By Rick Woelfel

This column is being posted on the first day of spring, the season of renewal. It is also the season of renewal for women's football; the National Women's Football Association and the Independent Women's Football League will kick off their 2004 season in two weeks.

Both organizations have spent considerable time and energy touting their success, but in truth, women's football cannot be considered a success-at least not yet. But the sport isn't a failure either.

If that sounds like we're straddling the fence, it's because there are two distinct questions to consider when discussing the vitality of the sport; first, the product that is being presented on the field and second, the profitability of that product.

There is no question that the top teams in the sport present an excellent product. We had the privilege of calling the NWFA playoff game between Philadelphia and D.C. last year and it was one of the most competitive and entertaining football games we've ever witnessed. By all accounts, the IWFL championship game between Sacramento and New York was worth every bit of the admission price and the WPFL (which plays during the traditional football season) also put on an entertaining championship game.

Even the most hardened of cynics can appreciate the athleticism and dedication these women display.

But the sport still features too many mismatches. And when the casual fan attends a women's football game perhaps out of curiosity, he or she will be hesitant to return for an encore after putting down hard-earned currency to watch a 60-0 blowout.

To a certain extent, some of this is unavoidable. Unlike other sports, there is no pipeline feeding the three major leagues and their 70-odd teams a steady stream of new talent. Teenaged girls don't play high school and college football in any appreciable numbers, so the athletes that want to give tackle football a try are picking up the game at relatively late ages, athletically. Some make the transition smoothly and some don't.

But, in our humble view, the most significant issue facing the sport is that there are simply too many teams playing at the elite level (or claiming to), setting up a scenario that might cause the sport to collapse under its own weight.

Rather than try to strengthen existing franchises, the leaders of the sport have made a priority of establishing new ones. In our view, that's a serious error for a sport that claims to be a professional one but pays its most important commodity, the players, little or nothing.

The point could be argued that during the regular season, teams stay reasonably close to home. But during the postseason, the weaknesses in the system are exposed, as teams are sent bouncing around the country, without regard to the expenses the teams or the individual players are incurring.

And it's not just a matter of out of pocket expenses, like a motel room, gasoline and food. Even I these costs are picked up by a team or sponsor, most players have real jobs, which require that they do a day's work for a day's pay. Start sending a team across the country to play a football game and do it several weeks in a row and in essence, the sport is taking bread from the players' mouths at both ends. In today's economic climate, this is unconscionable!

There are answers to these issues floating around somewhere. Teams could reorganize into smaller, regionally based leagues. An eight-team league stretching from New England to Washington D.C. for instance, or from Oregon or Washington south through California would strengthen regional rivalries, perhaps attract regional sponsors.

At this stage, the sport wouldn't lose much if Pensacola and Detroit couldn't meet for some kind of national championship.

And if regional sponsors came on board, there might actually be enough dollars around to see to it that ALL THE PLAYERS (and coaches) IN EVERY SO-CALLED MAJOR LEAGUE are paid. Some teams in some leagues are being compensated now. But some are not. And until every player is being paid, no team or league can consider itself a success.

How much should players be compensated? Ideally, an athlete making the sacrifices necessary to compete successfully and safely in the sport should receive $100 per game, plus expense money on the road (Hotel, food, gasoline if necessary). Those dollars would help compensate a player who has to take a day off from work to travel to a road game, or make a doctor visit to have him look at her sprained ankle or sore shoulder.

Is that a lot of money? Of course. Dress 45 players for a game and that's $36,000 for an eight-game season, not counting travel expenses or the costs of any postseason games. But it's up to the leagues to find the sponsorship dollars and then see to it that those dollars get to the teams and players. A fully salaried eight-team league would cost a little over $300,000 in player salaries, not counting travel costs. We'll admit that those dollars aren't easy to come by. In the last year, two women's sports leagues, the WUSA and the PWBA have folded because of financial distress and both were better funded than any women's football league. But for women's football to survive in the long term, and to be a viable choice for sponsors, those making the greatest sacrifices, the players, must be rewarded.

As I finish this off, I am thinking of some of the players I've met over the past three years. One in particular comes to mind. She is well educated and successful in her chosen field of work. She plays football because of the challenge it offers and because she loves to compete. But, as is the case with many of her peers, the sport has taken a toll on her physically and financially. She, her teammates and her opponents have made considerable sacrifices to play a game they love. It is now time for their sacrifices to be recognized.

(Responsible response is invited and encouraged. No response will be posted without the author’s consent. Send responses to rwoelfel@bellatlantic.net