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:
- 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,
- 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.