Hope Solo opposes the U.S.-led 2026 World Cup bid...

Yeah I don't think that is the case considering they only paid $153k in fees on approximately $94M in investments for 2016 and $200k in fees on $110M investment in 2017. Those fees appear very low.

Fees? what does that have to do with holding back a $ 110 million dollar surplus that's not being invested in anything soccer realted?

If us soccer had to spend the excess revenue or get taxed on the profit wouldn't they actually have to put that money to use for something soccer realated as opposed to investing in financal firms who also earn real profits and turn that money over? Those firms pay taxes but us soccer does'nt so called that what you want to.
 
I guess you don't know who manages those funds are what they really make each year.

Big clubs two mil in revenue, nope your way off, 4m+ plus and some are much more than that.

Non-profit sports is a 4+ billion dollar industry and you're taking about some volunteers likes it's some small time enterprises of mom & pops. There are some great volunteer organizations but US soccer is not one of them.

I like my local medium sized club but heck when they have a million+ in reserves invested on 3.5 mil in revenue and have board members who don't even have kids playing and they all work in the finance or law it's clear what's going on and somebody besides the kids are profiting in some way, indrectly or not. I don't mind playing but I don't pretend like the profits are going back to the club or the fees are being reduced, they increase every year and I see the 990 showing increased levels of investments each year because without them they can't balance the ledge, they would have to show a profit. Regular businesses can't do this and would be subject to taxes. Pretty simple

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953731566/201733199349318798/IRS990
 
We need to implement a strategy, in developing our youth to be prepared to compete with the best, we have eight years to do this. Time to recruit experts for this.
 
What's the general consensus on Jill Ellis and the job she has done with the WNT?
My opinion only, could be worse, could be better. If she is in a position to influence the coaches of the YWNT's then it could definitely be much better.
 
Well, well just in;

"Hope Solo calls US soccer a 'rich white-kid sport"
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/06/28/hope-solo-calls-us-soccer-rich-white-kid-sport.html

One reason why the U.S. men’s national soccer team failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia is that soccer in America is a “rich white-kid sport,” former U.S. women's team goalie Hope Solo said Wednesday.

Solo, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, was speaking at the Hashtag Sports conference in New York City. She said the sport in the U.S. is too expensive for Latino, African-American and rural kids to play -- adding that if she was a kid today her family wouldn’t be able to afford to help her advance in the game.

“We have alienated the Hispanic communities. We have alienated our black communities. We have alienated the underrepresented communities, even rural communities," Solo said, according to Sporting News. "So soccer in America right now is a rich white-kid sport.”

 
Well, well just in;

"Hope Solo calls US soccer a 'rich white-kid sport"
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/06/28/hope-solo-calls-us-soccer-rich-white-kid-sport.html

One reason why the U.S. men’s national soccer team failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia is that soccer in America is a “rich white-kid sport,” former U.S. women's team goalie Hope Solo said Wednesday.

Solo, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, was speaking at the Hashtag Sports conference in New York City. She said the sport in the U.S. is too expensive for Latino, African-American and rural kids to play -- adding that if she was a kid today her family wouldn’t be able to afford to help her advance in the game.

“We have alienated the Hispanic communities. We have alienated our black communities. We have alienated the underrepresented communities, even rural communities," Solo said, according to Sporting News. "So soccer in America right now is a rich white-kid sport.”

The irony is Hope Solo and the players are the factor that prevents us from eliminating Pay-To-Play for the elite youth players.
 

Most folks would agree that operating youth programs costs money. Fields, insurance, coaches, staff, uniforms, referees, travel, etc. Under the current economic model, Clubs have a single source of revenue to pay for all of those expenses ... parents. The attacks on "pay-to-play" argue that the costs are just too dang high for some parents, thus, potential superstar talent from lower income families are priced out of youth development. Pay-to-play.

Where will the Clubs get the money to pay all these expenses or at a minimum subsidize the expenses?

The model used around the world is found in FIFA's Rules Relating to Training and Solidarity Fees, which basically earmark a portion of player transfer fees to be distributed to the youth clubs (12-23) that had a role in training the player. What this does is allow clubs to "invest" in players by providing those clubs with financial incentives. For example:
  • When, for example, Germany’s Bastian Schweinsteiger moved from Bayern Munich to Manchester United in 2015, the village club he played for 17 years earlier, at ages 12 and 13, received $42,000.
  • DeAndre Yedlin, move from the Seattle Sounders to Tottenham Hotspur generated a transfer fee of about $3.7 million, which would have entitled his youth club, Crossfire to be entitled to a solidarity payment of about $60,000, but Crossfire received nothing, with the MLS team keeping it all.
Which brings us to the question of who is against paying transfer and solidarity fees ... youth clubs? No, they are arguing for it. Parents? No, assuming parents understand what the hell transfer and solidarity fees are. The biggest "opponent" is the MLS Players Union and the Players in general, who believe that paying transfer fees would strip money from their pocket. They are wrong, but that is the argument. The MLS also opposes it because right now it has the monopoly and pockets all transfer/solidarity fees if paid by a professional club.

Finally, we have the Federation who has taken the position that it simply doesn't want to enforce the payments and relies on a consent decree to feign an argument that collection is illegal.

If the players, who weld significant power with the Federation came out today and said we want Article 19 fees to be paid to youth clubs, two things would happen:
  1. Federation would adopt rules that make it work given the unique US market (setting floors for payments to ensure the marketability of development players is not impacted); and,
  2. Non-MLS clubs would now have incentives to invest in players by subsidizing training/development fees for those that need ... i.e. eliminating "pay to play."
Now, to Solo's credit, she did adopt a stance that training and solidarity fees should be paid during her candidacy for the Presidents position.

My fundamental problem with all this rhetoric about "pay to play" is that it is merely the symptom and not the disease. The disease is the failure of US Soccer to adopt the FIFA regulations regarding training and solidarity fees. Cure that and the problem goes away. Its foolish to think pay-to-play can be eliminated without first adopting the FIFA regulations, where will the money come from then? In order to cure it, the players must change their position.

So in conclusion, the players are the primary problem standing in the way of eliminating pay to play for elite youth athletes. Note, non-elite athletes will always pay to play.
 
Most folks would agree that operating youth programs costs money. Fields, insurance, coaches, staff, uniforms, referees, travel, etc. Under the current economic model, Clubs have a single source of revenue to pay for all of those expenses ... parents. The attacks on "pay-to-play" argue that the costs are just too dang high for some parents, thus, potential superstar talent from lower income families are priced out of youth development. Pay-to-play.

Where will the Clubs get the money to pay all these expenses or at a minimum subsidize the expenses?

The model used around the world is found in FIFA's Rules Relating to Training and Solidarity Fees, which basically earmark a portion of player transfer fees to be distributed to the youth clubs (12-23) that had a role in training the player. What this does is allow clubs to "invest" in players by providing those clubs with financial incentives. For example:
  • When, for example, Germany’s Bastian Schweinsteiger moved from Bayern Munich to Manchester United in 2015, the village club he played for 17 years earlier, at ages 12 and 13, received $42,000.
  • DeAndre Yedlin, move from the Seattle Sounders to Tottenham Hotspur generated a transfer fee of about $3.7 million, which would have entitled his youth club, Crossfire to be entitled to a solidarity payment of about $60,000, but Crossfire received nothing, with the MLS team keeping it all.
Which brings us to the question of who is against paying transfer and solidarity fees ... youth clubs? No, they are arguing for it. Parents? No, assuming parents understand what the hell transfer and solidarity fees are. The biggest "opponent" is the MLS Players Union and the Players in general, who believe that paying transfer fees would strip money from their pocket. They are wrong, but that is the argument. The MLS also opposes it because right now it has the monopoly and pockets all transfer/solidarity fees if paid by a professional club.

Finally, we have the Federation who has taken the position that it simply doesn't want to enforce the payments and relies on a consent decree to feign an argument that collection is illegal.

If the players, who weld significant power with the Federation came out today and said we want Article 19 fees to be paid to youth clubs, two things would happen:
  1. Federation would adopt rules that make it work given the unique US market (setting floors for payments to ensure the marketability of development players is not impacted); and,
  2. Non-MLS clubs would now have incentives to invest in players by subsidizing training/development fees for those that need ... i.e. eliminating "pay to play."
Now, to Solo's credit, she did adopt a stance that training and solidarity fees should be paid during her candidacy for the Presidents position.

My fundamental problem with all this rhetoric about "pay to play" is that it is merely the symptom and not the disease. The disease is the failure of US Soccer to adopt the FIFA regulations regarding training and solidarity fees. Cure that and the problem goes away. Its foolish to think pay-to-play can be eliminated without first adopting the FIFA regulations, where will the money come from then? In order to cure it, the players must change their position.

So in conclusion, the players are the primary problem standing in the way of eliminating pay to play for elite youth athletes. Note, non-elite athletes will always pay to play.

I don't think that responds to " Hope Solo and the players are the factor that prevents us from eliminating Pay-To-Play for the elite youth players."
 
Canada actually does something correctly. In Canada if you spend money for your kid to play an organized sport such as soccer or hockey, you can write off a fairly significant amount on your taxes. Last I heard from my buddy in Toronto is that it is around US$1800. Maybe US Soccer should lobby Congress and Trump to pass similar tax reform as a way to get kids out of the house. That would make many of the pay-to-play sports accessible to the lower income families. But, I am sure there would be greedy club officials that would just raise fees.
 
Back
Top