Wall Street Journal article: "American Soccer Needs More Players" (ugh)

From yesterday's WSJ. Interesting note, the print headline was "American Soccer Needs More Players". Guessing US Soccer didn't like that and now the digital article is entitled, "US Soccer President's American ambition."

Still, in the article the new Prez laments that we don't have enough youth players here. That's just preposterous. No idea where he's coming from on that other than he wants more players to grow revenue, but that's different than saying we don't have enough.

Another interesting tidbit from the article..."US Soccer's budget will be $136 million and that is 1/3 the budget of England's Football Association." Wow, didn't know that. That's a huge difference. But as long as US Soccer continues to show it's incapable of committing to real change on both mens and womens side, and getting some good results, new money will not come...nor will it be deserved. Enjoy:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-soccer-presidents-american-ambition-11550667600
 
I can't read the whole article because I'm not subscribed to WSJ, but Cordeiro's claim is a joke. We have a quality of programs problem not a quantity of players problem.

The last exhaustive study by FIFA a decade ago showed we had nearly 4,000,000 kids playing soccer, nearly double the 2nd highest country, Germany. Now I know participation levels have decreased in soccer, like many other traditional youth sports, but we still have millions playing soccer. And spare me the argument that all the best players play the big 3 sports. Out of millions that play soccer their are plenty that are top athletes.

Maybe parents are tired of paying of paying big bucks for a sub-standard product and kids are tired of getting berated by their coaches and that is why participation is declining.
 
Despite winning the [World Cup] bid, lagging participation is a major issue. Soccer players age 6-17 who played at least twice a month dropped more than 15% from 2013-2017, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association. SFIA gathers its information through surveys, and includes people who play outside of U.S. Soccer.

Youth soccer in the U.S. faces criticism for its lack of outreach to immigrants and other underserved communities, and its fractured structure involving several competing groups. Coreiro said U.S. Soccer has identified about 2 million of its youth players so far, about halfway to completing its most detailed ever inventory.

Soccer faces a battle for participants with other sports within the U.S. in the next few years. Despite recent declines, football has more high school players than soccer, and baseball had more total participants than soccer in 2018: 15.9 million compared with 11.4 million, according to SFIA. Cordeiro anticipates basketball will be soccer’s main competitor in the future.

Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer needs to capitalize on this year’s Women’s World Cup and the 2026 men’s World Cup in order to grow the game.

“If we can’t transform soccer to being the pre-eminent sport in the next 10 years, it may be another 25,” Cordeiro said. “It eventually will happen because demographics are in our favor.”
 
Plenty of youth playing soccer, many of the players don't play in structured or sanctioned leagues where the "club" fees price out a larger % of families especially in urban areas.

Us soccer should be spending some of there $$$165million war chest in assets to hire some coaches, scouts, fields, help subside youth soccer so those outreach programs acutally make a difference and more kids are included not overlooked.

Ussda has all but given up on futsal programming which is easier & less expensive and fun for the young kids. Too bad leadership is another problem, Chicago & east coast types living in the glass houses: Cordeiro is more concerned with buliding reserves, marketing, and the national teams and hasn't done anything for the youth groups yet as far as I've seen.
 
Many of you are not seeing the big picture. US Soccer is just the Federation and the NGB (National Governing Body) of the sport pursuant to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. As the NGB it has 3 (technically 4) "Councils," with each of the Councils answerable to Affiliate Members, each of which has their own corporate structures and budgets/revenues. The Councils are "Professional," "Adult," and "Youth" (and "Player's Council"). US Soccer's primary mission is to field the National Team and support the mission of the AFFILIATES through the Council. The Affiliates do the heavy lifting and its NOT US Soccer role or responsibility to meddle in the affairs of the Affiliates.

Looking at the Budget surplus and thinking that US Soccer should "spend" that money on youth programs is ignorant. That money was generated by the "Adult" programs, namely the national team. If US Soccer were to redirect those funds from the National team to the youth council it would be sued and have both the Players, Professional and Adult Councils jumping down its throat.

The Youth Council receives some funds, but all the heavy lifting is done by the Youth Council Affiliate members. Multiples of Hundreds of millions of dollars flow through the Youth Council members and their respective affiliates that never appears on the books of US Soccer. Who are the Youth Council Members? AYSO, US Club and U.S. Youth Soccer. These organizations each have their own "members" ... US Youth Soccer has 55 member State Associations, Cal South is just 1 of those members. Then each State Association has many more members (Coast, SCDSL, Surf SD, Surf XYZ, Albion, etc., with each of those leagues and clubs supporting thousands of teams, tens of thousands players, etc.).

None of the hundreds of millions (if not billions) flows to US Soccer. You want to change the dynamic, you want to change the emphasis. Talk to your DOC ... that is where the power lays.
Chain.jpg
 
Full article:

The president of U.S. Soccer acknowledges the federation doesn’t actually know how many young soccer players it has playing under its umbrella. He does know that participation isn’t growing.

“All I can tell you is there’s no question over the last decade or so it stagnated,” Carlos Cordeiro said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, a year after winning a hotly contested election for federation president.


The lack of hard data about its young players—and soccer’s languishing participation in the U.S.—is a crucial problem for Cordeiro at a time when U.S. Soccer is in a rebuilding mode.

The sport is battling to hang onto youth participants in the U.S. The dominant U.S. women’s national team is a favorite in this year’s World Cup but faces growing competition abroad. The men’s national team missed the 2018 World Cup and is regrouping around a new coach. It’s all happening as the U.S. prepares to co-host the 2026 World Cup along with Mexico and Canada, a big opportunity to boost the sport’s future in the U.S.

Unifying and expanding youth soccer were two of Cordeiro’s priorities when he became president. The mystery about how many players are in the U.S. Soccer pipeline—the result of data collected from several sources—prompted Cordeiro last year to gather five major youth soccer organizations onto a task force. U.S. Soccer is now assigning each young player a kind of national ID to ensure that they aren’t double-counted.

Cordeiro faces challenges that go far beyond stabilizing youth soccer. As he promoted the 2026 World Cup bid last year, he was reminded that the U.S. also lacks something that nearly every competitive soccer nation has: a comprehensive national training center. He confirmed the federation is considering building some kind of training center—or centers—possibly before 2026.

The plan is “a dream for now,” he said, but added: “In time I’d love for us to have it and I think the federation and sport deserves it.”

U.S. Soccer has its headquarters in Chicago, a referee and coach training center in Kansas City, Kan., and training grounds at the Dignity Health Sports Park in Carson, Calif. But California is a long flight from where some men’s national team players play professionally in Europe. More useful to the federation would be a center close to the East Coast.

Such a center would need a funding source. In that area, the U.S. badly lags serious soccer nations. The recently approved federation budget of $136 million is scarcely one-third the revenue of England’s Football Association.

That’s why Cordeiro has made revenue generation a focus. U.S. Soccer recently signed sponsorship deals with Deloitte and Volkswagen , the latter of which became the second-largest deal behind Nike .

“These are major companies who are choosing to promote their brands with us,” said Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs executive who doesn’t draw a salary from U.S. Soccer. “Why? Largely because they see the grass-roots support for the game.”


Cordeiro has remade some of the leadership of U.S. Soccer. The federation hired national team veteran Earnie Stewart as the team’s first general manager and Major League Soccer’s Gregg Berhalter as coach. The young team is 2-0 this year in friendlies against Panama and Costa Rica and will defend its Gold Cup title this summer.

The federation’s women’s side is a strength. A player on the famed 1999 World Cup team, Cindy (Parlow) Cone won the vice president position previously held by Cordeiro. She became one of the few women to hold such a position in global soccer.

More than two years after a rancorous fight over pay with the women’s national team, the biggest increase in U.S. Soccer’s budget will be for that team, Cordeiro said. Over all, the federation increased funding for the women’s and men’s national teams to roughly $60 million from $40 million, he said.

Ticket sales to the eight domestic women’s friendlies leading up to the June 7 Women’s World Cup in France are brisk, Cordeiro said. Yet despite its popularity and the U.S. women’s historic dominance—it’s won a record three World Cup titles—Cordeiro sees threats on the horizon. European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, is stepping up its support of women’s soccer, and professional men’s clubs in England and elsewhere are investing in women’s teams. Cordeiro noted the U.S. women’s U17 and U20 national teams’ falling short in their most recent World Cups.

So he’s assembling a group of inside and outside experts in women’s soccer to scrutinize the game and shore up American strength. “We can’t afford to rest on our laurels,” he said.

Cordeiro said the U.S.’s successful bid to host the 2026 men’s World Cup, which will increase to 48 teams from 32, has shifted the paradigm for the event.

“When we went and met with little countries, they looked at us and said, ‘My God, we can now dream someday to host a World Cup ourselves because we can get together as three, four or five,’” Cordeiro said. He predicted that in the future, “It will be very difficult for any single country to host a men’s World Cup.”

Despite winning the bid, lagging participation is a major issue. Soccer players age 6-17 who played at least twice a month dropped more than 15% from 2013-2017, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association. SFIA gathers its information through surveys, and includes people who play outside of U.S. Soccer.

Youth soccer in the U.S. faces criticism for its lack of outreach to immigrants and other underserved communities, and its fractured structure involving several competing groups. Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer has identified about two million of its youth players so far, about halfway to completing its most detailed ever inventory.

Soccer faces a battle for participants with other sports within the U.S. in the next few years. Despite recent declines, football has more high school players than soccer, and baseball had more total participants than soccer in 2018: 15.9 million compared with 11.4 million, according to SFIA. Cordeiro anticipates basketball will be soccer’s main competitor in the future.

Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer needs to capitalize on this year’s Women’s World Cup and the 2026 men’s World Cup in order to grow the game.

“If we can’t transform soccer to being the pre-eminent sport in the next 10 years, it may be another 25,” Cordeiro said. “It eventually will happen because demographics are in our favor.”
 
Here's a rebuttal....

https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ep-kids-playing-offer-something-differen.html

My 2 cents are it's really about time management. College has become really very competitive, much more so than even 10 or 15 years ago. If families eventually see soccer isn't going to be useful in getting them into colleges, they'll eventually shift to other things, because even the 2 practices and 1 game from a rec league are a huge time commitment (and by then, most of your friends are moving on because they are specializing in whatever is going to get them into college, so why play rec?) . One of the reasons lacrosse, field hockey, water polo and fencing have made a small revival in recent years is because these offer new avenues to specialize for kids that are outside of the crowded fields of basketball/baseball/soccer.
 
Here's a rebuttal....

https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ep-kids-playing-offer-something-differen.html

My 2 cents are it's really about time management. College has become really very competitive, much more so than even 10 or 15 years ago. If families eventually see soccer isn't going to be useful in getting them into colleges, they'll eventually shift to other things, because even the 2 practices and 1 game from a rec league are a huge time commitment (and by then, most of your friends are moving on because they are specializing in whatever is going to get them into college, so why play rec?) . One of the reasons lacrosse, field hockey, water polo and fencing have made a small revival in recent years is because these offer new avenues to specialize for kids that are outside of the crowded fields of basketball/baseball/soccer.
My son plays pick-up futsal twice a week now and he likes it way more than any other setting. He's also improving more from that than any high (or low) level coaching / training he's receiving.
 
Interesting article. I do like the WSJ. When we compare the US to the UK we see there is a 5 to 1 ratio of citizens. A 40 to 1 ratio in land mass. This in favor of the US. But according to the article the UK has a 3 to 1 ratio of total funding. With fewer players in their pool and a smaller geographic area to cover they are able to provide 6x the funding in the end. Overall when compared to the US they can be more effective in finding talent. These points create a huge challenge.
 
Last edited:
My son plays pick-up futsal twice a week now and he likes it way more than any other setting. He's also improving more from that than any high (or low) level coaching / training he's receiving.

This on so many levels , my kid is enjoying the benefits of pick up games as well, Translate very well onto the field.
 
US Soccer's primary mission is to field the National Team and support the mission of the AFFILIATES through the Council.

Incorrect according to their bylaws. US Soccer's primary purpose is "to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments" The responsibility of the youth council is "to make reports and recommendations to the Board about youth soccer matters, including programs and activities the Board may direct the Youth Council to administer". Their are no restrictions in the bylaws for the funding of youth soccer, in fact, expenses of the youth council can be included in the annual budget of the Federation. There are also no legal restrictions on the source of funds being matched to the expenditures of funds. Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.

Yes, it's clear that USSF has made the USMNT it's priority mission; however, that's by choice and not by organizational structure. USSF is failing youth soccer.
 
Incorrect according to their bylaws. US Soccer's primary purpose is "to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments" The responsibility of the youth council is "to make reports and recommendations to the Board about youth soccer matters, including programs and activities the Board may direct the Youth Council to administer". Their are no restrictions in the bylaws for the funding of youth soccer, in fact, expenses of the youth council can be included in the annual budget of the Federation. There are also no legal restrictions on the source of funds being matched to the expenditures of funds. Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.

Yes, it's clear that USSF has made the USMNT it's priority mission; however, that's by choice and not by organizational structure. USSF is failing youth soccer.

Also, as a side note, so US Soccer wants to build a facility of the east coast because a handful or players play in Europe and it would be closer for them, seriously?
 
Incorrect according to their bylaws. US Soccer's primary purpose is "to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments" The responsibility of the youth council is "to make reports and recommendations to the Board about youth soccer matters, including programs and activities the Board may direct the Youth Council to administer". Their are no restrictions in the bylaws for the funding of youth soccer, in fact, expenses of the youth council can be included in the annual budget of the Federation. There are also no legal restrictions on the source of funds being matched to the expenditures of funds. Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.

Yes, it's clear that USSF has made the USMNT it's priority mission; however, that's by choice and not by organizational structure. USSF is failing youth soccer.

I disagree with a few of your statements/opinions. First, the generic statement in the Bylaws sets forth the over arching goals, true, but the National Council decisions have established more clearly defined roles than the generic statement you cite.

Let's take a step back. Since we are talking how money is spent, appreciate that US Soccer spends its money according to an approved budget. That budget is approved by the National Council (i.e. the voting members) each year by the National Council at the AGM.

Bylaw 301. STATUS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY
The National Council shall be the representative membership body of the Federation and have the following authority:
(1) to elect the President and Vice President of the Federation.
(2) to amend the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
(3) to approve the budgets of the Federation, including budgets of the Youth, Adult, Professional and Athletes' Advisory Councils.
(4) to grant Life Member status to individuals.
(5) to approve changes in boundaries of State Associations.
(6) to approve membership fees paid to the Federation.
(7) to approve membership of all Organization Members.
(8) to adopt policies and rescind or amend policies adopted by the Board.
(9) to affirm actions of the Board.
At the 2019 AGM, the voting power was as follows:
Youth Council 313 votes (26%)
Adult Council 313 votes (26%)
Professional Council 313 votes (26%)
Athlete's Council 244 votes (20%)
Life, BOD and Past Presidents 36 votes (3%)

The proposed budget for 2020 reflects the following:

Revenue from Youth
Youth Membership Fees = $3.9 Million (USYS, US Club, SAY, AYSO, and SuperY)
US Development Academy = 1.4 Million
Roughly 5.3 Million from Youth.

Expenses Related to Youth
US Soccer will spend roughly 32 Million, which is broken down as follows:
3.2 Million Youth National Team Coaches and Olympic Admin (for Youth)
5.2 Million Boys/Men (U14-U23) National Team
6.2 Million Girls/Women (U14-U23) National Team
3.5 Million - Program Performance (Sports Medicine and High Performance)
14.2 Million - Development Programs (Club Dev., Tech. Dev., Scouting and Development Academy)

Just for the record, the USSDA contributes $1.4 Million in registration fees and US Soccer will pay out $8.7 Million to support it.

Note, US Soccer receive no revenue related to the Youth National Teams, only expenses. There is no prize money (unlike the Men and Women World Cup) and tickets sales don't factor unless games are held in the US AND tickets are sold.

In other words, "Youth" contribute about 5.3 million and US Soccer will expend 32 million in 2020 on those same Youth. Although about 3.7 is for the U20 and U23's.

This statement is patently false:
Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.

US Soccer spends about 5x more on Youth than its receives from Youth (which is entirely in the form of membership fees). How that money is spent is voted on by all the "voting members" with the Professional and Athletes Council, which have aligned interests making up 46% of the vote.

I simply do not agree with the criticism.

AGM Book with Budget: http://www.ussocceragm.com/book-of-reports
 
I
Revenue from Youth
Youth Membership Fees = $3.9 Million (USYS, US Club, SAY, AYSO, and SuperY)
US Development Academy = 1.4 Million
Roughly 5.3 Million from Youth.

Expenses Related to Youth
US Soccer will spend roughly 32 Million, which is broken down as follows:
3.2 Million Youth National Team Coaches and Olympic Admin (for Youth)
5.2 Million Boys/Men (U14-U23) National Team
6.2 Million Girls/Women (U14-U23) National Team
3.5 Million - Program Performance (Sports Medicine and High Performance)
14.2 Million - Development Programs (Club Dev., Tech. Dev., Scouting and Development Academy)

Just for the record, the USSDA contributes $1.4 Million in registration fees and US Soccer will pay out $8.7 Million to support it.

Note, US Soccer receive no revenue related to the Youth National Teams, only expenses. There is no prize money (unlike the Men and Women World Cup) and tickets sales don't factor unless games are held in the US AND tickets are sold.

In other words, "Youth" contribute about 5.3 million and US Soccer will expend 32 million in 2020 on those same Youth. Although about 3.7 is for the U20 and U23's.

This statement is patently false:


US Soccer spends about 5x more on Youth than its receives from Youth (which is entirely in the form of membership fees). How that money is spent is voted on by all the "voting members" with the Professional and Athletes Council, which have aligned interests making up 46% of the vote.

I simply do not agree with the criticism.

AGM Book with Budget: http://www.ussocceragm.com/book-of-reports

Thanks for the link to the book of reports...a lot of interesting information. As shown in its actual audited financial statements, the youth expenses you cite are designated as "National Team" expenses. Granted youth soccer players benefit from these expenses but only a mathematically negligible percentage of the total registered youth soccer players actually benefit. USSF's audited financials also show revenue from "Youth" but no associated expenses unlike "Coach", "Referee", "National Team" etc which have both revenue and expense line items. The same goes for the budget in AGM which also shows no expenditures against Youth revenue. I do admit to being pleasantly surprised by the expenditures by USSF for the DA program although its a small percentage of what parents and Clubs have to pay to support the program. Certainly USSF spends money on youth programs but obviously not material enough to warrant it's own expenditure line item. Youth benefit from the USSF coaching programs but these programs are still too expensive, too infrequent and too geographically dispersed for the majority of coaches to participate.

Despite its purpose to promote and develop soccer at all ages and abilities, there is very little evidence that USSF spends significant money on core youth or grass roots programs that benefit youth of all ages and abilities. Drafting PDI's on a whiteboard in corporate headquarters and forcing them upon youth leagues is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Looks great but is meaningless in the end. That just doesn't cut it for developing youth soccer.

Despite your claim, there is nothing that legally or structurally prevents USSF from investing in youth programs that benefit the majority of youth. If you want to argue that USSF spends sufficient funds on youth soccer program that's great, I obviously disagree. But to say it can't, is not accurate.

One youth program that could have made a difference is the "Soccer Starts at Home" program developed by Tom Byer, an American, that was instrumental in the success of the Japanese soccer programs both at the youth and National Team levels. USSF funded a 'Soccer Starts at Home" pilot program by Byer which was supported by Gulati, but cancelled the funding after only 6 months when Cordeiro's administration took power. https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/24/tom-byer-us-soccer-pilot-program-canceled
Cordeiro's administration never gave a chance to a program with a proven track record of success. Arrogance? Incompetence? His administration also removed the futsal component of DA which I and others believe is a significant mistake. These are just a couple examples. I'll give Cordeiro an A for fundraising (which granted is his primary responsibility) but I have to give him an F so far for the overall development of the sport.
 
Watfly, MWN made clear that youth expenses exceed revenue and priorities are voted on by all members. You’re arguing over the semantics of what “youth development” should mean.

You complained about what you don’t like and what you would like to have, but do you have some suggestions about how to make coaching education better/cheaper or where to take the money from to afford more core and grassroots programs?
 
I believe that @watfly's primary objection is with this statement, which I admit was imprecise:

Looking at the Budget surplus and thinking that US Soccer should "spend" that money on youth programs is ignorant. That money was generated by the "Adult" programs, namely the national team. If US Soccer were to redirect those funds from the National team to the youth council it would be sued and have both the Players, Professional and Adult Councils jumping down its throat.

I should have been more precise by stating if US Soccer's "BOD/Officers" were to redirect those funds ... In any case, my point here is that the Youth Council is in charge of taking care of the youth, Adult Council promotes the adult game, Professional Council promotes the Professional Game, Athletes Council ... well ... looks out for the athletes. The Youth Council members and their affiliates rake in hundreds of millions of dollars (multiples of what US Soccer brings in) and its their mission to focus on youth.

Ultimately, I want US Soccer to focus on its core mission from an organizational standpoint, which is our National Team and support the efforts of the various council members, but don't usurp those missions.
 
Here's a rebuttal....

https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ep-kids-playing-offer-something-differen.html

My 2 cents are it's really about time management. College has become really very competitive, much more so than even 10 or 15 years ago. If families eventually see soccer isn't going to be useful in getting them into colleges, they'll eventually shift to other things, because even the 2 practices and 1 game from a rec league are a huge time commitment (and by then, most of your friends are moving on because they are specializing in whatever is going to get them into college, so why play rec?) . One of the reasons lacrosse, field hockey, water polo and fencing have made a small revival in recent years is because these offer new avenues to specialize for kids that are outside of the crowded fields of basketball/baseball/soccer.

I usually ignore whatever Beau Dure writes - a big MLS/SUM tool/apologist. Pickup games during spring and summer would be okay - problem is all the clubs get scared when they play with kids from other clubs. Coaches/admins arent going to be volunteering to organize these free events - although admins should be if the goal is to get more kids involved. The problem is many clubs just looking to grab the better players from other clubs. Insurance issues also arise. Most places outside of the "normal" fields the clubs use will require insurance policies - clubs wont want to add these facilities to their insurance policies.
 
I usually ignore whatever Beau Dure writes - a big MLS/SUM tool/apologist. Pickup games during spring and summer would be okay - problem is all the clubs get scared when they play with kids from other clubs. Coaches/admins arent going to be volunteering to organize these free events - although admins should be if the goal is to get more kids involved. The problem is many clubs just looking to grab the better players from other clubs. Insurance issues also arise. Most places outside of the "normal" fields the clubs use will require insurance policies - clubs wont want to add these facilities to their insurance policies.


Agreed a big problem is the insurance, legalities and clubs getting scared they'd lose their players (though it's also a great opportunity for clubs to recruit players from other teams....it's essentially what the Ole club has done in the SFV). It's not a route to develop professional soccer players, though, which was what US Soccer is currently obsessed with given the world cup failure to quality. It's a way to build a soccer culture and keep kids interested, particularly when their schedules get too full and they can't make the commitment to 4-5 days of soccer a week year round in club soccer, and they are too old to play AYSO rec.

It's a way to answer the problem with American sports now days which is specialization....to get credit for an activity (whether admissions or scholarships) in college admissions you have to be able to list some accomplishment, but to be good at an activity it's argued you have to get the 1000 touches in per day (whether true or not, year round sports admins and parents seem to have bought into it), which means to keep up with others who are putting in the time you really have to throw yourself into it (and if your not a natural, that's even more so), which means some kids begin to fall behind and get discouraged with the sport (happened with my older in soccer, and now this year with my younger in bball which he no longer is playing during recess pickup games, preferring to hang with the soccer jocks), which once those kids leave those that remain have to decide to specialize and get better or leave once they get frustrated and the quality of play in the rec league drops....rinse repeat.
 
I usually ignore whatever Beau Dure writes - a big MLS/SUM tool/apologist. Pickup games during spring and summer would be okay - problem is all the clubs get scared when they play with kids from other clubs. Coaches/admins arent going to be volunteering to organize these free events - although admins should be if the goal is to get more kids involved. The problem is many clubs just looking to grab the better players from other clubs. Insurance issues also arise. Most places outside of the "normal" fields the clubs use will require insurance policies - clubs wont want to add these facilities to their insurance policies.

To add a facility/district/county/city to an existing insurance policy costs nothing (seriously, nothing ... just tell the insurance agent we need to add XYZ as an "additionally insured.") If clubs are registered under one of US Soccer's US Council members (US Youth Soccer or US Club or AYSO) AND the event is sanctioned by those members then insurance extends to all US Council affiliated members, meaning a US Club sanctioned tournament can bring in US Youth and AYSO teams and still feel good (player cards are required, however).

I don't know if any of you have seen this but there is a novel approach at the San Bernardino Soccer Complex: https://scrimmagefest.com/ which attacks the cost problem (a bit).
 
Watfly, MWN made clear that youth expenses exceed revenue and priorities are voted on by all members. You’re arguing over the semantics of what “youth development” should mean.

You complained about what you don’t like and what you would like to have, but do you have some suggestions about how to make coaching education better/cheaper or where to take the money from to afford more core and grassroots programs?

Semantics, likely, but I'm basing my response on how USSF, and approved by its outside auditors, categorized the expenses. Soccerfan2 what I would do is a very fair question. First off let me issue this disclaimer. I believe that the primary issue in US soccer is culture. To change culture takes a long time and typically is organically driven, although I do believe there are a few things USSF can do to help the process along.

1) USSF needs to stop interfering with the operations of the US Soccer Foundation, which does provide grass roots programming primarily for underserved communities. The US Soccer Foundation is a powerful ally in the development of youth soccer. The Federation should be supporting it, not fighting it.
2) Coaching programs need to include training on how children learn, how to communicate to children, positive coaching techniques and over coaching prevention. Make training more available and affordable, instead of making public statements that its done on purpose because only a few people should have an advanced coaching license. (The exact opposite approach that Iceland took)
3) Ditch most of the PDI's and promote futsal as a development tool
4) Change its focus from quantity to quality. Ditch or reduce the USSF Grow Fund and use those funds to improve and reduce the cost of coaching programs or provide grass roots training programs. It doesn't make sense to grow something that has fundamental issues. Improve it first.
5) Fund proven core and grass roots programs like Tom Byer's "Soccer Begins at Home"
6) Restructure the DA since its been unsuccessful at producing world class players for the most part. Right now the DA is just another league focused on winning which USSF euphemistically calls "meaningful games". The only real benefit for DA is to consolidate talent for US Soccer to make scouting easier (easier for colleges as well which is a benefit to players). US Soccer needs to take a more active role in the development of players in the DA. Suggestions are DA specific training for coaches, meaningful evaluations of DA coaches and programs at least annually (I believe programs may be reviewed superficially), a vision statement and implementation of the style of play USSF wants to promote,etc. USSF is eliminating U12 DA and maybe U13 DA, use the cost savings from these age groups to implement some of these things.
7) Create a foundation for funding capital projects for US Soccer. Its common for non-profits to have both an operating entity and a capital improvement entity with separate funding sources. Traditionally, the Foundation's projects are funded through private fundraising.
- Use the Foundation to raise funds to build training centers. Make the training center available to all ages and abilities (fees would apply)
- Use the Foundation to provide grants (with private partners) to fund soccer friendly facilities in communities, schools and other youth facilities like the installation of a combo soccer goal and basketball hoop system. What was just a basketball court is now a futsal court. These are common in Europe (sorry for the quality of the picture)
upload_2019-2-25_14-2-40.png

How to pay for it? Use some of the surplus and partner with corporate and private donors. US Soccer's net assets have more than doubled since the last time they qualified for the World Cup in 2014 (in large part to proceeds from Copa America). They certainly can free up some funds to implement programs for players of all ages and abilities, which I remind you is USSF's stated purpose, without taking funds away from the national teams.

I try to look for ways that things can be done, as opposed to how it can't be done. This can be done. As an anecdotal example I serve on the board of a youth services organization, our annual operating budget is not much over $2mm. Through our separate foundation we were able to raise $10mm in private donations to build a facility in a community of only 60,000, with the majority of that funding coming from the citizens in that community. If we can do it with our humble resources, US Soccer certainly can. Unfortunately, the steps I would take would only bear fruit over the long term and USSF is under the gun for missing the World Cup so most of their efforts have to be measurable in the short term.
 
Back
Top