with minimum wage and other basic contract conditions set by collective bargaining. Two clubs get relegated each season.

Primera Federación Femenina is the Spanish equivalent of WSL Championship. It has 14 teams, including some B teams from the big clubs. It's a semipro League and 2 clubs get promoted each year. B teams can't play in the same division as their parent club, so they can't get promoted to Liga F.

There's also relegation into a regional League structure. B teams can get relegated and get relegated automatically if their A team do.

I'm not sure what the minimum financial requirements are in the PFF. I will say though that there are several women's teams there and in Liga F itself, that don't have money from a men's Liga1/Liga 2 club backing them.

And just a random fact for the curious...
The best known of the top tier Liga F independent women's clubs is probably Madrid CF (not linked to Real Madrid or Atletico - they have their own women's teams). They've got about 650 players in their youth structure and basically compete at every level in the women and girls game, running multiple U10 teams etc.

TLDR
Spain has 16 teams in its top (fully pro) division and they can get relegated :lol:
Click to expand...
I did raise this idea here at some point - not sure where though. On the one hand I do like the idea of having B teams included in the pyramid, like in Spain, but on the other hand it would simply allow the big clubs to hoover up the talent.

Perhaps there could be a rule whereby the B team players had to all have developed at the club rather than be bought?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.