Discussion in 'Girls Development Academy' started by Airborn, May 30, 2019.
What did he say?
He used a lot of very big words. He said what everyone else has said "the 2 leagues are hurting overall development of top talent".
Then he said he thinks that state associations should sue US Soccer. (Shocker that a lawyer would want this).
I read that a bit differently, he was stating what he would do if he was President of US Soccer. I believe he is suggesting that US Soccer engage outside counsel with the goal of suing other sanctioning bodies (ECNL, US Club Soccer, etc). The specious argument he would like to make is that they are operating outside of their non-profit mandates. He is assuming they are, or wants to use the legal system to try to discover if they are. It is a shocking and sad suggestion, essentially advocating that since US Soccer has not been able to force the best players into the DA by fiat, nor by providing the best product, they should effectuate that by shutting down other options through threat of or actual legal action.
It's probably not a specious argument. But it's a little ironic since US Soccer (otherwise known as Nike) is more likely operating outside of its non-profit mandate. These "non-profits" are all pretty disgusting.
One get still get quite wealthy running a fully legal "non-profit", as long as there is a compliant board of directors overseeing the process, for one example.
Like the Goodwill.
Actually, I was thinking more of the situation at the San Diego Red Cross a few years ago, but I am sure they have corrected those problems by now.
Had to re-read it. I think you are correct. Whenever I see "lawsuit" and "soccer" in the same paragraph, I automatically think its someone going after US Soccer (seems to be a pretty popular thing to do)
Here is part of this response when asked what he would do if we was elected to President of US Soccer (he ran as one of 8 candidates and lost to Carlos "I kick with my Toe" Cordeiro):
"Another thing I would do is engage outside counsel to research what legally could be done to readjust things and get matters moving in the right direction. Most of the key players on the youth side are non-profit organizations, and surely their main stated corporate purposes are to provide healthy playing opportunities for kids, to foster enjoyment of the sport, and to further positive player development. Non-profit organizations are governed by respective state Attorneys General, and to the extent that a non-profit has strayed from its stated corporate purpose, there are severe possible sanctions. The last thing U.S. Soccer needs right now is another lawsuit to contend with, but as I believe we are at a tipping point with respect to youth soccer, the pursuit of legal means to make things better ought to be a consideration.
Is he saying that State governing bodies (IE: Cal South) should be taken to court by US Soccer? Or that some of the clubs should be?
I've said in other threads that we just need one pissed off parent with enough time and money to blow this whole house of cards apart in So Cal.
Funny thing is US soccer is operating outside no-profit mandates with the SUM marketing deals, sanctioning, equal pay for women, violations of FIFA mandates, etc so maybe a third party should investigate and audit them and they would stop acting like a MOB.
Not for profit in youth soccer..........here is a picture that's worth a thousand words.
I know we all participate in youth sports by our own free choice, and my kids have been blessed with having great coaches. But stupid things like this just piss people off. Same hoodie from the same online store, but one club marks it up 35%!
Kudos to SoCal Academy/LA Surf for not sticking it to the kids/parents.
C'mon now, the font sizes for "Surf" are clearly different.
On another note, I would recommend that US Soccer take care of it's own house before suing other soccer organizations.
This kind of thinking is irresponsible. Even assuming SD Surf is receiving the higher mark-up, as opposed to a third party vendor, you are taking this completely out of context. SD Surf has expenses that far exceed LA Surf expenses and provides services that LA Surf only dreams about. Simply because SD Surf apparently decided to charge more for hoodies than LA Surf, it only means that SD Surf has decided to leverage that one product as a means to increase revenue to pay for the additional services that SD Surf provides and LA Surf does not. And, go figure, they can because the SD Surf brand is far more valuable than the LA Surf brand. It is quite possible you're getting cheaper snacks at SD Surf events because SD Surf is making its money from hoodie sales instead of hot dogs. It's quite possible that SD Surf has events that LA Surf doesn't (and can't) in part because SD Surf charges more for hoodies. Regardless, it is also quite likely that you're getting benefits out of SD Surf (like better coaching, better events, better exposure to colleges) than LA Surf by virtue of the additional revenue it receives from apparel sales. If you don't want to pay $60.73 for a hoodie, don't. If the two have the exact same value to you and you need a hoodie, buy the LA Surf one.
SD Surf is a pretty good club that does a lot of good things for a lot of people, and that takes money. But if you want SD Surf to be a crap club like LA Surf, I'm sure selling hoodies at cost is a great way to do it.
How do you figure LA Surf to be "Crap Club"?
So what your saying is the Kool-Aid is bluer at San Diego Surf than at Los Angeles Surf?
The claim that SD Surf may provide more misses the point and is just a rationalization. Parents,whether in SD or LA, Murrieta, OC, are being sold the successful Surf brand and everything that comes with it. Parent's outside of SD aren't being told they are getting Surf Lite and instead they are being sold the full meal deal but only getting the fries. It's this kind of deception that pisses people off. Fortunately, most of us are informed enough to realize that a Surf affiliate bears no resemblance, other than the logo on the jersey, to the original San Diego Surf. (Actually San Dieguito Surf)
My understasnding of surf affiliates is that there is no “franshise fee” or other payment to the mothership.
But that SD surf gets a % back from all soccer.com sales.
Sounds like you don't know very much about the affiliate program.
What's incorrect with what watfly said? On the girls side OC Surf is the only affiliate to have DA and that's because they already had ECNL when they were WC. Loved my DDs many years with SD Surf but I do think the overall brand "Surf" is cheapened nowadays to the point of being a negative. SD has all the top players so will always do well but OC look to be worse than when they were West Coast..............
They were founded as San Dieguito Surf, named for the San Dieguito River that runs by and is, therefore, the creator of the Polo Grounds. For years they were considered to be the "north county girls club". Then their tournament got to be successful and the separate San Diego Surf Cup non-profit corporation took the SD City name when they split out the assets years ago. Somebody should write a book.
Then please educate me as to why the affiliates aren't Surf Lite versions of the original. What are the Surf affiliates getting besides a name? What are the substantive things they do to make SD Surf successful that they are now implementing on the affiliate level? I'm not saying that they're bad programs. They have some good teams but typically don't come close to competing on the same level as the original. How has West Coast improved by being branded OC Surf?
I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any tangible benefit to the clubs that have been rebranded to Surf?