... We probably funded a rate of something like one out of ten solo teams.
We don't have any kind of sponsors. The players invest themselves. They need money. They need resources... That's why, in sports and teams, they have sponsors - in soccer, in the NFL. Everyone has sponsors who invest and help to pay daily expenses.
On the U.S.A. team our income wasn't coming from U.S.A. It was coming from sponsors, it was coming from how we made money elsewhere.
Not a single, substantial, commercially-successful product had come from an adequately-finded team. They'd always come from the scrounging, scrapping, underfunded teams.
The reality of it is, we have to have an enormous amount of corporate support to fund 43 race teams and all the things that go on. So there are always going to be brands that may not be ones that you would choose, but that are willing to make a significant investment.
You have to have commercial income so you can spend on players.
The UCI have to make the decision to put in rules into women's cycling that they have in men's cycling: you know, like a minimum budget to run a women's team and that sort of thing so that it becomes more professional.
Your team has to understand that coming into the ABA, you have to have your investments right and sponsorships and people ready to give you money so they can back you up.
The vast sums of money that are coming in at the top end of the game are stretching the rest of the sides to try to get as much benefit out of what finance they've got and get the best players they can find for that finance.
Spurs haven't got the funds they need so success has to be achieved gradually.
You can't win in any sport without heavily concentrating on revenue generation. You have to be relentless in that regard if you are going to be able to afford the kind of players you need to compete at the highest level.
