Discussion in '2003' started by INFAMEE, Oct 11, 2017.
Failure to qualify for the World Cup exposes U.S. progress as a myth.
The funny thing is that you will still get people on this forum that will defend pay to play or will just want to minor tweaks.
You will also get if only or biggest , fastest and strongest played athletes played.
We have a defensive mid on my son's team that is maybe 5'5 in height , disrupts plays , recovers the ball and make the correct pass to the offensive players to counter attack or passes back for the defense for us maintain possession
He left old club because the higher level team coach in his club thought is was to small.
Their lost was our gain. Funny thing I usually like to hangout on the end lines and watch games and I hear college coaches either say he is to small or they like him. my wife and I joke about you have two types of U.S coaches football or Futbol in soccer
I have seen very talented kids playing in various levels, and I've seen some VERY poor coaching.
So in those cases, why would the kids want to continue? Coaches may be this bad in other sports but there is that potential big golden carrot at the end for baseball, basketball, football in the US, So kids jump.
I think the US has shown progress, the rest of the world has just progressed as well. The MLS has helped CONCACAF more than the US. And the countries who have really focused on a new ground up approach have done very well. Ie, Iceland.
Much better coaching from the start is the answer, most of us coaches with e and d licenses have very limited knowledge of skills needed to develop world level players.
It's easy to say that the answer is to get rid of Pay to Play. And also that better trained coaches is the answer. Tell me how. How? How will you pay for fields? Will you ask the coach to educate himself for years and work for free? What's your plan?
For starters, how bout using the funds U.S soccer has generated.
Without men's World Cup revenue there will be a lot less funds.
We need to stop beating this dead horse of pay to play. It's not going to change unless clubs can make money selling players, and that's illegal in the US.
I was more concerned about funding qualified coaches and to think that there is not enough funds is naive.
How much money are we talking about leftover? I have a lot of faith in soccer officials ability to diver money into their own pockets.
According to their own financial records, they have 100 million (most of it in investments, but easily accessible)
They spent 21mil in youth national teams and player development (sounds like a lot)
19mil on the men's national team
23mil on the women's national team
2mil on the national women's soccer leage (really?)
We need to go the route of the likes of Germany and Iceland. After being embarrassed in 2000, Germany overhauled the whole system and we all know how they're doing only 17 years later
It's simple. US Soccer should follow Fifa's regulations on training fees for transfers. Then Clubs would see development as a revenue source and would cover costs hoping to sell players for a profit like the rest of the world.
Pay to Play is a Result of not having pro/rel #ProRelForUSA
"let’s get something straight.
Pay to play will always exist because there will always be a demand for such services.
Not to mention services and infrastructure are not free, and so must have a business model supporting the expenses"
"If we had an open pyramid like the rest of the world, where clubs can merit their way up and down the soccer hierarchy, that shifts the incentives and alters the ‘pay-to-play’ club soccer business model.
That bursts open the 3 revenue generating incentives outlined above for thousands of existing youth clubs, and all of our lower division pro and semi-pro clubs.
What pro/rel can do is give existing youth clubs an incentive to form their own 1st teams, and aspire to something beyond their perpetual caste as ’youth club’. If even a small fraction of the thousands of clubs in our country did this, that significantly expands the ‘free-to-play’ incentive footprint in our country.
Similarly, what pro/rel can do is give existing lower division clubs (e.g. in NASL, USL, NPSL) the incentive to form their own ‘free-to-play’, or heavily subsidized, youth academies.
With the closed market system (a caste system) we currently have, only one company, MLS, LLC can benefit from its 20 franchises offering free-to-play teams".
You can see what the caste system does in the DA system; very uneven league competition and when the top teams go and play tournaments vs the rest of the world we struggle because we have'nt been facing there level of competition consistently.
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Winner, but for the "illegal" comment.
Its not "illegal" to sell players per se, as long as the contractual relationship exists between the Club and the player. When the Fraser v. MLS (2002) case was decided, the soccer landscape and the role of the MLS in the US was new. Fast forward 15 years downs the road with a whole host of new facts ... MLS now entrenched as the only Premiere level soccer in the US and has been collecting FIFA approved transfer fees.
What the clubs are requesting and the most recent class action suit reiterated this, was the "training compensation" fee that represents about 2-3% of the transfer fee (that US Soccer already collects). US Soccer pockets this money and it doesn't flow to the clubs that invested in the player. See, https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/20...lubs-lawsuit-solidarity-training-compensation
The Fraser v. MLS case doesn't save the MLS on this issue, which is why the MLS has taken the stance of settling these lawsuits. The current strategy is sue us if you think you can beat the big, bad MLS, once sued they eventually settle.
Bottom line, the "pay-to-play" model is necessary because the MLS refuses to pay the training fees it is already collecting. That said, the DA seeks to eliminate the "pay to play" model and put the costs on the backs of the non-tier 1 athletes and families, which fund the DA for the non-MLS clubs. The MLS clubs fund the DA's through their operations ... still the athletes and families that call themselves fans and pay to watch the games.
I think selling players is a good step- time to change the law- laws are meant to be changed per our founding fathers.
If MLS is pocketing the fees change it
Id also love to see data on the socio- economics of the players that play the sport. I know the answer and soccer in this country is for the haves thus severely limiting the talent pool.
The business side of the sport is insane. A player is selected to the ODP player pool and has to PAY to try out. Then they move on and has to PAY to compete. I know of several players that were invited to the ODP games in Montana and the coaches told them NOT to go as they again had to PAY to represent.
I know of a player that is solid but by no means a top 10 player in our club at his age and got a look at the US National team. Why- coach pulled some strings
Academy level soccer charging ALOT to play academy. Ive watched teams like the Pats academy, Strikers etc. train and play. You're telling me they are the best players in the area?? Not even close. Flight I players yes- top at their age rarely- why?? Pay to play.
I know what Nike and Adidas charges the club for uniforms. Are those heavily discounted prices passed onto the players and families- nope. They are charged retail and sometimes more. Where does that money go?
How much do DOCs make at most high profile clubs??
Provide incentives to develop players long term not to will U10 state cups.
All this talk about coaching......If you're expecting a coach to pave the way for your child's development and success as a player at these ages, you're missing the point! This is a player driven sport. Player's reach the level's they work to. Plenty of average talent players go very far in the game, due to their own work ethic and commitment to improving. Let's not rely on coaches to get our youth to the next level, send your kids outside with a ball. Let's stop the robot production line.
Pats academy is now free and I believe Strikers charge $800, which is not a huge amount. But they are still having problems recruiting players.
The problem with DA IMO is your kid basically has to give up a normal HS life. The travel for games is insane so you are guaranteed to lose half your weekends for traveling and the remaining weekends have to be used for resting or catching up on school. Plus you have to give up HS sports. It's a lot to give up, and I think it really only works out if the kids on the team become good friends or the kid very badly wants to be a pro and is willing to sacrifice.
So my first question: Does anyone know of an actual kid who was priced out of youth soccer? Like do you know a kid who was very talented and the parents couldn't swing the cost so he dropped soccer? I know a TON of talented kids with no money and they are all playing Flight 1 or DA for free or reduced. Who are these talented kids that are being priced out? Cuz I know a few coaches who will go talk to them tonight. lol.
Secondly, DA is not, in it's intent, designed for the kid who is juggling high school classes, a social life, college prep and the normal high school life. It is designed for the kid who wants to be a pro above all else and is home schooled/schooled at the academy "school" or is a part time student. Which does apply to a segment of the DA teams/kids. But for the other ones, it's a tough model. AP classes, a high school life, friends etc...Some kids can juggle it all, but its not meant for that. It's truly for the kids that soccer is #1 and #2 on their priority list.
US Soccer should fund live in schools at the MLS academies. They should compete on a different level than the non MLS academies that are still attracting the top talent, but are designed to co-exist with a high school experience. Get those boys into college with an eye on longer term development and unearthing a Jordan Morris now and again. The top of the top should be funneled to the MLS academies where schooling is a distant second to soccer. Those kids are pimped out to Europe for trials and trainings with an eye on selling them and it's made clear if you want national team call ups you need to be living at one of those academies.
But they are trying to shove all the kids into one system that is failing the top top talent (who have to train and play with and against kids who are in it to go to college) and is also failing the kid who is talented, but wants a typical high school life and to use soccer to go play in college at some level.
Question 1- Yes- my buddy is a high school soccer coach and his current team has about 50% of the players who are not playing club soccer due to the price tag. They are a low income school and the boys are playing in a Santa Ana league where they play but do not get coached.
DA not for a student- Thats a issue. Footballers around the world that dont make it (and thats a huge 98%) that give up an education are in trouble in life. If its either or then forget the DA system. BUT that doesnt have to be the case. The DA system needs to be and can be designed to allow both and stress both.
I like the live in academy idea but there needs to be financial incentive and thats where the transfer fee needs to be in place for the developing clubs not the MLS. Monopolies are against the law for a reason
The best model I have seen is the Galaxy model of school at CSU Dominguez along with playing academy. What Im disappointed with is the Galaxy's poor use of its home grown player. They keep bringing in out of county players to fill their rosters and rarely use a homegrown player. Knowing a couple of the players personally they are beginning to lose them as each time an opportunity arises they are bumped for a signing of an older player on the back end of their career. Nothing takes the place of game caps with the A team. I think of Jose Villarreal who has done nothing but produce each time he is on the pitch when playing for the A team but never is given a chance to really crack the lineup. I prefer growing pains with Bradford Jamieson than Dos Santos. With Jamieson you get effort every game, with Dos Santos you get a couple quality games a year and then a lot of scratching your head. Plus all those second level pro players (Galaxy II) cant even afford to live on their own they live at home with their parents. My buddy had a Galaxy II player speak to his team and the player told the boys to get their education. He totally regretted signing a pro contract at about minimum wage and seeing every opportunity to move up to the A team disappear even though he had produced on the field. Mid twenties and still living at home and sees no future for himself after his pro career ends.
The writing is on the wall that there will be two tiers of Development Academies - (1) Fully Funded Residential and (2) partially to fully funded non-residential ... its coming. The MLS DA programs offering fully funded residential programs are able to attract better talent and it shows on the pitch. Here in SoCal the LA Galaxy program tends to dominate all. We have Generation Adidas (google it if you don't know what it is) and have also seen MLS clubs start to sign the U19+'s to contracts that establish a college fund for after soccer ends, as opposed to loosing the players to college. However, the refusal of US Soccer to pay training fees to the DA clubs doesn't help motivate the DA clubs.
We are making progress and will continue to make progress, but soccer is the really ugly step sister's cousin when it comes to the U.S. public. The average attendance for MLS matches is: 21,841 (versus 68,000 for the NFL) (see, https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2017-mls-attendance/). Moreover, our best young athletes don't view soccer as their path, its football, baseball, and basketball. MLS salary's are much lower than these other sports. The vast majority of athletes dedicated to soccer should focus on college.
We have to accept that the MLS would not be a premiere league oversees, rather most teams would be in the 3rd to 2nd tiers of the European leagues. Accept it and shape the next 10 years to exploit this fact. The U.S. doesn't have to develop these players. The focus of the DAs should be funneling the best young to oversees. The Pulisic model. Get these players the heck out of the US where real opportunity exists. Places where "pay to play" means something entirely different.
Priced out, transportation out, timed out some families can't manage to get kids to practice 4x week with school taking a priority.
About 50% of my sons friends families can't afford it time or money wise so they don't play club or da. Fustal, Sunday leagues and high school are local and affordable so that's where they are.
The Galaxy correspondence school leaves a lot to be desired and not one most people aspire to attend. There are plenty of better private or college prep schools like Catherdal HS that have great soccer programs, quality education, and offer a good overall experience.
Only (optional) some of the combined age group players: U16/17, U18/19 are going to the LAG HS no 03's for example.
The galaxy homegrown players sound good but the fact is they haven't work out on the first team, they are not good enough for the most part. Developing a bunch of usl, 2nd level players is fine but don't kid yourself into thinking da is at the level where players can transition to anything but college or 2nd to 3rd level semi/pro fringe player's.