Solidarity and Training Payments and the Pay To Play Scapegoat

MWN

MWN

After responding to another post, it struck me that most parents/posters only have a rudimentary understanding of the economics forced upon youth soccer by US Soccer, the MLS and the pay-to-play buzzword being bandied about. Mention solidarity payments and training fees under FIFA's guidelines and you get a blank stare.

I came across a fairly good article defending the "pay-to-play" model and debunking the oft vocalized cry that some of our best talent can't play soccer because of economics as B.S. - http://goalnation.com/the-pay-to-play-model-a-coachs-perspective/

The reality of better coaches, better training, better fields, is that all of this costs money. In the US, MLS clubs have the luxury of sending money down, but non-MLS clubs need parents and corporate sponsors. No others sources exist.

In Europe, clubs of various levels have financial incentives to "invest" in top local talent through FIFA solidarity and training fees (in addition to having facilities that make money ... pubs, gyms, compounds, etc). In the US there is no incentives for non-MLS Academy programs to invest because US Soccer made a decision many years ago to "keep" solidarity and training fees.

The key to making soccer more affordable for all and encourage clubs to lower and eventually eliminate fees lays in "compensation/training fees" and "solidarity contributions." These two payments are made by the receiving club and distributed when a player is transferred under the FIFA RSTP (Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

Training Compensation:

Training compensation is paid to all clubs who've trained the player from age 12 to 21 when player's status changes from amateur to non-amateur. In Europe, clubs have incentives to invest in players knowing that they will get their training money back by the professional clubs. In the US ... no incentive.

Solidarity Contribution - Payment breakdown

When a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, with the exception of Training Compensation, paid to his Former Club shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the New Club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the years (calculated pro rata if less than one year) he was registered with the relevant club(s) between the Seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthdays, as follows:
  • Season of 12th birthday: 5%
  • Season of 13th birthday: 5%
  • Season of 14th birthday: 5%
  • Season of 15th birthday: 5%
  • Season of 16th birthday: 10%
  • Season of 17th birthday: 10%
  • Season of 18h birthday: 10%
  • Season of 19th birthday: 10%
  • Season of 20th birthday: 10%
  • Season of 21st birthday: 10%
  • Season of 22nd birthday: 10%
  • Season of 23rd birthday: 10%
Solidarity payments represent the real incentive for youth and lower level professional clubs. In the UEFA Champions League over $235 million as paid out to lower level and youth clubs as solidarity payments. In the US ... $0.

Those that keep hammering on the "pay-to-play" concept ignore that fact that virtually every reputable club of any size have many scholarship opportunities available for talented economically disadvantaged kids and every MLS DA is fully-funded and most non-MLS DA programs with U15 to U18/19 teams in SoCal (Arsenal, Strikers, FC Golden State, Barca, SD Surf, etc.) are also full-funded.

Pay-To-Play is not the problem, its the only solution until US Soccer changes its position on training and solidarity fees. US Soccer may need Congressional help given potential interpretations of US law, but its all doable.

NOTE: The above only applies to boys, the girls have entirely different economics (namely, no economically viable professional path at this time and for the foreseeable future).
 
The other thing that the MLS has done, of course, is the salary caps. They not only keep US teams from being unable to afford top level European talent for the higher DP slots, but they also make the salary for non-DP slots very unattractive to players considering the alternative of college (though it might be attractive to players from Mexico or Trinidad & Tobago who then take that MLS salary and retire to their lower cost homelands). Lot's of people have just been suggesting that our top talent should just go to Europe, but U.S. tax and immigration law makes that very difficult.

Removing the salary caps and imposing solidarity payments increases the cost of the MLS to do business. If US Soccer really wants to reform, it will have to take on the MLS. Other interest groups that will fight the reform: college athletics since this would professionalize soccer in the US and compete against college soccer; smaller independent clubs focused on training college athletes; the coaches who have built a livelihood on "pay to play"; and proponents of women's athletics (since the economics for girl's soccer is different).
 
Grace T. said:
The other thing that the MLS has done, of course, is the salary caps. They not only keep US teams from being unable to afford top level European talent for the higher DP slots, but they also make the salary for non-DP slots very unattractive to players considering the alternative of college (though it might be attractive to players from Mexico or Trinidad & Tobago who then take that MLS salary and retire to their lower cost homelands). Lot's of people have just been suggesting that our top talent should just go to Europe, but U.S. tax and immigration law makes that very difficult.

Removing the salary caps and imposing solidarity payments increases the cost of the MLS to do business. If US Soccer really wants to reform, it will have to take on the MLS. Other interest groups that will fight the reform: college athletics since this would professionalize soccer in the US and compete against college soccer; smaller independent clubs focused on training college athletes; the coaches who have built a livelihood on "pay to play"; and proponents of women's athletics (since the economics for girl's soccer is different).
Click to expand...

That opens another bag of worms beyond youth soccer:
MLS - Single Entity concept. Adopts protections to keep nascent, relatively unprofitable league viable. All owners own a piece of all teams, therefore, no incentive to increase costs.
SUM (Soccer United Marketing) - Controls all soccer marketing in US. Exclusive relationship with USSF. Investors are MLS and USSF heirachy (exempt from conflict of interest). Makes off-book profits for MLS operations and USSF.
USSF - Will continue to push back changes in order to protect MLS and SUM.

If you want to delve into the economics and competitiveness of professional soccer, the conversation must begin with SUM and 99% on this board have no concept of SUM.
 
In order to solve pay 2 play solidarity payments have to go to youth clubs. i was a big believer they shouldnt go to youth clubs, since it POSSIBLY creates a bigger greedy monster. imagine if the big clubs in are area can make more money? this was the belief until i found out where the solidarity payments go - to MLS. the players have been sold, oddly they believe it, that this is in their best interest. I was also against the clubs "double dipping" but in reality this is what allows for scholarships and low cost play in other countries. US Soccer with FIFA can mandate a lot - if clubs done abide, they dont get the money. It would be a way to force better ethics if done correctly. There has to be a TON of safeguards and infrastructure in place in order to make sure it doesnt become another money grab. ultimately these payments can help fund soccer even at the lowest levels and improve coaching pool as well. Most of the articles talk about the top levels only, but money coming into the system will probably help lowest levels as well. Wynalda talked with Grant Wahl last week on his podcast and talked about adding an extra $1 on all soccer ticket sales and stick that back into the system - dont think most would complain or financially feel that $1
 
MWN said:
That opens another bag of worms beyond youth soccer:
MLS - Single Entity concept. Adopts protections to keep nascent, relatively unprofitable league viable. All owners own a piece of all teams, therefore, no incentive to increase costs.
SUM (Soccer United Marketing) - Controls all soccer marketing in US. Exclusive relationship with USSF. Investors are MLS and USSF heirachy (exempt from conflict of interest). Makes off-book profits for MLS operations and USSF.
USSF - Will continue to push back changes in order to protect MLS and SUM.

If you want to delve into the economics and competitiveness of professional soccer, the conversation must begin with SUM and 99% on this board have no concept of SUM.
Click to expand...

Grant Wahl also talked to Cathy Carter. The more i hear her the more I hope she doesnt win. No specific answers. Polished politician type. ALl aware of what needs to be done, but soccer is the focus with those coming from SUM, US Soccer & MLS. People involved with this companies/orgs dance around the way they are all tied. Like Wynalda said, the owners would have to agree to unravel it and accept PRO/REL and what comes with it. Wynalda is taking the approach you have to talk $$$$ to owners and has. Truth is MLS owners lose money as it is. In all this, the soccer product is lost, our identity of play in the US was lost this last soccer cycle. Need to find it. Can look to Italy for an example. Wynalda seems like the only guy who gets it of the ones running. Others have good ideas, like Winograd (but wont push pro/rel) and Gans who wants to blow up the youth system. The rest are status quo, over their heads, used car salesman or about status quo. Also have to take note of many parents/coaches/clubs who dont want any change unless its them having more control or money making ability - without any strings or any added regulation.
 
Article about Double Pass. Wynalda kind of brings them up in the Wahl interview. Double Pass has advised of all the issues going on and issue with pay to play. They also speak of the kids falling through the cracks and not being developed - something guys like Alexi lalas, bruce arenas and every mls soccer GM try to say doesnt happen. Just need to fix issues ourselves and stop looking at companies/people from overseas to come solve them for us.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...ret-in-youth-development-is-coming-to-america
 
Here's another article from almost two years ago that advocates training and solidarity compensation to clubs:
https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/01/25/training-compensation-solidarity-us-soccer-mls

The biggest advocate of training and solidarity compensation running for USSF President is Michael Winograd.

Many may disagree but just implementing this may spark the hopeful shift of our U.S. youth soccer culture from a short-term winning focus to a long-term development process.
 
@Not_that_Serious, good to see you changed your mind on solidarity payments and training fees.

I don't agree with your comments on Double Pass. The role DoublePass plays is to provide an outside authoritative voice on what should work, which will be backed up with research and statistics. Its a multi-year review process that has value for US Soccer. I disagree that we know what to do ... we have numerous voices all with different opinions within the USSF and MLS, many of which are contradictory. When DP makes its findings and releases its results it will be very hard for the contrarian views, which will mean changes towards the DP recommendations will be easier. Moreover, DP will be making recommendations for all aspects of youth soccer (training, tracking, etc.). Often times having an authoritative outside voice is helpful.
 
MWN said:
That opens another bag of worms beyond youth soccer:
MLS - Single Entity concept. Adopts protections to keep nascent, relatively unprofitable league viable. All owners own a piece of all teams, therefore, no incentive to increase costs.
SUM (Soccer United Marketing) - Controls all soccer marketing in US. Exclusive relationship with USSF. Investors are MLS and USSF heirachy (exempt from conflict of interest). Makes off-book profits for MLS operations and USSF.
USSF - Will continue to push back changes in order to protect MLS and SUM.

If you want to delve into the economics and competitiveness of professional soccer, the conversation must begin with SUM and 99% on this board have no concept of SUM.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy to understand - SUM collects 90 million a year from ESPN/Univision and 85 million a year from Adidas for a total of 175 million, or approximately $8 million/year per MLS team, that they get to keep off the MLS books, and claim they are not making money, and keep the players from sharing in. These are the two major deals, but i bet all the smaller deals, licensing, etc... add up to an equal amount. Probably a nice tidy 15 to 20 million a year that the MLS owners keep off the club books, so they can depress the salaries of players and claim they are a nascent league, relatively unprofitable league.

Why else would you have several entities vying to pay 150 million to get a franchise. oh and by the way, SUM get the 150 Milllion too.

At one time soccer was not a viable US sports business, but that has changed, if you don't see that then jump on the owners bandwagon, support "no change" and watch the fat get fatter.

At the very least every MLS club should be required to have a WPSL affiliate. If they wont pay the men, re-invest in the women. All these clubs with Academy systems for girls and nowhere for them to play later. No WPSL team in SoCal? Why not LA Galaxy? Surf? Blues?
 
Ballon d'Or said:
Here's another article from almost two years ago that advocates training and solidarity compensation to clubs:
https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/01/25/training-compensation-solidarity-us-soccer-mls

The biggest advocate of training and solidarity compensation running for USSF President is Michael Winograd.

Many may disagree but just implementing this may spark the hopeful shift of our U.S. youth soccer culture from a short-term winning focus to a long-term development process.
Click to expand...

Winograd and Wynalda have solid views on including State orgs to help. Carter/Cordeiro about taking power from state orgs. Gans would really smash the system given his comments, he hates the DA program -and is for clubs getting solidarity payments, according to his website. Winograd/Gans/Wynalda would at least make some changes, and all seem to try to make soladarity payments a reality. MLS/USSF try to hide behind antitrust laws and child labor laws - but yet they accept the payments. The argument is "how do you make them comply?". Easy, FIFA sanctions. want to make a world cup or host it? Dont comply, then no games, no cup and no money from FIFA.
 
MWN said:
@Not_that_Serious, good to see you changed your mind on solidarity payments and training fees.

I don't agree with your comments on Double Pass. The role DoublePass plays is to provide an outside authoritative voice on what should work, which will be backed up with research and statistics. Its a multi-year review process that has value for US Soccer. I disagree that we know what to do ... we have numerous voices all with different opinions within the USSF and MLS, many of which are contradictory. When DP makes its findings and releases its results it will be very hard for the contrarian views, which will mean changes towards the DP recommendations will be easier. Moreover, DP will be making recommendations for all aspects of youth soccer (training, tracking, etc.). Often times having an authoritative outside voice is helpful.
Click to expand...

My take is, we know what the issues are. The real issues we fight with ourselves and have people from big clubs to USSF to SUM who have different agendas - mainly to gen $. We all need money to survive & fund programs, but some dont put back into the system. Im into stats & data and DP looks to be all about the data, which I dont mind or argue with, but most of what they seem to recommend to fix wont be fixed. If its about using $, USSF tends not to want to hear about it unless they can get a ROI realllly quick. When asked about pay 2 play fix they said "dont have an answer". This is why i say, we need to resolve our own issues - yes when can use their data but some articles make it seem like they are going to "revolutionize" soccer in the US. Hopefully we can keep/use the data analysis methods DP uses in the future, but again, only works if all components of our system are given the ability to use them. As it sits, looks like main focus is DA level - needs to get to grass roots. I know DP has taken a look at all levels, but their toast is being buttered at the highest levels of soccer.

Id also add solidarity payments would be paid to college teams as well. I dont see how that wouldnt help with scholarships and investment into training methods and facilities
 
Sons of Pitches said:
Pretty easy to understand - SUM collects 90 million a year from ESPN/Univision and 85 million a year from Adidas for a total of 175 million, or approximately $8 million/year per MLS team, that they get to keep off the MLS books, and claim they are not making money, and keep the players from sharing in. These are the two major deals, but i bet all the smaller deals, licensing, etc... add up to an equal amount. Probably a nice tidy 15 to 20 million a year that the MLS owners keep off the club books, so they can depress the salaries of players and claim they are a nascent league, relatively unprofitable league.

Why else would you have several entities vying to pay 150 million to get a franchise. oh and by the way, SUM get the 150 Milllion too.

At one time soccer was not a viable US sports business, but that has changed, if you don't see that then jump on the owners bandwagon, support "no change" and watch the fat get fatter.

At the very least every MLS club should be required to have a WPSL affiliate. If they wont pay the men, re-invest in the women. All these clubs with Academy systems for girls and nowhere for them to play later. No WPSL team in SoCal? Why not LA Galaxy? Surf? Blues?
Click to expand...

From the NASL 2nd/3rd div case/ruling, the judge stated the contracts between SUM/MLS/USSF have "smoke" - but she said she wasnt there to rule on the contracts. Apparently some of these contracts are "verbal" - so basically they can change at will. given this and the numbers you stated - THEY DONT WANT CHANGE. otherwise it all get unraveled and have to make more specific contracts.
 
MWN said:
@Not_that_Serious, good to see you changed your mind on solidarity payments and training fees.

I don't agree with your comments on Double Pass. The role DoublePass plays is to provide an outside authoritative voice on what should work, which will be backed up with research and statistics. Its a multi-year review process that has value for US Soccer. I disagree that we know what to do ... we have numerous voices all with different opinions within the USSF and MLS, many of which are contradictory. When DP makes its findings and releases its results it will be very hard for the contrarian views, which will mean changes towards the DP recommendations will be easier. Moreover, DP will be making recommendations for all aspects of youth soccer (training, tracking, etc.). Often times having an authoritative outside voice is helpful.
Click to expand...

Odds on whether we see the DP report when it is done? I am betting if Cordeiro or Carter are in charge when the report is delivered, it will be heavily filtered.
 
No WPSL team in SoCal? Why not LA Galaxy? Surf? Blues?[/QUOTE]
sorry that should have been "NWSL ", not up on my women's professional soccer associations.
 
Decent article, missing some thing and was a bit leaning to towards Spurs solely being in the wrong. Spurs created an issue by seemingly acknowledging they worded Crossfire money. MLS probably had some conversations with them and all the money went to Seattle. It’s seems from reading articles MLS/Sounders really owes them the money. Crossfire should have tried to handle this in US Courts to attempt to get a ruling on at least some underlying issues - like MLS not keeping accurate records of players they get from other youth clubs. That is required by FIFA. MLS now is talking about training comp - caveat is they are talking about como for THEIR clubs. They don’t care about any other teams and would prefer they don’t get compensated. That is short sided since growing comp at even DA level will increase investment into non-mls clubs. MLS would reap awards with better players, more labor and more possible kids to pluck up - then they can sell them at a profit as well. These people in MLS offices and US Soccer are really bright at making money, but they care about making the money today...screw tomorrow and years from now
Kante said:
Good article with detail on the current situation w/ Crossfire, FIFA's DRC and solidarity payments. https://theathletic.com/712331/2018...ssfire-solidarity-payments-arguments-details/
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top